Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[Guest]

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.

You make a very important point, Mary. Nineteenth century racial attitudes are not only alluded to in the Book of Mormon, racism is a central theme (if not the central theme) that runs throughout its New World narrative.

Joseph Smith clearly believed that he had come up with a plausible explanation for, and an unfalsifiable pseudo-history of, the Amerindians of the New World, who he claimed in the Book of Mormon were a dark and loathsome people. As we saw upthread, the idea of great battles among competing cultures of different races (e.g. Asians and Tartars) in ancient America (in New York State, no less) were already themes in early 19th century American literature and from authors personally known to Martin Harris and possibly Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith's attitudes toward the importance of race were also evident beyond the narrative in the Book of Mormon. In one of his more bizarre pronouncements, for example, Joseph Smith decided to confer upon Zelph, a great General, the honor of being a "white" Lamanite (as opposed to a not quite so mighty General who was a dark and loathsome Lamanite, I suppose.)

Residues of this racism have remained in teachings about the Book of Mormon long past 1978, and were expressed in both words and images in Primary lesson manuals, well into the 21st century.

As you rightly point out, this racism is not found in the Bible. Nor (to my knowledge) is racism a major theme in ancient writings in general. This fact would seem to be an important piece of evidence against ancient origins for the Book of Mormon.

To claim divine origin for the Book of Mormon is to label the Mormon God a racist, willing to destroy (or at least allow the destruction of) millions of his children in what was, at its core, a racial conflict.

Best hypothesis based on weight of evidence: The Book of Mormon is not of ancient origin and was not divinely inspired (at least not by the God of the Bible and mainstream Christianity).

[_Shulem]

The linguistic and thematic similarities I have seen pointed out so far do not rise to the level of establishing literary influence, much less dependence. Most strike me as superficial (e.g., "curious workmanship").

Well, Nevo, I have to say that your ability to address what has been posted thus far is unimpressive. You act as though "curious workmanship" was pointed out in isolation of any other similarities, when I showed quite clearly that the interrelationship is much more complex than that. Your failure to address those posts is noted, and your specific reference to "curious workmanship" strikes me as disingenuous because you have failed to respond to those posts.

Very disappointing.

I am not frothing at the mouth here. I am having fun. Do I think this explains away the Book of Mormon in one fell stroke? Of course not.

But it is a find. And no LDS scholar has dealt with it as of yet. The one place you showed it being discussed was inadequate at best and perhaps misleading. I don't see how anyone could read this book and not be struck by the similarities, which, by the way, obviously go much further than surface resemblance in a couple of phrases.

If this is your idea of making a solid showing, you are deluded. In fact, you are misrepresenting and underestimating what has written on this thread. Sure, it ain't scholarship. It's folks having a good time. At the same time, there is clearly more going on in the relationship between this text and the Book of Mormon than you grant, and anyone who reads this thread will see that.

Bad form.

Nevo's response is what I'd expect from a trained apologetic mind that is bent on defending the cause at all cost simply because the church is true no matter how much evidence there is to show otherwise. Who cares what Nevo thinks. He's just leaping through rings and doing the usual circus act in defending the cult. He will never produce the Egyptian king's name in Facsimile No. 3 or explain why Anubis is just a slave -- or why the Book of Mormon contains KJV errors granted by the all knowing Holy Ghost to the unsuspecting Joe Smith.

Never mind Nevo. It's all the other Latter-day Saints of many which may well decide to take an honest look and begin to admit that something really is rotten whith the keystone of their religion. This new evidence against the Book of Mormon not only represents itself for what it is but supports and backs all the other evidence as well. There simply is no reason to believe the Book of Mormon is a real history other than for pure faith sake to keep the testimony. This is a sad scene for those who delude themselves. I feel sorry for Nevo -- one who is bound and wrapped in the cult's chains as his mind is dragged speedily down into deception and denial. How sad.

Paul O

[Guest]

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?

There is evidence from several sources (including the work of Craig Criddle, & Co.) that a Solomon Spaulding manuscript was used extensively in the creation of the Book of Mormon. If this were the case, then there is the possibility that at least some of these themes and phrases came via the Spaulding manuscript.

Alternatively, one could well imagine that Joseph Smith / Sidney Rigdon / Oliver Cowdrey, having obtained access to the Spaulding manuscript, decided to re-cast or embelish it using the style of writing found in books which had influenced them, including the Bible and Last War.

And, as has been pointed out, there was not extensive verbatim copying or transfer from Last War as compared to the lifting of complete and unaltered Biblical passages. Last War appears to have been more of a source for writing style and turn of phrase (as is described, and even recommended, in its Preface).

[_SteelHead]

Let's cast this in terms of today, remembering similar lawsuits in regards to literary works like: Harry Potter.

If you were Hunt having written your work in the year 2000, would you sue Joseph Smith when copies of his work start moving off the shelves in 2013 for copyright infringement?

[_Runtu]

The linguistic and thematic similarities I have seen pointed out so far do not rise to the level of establishing literary influence, much less dependence. Most strike me as superficial (e.g., "curious workmanship").

Well, Nevo, I have to say that your ability to address what has been posted thus far is unimpressive. You act as though "curious workmanship" was pointed out in isolation of any other similarities, when I showed quite clearly that the interrelationship is much more complex than that. Your failure to address those posts is noted, and your specific reference to "curious workmanship" strikes me as disingenuous because you have failed to respond to those posts.

Very disappointing.

I am not frothing at the mouth here. I am having fun. Do I think this explains away the Book of Mormon in one fell stroke? Of course not.

But it is a find. And no LDS scholar has dealt with it as of yet. The one place you showed it being discussed was inadequate at best and perhaps misleading. I don't see how anyone could read this book and not be struck by the similarities, which, by the way, obviously go much further than surface resemblance in a couple of phrases.

If this is your idea of making a solid showing, you are deluded. In fact, you are misrepresenting and underestimating what has written on this thread. Sure, it ain't scholarship. It's folks having a good time. At the same time, there is clearly more going on in the relationship between this text and the Book of Mormon than you grant, and anyone who reads this thread will see that.

Bad form.

I agree.

I'm not "salivating" either, as that would be kind of silly. But waving off the clear similarities in style and content is equally as silly.

Is "Late War" a source for the Book of Mormon? Not necessarily. Was it an influence on the style and contents of the Book of Mormon? Possibly. Does it help provide context for the Book of Mormon? Absolutely. And I'd say it puts to bed a number of "bullseyes" for the Book of Mormon, as well.

[Guest]

Let's cast this in terms of today, remembering similar lawsuits in regards to literary works like: Harry Potter.

If you were Hunt having written your work in the year 2000, would you sue Joseph Smith when copies of his work start moving off the shelves in 2013 for copyright infringement?

A case could be made, I suppose. Whether or not the plaintiff would win is another matter. Considering the two works in total, and having only limited experience from patent infringement cases, I would have my doubts.

Is Last War prior art relative to the Book of Mormon? Certainly.

Is it blocking, or even interfering / infringing, prior art, considering what else was out there at the time? Not sure, but I would not bet much on it.

Any attorneys here with (or without) patent, copyright and trademark experience who would care to share an opinion?

[_Runtu]

I thought I would share this post from a Facebook discussion. I am not attributing the post, but I wanted to show you the reaction of a person who strikes me as level-headed and seems to have read my post about curious workmanship:

It would be all too easy to point to individual motifs and language to show how problematic it would be to assume some special connection with the Book of Mormon. But its the clustering of examples in one text in a particular time and place that makes the argument for some kind of close relation suggestive. You're right xxxxx, that "curious workmanship" was a common term used in the early 19th century and it is thus quite difficult to point to literary dependence in a situation like this. However, it may nevertheless be worth noting that contrary to the prevalent usage you refer to, the Late War and the Book of Mormon use "curious workmanship" to refer to all the same kinds of things: weapons, boats, and ball-like entities. Which is really striking, in my opinion, since the closest biblical usage deals with the "curious work" of the tabernacle (Ex 35) and an architectural usage was common in the 19th century. I don't know, I'll have to look into it more.

******

I agree, it is sad that the issue has to be so divisive and emotional to distract us from giving it the careful attention it deserves. One the one hand, it is sad that people are gleefully accepting news of a book disconfirming the authenticity of the Book of Mormon (since this raises questions about ideological conditioning and confirmation bias and suggests as well that leaving Mormonism has been a traumatic experience at some level), and on the other hand it is sad that others all too readily dismiss the argument of literary influence on the Book of Mormon because of the uncomfortable implications it carries.

At any rate, the book probably is at one level or another an argument against historical authenticity, since it pushes toward understanding the Book of Mormon text in terms of the literary and stylistic conventions of the early 19th century rather than as an ancient text. Pseudo-biblical writing provides a context for the Book of Mormon that has not been fully explored before and needs to be seen as an authorial device as well and not merely understood for how it shaped the way the Book of Mormon was read by its first readers. If the style was authorial in nature, it points to a much larger and indeed CREATIVE hand of Joseph Smith in the final product of the Book of Mormon than most traditionalists have hitherto been willing to give him credit.

Totally agree with that assessment. It's neither the Holy Grail or a "been there, done that" issue but deserves attention as part of the cultural milieu that produced the Book of Mormon, whether or not it is the word of God.

[_Runtu]

You make a very important point, Mary. Nineteenth century racial attitudes are not only alluded to in the Book of Mormon, racism is a central theme (if not the central theme) that runs throughout its New World narrative.

Joseph Smith clearly believed that he had come up with a plausible explanation for, and an unfalsifiable pseudo-history of, the Amerindians of the New World, who he claimed in the Book of Mormon were a dark and loathsome people. As we saw upthread, the idea of great battles among competing cultures of different races (e.g. Asians and Tartars) in ancient America (in New York State, no less) were already themes in early 19th century American literature and from authors personally known to Martin Harris and possibly Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith's attitudes toward the importance of race were also evident beyond the narrative in the Book of Mormon. In one of his more bizarre pronouncements, for example, Joseph Smith decided to confer upon Zelph, a great General, the honor of being a "white" Lamanite (as opposed to a not quite so mighty General who was a dark and loathsome Lamanite, I suppose.)

Residues of this racism have remained in teachings about the Book of Mormon long past 1978, and were expressed in both words and images in Primary lesson manuals, well into the 21st century.

As you rightly point out, this racism is not found in the Bible. Nor (to my knowledge) is racism a major theme in ancient writings in general. This fact would seem to be an important piece of evidence against ancient origins for the Book of Mormon.

To claim divine origin for the Book of Mormon is to label the Mormon God a racist, willing to destroy (or at least allow the destruction of) millions of his children in what was, at its core, a racial conflict.

Best hypothesis based on weight of evidence: The Book of Mormon is not of ancient origin and was not divinely inspired (at least not by the God of the Bible and mainstream Christianity).

in my opinion, the Book of Mormon is a direct product of contemporary mound-builder mythology, which is itself founded on racism. The belief that created the mythology is that the "Indians" could not have built the pyramids of Mexico or the mounds of western New York because they, being inferior, did not have the mental or technological prowess to accomplish anything like that. Thus, it must have been someone else, someone more advanced (and possibly/probably white), who achieved so much. Obviously, this advanced race was no longer around, and the easiest explanation is that the Indians killed them off.

That is the basic plot premise of the Book of Mormon.

[_Chap]

Reading this thread, two things occur to me:

1. In the Protestant cultures with which I am familiar, an intimate knowledge of the King James translation of the Bible was part of the culture of many people with even modest levels of education. I certainly came to have it myself. Parodies of Biblical style were a commonplace of schoolboy or student humor. I even wrote some on occasion - not very good as humor perhaps, but probably more grammatically accurate that what Joseph Smith produced.

2. I have the feeling that this is not part of Mormon culture to the same extent - the Book of Mormon is the text that is intensively studied, while the Bible gets dipped into for proof-texts rather than becoming the warp and woof of religious consciousness.

So Mormons or former Mormons appear to be rather surprised to find that in the early 19th C. there was a lot of pseudo-KJV writing around; it is something they have not previously allowed for in considering Book of Mormon origins. Whereas for mainstream Protestants (at least of a certain generation), the presence of the material discussed here is no great surprise. (That does not mean it is not very important - and kudos to those who have brought it to light.)

[_Runtu]

There is evidence from several sources (including the work of Craig Criddle, & Co.) that a Solomon Spaulding manuscript was used extensively in the creation of the Book of Mormon. If this were the case, then there is the possibility that at least some of these themes and phrases came via the Spaulding manuscript.

Alternatively, one could well imagine that Joseph Smith / Sidney Rigdon / Oliver Cowdrey, having obtained access to the Spaulding manuscript, decided to re-cast or embelish it using the style of writing found in books which had influenced them, including the Bible and Last War.

And, as has been pointed out, there was not extensive verbatim copying or transfer from Last War as compared to the lifting of complete and unaltered Biblical passages. Last War appears to have been more of a source for writing style and turn of phrase (as is described, and even recommended, in its Preface).

Another question this book answers for me is why the Book of Mormon spends so much time describing wars. Late War explains that for me in that it attempts to show the hand of God in the conduct of the war to show that the Americans were on God's side. In the Book of Mormon, wars are also seen as showing God's favor, with many of the leaders in battle portrayed as warrior/prophets. Consider the final battle where Mormon laments the destruction of his people. As prophet, Mormon has exhorted his people to repent and regain God's favor, but they do not, so he explains why they have been killed:

16 And my soul was rent with anguish, because of the slain of my people, and I cried:

17 O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you!

18 Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I mourn your loss.

19 O ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have fallen!

20 But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return.