Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Fence Sitter]

You may be spot on. But as a sentient human being who loves and desires love, I hope you're wrong. I'd really like to think that man/woman sit at the top of God's creations and are created in His image.
MG

MG
Rather than further the derail I will start a thread on this.

[_Spanner]

...
The mopologists who have foolishly claimed “victory” in the 50-page debate completely miss the point. No, the Johnsons’ research does not stick a fork in Mormonism. It’s not a silver bullet against the Book of Mormon or any other exhausted metaphor. It is, instead, an exciting development in Mormon studies. The kneejerk negative response from the mopologists who have been alternatively trying to discredit the study or accept its findings while downplaying their significance reveals an unjustifiably intense insecurity about the strength of the position they advocate.

+1

[_Runtu]

...
The mopologists who have foolishly claimed “victory” in the 50-page debate completely miss the point. No, the Johnsons’ research does not stick a fork in Mormonism. It’s not a silver bullet against the Book of Mormon or any other exhausted metaphor. It is, instead, an exciting development in Mormon studies. The kneejerk negative response from the mopologists who have been alternatively trying to discredit the study or accept its findings while downplaying their significance reveals an unjustifiably intense insecurity about the strength of the position they advocate.

I've been amused, though not surprised, at some of the defensive and hostile reactions among apologists. This is an interesting find because it provides context for the production or translation of the Book of Mormon. it's bizarre that so many people seem to be terrified of the implications of this find.

[_ElGuapo]

I think I'm on board with Equality's hypothesis as far as Late War having a direct, albeit unconscious, influence on the Book of Mormon. However, if the source books aren't "strewn about" and referenced during the writing, that does seem to point to multiple authorship. Otherwise you wouldn't expect to see Late War impacting the later chapters and Napoleon influencing the small plates portion.

[_Bazooka]

...
The mopologists who have foolishly claimed “victory” in the 50-page debate completely miss the point. No, the Johnsons’ research does not stick a fork in Mormonism. It’s not a silver bullet against the Book of Mormon or any other exhausted metaphor. It is, instead, an exciting development in Mormon studies. The kneejerk negative response from the mopologists who have been alternatively trying to discredit the study or accept its findings while downplaying their significance reveals an unjustifiably intense insecurity about the strength of the position they advocate.

I've been amused, though not surprised, at some of the defensive and hostile reactions among apologists. This is an interesting find because it provides context for the production or translation of the Book of Mormon. it's bizarre that so many people seem to be terrified of the implications of this find.

But the apologists can see the problems inherent in accepting this type of influence:
1. The book was written by ancient Prophets and Joseph was specifically given things to effect an accurate translation. He was to read the plates looking through the Urim & Thummin which would show him the words to use. If 19th century influence crept in then the U&T were a bit leaky.
2. The witnesses to the translation method (mostly) stated that God gave Joseph the exact words to use via a rock in a hat and he wasn't allowed to move on till it had been scribed accurately. If 19th century influence crept in then the witness statements, and therefore the witnesses themselves, cannot be trusted. Which in turns invalidates the signed testimony statements in the front of the Book of Mormon.
3. If Joseph, despite all the other documentary statements, was allowed to loosely translate using themes, words, phrases etc from his 19th century environment, then it can hardly be considered a translation of a book written by ancient Prophets who lived in the America's two thousand years earlier.
4. Credible proof of 19th century influence adds credence to the argument that there are things in the Book of Mormon that weren't in the America's during the relevant time frame, such as horses etc. If 19th century influence has interjected spurious items into the narrative, the book really cannot claimed to be what it is claimed to be. Instead it drifts into the section marked 'fiction'.

They are a bit panic stricken and I think they have just cause.

[_beastie]

I believe that Joseph Smith tried to not lie to himself. He was a man wholly devoted to the truth. .

Was Joseph Smith telling the truth when he claimed to see treasures buried underground, guarded by spirits who made them slip beyond reach into the ground?

repeating question for ed

[_beastie]

I think I'm on board with Equality's hypothesis as far as Late War having a direct, albeit unconscious, influence on the Book of Mormon. However, if the source books aren't "strewn about" and referenced during the writing, that does seem to point to multiple authorship. Otherwise you wouldn't expect to see Late War impacting the later chapters and Napoleon influencing the small plates portion.

Here's my meandering thoughts on that subject.

We know that something happened to result in expedited dictation of the Book of Mormon with the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. Is it possible that OC brought with him a copy of the Late War, and hence exposed Joseph Smith to it at that point? Prior to his exposure to the Late War, the text he may have read on his own Napoleon, had the most influence.

[_Shulem]

Here's my meandering thoughts on that subject.

We know that something happened to result in expedited dictation of the Book of Mormon with the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. Is it possible that OC brought with him a copy of the Late War, and hence exposed Joseph Smith to it at that point? Prior to his exposure to the Late War, the text he may have read on his own Napoleon, had the most influence.

I tend to agree. I think Oliver had a huge say on what happened in the Book of Mormon. Joseph dictated but Oliver did the actual writing and he no doubt was familiar with all kinds of novel stories. It's too bad we don't have the lost manuscript. I have to wonder what their original plan was in producing the book. I don't think they expected things to go as deep as it did but as time went on they invented story after story, together. The self ordained themselves and called themselves to the work with a plan to start a new religion.

Paul O

[_Always Changing]

Is it possible that OC brought with him a copy of the Late War, and hence exposed Joseph Smith to it at that point? Prior to his exposure to the Late War, the text he may have read on his own Napoleon, had the most influence.

So you believe that the panic over the lost pages was just an attempt to explain the difference between the two parts?

[_Bazooka]

Is it possible that OC brought with him a copy of the Late War, and hence exposed Joseph Smith to it at that point? Prior to his exposure to the Late War, the text he may have read on his own Napoleon, had the most influence.

So you believe that the panic over the lost pages was just an attempt to explain the difference between the two parts?

I'm missing the connection?

As I understand it, it's generally agreed that the incident of the lost pages actually happened and that there likely resting place was in the ashes of the hearth of Martin Harris where his wife had flung them. The panic being when Joseph realised he couldn't accurately replicate what he had claimed to translate from plates that not only couldn't he translate, he didn't even have plates.

Whoops, I forgot....you were there and took the blame!