Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[Guest]

-

[_Nevo]

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.

Hi Tim,

Yes, I would expect to see similarities like this. The points of comparison you adduce between the two stories are so generic that I have no difficulty believing that the stories were composed independently. Did you read maklelan's response on the other board (here and here)? I thought he addressed this particular "hit" quite well.

[_ElGuapo]

And exactly where in this Late War is the gospel of Jesus Christ done precisely right, rediscovered amidst apostate Christianity? eh.....SHOW ME! Where did Joseph purloin that? You guys are filled with madness chasing a ball of light through the woods.

I have no opinion about how precisely right the gospel is done in the book, so I'll defer to you there. But if you mean this as evidence of divine authorship I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're begging the question. You would first have to show that there's some consensus among the world's theologians on what the gospel must look like in an authentic book, not just that it makes sense to Mormons who already buy into the premise.

[_RT]

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.

Hi Tim,

Yes, I would expect to see similarities like this. The points of comparison you adduce between the two stories are so generic that I have no difficulty believing that the stories were composed independently. Did you read maklelan's response on the other board (here and here)? I thought he addressed this particular "hit" quite well.

Nevo,

I don't think maklelan's Facebook comment addressed this issue sufficiently at all. There is now a much more thorough study of the relationship between Late War and the Book of Mormon now at Faith Promoting Rumor and it concludes that Joseph Smith was dependent on Late War for certain ideas and elements of story, only that they weren't directly borrowed at the time the Book of Mormon was being composed.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/

[_Nightlion]

And exactly where in this Late War is the gospel of Jesus Christ done precisely right, rediscovered amidst apostate Christianity? eh.....SHOW ME! Where did Joseph purloin that? You guys are filled with madness chasing a ball of light through the woods.

I have no opinion about how precisely right the gospel is done in the book, so I'll defer to you there. But if you mean this as evidence of divine authorship I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're begging the question. You would first have to show that there's some consensus among the world's theologians on what the gospel must look like in an authentic book, not just that it makes sense to Mormons who already buy into the premise.

Problem with that last point is the Mormons NEVER did buy into the premise. They missed it entirely. And the more time that has passed the less and less that they know about it. The lastest Mormon guru, Denver Snuffer, skips it all together showing people how to not do it at all and seek first and last the second comforter as if that's it. What confusion!

The world is clueless about it. How ya gonna find a consensus of theologians? That is what's so miraculous about the Book of Mormon's gospel content. It was unknown to the world for hundreds of years since the first and second chapter of the Book of Acts. Yet the Book of Mormon is filled with it time and time again. Yeah, you do have defer to me. Just take my word for it until you get it right for yourself. Then you will see the kingdom.

For sure, if the Book of Mormon got the gospel wrong that would certainly prove it a hoax. But it did not. How probable is that. The Mormons never got close to Zion and that means that they never got the gospel right as a church and people. See D&C 84:50-59 about it.

[_Nevo]

There is now a much more thorough study of the relationship between Late War and the Book of Mormon now at Faith Promoting Rumor and it concludes that Joseph Smith was dependent on Late War for certain ideas and elements of story, only that they weren't directly borrowed at the time the Book of Mormon was being composed.

I agree that that's a much more thorough study. I'll need some time to go through it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[_Spektical]

In addition to all the linguistic and thematic parallels, this whole issue explains perfectly why Joseph initially tried to sell the Book of Mormon and its copyright. He was no doubt hopeful that the Book of Mormon could gain the same type of endorsement from Mitchill and be promoted as a school textbook for wider distribution. Sure, we had always suspected that the book represented a failed business endeavor, but LW provides further cultural context consistent with that suspicion.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the heads up mormo, looks like Tim's fort battle is vindicated:

However, some of the parallels are very strong, particularly those which feature a number of individual narrative elements in the same context, sometimes in the same basic order. These would include examples such as battle at a fort (pp. 102-4, 29:1-23)....When considered as a whole, I think the above parallels strongly suggest that the Book of Mormon was dependent on the LW for a significant amount of narrative material and plot elements in addition to some of the peculiarities of its language and style;

But yet:

Did he intentionally draw language and ideas from the book? I think the answer is more than likely no

This is a good answer for those wishing to acknowledge the elephant in the room and not look foolish but yet without giving up the Book of Mormon as true. the Late War can be another 'textual layer', though, he's really on thin ice.

Starting with the fort battle, there is a lot of parallel material noted by Faith-Promoting Rumor from late Alma; significant parallels are disproportionately represented in late Alma. It should be easy to simply remember these stories and produce derivative material with the same "peculiarities of language" as in the other sections. In other words, if I were to sit down and write a story in "Bible writing", the story could be fully independent of any actual Bible ideas, and merely reflect the "peculiar language". If some of my ideas turn out to have Bible parallels and it's all unintentional, the "Bible writing" in those sections shouldn't be any more like the Bible than in any other section, in fact, it could even be the opposite. But if I had a Bible in front of me, and I wanted to spin a yarn parallel to a Bible story and give it the same flavor by the "peculiar language" of the Bible, but at the same time hide the fact that I'm plagiarizing, I'd mix and match the language. For instance, "in his own tent" has just the right ring, but the context it services will be different. Yet, clusters of such phrases betray the influence.

2421569703 23500 0.4278
244410 24000 0.25
245210 24500 0.0666
25154420140 25000 2.4574
25538152241 25500 1.09
26057334894 26000 2.2654 Alma 48
26534343005 26500 2.578 Alma 51
27032401212 27000 2.803
27576408256 27500 3.038
28107415670 28000 1.7976
28512282959 28500 1.6059
29162288132 29000 1.6918
29683234340 29500 1.881

these are the densest 4-gram clusters (accounting for significance) in the Book of Mormon. So between line 25500 and 26000 is Alma 48 in the text I have. So this thematic-heavy material is also "peculiar language" heavy when compared to other parts of the text. I think it will be difficult to account for this by saying Joseph Smith was unintentionally influenced.

[_Kishkumen]

First of all, I drop the link to RT's Faith-Promoting Rumor post, which is excellent. It has been quoted and the blog has been linked, but the post link will be more helpful in the future.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/10/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-late-war-direct-literary-dependence/

So this thematic-heavy material is also "peculiar language" heavy when compared to other parts of the text. I think it will be difficult to account for this by saying Joseph Smith was unintentionally influenced.

After reading RT's post, I am actually leaning more in the direction of intentional borrowing. Not of the kind where Smith necessarily had the text in front of him, but certainly one in which he is conscious of his own indebtedness to Hunt's work for his own work. At this point, I am finding the idea that Smith never read Hunt almost impossible to swallow. RT made the excellent point, which I have always assumed, but apologists don't allow for--that an author can engage in intertextuality in creative ways. In other words, nothing obliges the author to use the same language for the same purpose. It is, as Chris Johnson might say, a remix.

Anyone who has studied classical Latin poetry would be familiar with this kind of thing.

Beyond saying that he was influenced by the LW as a result of having read it, however, the mechanics are murky. I lean in the direction of intentional borrowing, but I can't say it was conscious and intentional. I don't know Smith's brain and I don't know how he went about composing the Book of Mormon. This is what everyone is trying to get at, since many are dissatisfied with simply saying, "God did it." I am glad there are believers and non-believers who are not satisfied with that answer. It makes for interesting research and arguments. At the same time, we have to realize that coming close to an answer to the question of how this was done remains devilishly complex and difficult.

I am, however, satisfied that the LW figures in somehow, and not just as a kind of contemporary artifact with a familial resemblance to the Book of Mormon. It looks to me to be increasingly difficult to dismiss the likelihood that Joseph Smith read the LW. How and why he incorporated LW into the Book of Mormon, the degree of self-awareness he had about the process, etc., are all difficult questions to answer satisfactorily.

For myself, I think it is imperative that I read Brant Gardner's book on the translation process. Everyone says he has the best discussion of the issue, and I don't doubt it.

[_Shulem]

That's a no-brainer, Joseph Smith obviously copied the KJV Bible including the errors.

That's absolutely correct. We know that Joe-blow lifted material right out of the KJV making a couple changes hoping to make it look different so not to be detected by his thievery. He didn't translate characters of the golden plates that detailed prophecies of Isaiah. That is impossible. He simply opened up his 1611 translation of the Bible and started copying while all along pretending that his insertion was actually stuff from the gold plates, compliments of the brass plates.

Paul O