Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_cognitiveharmony]

Here's a fun one that Rick Grunder makes easy since he lists all of the dates from the Late War. For this post, it isn't the way the dates are written that is interesting but the numbers themselves. Suppose that Vincenzo de Francesca had discovered both the Book of Mormon and Late War in a garbage bin with the cover and title page burned off and he wanted to find out which of them were true, both of them bearing a powerful witness but not having the ability to research either.

Well, there's this ancient article by RFMer Duwayne Anderson attempting to refute the Book of Mormon based on dates, and while a bit of an overkill to make the point, it's kind of interesting nonetheless.

http://lds-mormon.com/numbersinthebookofmormon.shtml#f2

The idea is that the human brain is a bad randomizer, which is among other things, why password-cracking software can be effective even when you think you're being really creative. He says that the days of the month when (uncorrelated) notable things happen in history should be random and gives several examples. Well, looking at the Book of Mormon, he sees that all the dates in the Book of Mormon happen at the beginning of the month, suggesting they are contrived. Here is his list of Book of Mormon dates:

day--month

1---1
2---1
4---1
5---2
3---7
4---7
12--10
10--11

If there are 30 days in the month, then you'd expect the average day something happens on to be around 15. His model says the average Book of Mormon day is 3.4 standard deviations from this mean, giving it a 1/2000 chance of being a random sample from a real distribution of historical events. Somebody likely just made them up.

Now for all the suspicion its stylistic gusto raises for a critic, taking just the first 8 dates mentioned in the Late War, to be fair:

1---6
12--7
16--8
19--8
4---10
13--10
25--10
1---1

These days come out 1.34 standard deviations per his model and more or less plausible as real dates that things happened on, despite the possible fabrications for how things happened.

This is awesome. In my mind this is an indictment. Most TBM's wouldn't even give this a second thought. It would just be another attack.

[_DrW]

Here's a fun one that Rick Grunder makes easy since he lists all of the dates from the Late War. For this post, it isn't the way the dates are written that is interesting but the numbers themselves. Suppose that Vincenzo de Francesca had discovered both the Book of Mormon and Late War in a garbage bin with the cover and title page burned off and he wanted to find out which of them were true, both of them bearing a powerful witness but not having the ability to research either.

Well, there's this ancient article by RFMer Duwayne Anderson attempting to refute the Book of Mormon based on dates, and while a bit of an overkill to make the point, it's kind of interesting nonetheless.

http://lds-mormon.com/numbersinthebookofmormon.shtml#f2

The idea is that the human brain is a bad randomizer, which is among other things, why password-cracking software can be effective even when you think you're being really creative. He says that the days of the month when (uncorrelated) notable things happen in history should be random and gives several examples. Well, looking at the Book of Mormon, he sees that all the dates in the Book of Mormon happen at the beginning of the month, suggesting they are contrived. Here is his list of Book of Mormon dates:

day--month

1---1
2---1
4---1
5---2
3---7
4---7
12--10
10--11

If there are 30 days in the month, then you'd expect the average day something happens on to be around 15. His model says the average Book of Mormon day is 3.4 standard deviations from this mean, giving it a 1/2000 chance of being a random sample from a real distribution of historical events. Somebody likely just made them up.

Now for all the suspicion its stylistic gusto raises for a critic, taking just the first 8 dates mentioned in the Late War, to be fair:

1---6
12--7
16--8
19--8
4---10
13--10
25--10
1---1

These days come out 1.34 standard deviations per his model and more or less plausible as real dates that things happened on, despite the possible fabrications for how things happened.

This is awesome. In my mind this is an indictment. Most TBM's wouldn't even give this a second thought. It would just be another attack.

Agreed. I find this yet another substantial piece of evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It is one I certainly would never have thought to look for, but once pointed out, the significance is pretty obvious.

[Guest]

This is awesome. In my mind this is an indictment. Most TBM's wouldn't even give this a second thought. It would just be another attack.

And they would be right. This analysis suffers from selection bias (as does the linked content) and is a big no-no in statistical analysis. The problem is the authors aren't comparing apples and apples (i.e. birthdays), as they do in their examples. Instead, they immediately diverge from that into comparing a number of different events and then claim they are all apples. It only takes a moment to see their mistake and they should be embarrassed to publish garbage like that.

[_robuchan]

Looking at that pattern of numbers, my question is three of those dates came from month 1. I assume it's something like in one verse they say month 1, day 1. Then next verse it's the next day and they say month 1, day 2. like that? Probably also the same for the seventh month? If so, you only have five dates. And you can toss the 1,1 because it's clearly not a random date. So you have four dates?

[_Nightlion]

The Book of Mormon records days of the month only eight times.
Seven of them are in the Book of Alma
Two are about the same event day one and day two of the month.

The word DAY occurs over 500 times

The random dating theory proving the Book of Mormon to be made up is in no way substantial and cannot even count for evidence.

[_Shulem]

The battles that leave all dead in the Book of Mormon are ridiculous. Million man armies would have been logistically impossible, and even more absurd is they kill each other at a roughly 1:1 ratio until 1 man from each side is left standing, and they happen to be the main characters. It's an action movie cliché. But even in the movies not everyone is killed in battle. Filmmakers know the reality of war. Typically the battle is won when one side suffers heavier losses than the other side and the remaining soldiers see they are now heavily outnumbered and they retreat, or they are taken as prisoners of war, or executed. I can only assume as your armies get ridiculously large, the odds of a battle that kills everyone on both sides with neither side retreating is zero.

The fairy tale war stories of the Book of Mormon insult the intelligence of every decent minded person who lives by truth rather than faith. The Book of Mormon is an insult to us all and the LDS church shouldn't be peddling this crap as history. What are the odds that the war ends with the two leaders battling it out? Hell, those odds seem worse than winning the lottery. The LDS church is a bad bet, folks!

Paul O

[Schreech]

Just another one that is holding my interest.

Both the Book of Mormon (11 times) and Wars (13 times) uses ‘lion’ figuratively

Here are some examples:

From the Book of Mormon:


3 Nephi 21:12
12 And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

3 Nephi 20:16
16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

2 Nephi 15:28-29
28 Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.
29 They shall roar like young lions; yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry away safe, and none shall deliver.

Mosiah 20:10
10 And it came to pass that the battle became exceedingly sore, for they fought like lions for their prey.

Alma 14:29
29 Now the people having heard a great noise came running together by multitudes to know the cause of it; and when they saw Alma and Amulek coming forth out of the prison, and the walls thereof had fallen to the earth, they were struck with great fear, and fled from the presence of Alma and Amulek even as a goat fleeth with her young from two lions; and thus they did flee from the presence of Alma and Amulek.

Mormon 5:24
24 Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you—lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

From Wars:

21:7 But the wickedness of the kingdom of Great Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him.

90:3 They hid themselves in the wilderness; they couched down as a lion; and as a young lion, they watched for their prey’.

164:22 Thus again was the mighty lion humbled before the eagle

173:11 But the army of Columbia rushed upon them with the fierceness of lions.

295:8 The fierceness of their coming was as the coming of a thousand untamed lions, which move majestically over the sandy deserts of Arabia

295:10 And it was about the rising of the sun, when the battering rams of the king began to utter their noises; and the sound thereof was terrible as the roaring of lions, or the voice of many thunders.

304: …yea, they thanked him that he had strengthened their arms, and delivered them from the lion’s paw.

That they both use 'lion' isn't particularly strange since the Bible is full of figurative language around the subject.
What strikes me about this is that there were actually no lions in the Americas at any time during the Book of Mormon period.
So for Joseph to have used lions figuratively is anachronistic in my opinion. It makes no sense for him to have used them, it makes no sense for Jesus to have spoken to the Nephites about Lions, since they wouldn’t have been familiar with them, and it makes no sense for Mormon to have used them since he wouldn’t have known about them either. (Or am I wrong?)

It does make sense if Joseph was being influenced by the Bible and Wars. Interestingly, Joseph doesn’t use ‘eagle’ (as does Hunt and the Bible) which wouldn’t have been anachronistic in a Book of Mormon setting.

[_Runtu]

That they both use 'lion' isn't particularly strange since the Bible is full of figurative language around the subject.
What strikes me about this is that there were actually no lions in the Americas at any time during the Book of Mormon period.
So for Joseph to have used lions figuratively is anachronistic in my opinion. It makes no sense for him to have used them, it makes no sense for Jesus to have spoken to the Nephites about Lions, since they wouldn’t have been familiar with them, and it makes no sense for Mormon to have used them since he wouldn’t have known about them either. (Or am I wrong?)

It does make sense if Joseph was being influenced by the Bible and Wars. Interestingly, Joseph doesn’t use ‘eagle’ (as does Hunt) which wouldn’t have been anachronistic in a Book of Mormon setting.

We do have "mountain lions" in the Americas, though.

[_Shulem]

This is an excellent post, Kish.

Thank you, Nevo.

I apologize for being abrasive in this thread.

Must you be so kind and polite, Kish? It's your biggest weakness. Go for the throat and don't be afraid to slash the Book of Mormon -- show no mercy or pity. That book is a lie. The Mormon god drags his heals. Does he get his way? No, the temple was not built even though Jehovah told Joe to tell the church it was a commandment to build it, they failed. The lies of the Mormon religion will not go unpunished.

[_Mary]

That they both use 'lion' isn't particularly strange since the Bible is full of figurative language around the subject.
What strikes me about this is that there were actually no lions in the Americas at any time during the Book of Mormon period.
So for Joseph to have used lions figuratively is anachronistic in my opinion. It makes no sense for him to have used them, it makes no sense for Jesus to have spoken to the Nephites about Lions, since they wouldn’t have been familiar with them, and it makes no sense for Mormon to have used them since he wouldn’t have known about them either. (Or am I wrong?)

It does make sense if Joseph was being influenced by the Bible and Wars. Interestingly, Joseph doesn’t use ‘eagle’ (as does Hunt) which wouldn’t have been anachronistic in a Book of Mormon setting.

We do have "mountain lions" in the Americas, though.

Yeah, but these are more closely related to Pumas, Cheetahs etc. The 'lion' was the fiercest, the king so to speak, pumas, cougars aren't in the same league?
It may be nothing, just something that struck me.