Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_the narrator]

By arguing that the language used in the Book of Mormon is not special you may succeed in delinking the Great War and the Book of Mormon, but you simultaneously destroy the supposed langauge evidences. All of the alleged hebrewims and other language evidences are now dead in the water. The metholodgy is now shown to incredibly flawed and prone to false positives. Where once the arguments were made for their rarity and uniqueness of the langauge of the Book of Mormon they must now be made to show how common it was as you have done above.
You might suceed in separating the Book of Mormon from the late war, but by doing so you will demonstrate the Book of Mormon is simply a product of its time.
So good luck!

And where have I said that supposed Hebraisms were evidence of ancient origins?

To the contrary, I would say that these stretched parallelisms between the Book of Mormon and LW are just as problematic as attempted parallelisms between the Book of Mormon and other ancient texts.

[_cognitiveharmony]

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.

Oops..I forgot, the Book of Mormon shoudn't be analyzed in any way unless the result is faith promoting...

In other words, I shouldn't expect the dates in a historical book to be random as they are in LW....Oh I get it, so maybe this analysis is actually suggesting that the LW is fictional and the Book of Mormon is actually historical...thanks for pointing that out.

[_ElGuapo]

It's more than just occasional shared common phrases. Consider what I've posted elsewhere in this thread (that no one seems to have noticed so maybe I'm making something out of nothing) comparing a portion of Alma 49 to Late War Chapter XXIX.

In both cases, in the space of a few verses, the commonalities are (1) a host of bad guys comes to war against the (2) good guys in a fort. The good guys are (3) prepared, the good guys (4) slaughter the bad guys, whose bodies (5) fill up the ditch around the fort, and the surviving bad guys (6) flee into the forest/wilderness.

See Alma 49:20-25 and Late War Chapter XXIX verses 20-23.

If Joseph Smith didn't pull from Late War, would you expect to see similarities such as this? This is more than just common phrases. This is a common story.

I certainly noticed your mention of this, Tim. It's an astounding correlation for sure, one of many laugh-out-loud revelations I've had reading this thread.

[_Tobin]

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.

Oops..I forgot, the Book of Mormon shoudn't be analyzed in any way unless the result is faith promoting...

In other words, I shouldn't expect the dates in a historical book to be random as they are in LW....Oh I get it, so maybe this analysis is actually suggesting that the LW is fictional and the Book of Mormon is actually historical...thanks for pointing that out.

Condescension isn't going to address the problems I noticed. If that is the best response you can muster, it is no wonder you championed such shoddy work in this thread.

[_Chap]

By arguing that the language used in the Book of Mormon is not special you may succeed in delinking the Great War and the Book of Mormon, but you simultaneously destroy the supposed langauge evidences. All of the alleged hebrewims and other language evidences are now dead in the water. The metholodgy is now shown to incredibly flawed and prone to false positives. Where once the arguments were made for their rarity and uniqueness of the langauge of the Book of Mormon they must now be made to show how common it was as you have done above.
You might suceed in separating the Book of Mormon from the late war, but by doing so you will demonstrate the Book of Mormon is simply a product of its time.
So good luck!

And where have I said that supposed Hebraisms were evidence of ancient origins?

To the contrary, I would say that these stretched parallelisms between the Book of Mormon and LW are just as problematic as attempted parallelisms between the Book of Mormon and other ancient texts.

For me the parallelisms, if real, are interesting but not central.

What matters much more is the fact that in the decades before Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, it was common practice to write pseudo-Biblical accounts of the past, real or imagined, using an imitation of Jacobean English.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

There's the rub. Most apologetic arguments work well enough in isolation from the rest of the text and other possibilities. When you put them in the larger context, they tend to fall apart.

Exactly. Apologetic arguments are about individual trees, never the forest.

It's as if, in apologetics, they give each problem a value of 1, and then multiply all the problems together, rather than add them. Thus, to the apologist, ten small problems (each with a value of 1) when multiplied, is still 1, thus still a small problem. In other words, 1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1 = 1.

So what's the big deal? So what if Joseph Smith didn't use the plates in translating? So what if there is language in the Book of Mormon that reflects Joseph Smiths environment rather than an ancient setting? So what if he tried to sell the copyright? So what if the there are problems with the witness statements? So what if there are similar witness statements to other works? So what if there is no DNA evidence? So what if the American Indians are not the literal or principal ancestors of the Lamanites? So what if there are themes, language, and story similarities to the Late War. So what if Joseph Smith heard the story of Lehi's Dream from his dad when he was young? In the apologist mind, all these problems multiply together to 1. So why worry about something so small?

Conversely, critics see each problem adding together (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10) and collectively all these "small" problems add up to carry great weight.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I certainly noticed your mention of this, Tim. It's an astounding correlation for sure, one of many laugh-out-loud revelations I've had reading this thread.

Thanks ElGuapo. I feel validated. All my efforts were worth it. Phew!

And welcome to MDB!

[Guest]

Bennett's article on Mitchill and Harris shows that Mitchill was, by 1816, promulgating a theory about climactic, ancient battles in New York that brought about the destruction of a great people. That is very interesting.

As for the connection between Harris and Mitchill, it would seem that another individual, perhaps Luther Bradish of Albany, NY, referred Harris to him, not that Joseph Smith sent him directly to Mitchill. Mitchill then referred Harris to Anthon.

Hey Kish,

I believe that Joseph sent him to Mitchill. I believe that Bradish was an afterthought by Harris. This book connection is fascinating, and helps to confirm a lot of things about why Jo sent Harris to Mitchill. (There is also the connection between Mitchill and the Detroit Manuscript). The first mention of Harris' visit to New York doesn't even mention Anthon, it features Mitchill, and this from the Palmyra Freeman from 1829:

So blindly enthusiastic was Harris, that he took some of the characters interpreted by Smith, and went in search of some one, besides the interpreter, who was learned enough to English them; but all to whom he applied (among the number was Professor Mitchell, of New York,) happened not to be possessed of sufficient knowledge to give satisfaction! Harris returned, and set Smith to work at interpreting the Bible.

Anthon wrote in 1841:

Many years ago, the precise date I do not now recollect, a plain looking countryman called upon me with a letter from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell, requesting me to examine, and give my opinion upon, a certain paper, marked with various characters which the Doctor confessed he could not decypher, and which the bearer of the note was very anxious to have explained. A very brief examination of the paper convinced me that it was a mere hoax, and a very clumsy one too.

Harris, two years later, told Charles Butler (a lawyer he tried to borrow money from to finance the Book of Mormon) he visited Anthon, then Mitchill then Anthon again after Mitchill. I think that the purpose of Harris' trip was to visit Mitchill. He then was recommended to Bradish (who was on the way) and he recommended him to Anthon. Harris simply saw Anthon first. He then went to Mitchill, who was enthusiastic about what Harris showed him, and then Haris took that to Anthon who he visited a second time. (Who then possibly, tore up Mitchill's paper) and wrote his own that Harris did not keep, because it was critical of the whole story. I have this documented here. http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/09/22/ ... -new-york/

[Guest]

And where have I said that supposed Hebraisms were evidence of ancient origins?

To the contrary, I would say that these stretched parallelisms between the Book of Mormon and LW are just as problematic as attempted parallelisms between the Book of Mormon and other ancient texts.

Terrific so we are on the same page. One of the precious few "evidences" for the Book of Mormon is BS.
Do any have any other pseudo-scholarship to prop up my sagging testimony of the Book of Mormon? How about you tell me that if I feel really good about it that means it's true.

[_robuchan]

Back on topic...

I liked the graphic the author showed that had Alma as being the "hot spot". This is the kind of detail that I have hope will someday give us real information about how the Book of Mormon came about.

What I liked the most about the Jockers study was the detail about how they broke down things into war chapters and preachy chapters. And Spalding was the loudest voice in the war chapters and Rigdon was the loudest voice in the preachy chapters. Then we had a chapter or two attributed to Oliver Cowdery which fit the timeline of D&C 9. This is the kind of stuff that gets me excited.

I would like to see a breakdown of the Book of Mormon. For example:

1st Nephi, 2nd Nephi non-Isaiah chapters
Alma-Helaman war narrative
Sermon chapters: 2 Ne 9, end of 2nd Nephi, Mos 2-5, Alma 5,7,33,34,36,41 (just thinking off the top of my head), Ether 12, Mor 7-11

You get the idea. The Book of Mormon is a hodge podge of different stuff. So break it out into categories and then analyze each piece as if it were a distinct book. This will lead us closer to the answer, I believe.