Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[Guest]

After reading RT's post, I am actually leaning more in the direction of intentional borrowing.

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.

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.

From page 16 of this thread:

Ch. XIV, pp. 51

39 For the savages put forth the burning brand to the houses, from which they could not flee, and burnt them to death therein,

40 And the flames and the smoke arose; and their cries and their groans reached the high chancery of heaven,

41 Where they will stand recorded, until the coming of that day for which all other days were made.

Alma 14

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

Probably just coincidence that an ancient American Hebrew prophet and Hunt reach the same theological conclusion about innocent people being burned to death by the bad guys.

[_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.

The article is now posted here.

[_Flaming Meaux]

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.

The article is now posted here.

Whew. The Late War might use "biblical sounding" language, but the Book of Mormon really "engages biblical issues" so they are completely different. I wonder what they would have said if Hunt would have been trying to do a "biblical sounding" riff on rather common 19th-century religious questions rather than a "biblical sounding" riff on the War of 1812.

For now, let's just be comfortable with the fact that the study was not as refined as it possibly could have been and hold out hope that, with further refinements, we'll discover that all the numerous parallels "tell us absolutely nothing because they are most likely due to coincidence." Impressive scholarship, that.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

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.

The article is now posted here.

Thank you for the link. I don't have time to go through the entire article right now, but one thing at the start jumped out at me.

[d]igital archives create an almost unlimited supply of texts, in which searches can be performed easily for an almost unlimited number of phrases. When these searches are made, long lists of parallels are inevitably discovered. However, parallels found in this manner — stripped of context and extracted from their sources — are, for the most part, illusory. This situation is similar to the way that visual look-alikes eventually pop up — somewhere, sometime — for virtually every public figure.

If the context of the Late War was that it was written and published in the early 1800's in Australia about skirmishes the British had with aborigines when colonizing Australia and there was no evidence the book ever made its way to America, that would be context that supports the assertion that the Late War was not an influence on the Book of Mormon. But the context of the Late War, written and published at a time and a place where it's reasonable (to me anyway) to conclude Joseph Smith would have had access to it, lends support to the assertion that Late War did influence the Book of Mormon. In other words, I think the context of Late War supports, rather than hurts, the idea that it was an influence on the Book of Mormon.

[_Thexriddle]

Moving back the field of view a bit, there are additional sources of "inspiration" that Joseph would surely have been aware of and could have adapted for his own treasure hunting and as well as the creation of the Book of Mormon ...

An excerpt from an account("Myths of Ononda") by a local Rochester historian of events had that occurred most likely in the 1820's, and published ~ 1887 :
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/smit ... 1887Harris (Dale Broadhurst's site)

It was finally decided by those engaged in the discussion to ask {Zim} if he could [not] reveal the origin of the treasure and also the manner in which it was placed in the hill-side.

{Zim} placed the diamond -- for so we must term the stone -- in his cap, put the cap over his face in such a manner as to exclude every particle of light, of light and after a long and steady "view" [slowly] moved the cap slowly away from his face, his gaze still fixed on the stone. The party was breathless with attention, as {Zim} began speaking in an absent minded [quiet] manner as though [conversing ?] with himself.

"I am gazing down the vista of Time, and my view may be likened to a long journey on a road where the mile-stones are a century apart. My starting point is the present; where I am in the midst of of familiar faces and surroundings, of happy homes occupied by the people of my own blood and nation; [where] progress is uprooting the forests and Civilization is {throbbing} through all the [ortines ?] of a grand Continent whose future {magnificence} no man can tell. One stage on the backward {journey} and the scene changes. Progress is just {awakening} and Civilization occupies only a narrow belt near the great {ocean}, over which foreign nations extend {their} undisputed commands to commingled races and subjects. {Another} slip and the primeval {forest} covers all the land. Here and there Civilization has kindled [a] small fires that gleam fully in the glow of the mighty wilderness[forest] which shelters many tribes and {nations} of red men, who engage in continuous conflict and wage a never ending war upon the multitudes of wild beasts filling the land.

Now the scene remains the same for a long distance on the journey and the mile-stones, A {century} apart, are passed [so] rapidly that I loose their number I behold the red man as intruders in the land, expelling a race of men of exceedingly large stature, whom we would call giants. The {forests} have disappeared in places and the [huge ?] people occupy much of the country, over which Civilizations appears to have cast many rays of light. Time rolls backward and the men of mighty stature are, themselves [wresting ?] the land from a {diminutive} people; who are like {babies} [small children] in comparison with their [scattered ?] enemies. I see these pigmies {occupying} all the land, engaged in agriculture, and many fine arts. They delve in the earth in search of rich minerals and gather great stores of gold and precious stones, which are held as a property in common. Upon the first appearance of their gigantic enemies the dwarfs divide theirs riches into {innumerable} portions and bury them in the earth. In some places they build great vaults [in the solid earth], fill them with treasure

If you're going to compete as a treasure digger then you would surely need a good "yarn" to explain why treasures are present ...

[_Aristotle Smith]

The article is now posted here.

The article spends all of its time trying to undermine the statistical methodology used to identify the Late War as a possible source text. This is probably the wisest source of attack for the apologists since you can argue statistics forever without reaching conclusions.

However, the article doesn't spend any time arguing or refuting any of the literary or narrative parallels, something the statistics don't address in the slightest. For me, this was always the more interesting issue. The statistics were only interesting in that they chose Late War in a non subjective way. That adds some plausibility to using the Late War as a source since it's not just someone's pet theory that posited the text as a possible parallel.

Am I wrong on this or did others out there see the statistics as the more interesting issue?

[Anonymous]

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.

The handful of narrative elements that line up closely are absolutely generic. An assault on a fort is repelled? Dead and wounded fill up the surrounding ditches? That scene is not unique in the annals of warfare.

If the Book of Mormon had been published in 2000, would you be insisting that Joseph Smith must have watched the movie Glory? Just reverse the good/bad guys (a la Vanilla Ice) and the story's exactly the same:

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

But seriously, the stories in Alma 49 and LW, ch. 29, strike me as much more different than alike.

In Alma 49, the Lamanite armies initially move against the city of Noah because they believe it is the weakest point in the Nephite defenses. They soon discover to their dismay that it had recently been fortified. Not only that, the city's defense was being led by a Nephite commander they greatly feared. However, despite their discomfiture at the Nephites' strong fortifications and their fear of the Nephite commander, they press the attack because their leaders had sworn an oath that they would attack the city. Because of the "highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch" the Lamanites can't get near the walls without exposing themselves to a hail of Nephite stones and arrows, so they focus their attack on the fort's entrance—which has no ditch or embankment. Multiple assaults are attempted on the entrance to no avail. The Lamanites then attempt to "dig down" the embankment and fill the ditch, but they are cut down, their bodies filling the ditches. More than a thousand Lamanite soldiers, including the entire leadership, are killed. The survivors flee into the wilderness (jungle).

Fort Stephenson, on the other hand, wasn't guarding a city. It hadn't been reinforced (it was nearly abandoned). The British had surrounded the fort and were confident of victory. They issued a demand for surrender that was rejected. A two-day artillery bombardment ensued. The British divided their forces in two and mounted simultaneous assaults on the fort. The Americans repelled the attack and the deep ditch around the fort was strewn with dead and wounded. The British lost 150 men in the attack. The remainder (1,350 men?) fled in "confusion" and returned to their ships. The British commander survived the battle, as did most of his men.

Call me obtuse, but I really don't see the battle in Alma 49 as an obvious rip-off of the Battle of Fort Stephenson, despite the fact that both battles involve an unsuccessful attack on a fort with a deep ditch.

[_Sammy Jankins]

[d]igital archives create an almost unlimited supply of texts, in which searches can be performed easily for an almost unlimited number of phrases. When these searches are made, long lists of parallels are inevitably discovered. However, parallels found in this manner — stripped of context and extracted from their sources — are, for the most part, illusory. This situation is similar to the way that visual look-alikes eventually pop up — somewhere, sometime — for virtually every public figure.

Again this seems very much like a double edged sword. So you're telling me if you search through enough materials you will inevitably find parallels?
Next you're going to tell me that if we take a text and then comb through dozens of cultures and languages, and across a thousand years, that the parallels we find are also not statistically significant.
J/k in the latter case we are supposed to be slack-jawed staring asking ourselves, how could Joseph Smith have known?

But seriously as noted by Tim above, the time and place make it more relevant.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Call me obtuse, but I really don't see the battle in Alma 49 as an obvious rip-off of the Battle of Fort Stephenson, despite the fact that both battles involve an unsuccessful attack on a fort with a deep ditch.

Reasonable minds can disagree.

To me, the textual parallels, the similar bibical style, the Late War's location at a time and place where Joseph Smith was located, the Late War's intended use in schools at a time when Joseph Smith was of school age, all combine to make a very compelling case that the Late War was a direct influence on the Book of Mormon.

To me, this is much more plausible explanation than the Nephites and Lamanites engaged in battle at the city of Noah in 72 AD, Alma made a record of it, Mormon revised the record a few hundred years later, Moroni deposited the record in the Hill Cumorah, 1,400 years later Moroni led Joseph Smith to the buried plates, which Joseph Smith translated and it just so happened that the translated record ended up being written in the same style and contained many similar elements to a book about the War of 1812 written and published at a time and place where Joseph Smith was located and was part of the intended audience.

[_ElGuapo]

The article spends all of its time trying to undermine the statistical methodology used to identify the Late War as a possible source text. This is probably the wisest source of attack for the apologists since you can argue statistics forever without reaching conclusions.

However, the article doesn't spend any time arguing or refuting any of the literary or narrative parallels, something the statistics don't address in the slightest. For me, this was always the more interesting issue. The statistics were only interesting in that they chose Late War in a non subjective way. That adds some plausibility to using the Late War as a source since it's not just someone's pet theory that posited the text as a possible parallel.

Am I wrong on this or did others out there see the statistics as the more interesting issue?

My thoughts exactly. McGuire can argue the methodology all he wants, but the really interesting find in all of this is the book itself. Late War is in the public consciousness now, and it's not going away because of some statistical quibbling over how it was found. (Or maybe "rediscovered" is the better word. I had a very pleasant email exchange recently with Rick Grunder, who mentioned he first introduced this book to collectors and libraries way back in 1989, but got little interest.)