Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kyle Reese]

Some people have amazing recall.

I have a brother who did crappy in school. But he's a whiz at trivia.

People tend to have amazing recall abilities when it's something they are passionate about.

[_DarkHelmet]

That said, it's still a terrible match for the civilizations the Book of Mormon describes. Italy works much better.

Italy is covered with Christians churches from sea east to sea west, just like in the Book of Mormon. It's perfect.

[_Tom]

Apologies if Skousen's paper on "archaic" vocabulary in the Book of Mormon has been discussed in connection with Hunt's book:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

"Cast" appears in Hunt's book.

[_Kishkumen]

Now, I have not had a chance to read through this thread so this may have been discussed and discounted...but, everyone seems to assume that it had to be Joseph Smith who'd read these books and then wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. Couldn't it be that Sidney Rigdon read them or owned them? Or, Oliver Cowdery (who was a school teacher)?

I know Chris Johnson has shown some evidence of similarity between the Book of Mormon and other writings of Joseph Smith (Book Of Abraham, D&C, etc.)....but do we know for certainty that Joseph Smith didn't have help with those too? I don't believe he wrote all of the revelations that were attributed to him and I think (If I recall correctly), Sidney Rigdon wrote at least some of them, didn't he?

These may be really stupid thoughts and questions....but I am just wondering about them.

Greetings, Madison. It is possible that someone else wrote the Book of Mormon. The problem is, of course, that the consensus position among LDS scholars on the most obvious candidate for an alternative author, Solomon Spalding, is to treat the possibility as a joke. Uncle Dale has fought this uphill battle for many years now, with little success. The historical and textual cases are rather weak, in my view. They are somewhat better than I had assumed. But, so much of the historical case rests on the plausibility of Sidney Rigdon's proposed activities on a certain date when he was supposedly in "X" location, etc., etc., that I can't take that line of attack seriously. Some of the witness of family members is more interesting, but interesting examples are sometimes late and may be conditioned by the passing of time.

The Spalding text we do have just doesn't read like the Book of Mormon in the way Hunt does. It has the wrong style and feel to it. I would say that it is a generic cousin, but not so much a stylistic one. At least a more distant one.

When presenting a scholarly argument, it is best to approach it strategically. When the argument opens with something that reads like a conspiracy theory, you will lose most of your credibility and your audience quickly. One approaches the issue where it stands and then tries to shift perceptions gradually. If a much better historical case could be made for another author, then the time would be ripe to start to make such a case. The bulk of the evidence points to Joseph Smith's authorship of the Book of Mormon. Until someone can offer truly compelling evidence to the contrary, that is where the historical and literary question will remain on that particular issue.

That said, I love conspiracy theories, as you know, and I always keep my nose or ear to the ground for that next piece of evidence that suggests an alternate theory of authorship is perhaps plausible.

[_Craig Paxton]

Well, I'll admit to salivating. But about what? The prospect of debunking Mormonism? No.

I am salivating about seeing something that helps me understand Mormon origins, and the Book of Mormon's origins especially, much better.

What's not to salivate about?

I think it is instead a little strange not to be salivating about this.

That's about how I feel about this, too. As I said, "Late War" has already answered some questions I've pondered for years: Why send Harris to "learned men" and why was he still enthusiastic after not getting any validation? Why mimic KJV language? Why spend so much time on descriptions of battles?

So, yes, I suppose I'm salivating over finally putting the Book of Mormon into better context in time and place. Who cares about debunking Mormonism? I think neither of us would be where we are if we didn't feel we'd debunked it to our satisfaction.

Salivating No…Intrigued Yes

I had my first ah ha moment in this thread when John connected the dots that Joseph Smith sought the same kind of endorsement for his Book of Mormon from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill that Gilbert J. Hunt had received for Late War.

I think that it is also important to remember that one of Smith's initial reasons in writing the Book of Mormon was as a financial venture. Remember he tried to sell the copyright. Could part of his seeking Mitchill’s endorsement been a desire of getting the Book of Mormon placed in the New York school system just as Hunt’s book had been? Whatever the motivation, Mitchill's endorsement certainly was an important part of the roadmap, provided by Hunt's book, that Smith was following. So important to Smith's plan was having some kind of third party endorsement that only after Smith failed to receive an endorsement from Mitchill did Smith move forward with "Plan B"...the 3 and 8 witnesses.

[_Maxrep]

Forgive me for not remembering the poster, but earlier in these 25 pages someone questioned the purpose of the style of the Book of Mormon.

Supposedly Nephite prophets saw our day. I am guessing God saw our day as well. "Our Day" comprises approximately 7 billion people. All of them could have the chance at some point during their life to be exposed to the Book of Mormon.

With such a large audience, and considering the importance of this second testament, why was the actual writing/translation method of the book allowed to result in what we have today? Joseph's overbearing use of KJV language becomes tiresome, and his "up wording" and repetitive filler sentences insult the reader. The amount of time the book gives to battle and battle stratagem makes no sense at all, especially considering the role of the text as another testament of Christ. Even the outcome of these wars, at times, are not the least bit plausible. How does the reader accept that with two "million man" armies, all warriors eventually fall leaving only the opposing generals to square off in a final grudge match?

A tight translation would have resulted in a book God and the Nephite prophets had prepared for future generations. The loose translation theory apologists advance, leave us with Joseph's immature attempt to force a literary style he cannot reproduce effectively.

In the end, the only people who will read the book are those who find themselves Mormon by birth. The book is a literary non starter. You can't expect to share the story of the restoration with a such a botched delivery system.

[_Mary]

Does anyone have a list (I think Chap mentioned that writing in a psuedo biblical style was a common occurrence in the 19th C) of pre- 1820 books written in the biblical style?

(Apologies if this has already been covered. I'm googling and come up empty handed.)

Edited to add: I appreciate that Nevo has already given a list of 'some' books, but is the list definitive?

[_Flaming Meaux]

In the end, the only people who will read the book are those who find themselves Mormon by birth.

...and not even many of them. This is the reason why even Mormons have to be consistently guilted into or challenged to read the Book of Mormon, with the illusory promise that their lives will somehow be miraculously influenced by doing so. The text and story just aren't compelling enough in themselves to motivate many TBMs to get through the book once, let alone get through the book multiple times...

[_Runtu]

...and not even many of them. This is the reason why even Mormons have to be consistently guilted into or challenged to read the Book of Mormon, with the illusory promise that their lives will somehow be miraculously influenced by doing so. The text and story just aren't compelling enough in themselves to motivate many TBMs to get through the book once, let alone get through the book multiple times...

According to the Hunt book's preface, using the KJV style is supposed to make it simple and beautiful, but in my opinion, it's that style choice that makes the text clunky and less interesting. I would say the same thing about Joseph Smith's writings.

[_Ten Bear]

In the end, the only people who will read the book are those who find themselves Mormon by birth.

...and not even many of them. This is the reason why even Mormons have to be consistently guilted into or challenged to read the Book of Mormon, with the illusory promise that their lives will somehow be miraculously influenced by doing so. The text and story just aren't compelling enough in themselves to motivate many TBMs to get through the book once, let alone get through the book multiple times...

The same can be said about the Book of Mormon as has been said about the Bible for the LDS folk. It's like a software agreement. No one really reads it, they just scroll to the end and click "I agree".