Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Always Changing]

Well-- how is that for a quick flip???

If it was an inspired theme in the 18th/19th century why not also in Book of Mormon times?

Not when nearly the entire book has parallels with literature available in the late 1820's. Chapter by chapter, very little of it is original. Even giving the authors some credit for originality. It is like pouring water through a sieve.

[_Always Changing]

I don't think in this situation the word plagiarism is a legitimate usage.

I agree with you that Joseph had a lot of help. He couldn't have written it by himself. However, the help he got was human help. And very few people in those times were literate enough to recognize the parallels and lack of originality.

Have you ever read Clavigero's History of Mexico?

We are not just talking about word choice here. When you have many phrases AND thematic parallels in common, in two texts, then there must be a link. Even if it is that both selections came from the same culture.

[_Spanner]

The point is the sheer number of similar phrases and themes. The statistical method used confirms that it is not coincidence. You are commenting on individual instances, which may be a nice subjective way for you to dismiss the research but you are missing the point completely.

[_Equality]

Welcome to the board, Water Dog. May I suggest that you read more of the thread than you apparently have? You have thrown out a number of straw man type arguments about the nature of what "critics" have argued on this thread. Either you are deliberately misrepresenting things or you have simply not read enough of the thread to realize that what you are arguing is without basis in fact. One example: that critics are claiming Joseph Smith "plagiarized" from the Late War. That particular topic was discussed at some length in this thread, with the majority of folks expressing the opinion that "plagiarism" is probably not the appropriate word to describe the Late War's influence on the Book of Mormon text. Another example: you say you fail to see how the "writing style" of the Book of Mormon proves Joseph Smith a fraud. I have read this entire thread and don't remember seeing anyone make that argument. A third example: you ask about why the Late War textual comparison is just now coming to light. That's an interesting question, and one that is discussed at some length in this thread. You seem to have missed the main point that critics have made about the discovery of the Late War (and other 19th-century works written in a faux biblical style): the impact it has on arguments advanced by Mormon apologists that elements of the Book of Mormon's faux biblical style are "evidences" for an ancient provenance for the Book of Mormon and for a connection to the languages used in the Levant in 6th century B.C.E.

To answer one of your questions: I would expect that a fictional work being peddled as a book of scripture akin to the Bible, written by a 24-year-old living on the American frontier in the early 19th century, would appear in a style exactly like or very similar to what the we see in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. That expectation is only heightened by the revelations that the Johnson brothers brought to light regarding the Late War and other works they discovered through the use of their computer algorithm. That other works written in the faux biblical style were available to Joseph Smith makes that aspect of the Book of Mormon's literary style common. It is no longer one of the book's unique characteristics. It is Mormon apologists, who have cited the literary style of the Book of Mormon as one of it unique characteristics supposedly evidencing the book's supernatural origins, who are forced by the Johnson brothers' work to adjust their thinking.

[_Always Changing]

People see what they want to see. I know what I see. I don't understand what you see, but that is OK. Just keep looking. I can't force you to see what I see.

[_Spanner]

The point is the sheer number of similar phrases and themes. The statistical method used confirms that it is not coincidence. You are commenting on individual instances, which may be a nice subjective way for you to dismiss the research but you are missing the point completely.

What statistical method? You're a bunch of guys tossing stuff around on a message board :) This is my point. I expected something more substantial. If you had a mathematical algorithm which could identify speech patterns and reliably identify authors like a fingerprinting system, and through that algorithm you had uncovered several previously unknown books which perfectly matched the contents of the Book of Mormon, well, that would be something. All you've got is a book written in a similar style, using some similar phrases and wording. It's utterly unimpressive. The narratives and themes contained within the books are nothing like those in the Book of Mormon at all. It's simply disingenuous to say otherwise. Of what I have read so far, if you were to compile everything into a dissertation, you would fail defense and not be able to graduate. No respected journal of religious or historical scholarship would publish you. Long story short, you literally have nothing.

Did you watch Chris Johnson's presentation at the exmormon conference? or read his site? I recommend reading the information the Johnson have presented on their website or watching the presentation, that way you will get an idea of what we are actually discussing in this thread.

[_palerobber]

Could a 24-year-old in that time period write a work of fiction that appears like this, given the proper amount of time, resources, education, etc.? Sure, I can buy that. Could Joseph Smith have though with his environment and background? Really hard sale. If Joseph Smith did it alone, he was a genius, and a particular one at that. And this doesn't fit with any of the other history about him. I find it laughable to think Joseph Smith could have done this alone.

Water Dog, thanks for stopping by to bare your testimony.

[Guest]

That isn't the question I asked. You're trying to take the easy way out. You can't demonstrate that the Book of Mormon appears in a style you would expect from a fraud without first defining what the genuine article would look like. You need a reference point by which to compare.

what would a genuine record of an ancient American civilization look like?

hmm, let me think. first, i think it would physically exist. actually, that's my only criterion. i don't even care what language it's written in or what the writing style is. i think you'll admit that I've set the bar exceeding low. how do the Golden Plates do?

[_ControlFreak]

If the attitude about this change later forgive me, but this is certainly the implication at the beginning of the thread.

And we are not at the beginning of the thread, are we?

You have me at a loss with this one. If writing style isn't the argument then what is? This sounds like an argument over semantics. Am I missing something?

You are missing everything. It is absolutely about writing style and Joseph's writing style fits in perfectly with other hokey faux-biblical books of the time. Nobody spoke that way in common speech.

I have not gone through the whole thread, so apologies again. This thing is really long.

Then it would be appropriate to ask questions, but not come in and speak in absolutes as if you know what is going on. You obviously don't.

But I have gone through quite a bit, and haven't seen anything you just described at all. The thread starts out quite fanatically with talk about silver bullets and completely laying the Book of Mormon on its ass.

Oh trust me, the Book of Mormon has been on its ass for a very long time. The Late War was hardly necessary for that.

But now you're talking about a particular theory put forth by some (unnamed) group of Book of Mormon apologists? So the thread switches from a silver bullet to maybe a bucket of water on a particular theory? :)

Don't play the fool. You know damn well that apologists have used Hebraisms, linguistic complexity and other lame arguments about Joseph being illiterate for a very long time. The Late War is not a silver bullet. The Book of Mormon has been dead for a long time. It just takes out one of the last sticks that the apologists were trying to use to prop its dead body up.

I'll hunt for this part of the discussion. Based on your summary though, several questions arise. One, there are a lot of linguistic styles in the Book of Mormon. The styles presented as examples of Hebraism or other ancient colloquialisms by apologists, are those the very same styles also present in these other texts? Are all of those styles in these other texts? Two, even if these are styles are in these texts, all or some of them, it doesn't imply a direct connection. The texts were meaning to imitate a more ancient style, as described in the introduction in at least one. If the Book of Mormon were divine, a counter-argument could be that it validates the style these other books attempted to implement. Although I've only seen small amounts of snippets, it would require an exhaustive analysis of the whole book to establish consistency, etc. Two independent works can draw from common source material and end up very similar.

Please read more before mounting your high horse. Yes, most of the Hebraisms are present in the Late War. It is entirely possible that Joseph never once looked at the Late War, and that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that the style was present in multiple books freely available in Joseph's area and his book mimics them extensively. You cannot use the style or "Hebrew" structure of the Book of Mormon as a validation for the text. That argument has been obliterated.

That isn't the question I asked. You're trying to take the easy way out. You can't demonstrate that the Book of Mormon appears in a style you would expect from a fraud without first defining what the genuine article would look like. You need a reference point by which to compare.

The Book of Mormon is proven a fraud in so many ways it is ridiculous to even try to count them all. This thread is not to discuss all of the bullet holes in the Book of Mormon, but rather to discuss how the Late War completely undermines one of the key defenses apologists try to use to prop it back up.

And also, your description isn't an honest consideration of the known history. Could a 24-year-old in that time period write a work of fiction that appears like this, given the proper amount of time, resources, education, etc.? Sure, I can buy that. Could Joseph Smith have though with his environment and background? Really hard sale. If Joseph Smith did it alone, he was a genius, and a particular one at that. And this doesn't fit with any of the other history about him. I find it laughable to think Joseph Smith could have done this alone. If it's a fraud, it had to involve a large number of people, which then raises other questions. Does the fiction hypothesis fit with the historical narrative and the behavior patterns of all the actors involved? No. Not by a long shot. The pool of people to study and the amount of historical evidence expands, and none of those events are cohesive with the Book of Mormon being an intentional deception. None of the people who would have been in a position to know whether it was a fraud or not ever accused or admitted anything of the sort later in life. This leads us to believe that if it was a fraud, Joseph Smith had to be acting alone... and how is that possible?

There is no need to prove how he did it. We have obvious evidences that it is a fraud. And now there is no reason to think it would be improbable for him to have written in the style and manner that he did. It is irrelevant how he actually did it, because the fact is that there are easy explanations for how he could have. And the lame argument that he was an ignorant country bumpkin simply does not fly. His father was a school teacher and he spent most of his life reading books, as easily shown by how often he quotes from and plagiarizes them. That is pure BS to say he couldn't have been smart enough to mimic the late war. He wouldn't even have to be a genius. Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? It is really not that complex or deep, I hate to break it to you.

[_Chap]

Thanks, ControlFreak. I was contemplating writing such a reply, but answering people like Water Dog costs a considerable amount of energy, and all too often they just carry on regardless afterwards - and if they are pushed back against the wall, there is always the "Whatever you say I cannot deny my testimony" defense. But I suppose we must think of the lurkers.

You have done an excellent job in your reply. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

The Late War is not a silver bullet. The Book of Mormon has been dead for a long time. It just takes out one of the last sticks that the apologists were trying to use to prop its dead body up.

Nicely put!