Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_RockSlider]

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;

Likely already been noted, but I would be asking, why would God have limited his language/style to the early 1800's (couple thousand members) instead of to say our time (15 million, with billions just waiting for the missionaries).

[_BartBurk]

The "History of the Late War" doesn't seem to have the same story line or purpose the Book of Mormon does. That Joseph Smith would use familiar words or a familiar style of writing in his translation of the Book of Mormon doesn't invalidate his translation was of an ancient text. It just shows he uses the vernacular of the day in writing his "translation." I don't accept the Book of Mormon was a translation of an ancient text, but I'm not sure how this can be considered a "smoking gun." I would say at best it is part of the drip, drip, drip that causes one to question the Book of Mormon. If this were the only evidence against the Book of Mormon, I don't think it would add up to much.

[_Runtu]

Likely already been noted, but I would be asking, why would God have limited his language/style to the early 1800's (couple thousand members) instead of to say our time (15 million, with billions just waiting for the missionaries).

That's a different question entirely. All I'm saying is that, despite what some people think, this find is not going to be catastrophic to a believer. It may well affect those who are already questioning, but we've already seen elsewhere that it won't change fixed beliefs.

[Guest]

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.

To be more specific...5. See Charles Anthon letter to E. D. Howe, 17 February 1834, in Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed [sic] (Painesville, Ohio: E. D. Howe, 1834), 270–72; quoted in BH Roberts, Comprehensive History, 1:102–4.

And for the sake of exactness...it was not the finished Book of Mormon but the reformed Egyptian characters that Harris took to Mitchill. He requested that Mitchill confirm their validity…which Mitchill chose not to do.

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

Well it makes more sense than asking Mitchill's or Anthon's opinion on what the "Caractors" meant since at that time neither one of them was capable of reading Egyptian let alone reformed Egyptian.

[_RockSlider]

Likely already been noted, but I would be asking, why would God have limited his language/style to the early 1800's (couple thousand members) instead of to say our time (15 million, with billions just waiting for the missionaries).

That's a different question entirely. All I'm saying is that, despite what some people think, this find is not going to be catastrophic to a believer. It may well affect those who are already questioning, but we've already seen elsewhere that it won't change fixed beliefs.

I emailed the link to the book to my chapel Mormon wife ... with no other comment ... Of course she figures its from my anti-mormon site/friends, but I'm hoping she might read a bit of it and give me some feed back.

[_Spanner]

I read a couple times in this thread, reference to chiasmus in the Hunt book? Link?

Grander has excellent examples in his essay along with a nice dissection of mopologist attempts to squeeze chiasmus out of the Book of Mormon.

[_BartBurk]

I read a couple times in this thread, reference to chiasmus in the Hunt book? Link?

Grander has excellent examples in his essay along with a nice dissection of mopologist attempts to squeeze chiasmus out of the Book of Mormon.

I do agree that Hunt's book destroys many of the apologetic arguments we've read in the past. I don't see how they held water anyway.

[_Spanner]

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.

this is one of the resources linked to by the Mormonleaks.com team on this issue:
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... 01RBSt.htm
The relationship between Joseph's uncle, Solomon Mack, and Mitchell is covered in detail.

[_mms]

The "History of the Late War" doesn't seem to have the same story line or purpose the Book of Mormon does. That Joseph Smith would use familiar words or a familiar style of writing in his translation of the Book of Mormon doesn't invalidate his translation was of an ancient text. It just shows he uses the vernacular of the day in writing his "translation." I don't accept the Book of Mormon was a translation of an ancient text, but I'm not sure how this can be considered a "smoking gun." I would say at best it is part of the drip, drip, drip that causes one to question the Book of Mormon. If this were the only evidence against the Book of Mormon, I don't think it would add up to much.

"familiar style of writing"-- is the below an example merely of a "familiar style of writing"? (Note, again, that the numbers are added to show the sequence similarity). Please answer--is this merely using a familiar style of writing?

Ether 9: 17-19 wrote:


17 Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of (1) gold, and of silver, and of precious things;
18 And also (2) all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were (3) useful for the food of man.
19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and (4) more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

Late War Chapter XX wrote:


11 Now the land of Columbia is a most plentiful land, yielding (1) gold and silver, and brass and iron abundantly.
12 Likewise, (2) all manner of creatures which are (3) used for food, and herbs and fruits of the earth:
13 From the red cherry, and the rosy peach of the north, to the lemon, and the golden orange of the south.
14 And from the small insect, that cheateth the microscopic eye, to the huge mammoth that once moved on the borders of the river Hudson-; on the great river Ohio; and even down to the country of Patagonia in the south.
15 Now the heighth of a mammoth is about seven cubits and a half, and the length thereof fourteen cubits; and the bones thereof being weighed are more than thirty thousand shekels; and the length of the tusks is more than six cubits.
16 It is (4)more wonderful than the elephant; and the history thereof, is it not recorded in the book of Jefferson, the scribe ?