Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Chap]

In another thread, I wrote:

viewtopic.php?p=770359#p770359

I did not state that there was an analogy between the Book of Mormon and The Cat in the Hat. My point was that Kishkumen and I seemed to be agreed that a text became scripture (or a sacred text, or canonical, or whatever term you prefer) in the context of its relationship to a faith group that accepted it as a scripture. We also agreed that it was up to the faith group in question to decide what it did or did not accept as scripture.

This happened after Kishkumen stated that the evidence provided by studies of The Late War did nothing to show that the Book of Mormon was unworthy of being scripture, or of being considered divinely inspired.

If any of the above is in dispute, I'd be surprised. So please excuse me from re-posting the lot.

I then commented to the effect that there was not much point in saying things like Kishkumen's statement just referred to, since we seemed to be agreed that the 'scripturality' of a text solely resided in its acceptance as scripture by a particular group. Thus, if a faith community adopted The Cat in a Hat as scripture, nothing could be said to invalidate their choice - at least on the basis of what Kishkumen and I had agreed about how scripturality was acquired by a text, which did not involve any objective properties of the text. So it would appear (on that view) to be impossible to show by any evidence or argument that the Book of Mormon was unworthy of scriptural status, since scriptural status is not a matter of a text having to pass an objective 'worthiness test', but simply of getting accepted by some religious group as its scripture.

The only resemblance between the Book of Mormon and The Cat in the Hat required by this argument is that they are both texts. How that can be construed into an assertion that the two texts are analogous beats me.

Please keep the bolded statement in mind in reading what follows:

EA, Chap's post wasn't an invitation to a serious discussion in the first place. And you don't know enough to be able to distinguish between a legitimate point and an argument over semantics in this case. So, let's just drop it. Your utterly clueless adherence to the stupid idea that the Cat in the Hat is a reasonable analog for the Book of Mormon is an obvious non-starter. Only he most prejudiced anti-religionists would fail to see that. Wait, or people who haven't read one or both books.

The phrase 'blind with rage' is beginning to occur to me as a possible element in any explanation of why Kishkumen keeps on making statements like the one I have emphasized in quoting this post.

The phrase 'blind with rage' is beginning to occur to me as a possible element in any explanation of why Kishkumen keeps on making statements like the one I have emphasized in quoting this post.

The word jackass continues to occur to me as a possible explanation for why you behave like one.

I'd call that a S-L-O-W burn!

But at least the claim that I said that the 'Cat in the Hat' is analogous to the Book of Mormon is not repeated. We're making progress here.

[_Kishkumen]

But at least the claim that I said that the 'Cat in the Hat' is analogous to the Book of Mormon is not repeated. We're making progress here.

Chap, you can cherry pick your own material, but you're not fooling anyone. Except perhaps yourself.

[_Kishkumen]

But, hey, let's hear more about that Quebec Act, since it is so much more interesting than trolls who compare the Book of Mormon to the Cat in the Hat!

[_Kishkumen]

So evidently, the Quebec Act expanded Canada into Ohio and other places, some of which colonists in Virginia had already begun to move into. In this expanded Canada, Catholicism was to be the official Church. Wow! OK, I can see how these topics intersect with the Book of Mormon. Anyone want to expand on how they envision the relationship?

Lucy Harris?

[_Chap]

But at least the claim that I said that the 'Cat in the Hat' is analogous to the Book of Mormon is not repeated. We're making progress here.

Chap, you can cherry pick your own material, but you're not fooling anyone. Except perhaps yourself.

"Cherry pick": to cite material disproving a point of view held by Kishkumen.

I am happy for readers of this board to make up their minds which of us has the more reasonable point of view on this matter.

[_Always Changing]

Lucy Harris?

So far, I probably have as much of a handle on the new information as you do. Britain thought they were going to lose the southern colonies, so they acted quickly to try to appropriate the western land for themselves. They saw the Jesuits as doing a good job with the Indians, and they might as well continue it. The more bigoted among the Protestant religions were doing a bad job. I already had a good understanding on the motivation, to explain away the Jesuits' influence on Native cultures. They landed early and worked hard. By the time Protestants got missionary fever, the Jesuits had a monopoly.

Kish, on to your little feud. I know you are having fun with hebraisms in the Book of Mormon compared to those in histories in scriptural style. How soon before you have an article finished and available? I would love to reference it in my writing project. That is your area of expertise.

[_Flaming Meaux]

I am wondering if anyone has researched The anti-Catholic fervor of the time period, cast back to the Quebec Act, and it's possible impact on the cultural influence on the Book of Mormon.

Dr Mitchill's apparent limited involvement have intrigued me to think along those lines.

Just wondering if anyone else had considered that line of thinking.

Earlier this year I was reading Page Smith's History of the United States (also known as A People's History of the United States, but then it gets confused with the Howard Zinn book of the same title), specifically the first four volumes (in the Easton Press version) which were originally released, If I recall correctly, as A New Age Now Begins. While it is a "pop history" retelling of the revolutionary period, I was struck by the number of times I read about something and immediately thought, "this is just like the Book of Mormon where..." Obviously these events would have been much more recent cultural memories at the time the Book of Mormon was being written.

I didn't make extensive notes of all the parallels, but in addition to the discussion of things like the Quebec Act and anti-Catholic sentiment that possibly had overarching influence on certain Book of Mormon themes, I recall also being struck by specific events in the revolutionary period that had some direct parallels to events in the Book of Mormon (even where those events are not retold in "the ancient historical style"). Among these were:
- Ethan Allen's leadership of the Green Mountain Boys
- the capture of Fort Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold
- Benedict Arnold's expedition through the Maine wilderness to take Quebec

While Page's work is not extensively referenced with footnotes and endnotes, he generally works the sources that he is pulling his material from into the text itself (e.g., a local Philadelphia newspaper at the time, the Pennsylvania Evening Post, reported...).

Maybe I should go back and reread it and then make a specific post about why I think these events influenced certain things that Joseph Smith opted to include in the Book of Mormon. You know, put it all out there in a nice little package so that the apologists can say, "Yeah, but these events are so general that by sheer coincidence you'd expect that there would be a parallel to the Book of Mormon."

[_Kishkumen]

"Cherry pick": to cite material disproving a point of view held by Kishkumen.

I am happy for readers of this board to make up their minds which of us has the more reasonable point of view on this matter.

Cherry pick: Chap rephrases and re-presents what he has said numerous times, and then quotes the one that suits him or makes him look best at whatever point in the conversation he chooses to deploy it.

No one should be mistaken about the fact that you entered the conversation with a chip on your shoulder, expressions of disdain, etc., and that your reference to "Cat in the Hat" should be understood in that context.

Whitewash it though you may, and even find friends to back you up on that.

[_Kishkumen]

They saw the Jesuits as doing a good job with the Indians, and they might as well continue it. The more bigoted among the Protestant religions were doing a bad job. I already had a good understanding on the motivation, to explain away the Jesuits' influence on Native cultures. They landed early and worked hard. By the time Protestants got missionary fever, the Jesuits had a monopoly.

So you would read the Book of Mormon's theological pitch to the Indians as an attempt to challenge the hold that Jesuits had apparently had on the Native American peoples of the region.

[Guest]

So you would read the Book of Mormon's theological pitch to the Indians as an attempt to challenge the hold that Jesuits had apparently had on the Native American peoples of the region.

If the book is closely tied to the culture of Dartmouth College, and in particular to Ethan Smith, yes. Not so much as the immediate region, as to the area North-- as in Canada and the borders thereunto. Those natives were still spunky. The ones south were aah- too downtrodden to benefit from an education.

Are you a fan of Louise Ehrdrich? She is a Dartmouth graduate.