Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Darth J]

Nevo, if you are attempting to make the case that the Book of Mormon is indistinguishable from other works of Joseph Smith's day, I for one will readily concede your point.

[_Kishkumen]

Nevo, if you are attempting to make the case that the Book of Mormon is indistinguishable from other works of Joseph Smith's day, I for one will readily concede your point.

guffaw.

[Guest]

-

[_Mary]

Joe, thanks for the link to the Grunder article. Totally fascinating.

Nevo, on the 19th century origin of many of the concepts and narratives in the Book of Mormon, one of the biggest clangers for me is 'racism'. It wasn't there (in the specific form indicated in the Book of Mormon) in the Bible, it wouldn't have come across the Americas with Lehi and his family, yet there it is in the Book of Mormon in a way that would be familiar to 19th Century white Americans. That alone screams 19th century. All this Hunt book does for me is provide compelling evidence that Joseph had read it, loved it, and used it in his compiling of the Book of Mormon.

One or two similarities can be accounted for in common vernacular but I think the Hunt book goes way beyond this. I'd be interested to read a really good apologetic response to this beyond Knee jerk reactions and defensiveness.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is all very interesting and I have to admit some of these parallels are quite impressive.

But...

Why the hell would Joseph Smith bother to take these words and phrases out of this book in the first place?

Are we going to start arguing that his imagination was so dull and limited that he couldn't even form a narrative about "robbers" or "preadventures" without copying verbatim from other works?

[_Chap]

Joe, thanks for the link to the Grunder article. Totally fascinating.

Nevo, on the 19th century origin of many of the concepts and narratives in the Book of Mormon, one of the biggest clangers for me is 'racism'. It wasn't there (in the specific form indicated in the Book of Mormon) in the Bible, it wouldn't have come across the Americas with Lehi and his family, yet there it is in the Book of Mormon in a way that would be familiar to 19th Century white Americans. That alone screams 19th century. ...

Another alarm bell is (surely?) rung by all the stuff about 'the standard of liberty', 'king's men' and so on. That is straight post-independence American rhetoric, with only the most flimsy links with the way Jews are shown as thinking in the Bible.

[_Kishkumen]

This is all very interesting and I have to admit some of these parallels are quite impressive.

But...

Why the hell would Joseph Smith bother to take these words and phrases out of this book in the first place?

Are we going to start arguing that his imagination was so dull and limited that he couldn't even form a narrative about "robbers" or "preadventures" without copying verbatim from other works?

First of all, I was *kidding* about the "peradventure" bit. Kidding.

Secondly, I don't know exactly what your position is and whether I share your view.

My position is that this work is a likely influence on Joseph Smith. It seems to me to be very possible that he read this work and absorbed its language.

Any close examination of Joseph Smith's ability to use Biblical themes and language would suggest that he had a prodigious memory and could deploy familiar passages of literature creatively. My view is that the same would likely be the case with this work. My guess is that he read it, digested it, and it was in the mix when he composed or "translated" the Book of Mormon.

Up until now, most of us were unaware of an early nineteenth century work that bore this close of a resemblance to the Book of Mormon. I am confident that it poses a challenge to certain arguments made in favor of the work's antiquity, as should be apparent by observations about Hebraisms in this thread.

Obviously, people will take from this what they want. Thus far apologists have been able to adapt to knowledge of various 19th-century influences on Joseph Smith. Those who still maintain it is ancient may press on with their researches into that hypothesis.

Those of us who believe the work is not ancient in that it does not, for the most part, report events that actually occurred in antiquity will probably be more inclined to see this a source for the Book of Mormon. If you want to see fraud in this, there is arguably support for that perspective in the interrelationship between Hunt and the Book of Mormon.

If you don't, you can accommodate yourself to the idea that the book influenced Smith in the translation process, but that it contributed minimally to the actual subject matter. Some of you may think the latter view is blinkered, but you would be amazed at all of the interesting ways intertextuality works. Intertextuality does not necessarily mean substantive dependence such that the book could not be written without the intertext. But, then, the question is raised--why the intertext? What was the translator of the Book of Mormon doing this for? How does it affect our understanding of the work?

This find raises a lot of interesting questions that have little to do with questions of fraud, religious truth, etc.

[_AlmaBound]

Key phrase: "Deploy familiar passages of literature creatively."

Ref Thomas Dick/Book of Abraham; Kevin, in the past, has argued that Thomas Dick's work had significant influence on the cosmology in the Book of Abraham.

Hunt's work appears to have served as a precedent in Joseph's methodology/employment of that literary adaptation.

[_Mary]

Joe, thanks for the link to the Grunder article. Totally fascinating.

Nevo, on the 19th century origin of many of the concepts and narratives in the Book of Mormon, one of the biggest clangers for me is 'racism'. It wasn't there (in the specific form indicated in the Book of Mormon) in the Bible, it wouldn't have come across the Americas with Lehi and his family, yet there it is in the Book of Mormon in a way that would be familiar to 19th Century white Americans. That alone screams 19th century. ...

Another alarm bell is (surely?) rung by all the stuff about 'the standard of liberty', 'king's men' and so on. That is straight post-independence American rhetoric, with only the most flimsy links with the way Jews are shown as thinking in the Bible.

Agreed Chap. I guess none of this rang alarm bells for me as an active Mormon is because it was never really covered in any 'historical critical' fashion. Also being a Brit, and not being that familiar with 18th and 19th century American history, it just flew over my head. As did many other things I am sure. One can spend years reading a text without really noting its implications.

[_Kishkumen]

Key phrase: "Deploy familiar passages of literature creatively."

Ref Thomas Dick/Book of Abraham; Kevin, in the past, has argued that Thomas Dick's work had significant influence on the cosmology in the Book of Abraham.

Hunt's work appears to have served as a precedent in Joseph's methodology/employment of that literary adaptation.

I agree that what we see here seems to be similar. Much work remains to be done, though.

The distinction between fraud and religious expression is often a matter of perspective. What looks obviously fraudulent to one person may be completely acceptable to another. The response that we see from folks like Nevo is, I think, understandable. I know I have been a little harsh on this thread. I do think his responses are inadequate.

Still, the idea that a believer would be skeptical upon seeing so many people shout for joy that the fraud has been unmasked is not irrational. After all, not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes fraud. Believers are chary of accepting non-believers views on the subject. The way we process and accommodate new knowledge is very much conditioned by our perspective and community. One thing that does concern me about the enthusiasm regarding the idea that this unmasks the fraud is the easy assumption that everyone must see the same thing in this. A worldview dramatically shapes perception. Be wary of the affects of your worldview on your own interpretations.

Perhaps that sounds mushy, but I think there is a lot of truth to it. For those who accept a supernatural or invisible divine reality, there is a deeper level on which all of what appears problematic works out. If you really accept that, then there will be a way to continue to believe the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient work. It will sound entirely reasonable if one accepts the premises upon which it is based.