Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Runtu]

Some thoughts before I forget them:

I don't see the need for the exulting I see on one side and the defensiveness I perceive on the other. Whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon is revealed scripture, the Hunt text could potentially give us much more insight into how the Book of Mormon came about. If I were a believer, I'd want to understand how God's word was transmitted in such a way as to make sense to an American populace at that time; I wouldn't be getting defensive because the book possibly challenges my assumptions about how the Book of Mormon came about. Likewise, as a heretic, I'm interested in this topic because it may help me understand why the Book of Mormon looks the way it does; I will not be one of those jumping for joy because the Book of Mormon has been "disproven," as if that were possible.

[_Chap]

Some thoughts before I forget them:

I don't see the need for the exulting I see on one side and the defensiveness I perceive on the other. ... I will not be one of those jumping for joy because the Book of Mormon has been "disproven," as if that were possible.

Well, as per Ten Bears' sig line, Orson Pratt thought that if the Book of Mormon was false, that was a pretty serious matter. Disproving such a falsehood would be something to be quite pleased about, one would assume.

"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The Book of Mormon

[_DrW]

The amount of time the book gives to battle and battle stratagem makes no sense at all, especially considering the role of the text as another testament of Christ. Even the outcome of these wars, at times, are not the least bit plausible. How does the reader accept that with two "million man" armies, all warriors eventually fall leaving only the opposing generals to square off in a final grudge match?

Absolutely. The following passage from Ether really bothered me the first time I read it. To my mind, it still stands as strong evidence that the Book of Mormon is fiction, and not very good fiction at that.

After a long series of Jaredite battles, in which millions of men were slain by the sword, we read:

And it came to pass that when they had all fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz, behold Shiz had fainted with the loss of blood.

30 And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz.

31 And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.

32 And it came to pass that Coriantumr fell to the earth, and became as if he had no life.

Anybody who knows anything about warfare, ancient or modern, who understands the land area and logistical issues involved when even a few thousand men engage in hand to hand combat (let alone a million or more), and understands the probability that, after such a series of battles, only two men would remain alive (one from each side, no less), must see this story as simply and utterly ridiculous.

It is just as ridiculous as a small band of Jaredites with all manner of animals and livestock in tow, coming to the New World in eight unpowered semi-submersible barges on a sea voyage of 344 days during which the wind blew unceasingly causing mountainous waves which buried the wooden barges in the depths of the sea.

I never did become desensitized to the utter silliness of the Book of Mormon narrative. I guess that is part of the reason why leaving the LDS Church when the time came was such an easy thing to do.

[_Runtu]

Well, as per Ten Bears' sig line, Orson Pratt thought that if the Book of Mormon was false, that was a pretty serious matter. Disproving such a falsehood would be something to be quite pleased about, one would assume.

"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The Book of Mormon

My point is that you really can't "disprove" anything to everyone's satisfaction. To me, the Book of Mormon is clearly not a translation of an ancient record, but I also recognize that for other people nothing could ever come forward that would change their minds.

I was reading a piece by Matt Roper in which he recounted talking to Sandra Tanner and being amazed that she wouldn't find an ancient inscription of "Nephi" as proof of anything, hardened, evil person that she is. But would Matt Roper have thought a signed confession from Joseph Smith was proof of anything? I know a lot of people who wouldn't care if something like that showed up.

[_Nevo]

Does anyone have a list (I think Chap mentioned that writing in a psuedo biblical style was a common occurrence in the 19th C) of pre- 1820 books written in the biblical style?

(Apologies if this has already been covered. I'm googling and come up empty handed.)

Edited to add: I appreciate that Nevo has already given a list of 'some' books, but is the list definitive?

No, the list I provided isn't definitive. The closest you're likely to get to a "definitive list" is in Eran Shalev's book (which lifelongguy helpfully linked here).

[_DarkHelmet]

The amount of time the book gives to battle and battle stratagem makes no sense at all, especially considering the role of the text as another testament of Christ. Even the outcome of these wars, at times, are not the least bit plausible. How does the reader accept that with two "million man" armies, all warriors eventually fall leaving only the opposing generals to square off in a final grudge match?

This is a standard action film cliché. The bad guys are always killed off in ascending order of importance. Grunts first and the main bad guy last. You can't have the main characters die before the extras. How could Joseph Smith have known about this cliché?

[_Nevo]

I had my first ah ha moment in this thread when John connected the dots that Joseph Smith sought the same kind of endorsement for his Book of Mormon from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill that Gilbert J. Hunt had received for Late War.

Could someone please point me to the historical sources that indicate that Joseph Smith sought Samuel L. Mitchell's "endorsement" for the Book of Mormon—indeed, the "same kind of endorsement" that Hunt's book received? This is news to me.

[_Philo Sofee]

This is interesting. Apparently, this text was examined in one of the Bushman seminars a little while ago. Someone brought this up in the discussion I am observing to point out that the question had already been dealt with.

Another person responded:

Yeah, I saw the note of someone in the seminar who had looked at Hunt, and from what I could tell, it was woefully inadequate.

So it seems like no one aside from Grunder and Johnson has closely examined these works to compare them.

I saw Mark Wright, the Ph.D gent on Mesoamerican studies (giving Book of Mormon tours now in Mesoamerica) say he read half the book, (said this on a Facebook page) wasn't impressed, so there is nothing to lose his testimony over. Considering however that he has a $100,000 + investment in a Ph.D in Mesoamerican studies and for the purpose of providing evidence for the Book of Mormon, it's no surprise there won't be much serious analysis from that quarter either.

[_Runtu]

Could someone please point me to the historical sources that indicate that Joseph Smith sought Samuel L. Mitchell's "endorsement" for the Book of Mormon—indeed, the "same kind of endorsement" that Hunt's book received? This is news to me.

All I said is that Harris' visit to Mitchill and Anthon makes more sense to me when seen as seeking an endorsement rather than as resolving Harris' doubt. I'm guessing that what Craig meant is that it makes more sense to him, too. Feel free to dismiss my conclusion as necessary.

[_Ceeboo]

While I certainly do find this thread to be exceedingly interesting, I'm a little perplexed by the "smoking gun" suggestions.

(As if there aren't already several "smoking guns" in play with almost zero impact)

Anyway, interesting stuff but to suggest that there will be any impact on the LDS church and/or the great majority of its members from this (or anything else for that matter) would lead me to believe that someone hasn't been paying very much attention to the testimonies, sure knowledge, or contributions made by a very large percentage of my LDS friends.

Just an opinion.

Peace,
Ceeboo