Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_honorentheos]

Hi Kish,

I am at a bit of a loss regarding your reply, to be honest. When I think of making moral judgments, I think of how a person goes about answering questions of right and wrong in the moment. And those are the decisions that are directly related to what the church does now. I'm not sure what to make of the story regarding the end times visions and fear of the world potentially ending because someone dreamed about it.

When a member of the church is told gender is eternal, that's a claim that stems out of LDS doctrine. It anchors itself in claims of authority that only has power over a person's thinking if they accept the church deserves that claim of authority. I'm curious how it matters if we tell people they should know better who believe God frowns on same-sex attraction if acted upon, and believe such can be trained out of a person through debunked ideas like conversation therapy? If the person believes sincerely the LDS church is speaking for God, whatever emotions they may feel about seeing someone hurt by those actions is being pushed back against by the systematic way they've been taught to recognize right from wrong. Just like Mormonism teaches truth can be discerned best through feelings, and those feeling are best recognized when associated with the teachings of the Church, it does damage to the membership's ability to judge for themselves what is right and wrong by establishing the baseline condition for recognizing right from wrong as how well it aligns with the teachings of the Church leadership. Most people who may sense something isn't right still aren't lining up to tell the leadership of the Church they are doing something wrong unless they also see reason to question the authority claims. Historical precedents such as the priesthood ban help illustrate that such claims may be on shaky ground so one's sense something is wrong can be explored and acted upon. The history makes it possible to effect change. It isn't about destroying testimonies. It's not being a John Dehlin, making it about oneself and one's righteous anger and righteous opposition to the Church. It's exploring and putting forward good reasons for people to realize maybe their own judgement, their own sense of right and wrong can be listened to because the authority the Church relies on to assert wrongheaded views isn't as firmly cemented as they'd have one believe.

Personally, I don't care about mopologetics. I don't generally engage in threads that talk about them, debate them, or otherwise are about the people involved because...meh. People being bad to one another on the internet? Huh. People talking about me, me, me on the internet? Huh. If someone who is in the mopologist camp puts out something on the internet that is on the topic of the LDS church's doctrine, beliefs, historical foundations, and otherwise about a subject other than mopologetics? I'm probably interested in that. Different strokes for different folks, right? Anyway.

[_Kishkumen]

I am at a bit of a loss regarding your reply, to be honest. When I think of making moral judgments, I think of how a person goes about answering questions of right and wrong in the moment. And those are the decisions that are directly related to what the church does now. I'm not sure what to make of the story regarding the end times visions and fear of the world potentially ending because someone dreamed about it.

Well, you can make this of it: sometimes it is better to approach people from closer to where they are than to try to drag them a great distance to your perspective. When I was fighting "Mopologetics" because it was manifestly harmful to people, I argued that the actions they were taking against fellow LDS folk were apparently outside of the order and authority of the priesthood, as well as contrary to the basic spirit of Christlike charity.

One could take any number of approaches, but it is important to be aware of what it is your are asking the other side to agree to. I could have told my dear one, "Oh, your friend's dreams are just a load of BS or a bit of undigested beef," but I don't think that approach would be nearly as effective as providing another, more familiar and thus attractive way of processing things.

When a member of the church is told gender is eternal, that's a claim that stems out of LDS doctrine. It anchors itself in claims of authority that only has power over a person's thinking if they accept the church deserves that claim of authority. I'm curious how it matters if we tell people they should know better who believe God frowns on same-sex attraction if acted upon, and believe such can be trained out of a person through debunked ideas like conversation therapy? If the person believes sincerely the LDS church is speaking for God, whatever emotions they may feel about seeing someone hurt by those actions is being pushed back against by the systematic way they've been taught to recognize right from wrong. Just like Mormonism teaches truth can be discerned best through feelings, and those feeling are best recognized when associated with the teachings of the Church, it does damage to the membership's ability to judge for themselves what is right and wrong by establishing the baseline condition for recognizing right from wrong as how well it aligns with the teachings of the Church leadership. Most people who may sense something isn't right still aren't lining up to tell the leadership of the Church they are doing something wrong unless they also see reason to question the authority claims. Historical precedents such as the priesthood ban help illustrate that such claims may be on shaky ground so one's sense something is wrong can be explored and acted upon. The history makes it possible to effect change. It isn't about destroying testimonies. It's not being a John Dehlin, making it about oneself and one's righteous anger and righteous opposition to the Church. It's exploring and putting forward good reasons for people to realize maybe their own judgement, their own sense of right and wrong can be listened to because the authority the Church relies on to assert wrongheaded views isn't as firmly cemented as they'd have one believe.

First of all, I think that the doctrinal basis of the Church's attack on LGBTQ+ rights and other nasty things that go along with it can be attacked on doctrinal grounds. The Proclamation, for example, is full of unsupportable ideas and it was basically penned by a BYU law professor. These things are closer to contemporary ideologies and issues than they are to the history of early Mormonism, which has very little to say, whether that be in its history or texts, about such things. In any case, I don't think we are talking about an either-or thing here. I was stating my preferences, and I understand that you have your preferences. I appreciate you continuing to share where you are coming from, and I am thankful that you are open to hearing about where I am coming from.

Personally, I don't care about mopologetics. I don't generally engage in threads that talk about them, debate them, or otherwise are about the people involved because...meh. People being bad to one another on the internet? Huh. People talking about me, me, me on the internet? Huh. If someone who is in the mopologist camp puts out something on the internet that is on the topic of the LDS church's doctrine, beliefs, historical foundations, and otherwise about a subject other than mopologetics? I'm probably interested in that. Different strokes for different folks, right? Anyway.

Yep. Different strokes for different folks. You'll get no argument from me there. I think there was a time when the discussion of "Mopologetics" mattered, and I wrote above in reference to that time. Maybe you didn't care about it at that time either; I don't know, and that is not really important to me. Fighting Mopologetics operating under the imprimatur of Church approval on BYU campus was, however, very important to me as a person who works in academia, holds two degrees from BYU, and thought little of the way fellow LDS folk and non-LDS academics were attacked in the Review.

Thanks for reading, and thank you for sharing your perspective.

[_Dr Moore]

Along this vein, has anyone looked into parallel themes between the Cochin Jews, as reported in Buchanan's Christian Researches in Asia (1811), and the Book of Mormon?

https://archive.org/details/christianresear01horngoog/page/n7

Passages related to the Cochin Jews cover pp. 172-197, in which a number of prominent Book of Mormon and early Mormon restoration themes appear.

This volume was published in 1811 and was widely referenced throughout New England in subsequent years in books, magazines, and several encyclopedic references.

It describes the discovery of and Christian ministering to certain colonies, some Jewish, throughout Asia in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

I saw a few mentions on other boards re Cochin Jews, with respect to copper plate references (establishing plates used for writing, debating quantity and materials).

But that discussion seems coincidental compared with the cultural observations detailed in Buchanan's entries.

Could these passages have been discussed in religious circles, or perhaps even stumbled upon by Joseph in one of the many references in which they appeared?

Is it possible that some of the recorded heritage of Indian Jews made their way into the scaffolding of the Book of Mormon and subsequent restoration mantras?

• Two separate and distinct classes: Black Jews and White Jews
• The White Jews looked upon the Black Jews as inferior
• It was not known when the Black Jews migrated from Jerusalem, but believed to be "many ages" before 400 AD
• The White Jews kept a brass plate, containing a sort of birthright or inheritance to the people
• The brass plate charter was first granted to Joseph Rabban by the king, believed then to be dated circa 400 AD
• The brass plate was written in Malabari, but the White Jews kept a Hebrew translation of it, but the Hebrew version was "very difficult" to get right
• A fac-simile of the brass plate was engraved onto copper (for a later translation in Cambridge)
• The brass plate is dated in the year of the reign of the king, "the thirty-sixth year of my reign"
• The brass plate invokes God, who made the earth according to his pleasure. (see Jacob 4:9, 2 Ne. 25:22)
• Validity of the plate's record was established by signature of 7 witnesses
• The deed contained on the brass plate grants lasts essentially forever (see 3 Ne. 20:29) (reads "many hundred thousand years")
• It was commonly believed that some few families from out of the Ten Tribes had migrated farther East
• White Jews had copies of the scriptures, but not the Black Jews
• One version of their scriptures was translated by a mysterious "learned" Rabbi whose "design" it was to "controvert the doctrines", through his abilities "as a scholar" and to do so "without appearing to pervert the meaning of a single sentence."
• Many times the White Jews spoke of the Desolation of Jerusalem and had their own location, the Desolation of Cranganor, a place where the people had been partly killed and partly taken into captivity.
• The White Jews constantly referenced their confident hope to one day rebuild Jerusalem before the second coming
• The White Jews saw "commotion in the earth" as a sure sign of the "approaching restoration"

Lastly, as if all of this were not stretchy enough, I can't help but notice Alma 63: in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of the judges... Shiblon took possession of the brass plates (footnote to sacred things that had been handed down)... Hagoth builds a large ship near Desolation... and launches forth into the sea. I don't know, it seems oddly coincidental this many correspondences in a few consecutive verses.

[_Kishkumen]

Greetings, Dr. Moore. Thank you for sharing this absolutely fascinating case of the Cochin Jews. Yes, there is definitely something interesting going on here, although I am tempted to say that there are more interesting coincidences than obvious traces of influence. One source of similarities is the cache of legends and histories of Diaspora. Jews travel, form communities, and strive to hold onto their faith in their new land. This is a story that plays out time and again, be it in Europe, Ethiopia, China, or India.

The bit about "Black Jews" and "White Jews" I find to be pretty weak as a parallel because these two groups are separated by centuries. The Black Jews, If I recall correctly, arrive in India first, and it is only much later that European "White Jews" join them. You might say Jaredites and Nephite/Lamanites, but the difference in skin color is a Nephite/Lamanite characteristic. Skin color is not a factor in the distinction between Jaredites and the later Lehites, is it?

And, furthermore, I think it is fair to say that there were obvious sources in the European folk explanation of the Native American past that serve as a more obvious and easily available source for the differences. Think of Quinn's quotation of the treasure seer Zimri Allen, who looked back through the mists of time and saw white men fighting red men. These narratives did not rely on a source like Buchanan's text.

The plate is also a weak parallel, in my opinion. Yes, there is a plate, and it is important in the foundation story of these Indian Jews, but it is simply a royal grant of certain privileges in perpetuity. That does not seem to be to be a strong parallel to the Book of Mormon, except for the fact that it is engraved on a metal plate.

I have not had time to read Buchanan, but if I did read it I would look for textual parallels. Intertexts. I think the evidence of intertexts between the LW and the Book of Mormon are pretty good.

That said, I think there is still a lot here in Buchanan that is worth looking at, and I hope someone follows up on it.

[_mentalgymnast]

That TLW and the Book of Mormon both show the imprints of 19h century influence really doesn't bother me in and of itself. I don't see that as being a significant challenge. The level of ACTUAL complexity of chiasmus DOES matter, however. For rather complex REAL chiasmus to show up in the Book of Mormon is a point of real interest. The fact that there are examples of simple chiasms in the D&C does not convince me that those examples are anything other than Bible speak from Joseph's day. The stuff in the Book of Mormon goes way beyond that.

If you took the time to look at the link I posted for the Johnson's purported 'finding' of chiasmus in TLW you can see that it is a less than stellar example of anything representing complex and cohesive/purposeful poetic writing. It is fabricated to try and prove a point they're wanting to put out there.

In other words, comparing chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with Dr. Suess, the D&C, the New York Times, etc., is just a way out for the critics, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

I remember looking at the supposed complex chiamus in the Book of Mormon. One of the first things I noticed was text that didn't fit into the chiamus that was being ignored. If you don't ignore it it makes a loose chiastic structure, but one you would expect to see by chance, especially when one realizes it is a common English writing and communicating style. MG likes to argue errors in the Book of Mormon result from Joseph putting things in his own words, expect for certain parts like chiamus. It also ignores chiamus does not translate well from one language to another. Consistency is not a friend of the LDS apologist like MG.

Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Regards,
MG

Has anyone looked at this or made it the point of study/research? If not, it might be worth looking at.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Regards,
MG

Has anyone looked at this or made it the point of study/research? If not, it might be worth looking at.

Regards,
MG

Nobody is going to go investigate your brain farts. They belong to you.

[_honorentheos]

Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Regards,
MG

Has anyone looked at this or made it the point of study/research? If not, it might be worth looking at.

Regards,
MG

Mound.

Builders.

[_Dr Moore]

Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Regards,
MG

Has anyone looked at this or made it the point of study/research? If not, it might be worth looking at.

Regards,
MG

Alma 5 stands out to my memory. The phrase “redeeming love” is present in a chiastic structure. The phrase is not Biblical, but it was the title of a very a popular hymn in the days of Joseph’s youth, can be found in numerous Methodist and Universalist hymnals, and the phrase featured prominently in evangelical writings contemporary to Joseph as a youth.

[_Themis]

Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Regards,
MG

Has anyone looked at this or made it the point of study/research? If not, it might be worth looking at.

Regards,
MG

Yes most here have looked into it at one time or another. What we find is nothing to show complex chiastic structure and all vernacular is found in Joseph's time and place. If you believed you really had something you would have provided at least one example. You also keep ignoring even some apologists argue against chiasmus due in part because it doesn't translate well from one language to another, and it is just as much an English writing style as Hebrew.