Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

That's it? Whatever.

I'd be interested in how others do a work around in regards to my two questions. How does The Late War influence theory dovetail with the rock in the hat and the limited time window for translation? Something other than a one paragraph 'shrug it off' answer.

Regards,
MG

Consider the possibility that Joseph Smith knew the LW very well indeed. When it came time to translate the Book of Mormon, the influence was there waiting to be tapped. I don't see any necessity to look at this as an either/or situation. It seems to me that you are asking whether the story of the translation as we have it squares with Joseph Smith sitting down and writing the story in advance. Well, I can imagine ways in which it could, but I can also imagine him tapping the influence in the translation process.

In short, I don't think that someone who believes that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God has to be threatened in any way by the discovery of the LW's influence on the book. In the end, it is little different from the observation that a certain translation of the Bible influenced the Book of Mormon. I agree with the comment above that, had this come anywhere but from an ex-Mormon, this would probably not be all that controversial.

But, the fact that it came out the way it came out is the way it is, and apologists are seeking to discredit the claim for that reason. I thought it was telling that Grant Hardy did not dismiss the possibility out of hand. It seems that he is smart enough to know why this is not a problem.

[_Blixa]

I've been keeping up, off and on, with this thread...so forgive me if this concern of mine has already been addressed adequately on pages I may not have read. How does all this stuff with The Late War and Joseph's purported plagiarism of word groups from that book, in detail and with a significant (purported) degree of reliance, dovetail with the translation accounts we have of Joseph having his head in a hat reading off of a seer stone? And the short translation time window?

Regards,
MG

No one is arguing that Joseph Smith plagiarized word groups. That doesn't even make any sense.

See the page before for a discussion of the misuse of the term "plagiarism." And then stop using it yourself.

I suspect Darth didn't have much to say about your two "questions" because they don't really have anything to do with the discussion here. In fact, the alleged "short translation time window" is whole 'nother can of worms, as I would think you would know.

Kish has given you a quick summary of how issues of literary influence don't have to "dovetail" with official translation accounts. As he points out, things are not as black and white as your questions try to make them. If you really have serious and sincere interest in how examining The Late War may enlarge understanding of the discursive environment of the production of the Book of Mormon, then you need to read, or re-read, the latter half of this thread.

[_Maksutov]

I've been keeping up, off and on, with this thread...so forgive me if this concern of mine has already been addressed adequately on pages I may not have read. How does all this stuff with The Late War and Joseph's purported plagiarism of word groups from that book, in detail and with a significant (purported) degree of reliance, dovetail with the translation accounts we have of Joseph having his head in a hat reading off of a seer stone? And the short translation time window?

Regards,
MG

No one is arguing that Joseph Smith plagiarized word groups. That doesn't even make any sense.

See the page before for a discussion of the misuse of the term "plagiarism." And then stop using it yourself.

I suspect Darth didn't have much to say about your two "questions" because they don't really have anything to do with the discussion here. In fact, the alleged "short translation time window" is whole 'nother can of worms, as I would think you would know.

Kish has given you a quick summary of how issues of literary influence don't have to "dovetail" with official translation accounts. As he points out, things are not as black and white as your questions try to make them. If you really have serious and sincere interest in how examining The Late War may enlarge understanding of the discursive environment of the production of the Book of Mormon, then you need to read, or re-read, the latter half of this thread.

The literary influences are many and obvious. Good grief, the greenest undergrad English major could argue it effectively. It's no more difficult than seeing influences on, say, the fiction of J. R. R. Tolkien.

[_mentalgymnast]

But, the fact that it came out the way it came out is the way it is, and apologists are seeking to discredit the claim for that reason. I thought it was telling that Grant Hardy did not dismiss the possibility out of hand. It seems that he is smart enough to know why this is not a problem.

Hi Kishkumen,

I don't have any inherent issue with Joseph Smith using similar language/word phrases found in The Late War. Much of what we find in the Book of Mormon can find 19th century corollaries. But I think we have to take into account the witness accounts of the translation process. If the two can go together, I'm totally cool with that. I'm a fan of Grant Hardy. I've read his book, "Understanding the Book of Mormon". That book is a major player in the way I look at the Book of Mormon today. Would you be kind enough to link me to anything he's had to say in regards to this topic?

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

Hi Kishkumen,

I don't have any inherent issue with Joseph Smith using similar language/word phrases found in The Late War. Much of what we find in the Book of Mormon can find 19th century corollaries. But I think we have to take into account the witness accounts of the translation process. If the two can go together, I'm totally cool with that. I'm a fan of Grant Hardy. I've read his book, "Understanding the Book of Mormon". That book is a major player in the way I look at the Book of Mormon today. Would you be kind enough to link me to anything he's had to say in regards to this topic?

Regards,
MG

Here you go, MG-

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/10/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-late-war-direct-literary-dependence/#comment-1106177151

[Guest]

One thing that came up in the comments at Faith Promoting Rumor has me very intrigued:

On the other hand, this is not to say that the figure of Moroni may not have been inspired by elements within the LW itself. There is one figure among the LW war heroes that stands out in relation to his attitude towards war glory, ie. commander Macdonough, in that he is described as "a good man, neither was he full of boasting and Vainglory: he arrogated to himself no praise on account of his success, but ascribed the victory to the pleasure of the Almighty" (p. 174-175). In addition, this same commander is said to have followed the golden rule and treated prisoners with mercy, just as Moroni: "And as it is written, in the word of the Lord, DO UNTO ALL MEN AS YE WOULD THEY SHOULD DO UNTO YOU, So he took care of the prisoners, and employed skilful physicians to bind up the wounds of the maimed." Finally, he was given a piece of land for his inheritance to honor him: "the great Sanhedrim honored him; and a piece of land, which overlooketh the lake, was given unto him, for an inheritance; That, in his old age, and when he was well stricken in years, he might remember with joy the strength of his youth, and smile upon the spot, where fleet to fleet, he triumphed over the enemies of freedom; And where his children's children might point, and say, It was there the guardian angel of Columbia permitted our father to humble the pride of Britain." This is interesting because in Alma 62:42 there is mention of the fact that when Moroni had established peace and fortified the land, "he returned to the city of Zarahemla; and also Helaman returned to the place of his inheritance." In v 43 it says that Moroni "retired to his own house that he might spend the remainder of his days in peace."

Now, if we are looking for a reason why Joseph Smith might have taken special interest in a person like McDonough (assuming Moroni is a McDonough-like figure) and the LW as a book, I think the history of McDonough may provide some insight.

McDonough was renowned for his naval feats in the Great Lakes region. Furthermore, as his Wikipedia entry shows:

In the Fall of 1822 Macdonough toured western New York State visiting Niagara Falls and then battling the rapids sailed down the St. Lawrence River to Quebec in a batteaux.

See Rodney McDonough's Life of Commodore Thomas MacDonough, U. S. Navy, p. 32, which quotes McDonough's own brief account of the trip. Unfortunately, it is so brief that one gets little more detail than the Wikipedia entry provides.

The LW, as quoted above, also mentions that McDonough was given a grant of land overlooking Lake Champlain.

[_Runtu]

Here you go, MG-

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/10/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-late-war-direct-literary-dependence/#comment-1106177151

Thanks, Kish. That really is a great piece.

[_mentalgymnast]

Here you go, MG-

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/10/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-late-war-direct-literary-dependence/#comment-1106177151

Thanks, Kish. That really is a great piece.

Yep, thanks.

MG

[_Uncle Ed]

Yes, I remember saying I'm an atheist during our discussion where you admitted you like to have sex with goats.

All you're doing is saying Joseph Smith was delusional instead of a fraud. That has nothing to do with the objective truth value of his claim to be reading the words of a Nephite record as he saw them on a magic rock.

I said "I gather", not "you said you were an atheist". So your love of making mockery by resorting to specious analogy continues to misfire.

So "delusional" is the OTHER option to "fraud". How are these not the words of an atheist? Okay, agnostic, you possibly (note the qualifier carefully, I never said you were an agnostic either, I don't know, I "gather" you are one or the other because of your evident disdain for religion - note the use of the qualifier "evident", I am not saying that you have said you disdain all religion either) do not profess a disbelief in God or gods, but sit on the safe position of "nobody can know", or possibly "God" exists but we have no evidence that "God" is concerned in the least with mankind, ergo no such thing as "revelation" is real, it therefore must be asserted only from the position of "fraud" or "delusional".

People who actually believe that "God" is in continual communication with our species might give consideration to the third choice: that Darth J doesn't know squat about what he's talking about either, and there really are people receiving inspiration from the Direct Source of our own existence. Joseph Smith has works resulting from his religion making that amount to volumes. Darth J has, what exactly, to show for his negative, dismissive, certitude?...

[_Uncle Ed]

You say "fraud", or might even allow "pious fraud", but you will not allow the possibility that Joseph Smith actually believed in himself as a prophet. That would allow him to do things and say things that are offensive to the world but not to those who believe. That would allow Joseph Smith to be obedient to a higher authority that I gather you do not even believe exists....

You seem to be saying that you believe Joseph was a fraud, but he himself didn't realise he was a fraud.
Is that what you're saying, is that your actual position on Joseph Smith?

Nope. I have continually allowed Joseph Smith to believe in himself. It fits better with the evidence that is so "sacred" to empiricists, wedded to their five senses alone. Joseph Smith probably lived as much or more in the metaphysical "realm" as the empirical (an idea I first saw expressed in print in "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins"). Such a person easily moves between both "realms" but possibly/probably has actual difficulty keeping them distinct, or does not even try. Darth J et al. empiricists call this "delusional", but that's because they don't even acknowledge the Existence of the metaphysical. I have had direct experience of the metaphysical, I would most likely not be alive today without that experience. But then, I always did believe in a whole lot more going on than the empirical world of humans. Joseph Smith obviously did too. But just as obviously to a pov that is founded in empiricism, Joseph Smith was a "fraud" or "delusional"....