Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Tom]

For those interested, an article by Ben McGuire titled "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon" will be posted today on the Interpreter website. It discusses the statistical model (data, methodology) used by the Johnsons.

[_Bazooka]

For those interested, an article by Ben McGuire titled "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon" will be posted today on the Interpreter website. It discusses the statistical model (data, methodology) used by the Johnsons.

I think Ben is starting from a point of having already reached a conclusion (The Book of Mormon is a true historical record) which he will then try to support.
From his past endeavours...
Discovering parallels is inherently an act of comparison. Through comparison, parallels have been introduced frequently as proof (or evidence) of different issues within Mormon studies. Despite this frequency, very few investigations provide a theoretical or methodological framework by which the parallels themselves can be evaluated. This problem is not new to the field of Mormon studies but has in the past plagued literary studies more generally. In Part One, this review essay discusses present and past approaches dealing with the ways in which parallels have been used and valued in acts of literary comparison, uncovering the various difficulties associated with unsorted parallels as well as discussing the underlying motivations for these comparisons. In Part Two, a methodological framework is introduced and applied to examples from Grunder’s collection in Mormon Parallels. In using a consistent methodology to value these parallels, this essay suggests a way to address the historical concerns associated with using parallels to explain both texts and Mormonism as a historical religious movement
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/benm/

But I could be completely wrong.

[_Always Changing]

Those are just reviews of Gunder's collection. Notice the dates. However, the new article is likely to be somewhat similar. Of all the Mormon apologists, he makes the most sense.

[_Themis]

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.

How did all these people come up with the core Book of Mormon story before the Book of Mormon came out?

[_Nevo]

How did all these people come up with the core Book of Mormon story before the Book of Mormon came out?

By "all these people" do you just mean Gilbert Hunt? Who else?
Do you think Hunt's book matches "the core Book of Mormon story"? I don't.

[_Themis]

How did all these people come up with the core Book of Mormon story before the Book of Mormon came out?

By "all these people" do you just mean Gilbert Hunt? Who else?
Do you think Hunt's book matches "the core Book of Mormon story"? I don't.

I was not specifically referring to him, but others like Ethan Smith. How did they figure it out?

[_Nevo]

I was not specifically referring to him, but others like Ethan Smith. How did they figure it out?

Do you think View of the Hebrews closely matches the Book of Mormon?

[_Tim the Enchanter]

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.

Others have chimed in on this, but I thought I'd respond as well. I hadn't seen makelan's responses until you linked them, and I wasn't aware of the patheos article until mormo linked it.

I'm not persuaded by makelan's contention that these elements form a generic story for one very important reason. The account of the battle in Late War Chapter XXIX is an account of a specific battle that occurred between the British and the Americans at Fort Stephenson on August 1, 1813. Here is another account of this battle which verifies many of the details contained in this chapter of Late War. The Late War was not telling a generic story in Chapter XXIX. It was giving an account of a specific battle. I agree that from a macro perspective different battles will contain similar elements. But when several elements line up as closely as the elements of Late War XXIX and Alma 49, it's difficult for me to attribute it to happenstance.

Makelan is arguing that the elements in common are scènes à faire, to borrow a concept from copyright law. The problem I have with this is that I don't believe that a battle between the British and Americans in the War of 1812 would have the same scènes à faire as an ancient battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. Two battles, that occurred over 1,800 years apart involving completely different cultures in completely different geographic regions (depending on which geographic theory of the Book of Mormon you subscribe to) should not, in my opinion, have such similar scènes à faire. It's not like they are both telling a medieval story and both have dragons, fair maidens, and brave knights. One story was an account of a battle between the British and Americans at Fort Stephenson in 1813. One story was an account of a battle between the Nephites and Lamanites at parts unknown in 72 BC. In my opinion, they shouldn't appear so similar.

Is your contention that the Nephite and Lamanite battle took place in 72 BC largely in accordance with the account in Alma 49, and then a battle containing several common elements took place over 1,800 years later at Fort Stephenson between the British and Americans, then Gilbert Hunt included a record of the battle at Fort Stephenson in the Late War (that was written for school children at a time and place when Joseph Smith was of school age), then Joseph Smith translated the Nephite record which contained the account of the ancient Nephite and Lamanite battle? Does this make more sense to you than concluding that Late War Chapter XXIX was an influence on Alma 49?

Makelan also makes the point that the reversed order of fleeing into the forest/wilderness and listing the number of the dead is evidence against Late War influence. Switching the order of two details is a very minor difference between these two stories. It reminds me of when Vanilla Ice added a note to the refrain of Under Pressure and tried to claim he wasn't copying. Vanilla Ice: "Hey, I added a note. It's totally different." Joseph Smith: "Hey, I switched the fleeing into the forest/wilderness with the death toll. It's totally different." When so much else is similar, a minor difference doesn't mean that much to me.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

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.

I also lean in the direction on intentional borrowing. There is just too much smoke around this for me to think there is not a fire. But at the same time, if the Book of Mormon is supposed to be a translation of an ancient record, unintentional borrowing is also problematic.

[_Themis]

I was not specifically referring to him, but others like Ethan Smith. How did they figure it out?

Do you think View of the Hebrews closely matches the Book of Mormon?

I think it brings up some of the core ideas of the Book of Mormon like where the native Americans came from, that they separated into a civilized group and uncivilized group. I don't think it is the source of the Book of Mormon, but shows they both have the same sources which is the society around them. How did they get these ideas correct. Assuming the Book of Mormon is true.

Ignoring all the other evidences against the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham ,etc I find it interesting that the Book of Mormon core story line is the same kind of ideas already floating around in early 19th century America. Maybe Lucky guess's on there part.