Book of Mormon
Contents for this section
- 1769 KJV Edition Errors
- KJV Italics
- Joseph Smith Translation
- Native American DNA
- Anachronisms
- Archaeology
- Geography
- View of the Hebrews
- The Late War
- The First Book of Napoleon
- The Trinity
“…the Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.”– PRESIDENT EZRA T. BENSON, THE BOOK OF MORMON – KEYSTONE OF OUR RELIGION“…everything in the Church – everything – rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth…It sounds like a ‘sudden death’ proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.”– ELDER JEFFREY R. HOLLAND, “TRUE OR FALSE”, NEW ERA, JUNE 1995
In order to answer this question, we first have to research the claim. For that, we will break it down into three smaller questions: What edition of the Bible did Joseph Smith own? What are the errors unique to that edition? And is it true that they appear in the Book of Mormon?1. What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?
Unfortunately, we come into a roadblock almost immediately. Jeremy's link doesn't help us here, so I'll come back to that. Not only do we not know which edition of the Bible Joseph Smith owned in 1829, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith even owned a Bible at all during the time he was translating the Book of Mormon. And actually, after the Book of Mormon translation was completed, Oliver Cowdery bought Joseph Smith an 1828 Phinney edition of the King James Bible. This implies that Joseph did not have a Bible before this time.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and until they answer that question, they have failed to do so, and we can move on. But since this is a topic that interests me, I'll keep typing. (A lot of the effort in my reply is finding the source for claims that Jeremy makes.)
I think it is worthwhile to first give a history lesson on the King James Version of the Bible. The original King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611. Spelling conventions were different back then, for example, John 3:16 was written:
Most noticeable is the long-s (ſ) and the v and u characters followed different rules. This verse also uses the y in place of a thorn (þ) which was a letter that made the th sound, but was later dropped from the alphabet. The Bible was also originally printed in Blackletter (Gothic) typeface, but was soon switched for the easier-to read roman typeface.For God ſo loued yͤ world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whoſoeuer beleeueth in him, ſhould not periſh, but haue euerlaſting life.
The first printing of the Bible had errors in it, and those errors multiplied in other early printings. One famous example, a 1631 edition published by the royal printers accidentally left out the “not” in Exodus 20:14, making the commandment say, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
After that initial period, the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford each exercised their royal licenses for printing the Bible. Notably, Cambridge published revised editions in 1629 and 1638 that corrected many of these errors.
In the next hundred years, English spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation and typography had changed, and although many of these changes were made to Bibles in that time, there was a desire for a standardized text. By 1760, Francis Sawyer Parris made revisions to the text, italics, marginal notes, headings, and cross-references in the Cambridge edition. Benjamin Blayney did similar work for the 1769 Oxford edition, and that is the one that became the “standard text” that everyone followed.
Since that time, Cambridge and Oxford have each made other changes, but these changes were relatively minor. For example, when the 2013 Latter-day Saint edition of the Bible was printed, they published a list of changes, reflecting the spellings in more recent editions of the King James Bible since the previous 1979 edition. Inside Britain, only these two Universities have permission to print the King James Version of the Bible besides the King or Queen’s Printer. In the United States, there was no such restriction, and the King James Bible was printed by various publishers. Notably the American Bible Society attempted to standardize their text in 1851, but there was a backlash as revisions were seen as unnecessary tampering.
So if Jeremy is talking about unique edition errors, perhaps he is working backwards, like, maybe the Book of Mormon text more closely matches one edition of the King James Bible over another. Which edition is that? That one is harder to answer, and it is only recently that we are able to answer that. Royal Skousen has spent decades researching the text of the Book of Mormon, and by comparing the Bible quotations he demonstrates that the lack of archaic word forms and alternative syntactic forms show evidence that it was was after 1660. In Matthew 6:7, "use not vain repetition as the heathen do" the last word became italicized after 1760, and given that the Book of Mormon often lacked italicized words, and 3 Nephi 13:7 in the Book of Mormon lacks the "do" then that would suggest that it may have been after 1760.
However, he was not able to determine a more specific edition than that, and so if we don't know what edition we are talking about, then we cannot talk about "unique" edition errors.
Jeremy originally linked to a Wikipedia article, but the article was only talking about translation errors which have always been part of the King James Bible, and doesn't mention unique edition errors. Perhaps Jeremy saw the reference to the 1769 King James Bible and thought it was talking about the specific edition that Joseph Smith owned, not realizing that was just when the KJV was largely standardized.
He has more recently updated the link to point at a different page on his website where Jeremy still only speaks about Bible translation errors, so it seems that is what he means. One thing that helps is pointing out what he thinks the translation error is, since the original Wikipedia article did not.
In my response, I will typically only respond to complaints in the CES Letter itself, rather than complaints found in links from the CES Letter. However, I'll make an exception here (and in some other places) since we really need this information to really understand the complaint. I will first review the five originally listed on the Wikipedia page, starting with Isaiah 6:2.
This is a complaint about the "double plural" seraphims. In Hebrew, the suffix -im makes a word plural, but in English, you use -s. This is not a translation error, but a word choice combining the Hebrew word with the English pluralization. While it isn't common, it is something that happens in English sometimes, like with agendas, operas, or paninis. (Original singulars are agendum, opus, and panino.) But this particular plural word choice didn't stick in English, and so more modern translations follow the Hebrew plural and use seraphim, though some use seraphs. In the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon, they updated it to say seraphim.Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Next is Isaiah 9:1
Here is the same verse in the New American Standard Bible, which also like the KJV, tries for a more literal translation approach:Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish. In earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He will make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
The complaint is the difference between "grievously afflict" and "make it glorious" or as Jeremy suggests, "honor" as a more literal translation. The KJV parallels "lightly afflicted" in earlier times with "grievously afflicted" afterwards. The NASB instead swaps it so that earlier times was "with contempt" and later made "glorious". This seems to be how Bible commentators prefer it, as it fits better with the rest of the chapter as a Messianic prophecy.
How did the KJV make the mistake? Looking at the Hebrew words, the most common definitions are light and heavy. However, there is another meaning for lightly esteemed and to be weighed down with honor. The translator has to decide which meaning to use, the KJV translators chose what is perhaps a more literal translation, but it seems modern translations use the surrounding context to interpret the sentence differently. (We'll look at this verse again when we get to the next item on KJV italics.)
Next is Isaiah 11:3
And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
This time I'll compare with the New Revised Standard Version, since the KJV text is closer to the NRSV:
This time, we are looking at "quick understanding" verses "delight". The Hebrew root is "to smell" and that is how it is translated everywhere else in the Bible. Looking at Bible commentaries, they point that out, saying a more literal translation would be "shall make him of quick smell" or "his scent shall be in the fear of the Lord." It's clearly an idiomatic expression, and though it would fit well with the rest of the verses references to sight and hearing, it wouldn't make much sense in English. Other translations interpreted it mean "to take delight in smelling" and so simply used "delight," but it's not like that's the only interpretation.His delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear;
Finally, we have Isaiah 13:21-22
The criticism on these verses is on the mythological animals listed here. The Hebrew word for a male goat could also refer to a kind of demon in Hebrew mythology. So some translators equated it with the satyrs of Greek mythology. No, it obviously isn't literally a satyr, but translation is about word choices to convey meaning, and it is understandable why someone would pick that word.21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
The wild beasts in the next verse is literally wailers or howlers and is typically identified as jackals, wolves, or hyenas. The Hebrew word for dragon can mean dragon, serpent, or whale. Bible Commentaries suggest that in related word forms it can mean "jackal" and that that would be a better word to use than a mythological creature. So again, it is another word choice, not an error.
And actually there was one more, Isaiah 7:14, which didn't make it into Jeremy's updated page.
This time Wikipedia explains the argument, that some people argue that the word "virgin" should be translated as "young woman" but they also note that the Septuigint does use the word for virgin. Most modern translations continue to use "virgin" here. So again, it's not that the translation is wrong, it's just that there is some debate on it.Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Jeremy's new source on his own page adds eight others, starting with Isaiah 2:9:
And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.
However, this is an example where the Book of Mormon does not quote the King James Bible word-for-word, instead saying that he "humbleth himself not". Jeremy's comment is that the correct KJV translation should be boweth "not down" but this does not represent a correct KJV translation. This is what Joseph Smith added in the 1837 of the Book of Mormon, probably to parallel the other line that was different. Royal Skousen suggests in his analysis of textual variants that Oliver Cowdery may have accidentally added not to the printer's manuscript when copying from the original, and that it originally matched the KJV.
Next, Isaiah 2:16
And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
This also is an example where the Book of Mormon does not quote the King James Bible, instead adding at the beginning the phrase "all the ships of the sea" which quite famously appears in the Septuagint.
The complaint is at the end, which has the word "pictures" and Jeremy says the correct translation should be "image, ships, craft"—image is a synonym to picture, so I'm not sure the complaint (though it should be plural). The word translated pictures only appears the once in the Bible, so it's actual meaning is unknown, but they believe it to be related to the verb "to see" and that is why KJV and several literal translations chose the word "pictures" here.
The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,
This uses the word prudent instead of soothsayer. But what does prudent mean? Originally, it carried a literal meaning of forseeing, which is what a soothsayer does. Other modern translations use diviner or fortune-teller. This is also not a translation error, it is just an archaic synonym.
The next verse, Isaiah 3:3
The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.
So here, Jeremy says orator is incorrect and it should be enchanter. The word in Hebrew means "a whispering" or "a charming" and is used in ways from whispering a prayer to an incantation, and so perhaps that's why KJV translators chose orator in this place.
And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
This one, Jeremy says fenced it should be dug it up. This is what most other modern translations use. However, this is a word that only appears once in the Bible. I can't find any real discussion on the translation, but I do notice that the Literal Standard Version still uses fenced, so perhaps it is not a mistake.
And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth.
Here, Jeremy says standardbearer should be sick man. It appears that the Hebrew word suggests being raised high, and the Literal Standard Version uses standard-bearer. Commentaries say it is more correct to say a sick man, and that is why other modern translations use that, but I cannot find why it is believed to be more correct.
And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.
For this one, Jeremy highlighted Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the, and said it should be Israel might be gathered unto. Looking at commentaries, this seems to be a complaint about the not, using context to say that they believe it was a transcription error. However, the Hebrew does include the not, so it is not a translation error.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
While this is not said to be a quotation, Jesus says something similar to the Nephites in 3 Nephi 10:5, so I suppose Jeremy is supposing that Jesus would have used the Nephite term equivalent to the Greek word translated as chickens, and say that is incorrect, and should instead be chicks. As it turns out, when the KJV was written, chickens meant "the young of domestic fowl" so they were synonyms.
So, with all that out of the way, it appears that most of the "mistakes" are more like specific translation decisions that modern translators don't make. So that reduces the original question to be something more like, "Why did the Book of Mormon (a purported ancient text) make the same translation decisions as the King James Bible?"
The Bible is also an ancient text—consider, if you had two ancient texts, both with identical writing, then what is wrong with rendering the translations the same? Clearly, the ancientness of the text has nothing to do with it, but rather the translation methodology. The difference is that the King James translators used traditional methods of translation: scholarly study and comparing existing translations and stuff like that, whereas Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon as it was revealed to him by the gift and power of God. More on that later when we come to that section, but that should be good enough for now.
Even if these are translation errors, and however imperfect you consider the King James translation to be—it certainly isn't beyond the power of an omnipotent God to quote it. It seems that is the real complaint, stemming from the idea that God wouldn't make mistakes. But if Jesus can quote the Septuagint in the Old Testament, I don't see why God can't quote the KJV to Joseph Smith.
While there is no definitive answer as to why the base text of the quotations is the King James Version, Personally, for me, I find it far more convenient to compare the Bible quotations in the Book of Mormon with the Bible because they used the same translation. Any difference between the two, I can attribute to either a difference in what was originally written, or because of a difference in translation methodology. But if translation methodologies were completely different, how would I know what differences were in the original text?
2. When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they're italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?
This question could have been solved by just a little more research into what the italicized words mean. I find this article on the history of italics in the Bible to be helpful. The idea isn't unique to the KJV, nor did it originate there. For example, the Geneva Bible (1560) included this explanation:
The original 1611 King James Version was printed in blackletter type, and used roman type for supplied words, which was common for earlier translations, but in a 1612 printing, they switched to roman type and used italics for inserted words. Later editions extended and improved the accuracy of the use of italics. In 1769 when the Bible was standardized, Benjamin Blayney made more corrections and italicized many more words.Moreouer whereas the necessitie of the sentence required any thing to be added (for suche is the grace and proprietie of the Ebrewe and Greke tongues, that it can not but ether by circumlocution, or by adding the verbe or some worde be vnderstand of them that they are not wel practised therein) we haue put it in the text with another kynde of lettre, that it may easely be discerned from the common lettre.
Italics are used for a variety of purposes, not only to add implied words, but also to represent interpolations of the text and to express uncertainty. Italics were also not always used consistently.
Modern translations generally do not use italics. But that doesn't mean that the added words aren't there. The Revised Standard Version abandoned the practice, saying that words inserted to complete or clarify meaning were "an essential part of the translation."
The article also observes that most of the KJV italics are worthless, and that "a slight rewording of many passages would obviate the need for some added words. In other cases the supposed supplied words are an essential part of the translation implied in the original."
The next problem is with the claim that the italicized words in the Bible are also in the Book of Mormon, word-for-word. That is incorrect. Royal Skousen counted 163 of the 425 italicized cases in the Book of Momron as changed, or 38.4%.
I did my own count before I had seen Skousen's analysis, I just counted Isaiah, but I counted differently, since I did individual words, but I counted that 65% of the Isaiah italics remained in the Book of Mormon. To give myself something to compare that to, I saw that 50% of the KJV italics remained in the NASB, and 43% remained in the NRSV.
Many of these cases were edited in later editions of the Book of Mormon, so that the removed italics were added back in, because English requires these words in order to make sense.
Now that we understand a bit more, then the question becomes is easily answered. "What are these 17th and 18th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?" for the same reason that they were added to the Bible: they should be considered an essential part of the translation.
"What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?" Again, the Bible is an ancient record, and the fact that it has added words doesn't say anything about it being an ancient record, so there is no reason for one to expect that it says anything about the Book of Mormon. For verses that match, the original text would have been the same, and therefore, you would expect that an identical translation methodology would produce the same translation.
ISAIAH 9:1 (KJV)
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 NEPHI 19:1
Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.
The above example, 2 Nephi 19:1, dated in the Book of Mormon to be around 550 BC, quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV – including the translators’ italicized words. Additionally, the Book of Mormon describes the sea as the Red Sea. The problem with this is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4:14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea, (b) “Red” sea is not found in any source manuscripts, and (c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away.I find it odd that Jeremy seems to be simultaneously criticizing the Book of Mormon for being the same, and for being different, but okay, let's take a look.
The formatting on this one can be confusing—he italicized everything in the quote, and then bolded the KJV italicized words that were also in the Book of Mormon, and then bolded the word Red, which is not in the Bible. However, he failed to note one other difference: in Isaiah, it says "grievously afflict her by the way" both her and by are italicized in the KJV, and the Book of Mormon drops the "her". So no, it doesn't copy all the italicized words.
And actually, what Jeremy quotes is not the 1611 translation, which instead was:
Neuertheleſſs the dimneſſe ſhall not be ſuch as was in her vexation; when at the firſt he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grieuouſsly afflict her by the way of the Sea, beyond Jordan in Galile of the nations.
The italics were different in the original edition—interestingly "her" is the only word marked as added, and that is the one word that the Book of Mormon didn't include. Not every Bible edition is available online, but shall, be, and was were italicized by the 1762 Dublin edition:
Nevertheleſs, yͤ dimneſs ſhall not be ſuch as was in her vexation, when at yͤ firſt he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievouſly afflict her by the way of the ſea, beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.
The final by was italicized in the Oxford 1769 edition.
Nevertheleſs the dimneſs ſhall not be ſuch as was in her vexation, when at the firſt he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievouſly afflict her by the way of the ſea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
Hopefully this also helps for the confusion in the previous bullet about edition differences in addition to the inaccuracy in this bullet of referencing the 1611 King James Bible.
Continuing on, the original Book of Mormon manuscript is not extant here, and John A. Tvedtnes argued that adding "Red" here was caused by a scribal error, due to prior mentions of the Red Sea in the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen quoted him in his Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (pg 731), but instead suggested that the entire phrase, "by way of the Red Sea" would be what caused the error, which is found four times in the King James Bible, Numbers 14:25, Numbers 21:4, Deuteronomy 1:40, and Deuteronomy 2:1.
Some have argued that Red Sea is actually correct, but I'm fine with saying that it is an error. And that's okay. The Book of Mormon was written by people, and people are imperfect. The title page of the Book of Mormon says, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."It appears that familiarity with this specific phrase led to replacing sea with Red Sea in 2 Nephi 19:1. This proposal implies that the intrusive red (actually /sūf/ 'reed' in the original Hebrew) may have originally been on the plates of brass or that Nephi himself added the word as he copied the Isaiah text from the plates of brass onto his small plates. Further, there is no evidence within the Book of Mormon manuscripts themselves that any of the scribes ever added red to the word sea (out of 82 occurrences), even as an initial error that was immediately corrected. This evidence suggests that the intrusive red in 2 Nephi 19:1, even though it may be a mistake, is part of the original Book of Mormon text. Thus the critical text will maintain the earliest textual reading, "by the way of the Red Sea.".
MALACHI 3:10 (KJV)
…and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
3 NEPHI 24:10
…and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
In the above example, the KJV translators added 7 italicized words to their English translation, which are not found in the source Hebrew manuscripts. Why does the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to have been completed by Moroni over 1,400 years prior, contain the exact identical seven italicized words of 17th century translators?I have already explained that italicized words are part of the translation—you can't just leave them out. The verse Jeremy chose here illustrates that concept perfectly, leaving them out, you would be left with "and pour you out a blessing that not enough" and that doesn't make any sense. You can look at the verse on Bible Hub, and see the original Hebrew, and what a literal translation would look like.
| Hebrew | Literal Translation | King James Translation |
|---|---|---|
| וַהֲרִיקֹתִ֥י - vaharikoti | and make empty, and pour out | and pour … out |
| לָכֶ֛ם - lachem | for you | you |
| בְּרָכָ֖ה - berachah | a blessing | a blessing |
| עַד־ - ad- | as far as, even to, up to, until, while | that |
| בְּלִי־ - beli- | (adverb of negation) | there shall not |
| דָֽי׃ - dai | Sufficiency, enough | be room enough to receive it |
A literal translation would be, "...and pour out for you a blessing until not enough." You can see that the King James Bible follows a mostly literal translation style. However, since until not enough doesn't make any sense in English, any translation will have to change it. Some are like the King James Bible and add words so that they can keep the "not enough" while others change the words themselves so they make sense.
| Translation | Text |
|---|---|
| My Literal | and pour out for you a blessing until not enough |
| KJV | and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it |
| Douay-Rheims | and pour you out a blessing even to abundance |
| Young's Literal | Yea, I have emptied on you a blessing till there is no space |
| NASB | and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows |
| NIV | and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it |
| NRSV | and pour down for you an overflowing blessing |
| ESV | and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need |
When translating, you often have to make choices on how it will make sense. I wouldn't say that any of these are wrong—you can tell that they are all saying the same thing, just using different words.
If translation choices interest you, I recommend an episode of Radiolab, 100 Flowers where they talk about different approaches towards translating a French poem, and how different people emphasize different things.
Jeremy never said what he thought should have happened instead. Clearly, you can't just remove the italicized words. When I talked with someone defending the CES Letter, they explained what they thought the problem was—it's like Jeremy was really asking, "Why would Moroni happen to write the words the King James Translators would use over a thousand years later?" The answer is incredibly simple: Mormon didn't write in English. Moroni said that they wrote "in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech." Moroni would have written the reformed Egyptian equivalent of the original Hebrew, and would not have added in what would become the italicized words, which are not necessary in Hebrew. The English text didn't exist until 1829 when Joseph Smith translated it, and the extra words to make sense in English would have been supplied only then.
Of course, Jeremy is really trying to argue that Joseph just pulled out a Bible and copied it. However, Latter-day Saints haven't really have a problem with that idea—for a long time that is what apparently a lot of members believed. In 1903, an investigator H. Chamberlain wrote a letter to Joseph F. Smith asking the same question Jeremy Runnells did, how come the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible including the italics. Assistant Church Historian B. H. Roberts wrote a reply, published in the January 1904 Improvement Era. As part of his lengthy response, he proposed a theory:
When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he too[k the] English Bible and compared those passages as far as they paralelled each other, and finding that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you refer.
He also noted that there were many differences that H. Chamberlain apparently did not notice, particularly in the italics. Referencing the argument he made in that year's Young Men's manual, Joseph needed to study it out in his mind, and this would have been part of that process.
Even today, that would align with the traditional interpretation of D&C 9. Oliver Cowdery was given an opportunity to translate the Book of Mormon, but he failed. The Lord replied:
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
This has been interpreted to mean that this is how the process of translation went—that Joseph Smith needed to "study it out" in his mind, and ask if it be right. And hence the suggestion that when Joseph came to the Isaiah quotations, Joseph used a Bible in his studying, and that he prayed about it, and if he felt that it was right, then he copied it verbatim.
B. H. Roberts wasn't the only one to say Joseph copied the Bible. For example in a 1939 Improvement Era article, Dr. Sidney B. Sperry wrote they "freely admit that Joseph Smith used the King James version when he came to the text of Isaiah on the gold plates." Another example comes from a September 1977 Ensign article, "By the Gift and Power of God" where Richard Lloyd Anderson writes:
In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording.
However, this interpretation has its flaws. As I stated before, it seems likely that Joseph Smith didn't even own a Bible during the translation. In addition, Joseph translated in plain view of others, and they reported that he didn't use books or notes. Instead, they explain that he placed a seer stone in a hat to block outside light, and he would put his face into the hat and see the translation from a glow within the seer stone, and dictated the Book of Mormon.
Royal Skousen showed that textual evidence from the original manuscript shows that Joseph Smith dictated the text, that Oliver was not copying from a Bible, that the types of scribal errors in the original manuscript are the kind made from mishearing a word, not misreading. He also argued that the internal consistency in the Book of Mormon is evidence against this "Joseph Smith received ideas and put it into his own words" theory.
Instead, D&C 9 might better be interpreted to mean Oliver was supposed to pray about whether he should translate rather than the specific translation itself. The confirmation from the Spirit would provide the faith he needed in order to continue. This is the argument made by Stan Spencer in a 2016 Interpreter Foundation article, "The Faith to See: Burning in the Bosom and Translating the Book of Mormon in Doctrine and Covenants 9".
That brings us back to that the Book of Mormon translation was revealed to Joseph Smith. Perhaps Joseph Smith memorized the Bible, but I would say that God is certainly capable of quoting the Bible.
Jesus quoted the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the scriptures they used at the time. Modern translations prefer using the Hebrew, but Christians around the world don't find anything wrong with Jesus quoting what some regard as an inferior translation.
3. The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. These Book of Mormon verses should match the inspired JST version instead of the incorrect KJV version that Joseph later fixed.Royal Skousen has shown that there is actually evidence that Joseph Smith used a Book of Mormon for at least part of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). The original 1830 Book of Mormon had errors in it, and these were copied into the JST. So I would say that the differences between the Book of Mormon and Joseph's new translation of the Bible are either accidental, or intentional. Accidental differences because Joseph didn't know that there were copying errors in the Book of Mormon, and intentional differences because what was originally written in the Book of Mormon was different than what was originally written in the Bible.
A typical example of the differences between the BOM, the KJV, and the JST:
25: …Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26: Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27: Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
(From the King James Version Bible – not the JST)
25: Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26: Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27: Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
(Joseph Smith Translation of the same passages in the LDS Bible)
25: And, again, I say unto you, Go ye into the world, and care not for the world: for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.
26: Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.
27: And your heavenly Father will provide for you, whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.
Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are identical. But Joseph Smith later corrected the Bible. In doing so, he also contradicted the same identical Sermon on the Mount passage in the Book of Mormon.
Verses 25 through 27 were all added in Joseph Smiths new translation of the Bible. The verses were renumbered, and so if Jeremy is trying to compare identical sections, he should continue on into Matthew 6:28-31.
28 Therefore, I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your bodies, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
29 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not; neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? How much more will he not feed you?
30 Wherefore, take no thought for these things, but keep my commandments wherewith I have commanded you.
31 For which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
I have italicized the part that was added. The Book of Mormon also has an added part, the first part of verse 25 that was cut out with the ellipses: "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people."
There are many differences between the Book of Mormon and Bible sermon on the mount. Many of the differences are because Jesus is speaking to two different groups of people, and other differences are because Jesus Christ's sermon to the Nephites was given after the resurrection.
The Joseph Smith translation differences either represent that Jesus actually said different things, or that Joseph Smith is providing an inspired clarification. The CES Letter calls it a contradiction, but that would only be true if Latter-day Saints claimed that the Book of Mormon must be identical to the Bible, and that it must be translated the same. But on the contrary, they are different, and we shouldn't expect them to be the same.
The Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The Book of Mormon was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the Book of Mormon has the incorrect Sermon on the Mount passage and does not match the correct JST version in the first place?
Joseph's new translation of the Bible was translated earlier than most people realize, finishing in 2 July 1833 only four years after the Book of Mormon.
I've already talked about the Sermon on the Mount differences—one being different from the other doesn't mean one is incorrect. But here, let me show an example of what I mean.
| Bible - KJV | Bible - JST | Book of Mormon |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew 5:29-30 | Matthew 5:31-34 | 3 Nephi 12:29-30 |
| 29 Behold I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; | 29 Behold I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; | |
| for it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell | 30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell. | |
| 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. | 32 Therefore, if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. | |
| 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. | 33 Or if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. | |
| 34 And now this I speak, a parable concerning your sins; wherefore, cast them from you, that ye may not be hewn down and cast into the fire. |
Look at the Joseph Smith Translation. It includes both, and then adds a verse at the end noting that it is a parable that we are to cast our sins from us. So which is the correct sermon on the mount? The answer is all of them. Jesus probably actually said different things to the two different groups of people. I think that the Jews would have understood the meaning of Jesus's parable of removing hands and eyes, whereas the Nephites would not, and therefore Jesus changed His words, but He still provided the same message.
The Joseph Smith Translation added in the Book of Mormon verses as well as the explanation that it was a parable because removing eyes and hands doesn't make sense to us in our day, either, so Joseph, in his role as a prophet, wrote scripture to clarify that for us.
By studying all three, we can gain a greater understanding of the scriptures, and of how to apply the gospel in our lives.
I think it is appropriate here to talk about what the Joseph Smith Translation is. It is perhaps better called a revision since he was not actually translating—to translate means to render from one language into another. Here, he was wasn't using the original Greek or Hebrew, but used the King James Bible, and through revelation he made changes.
Joseph started with Genesis, then went to the New Testament, then finally went back to Exodus and did the rest of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Apocrypha. These changes fall into several categories: long revealed passages, particularly in Genesis, and many smaller changes that improve grammar, modernized language, corrected or clarified points of doctrine, or alleviated inconsistencies.
Because the Church never published Joseph's new translation of the Bible, it as a whole was never accepted into the canon of scripture. However, we do have the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Mathew in the Pearl of Great Price as part of scripture. And many parts of Joseph's revision appear in the footnotes of the Latter-day Saint edition of the Bible, and lesson manuals reference it. So although not canon, I think it's fair to say that we regard it highly.
I think we should also consider what it means for the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct book" which I think is best defined by Joseph's following statement, that we will "get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." In other words, it is the most doctrinally correct book.
4. DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia. Why did the Church change the following section of the introduction page in the 2006 edition Book of Mormon, shortly after the DNA results were released?
“…the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians”to“…the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians”
It sounds like Jeremy answered his own question. People thought that the principal meant the only and DNA evidence shows that cannot be the case, and so they changed it to among the so that people wouldn't make that mistake.
This change was first made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday in 2007. In a Deseret News article on the change, Andrew Corbin, a senior editor at Doubleday, said the change was specifically requested by the Church. According to Church spokesman Mark Tuttle, the change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known. The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the Church." This change appeared in the online Book of Mormon and then in the 2013 edition.
I am a descendant of William the Conqueror, and perhaps I might call him "my principal ancestor" because he's the most famous. However, if you compare my DNA with someone from Normandy, you probably wouldn't see any match. That's because he isn't my only ancestor, and if that's what you thought "principal" meant, it would be more appropriate to say he was "among" my ancestors. Each generation, you lose half your DNA from each of your ancestors. You only have 6 billion base-pairs, which sounds like lot, but losing half each generation means that any one individual's DNA is not likely to remain after many generations, especially given that most our DNA is already the same. The only reason an individual's DNA might survive over that many generations would be if they are the ancestor of several of your ancestors, or the gene contributes to your survival, or you got lucky.
In 2008, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute published a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon and DNA research and I especially like the 1967 quote from Hugh Nibley included in the introduction: "The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon 'scientifically' has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven."
Thinking that this is a problem reveals some of those assumptions—and if you question your assumptions, then you can see that that is where the real problem lies.
UPDATE: The Church conceded in its January 2014 Book of Mormon and DNA Studies essay that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA. The Church, through this essay, makes a major shift in narrative from its past dominant narrative and claims of the origins of the Native American Indians.
"Conceded" implies that they had argued otherwise, but I don't know that the Church claimed anything about Native American DNA. But yes—I would agree that it does represent the culmination of a gradual change from the "hemispheric" model to the "limited geography" model.
John L. Sorensen was a professor of anthropology at BYU, and had done archaeological work in Mesoamerica. He was a major proponent of the limited geography model for decades, specifically that the Book of Mormon takes place in Central America. In the Deseret News article I linked above, Sorensen said he believes the reason the change didn't come sooner was "simply 'the principle of inertia.' Such things are 'not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change.'"
5. Anachronisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC - 421 AD?
Unofficial apologists claim victories in some of these items but closer inspection reveals significant problems. It has been documented that apologists have manipulated wording so that steel is not steel, sheep become never-domesticated bighorn sheep, horses become tapirs, etc.
There are basically three ways to explain any anachronism in the Book of Mormon
1. It really did exist but we haven't found evidence for them yet.
This is the argument made by Tad R. Callister that the number of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon have gone down over time. We have explored a very tiny fraction of pre-Columbian American history, so there's a good chance that the rest of these will as well.
Matt Roper makes the same argument with specific items. He lists 205 specific things that critics of the Book of Mormon have called anachronistic. Over time, 141 have been confirmed to actually exist, and are not anachronistic. 26 more he labels as trending towards confirmation. That leaves just 38 that are still unconfirmed.
2. The Book of Mormon people used a familiar word to describe an unfamiliar animal, and the Book of Mormon translated the word literally.
This is the explanation that Jeremy complained about in the second paragraph. However, It is disingenuous to say "closer inspection reveals significant problems" since that is the surface-level argument they are making. Apologists haven't "manipulated wording"—that actually is the argument.
I recommend taking an even closer inspection, and you will find they are describing a practice called "loan shifting." It's not deceitful, it's a real thing that happens. For example, bison in America are often called "buffalo" even though that word properly refers to African buffalo or water buffalo, which cannot be found in the New World. Likewise, the pronghorn is often called an "antelope" even though antelope is a different animal, and not native in the Americas.
If someone two thousand years from now dug up a history that said there was a buffalo ranch on Antelope Island, they would accuse the book as being a forgery because of its anachronisms, not realizing that we gave the same name to different animals.
And it happens to very different animals too. The word "hippopotamus" is Greek for "river horse" even though you would never confuse the two animals from looking at them. And yes, when the Spanish arrived riding horses, the Aztecs called them "deer."
Latter-day Saint science fiction writer Orson Scott Card talked about how this is something that most science fiction writers often get wrong. He references the trope coined James Blish, who pointed out how silly it was that science fiction writers would produce a creature that looked and acted like a rabbit, but called it a "shmeerp."
There are exceptions in the Book of Mormon, but he noted that they are rare, and he suggested for those there was no close translation equivalent to use. He argued that although Joseph was writing about an exotic culture, the extreme lack of exotic names provide evidence that he was not writing a piece of fiction.
We science fiction writers have generations of experience to guide us, and we still can't get it right. The author of the Book of Mormon, if it's a hoax, managed to get it right -- even in cases where getting it right looks wrong to most people, who haven't thought it through. This is an important point. The natural tendency with storytellers who are trying to create an alien culture is to come up with all kinds of new words to show how strange this culture really is -- but the author of the Book of Mormon didn't follow this almost universal pattern. Instead, he did something so sophisticated that even those who do this sort of thing for a living still don't usually get it right.
3. The Book of Mormon translation is instead figurative, providing names of animals that we are familiar with, even though Book of Mormon people called them something else.
Royal Skousen has argued that the text of the Book of Mormon shows evidence that it is a creative, cultural translation rather than a literal translation. He believes that explains why the Book of Mormon uses language from the late 1500s to the early 1700s, and why it focuses on issues present during that same time period, and would also serve to explain those things seen as anachronisms.
To an extent, that is how the King James Bible itself is translated. For example, it mentions steel four times in the Old Testament (2 Samuel 22:35, Job 20:24, Psalm 18:34, and Jeremiah 15:12) but more modern translations translate the word as bronze. Perhaps the Book of Mormon was actually talking about bronze, and the translation followed a similar style as the King James Version and so gave us steel?
We don't have the original language text of the Book of Mormon, only the English translation. It is also possible that there are a combination of factors at play here. Here are my personal thoughts on each of the anachronisms Jeremy listed
Horses - This could be any of them, really. Paleontologists explain that horses originated in America, spread to the Old World, and became extinct in the New World with the end of the ice age. It seems possible that some survived, that we just haven't found remains for yet.
However, I do find it an interesting observation that horses, as described in the Book of Mormon are not used the same way that we use horses. They are never ridden, and you might expect that with how much it talks about war, but warriors always march, and it never talks about riding them into battle. So it could be some different animal.
Cattle, Oxen - I am more inclined to believe these referred to a different animal, or was a cultural translation rather than literal cows.
Sheep - Unlike other loan-shifted animals, Bighorn sheep actually are sheep, so perhaps that's what they referred to. If so, this would fall more under #1 above, that we would just need to find evidence that people kept sheep.
Swine - The peccary is a pig-like animal native to America. Even today, people call them "pigs" even though they are not. Peccary remains have been found at Early Formative Olmec civilization sites, which is the right time frame for the Jaredites, who are mentioned as keeping swine. I think we are safe removing this from the list of anachronisms.
Goats - Although goats exist in the Americas, the Mountain Goat probably didn't ever live in Central America. Probably referred to some other animal.
Elephants - Probably referred to Mammoths. The Jaredites lived thousands of years ago, and Mammoths didn't go extinct until thousands of years ago. There's still a small gap, but it doesn't seem impossible that some survived to be used by Jaredites.
Wheels - The Book of Mormon makes no mention of wheels, except once when it is quoting Isaiah. This is not an anachronism.
Chariots - I think this one falls under #3 and was probably a creative, cultural translation. The King James Version of the Bible for Song of Solomon 3:9 translates the Hebrew word for "litter" or "carriage" as "chariot" and given the Book of Mormon's translation style being similar to the King James Version, it seems possible it could have also been referring to a litter or carriage.
Wheat - Some have suggested Amaranth. I would accept it referring to maize. Interestingly, "corn" is another one of those loan-shifted words I was talking about earlier. In 17th century England, the word "corn" referred to wheat, and so when the King James Bible refers to corn, it's really talking about wheat. Today in America, corn refers to maize.
Silk - There are some wild silkworms in the Americas. John L. Sorensen has said that "at least five fabrics specified as like silk were reported from native Mexico by the Spaniards."
Steel - As I mentioned before, I think it could just be referring to bronze, like in the King James Bible. However, actual steel iron has been discovered in the Old World dating to that time. Perhaps significantly, the use of steel in the Book of Mormon is short-lived after arriving in the New World.
6. Archaeology: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions. This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere.
I'm not sure how Jeremy intended the first sentence to flow logically into the second. Perhaps he forgot to mention "in upstate New York" in the first sentence? Because there is tons of evidence in Central America, which is why "unofficial apologists" believe it took place there. Millions of people lived there at the time, they had cement buildings, they had highways—things once claimed to be anachronisms, by the way—and it matches the geography described in the text much better.
John L. Sorensen's book Mormon's Codex identifies 420 correspondences between the archaeological record for Mesoamerica and the text of the Book of Mormon. No, they don't "prove" anything, but that's why a lot of people believe it took place there. Some might say that the similarities are not that significant, and Joseph Smith was just a good guesser. According to one Bayesian Statistical analysis, Joseph Smith would have had to be the world's greatest guesser for that to be true. (I'll come back to talk more on that later.)
To be clear, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published this statement on Book of Mormon Geography:
The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded members that “the Book of Mormon is not a textbook on topography. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.”Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.
This is in acknowledgement that the Book of Mormon itself doesn't identify where things took place in the New World. Unlike the Old World, the New World doesn't have many continuously named locations. (Though there is one in Mesoamerica that is, and is called Lamanai.)
Because Jeremy criticized the limited geography model, I assumed that Jeremy held a hemispheric model, but after reading through the entire item, I was left confused until I realized that probably wasn't his position. Instead, it seems that Jeremy held a heartland model of Book of Mormon geography, which is also a limited geography model where Book of Mormon events occur in North America.
This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.
The link takes us to the book, "Doctrines of Salvation: Volume 3" with quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith compiled by Bruce R. McConkie. There, he argued that the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon is the same as the hill Cumorah in New York.
And that's fine, you can believe it was there if you want, and there are many believing Latter-day Saints who do. But if you want to know about evidence it took place in New York, you'll have to talk to them, since I personally believe it has a Mesoamerican setting.
Tyler Livingston went through and made a list of statements about Book of Mormon geography in Joseph Smith's day. Joseph Smith himself also made statements about Central America, which is what started people looking at that area of the world. However, it is apparent that Joseph Smith and others held a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography. That is implied by a naïve reading of the text, but if you read about how long travel distances are and things like that, it is apparent that covers a limited geography.
It seems more reasonable to follow where the evidence takes you, and not hold on to your own preconceptions. Of course, then there's the follow-up question, "if the Book of Mormon text supports a limited geography, then why did Joseph Smith think it was over the whole hemisphere?" I would answer, I think it's because Joseph Smith didn't know, because he wasn't the author of the Book of Mormon. He would only know if it were revealed to him, or if he studied the text more carefully.
This is a question for those who criticize the Book of Mormon as well. If Joseph Smith supposedly made up the Book of Mormon himself, then why did he know it so poorly?
It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants.
It makes perfect sense—the reason the the visitor's center and pageant is because that is where Joseph Smith discovered the plates. Where the final battle took place is up for debate, but there is no question about where Moroni buried the plates.
There's also a pageant in Manti that also reenacts Book of Mormon events, should we shut it down because the final battle didn't take place there? (Actually, in 2018, the Church announced it would end these pageants, but not because of anything to do with their locations.)
One problem with many of Jeremy's arguments is that he fails to offer what he would expect to happen. Were he to do that, then we could all see how unreasonable the argument is. "If the Book of Mormon took place in Central America, then _______." I can't think of anything reasonable to put in there.
Instead, the counter-argument has an incredibly easy answer. If we ask ourselves if it is possible for two different hills to have the same name, suddenly it isn't nonsensical at all.
We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) with deaths numbering in the tens of thousands – the last battle between Lamanites and Nephites around 400 AD claimed at least 230,000 deaths on the Nephite side alone. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence of a battle whatsoever has been found at this site. John E. Clark, director of BYU’s archaeological organization, wrote in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies:
“In accord with these general observations about New York and Pennsylvania, we come to our principal object – the Hill Cumorah. Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No artifacts, no walls, no trenches, no arrowheads. The area immediately surrounding the hill is similarly clean. Pre-Columbian people did not settle or build here. This is not the place of Mormon’s last stand. We must look elsewhere for that hill.”
Compare this with the archaeological evidence of other hillside battle sites. Caerau Hillfort, in the Wales capital of Cardiff, was found to have abundant archaeological evidence of inhabitants and weapons of war dating as far back as 3600 BC in the form of stone arrowheads, tools, and pottery.
There are at least two requirements to find archeological evidence of something. One is that it has to survive that long, and the other is that you have to look in the right spot. Jeremy thinks archeological work at the Hill Cumorah satisfies both of these, and so thinks that since no evidence was found that it didn't happen. This argument doesn't work on those who have questioned their preconceptions. Like they even say in the quote—"This is not the place of Mormon's last stand. We must look elsewhere for that hill." If you read the actual text of the Book of Mormon, Moroni doesn't claim that he returned the Book of Mormon plates to the hill Cumorah where the Nephites had their last battle. The description of the hill in the Book of Mormon doesn't really match the hill in Palmyra.
As an analogy, it would be like if people mistakenly assumed that the Roman Empire took over the whole world, but then when they fail to find artifacts in upstate New York, they conclude that the Roman Empire never existed at all instead of questioning their assumptions.
Compare the absent evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations to the archaeological remains of other past civilizations such as the Roman occupation of Britain and other countries. There are abundant evidences of their presence during the first 400 years AD such as villas, mosaic floors, public baths, armor, weapons, writings, art, pottery, and so on. Even the major road systems used today in some of these occupied countries were built by the Romans. Additionally, there is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back at least 15,000 years. Another recent discovery has been made of a 14,000-year-old village in Canada.
What one considers as evidence will depend on your preconceptions. Jeremy apparently held a heartland model of the Book of Mormon, so that is why he doesn't consider ancient Mayan and Aztec civilizations as evidence for the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith held a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon, so he felt that Mayan ruins supported the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon people would have been contemporary with the pre-classic Mayan civilization, and the Jaredites with the Olmecs. (Aztecs came along after Book of Mormon times.) For those of us who hold a Mesoamerican model of Book of Mormon geography, the evidence supporting their civilizations also serve as evidence to support Book of Mormon civilizations.
How strongly you or I find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon will depend on at least two factors. One is the threshold we internally have of something to count as evidence. And as we have seen here, another is what sort of preconceptions we have of Book of Mormon geography.
I'm reminded of a thought process called "First principles thinking" which I learned about in the context of engineering to design a better solution, but I think the principles apply just as well to belief systems. It consists of three basic steps:
- Identify and challenge your assumptions
- Breakdown complex concepts into their most fundamental truths
- Create new solutions based on these fundamentals
So on the topic of Book of Mormon geography, we can identify some assumptions—where do we think Book of Mormon events took place? What sort of evidence should we expect to be able to find? How will we identify this evidence as from Book of Mormon people as opposed to an unrelated group of people?
From there, we can break it down into more fundamental truths. Perhaps we can identify what the Book of Mormon actually claims. We can identify what prophets and other leaders have actually said about the Book of Mormon. We can also identify what archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians have actually said about ancient cultures.
With everything broken down into these truths, we can prioritize and synthesize what has been said to build our own model. Personally, I prioritize what the Book of Mormon says about geography, which is why I believe in a Mesoamerican model, and I see that archaeology and anthropology supports the model.
The things that Jeremy has used to support his view of a heartland model are statements from Church leaders, and a cultural tradition of the Hill Cumorah. And maybe that is what he prioritizes, and that's fine, but that also serves to explain why he is so much more dissatisfied with the evidence than those who hold a different model for Book of Mormon geography.
Admittedly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where are the Nephite or Lamanite buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc.? How can these great civilizations just vanish without a trace?
I don't mean this segment to be entirely about a Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon—as I said before, the Church doesn't hold an official position. But this is what I believe, and it helps me answer these questions.
They didn't disappear. LIDAR scans of Mesoamerica show towers and highways as described in the Book of Mormon. Mesoamerican artwork shows they had armor and swords. The Book of Mormon doesn't claim that they had pottery, but since most civilizations would want to store things, I'd imagine that they'd have pottery, too, and Mesoamericans had pottery.
They didn't disappear, you just need to look in the right place.
Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950s and 1960s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After 17 years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a February 20, 1976 letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon:
“…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say – what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”
The CES Letter didn't mention it, but Thomas Stuart Ferguson was searching in Mesoamerica. So either Jeremy does acknowledge that that is a legitimate place to search, or he didn't know that's where he was looking.
Also on the same expedition was John L. Sorensen, who became a major proponent of a Central American setting of the Book of Mormon, and has identified hundreds of correspondences. So while some think archaeology fails to support the Book of Mormon, others find the archaeological evidence compelling.
Stan Larsen wrote a book about Thomas Stuart Ferguson's failure to find evidence. In an addendum to a review of Larson's book, Sorensen praised him as an enthusiast and scholar, but said he never saw him as a scholar or analyst. Sorensen reminded us that Ferguson was trained in law, not archaeology. He told a story that when they "did the first archaeological reconnaissance of central Chiapas, … his concern was to ask if local people had found any figurines of 'horses,' rather than to document the scores of sites we discovered and put on record for the first time."
7. Book of Mormon Geography: Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region where Joseph Smith lived.
The following two maps show Book of Mormon geography compared to Joseph Smith’s geography.
BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY
JOSEPH SMITH’S GEOGRAPHY(Northeast United States & Southeast Canada)
The first map is the “proposed map,” constructed from internal comparisons in the Book of Mormon.
Jeremy once considered removing this item, recognizing that the claims are weak. But he left it in since his fans like it.
The first thing to say about these maps is that it is incorrect to say that the first map is constructed from internal comparisons in the Book of Mormon. The first map is just relabeling the second map, ignoring what the Book of Mormon actually says. Also, it selectively chooses a few minor cities, when there are over a hundred Book of Mormon cities to choose from.
Ramah: The CES Letter just spent several paragraphs saying that the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon must be the same one as in New York. But Jeremy seems to have forgotten all of that, because now he has placed it in Canada. Ramah was the Jaredite name for the hill Cumorah (Ether 15:11).
Morianton: The Book of Mormon describes Morianton as being in the Land Southward (Alma 50:28-29).
Jacobugath: The city in The Book of Mormon is mentioned in 3 Nephi 9:9 as being inhabited by the people of King Jacob. In 3 Nephi 7:12, they were described as fleeing into "the northernmost part of the land" and so would have been far in the Land Northward.
Kishkumen: The city is mentioned as one being destroyed by fire in 3 Nephi 9:10. This is its only reference, and so cannot be placed on a map "constructed from internal comparisons in the Book of Mormon."
Onidah: This was the name of a hill where Alma preached to the Zoramites in Alma 32:4, and was also the name of a place where the Lamanites had fled in Alma 47:5. If they refer to the same location, then the Book of Mormon describes the place the Zoramites lived in Alma 31:3 as being "east of the land of Zarahemla, which lay nearly bordering upon the seashore, which was south of the land of Jershon, which also bordered upon the wilderness south, which wilderness was full of the Lamanites." If the second one is different, then that one would be even more south in Lamanite lands.
Shilom, Land of Nephi-Lehi, and the Valley of Alma: The Land of Nephi-Lehi is just into the Land of Nephi, which is where the Lamanites lived, south of the Land of Zarahemla and the strip of wilderness. Shilom is immediately next to the land of Nephi-Lehi. The Valley of Alma is where Alma and his people rested on the way back to the Land of Zarahemla. The relative positions of these don't work.
Jerusalem: Alma 21:1 says that the Lamanites called one of their cities Jerusalem, after the one in Israel. This works only if we have already thrown out the Valley of Alma, so that the whole south part of the map can be the Land of Nephi.
Sidon: Probably the only thing they got right. The head of the river Sidon is said to be by the land of Manti (Alma 43:22) and the land of Manti is said to be by the south wilderness (Alma 16:6) and so should flow south-to-north.
Throughout the Book of Mormon we read of such features as “The Narrow Neck of Land” which was a day and a half’s journey (roughly 30 miles) separating two great seas. We also read about the Hill Onidah and the Hill Ramah – all place names in the land of Joseph Smith’s youth.Rama: Rama on the map above is about 150 miles away in Canada, as the crow flies. It's over 250 miles if you are travelling on foot around Lake Ontario. Which isn't to say Joseph never traveled far—He went to Harmony to work for Josiah Stowell which was over 100 miles away, nearly 150 miles following normal roads. Of course that was in 1825, when Joseph was nearly 20, so hardly "land of Joseph Smith's youth" but he probably means, "youth, up to and including young adulthood" but even then, I don't know of any claim that Joseph went to Canada in his youth.
In Jim Bennett's response, he seemed to have accidentally mapped the wrong Rama, since he said it was 1,800 miles away. He also provided a link to the history of Rama that is now a broken link, but here is a new link. Rama was first surveyed in 1834, and the first white settlement was a year later. Skip to page 386 near the end and you'll see that the Indians bought the land in 1836. The next page says, "It is not clear how this place came to be known as RAMA."
Wikipedia claims without citing a source that Rama and Mara were first named in 1820. In searching other things, I did find that it did show up by that name on an 1826 map of Canada.
Oneida: Of the cities on the map, this is probably the only one Joseph might have heard of. Only 80 miles away, a small store was built here in 1818, and more settlers moved into the area after that.
We read in the Book of Mormon of the Land of Desolation named for a warrior named Teancum who helped General Moroni fight in the Land of Desolation. In Smith's era, an Indian Chief named Tecumseh fought and died near the narrow neck of land helping the British in the War of 1812. Today, the city Tecumseh (near the narrow neck of land) is named after him.Tecumseh: Tecumseh Michigan is 350 miles away as the crow flies, over 400 miles, to go around Lake Erie. It is not at all near the narrow neck of land, unless you think the narrow neck of land is the the west of what is labeled the Sea West. Jeremy's link is actually to Tecumseh, Ontario, which is still on the wrong side of Lake Erie, but not only that, Tecumseh Ontario wasn't named that until 1912.
The argument would be better if it just stuck with "Teancum sorta sounds like Tecumseh" instead of trying to associate it with the narrow neck somehow.
We see the Book of Mormon city Kishkumen located near an area named, on modern maps, as Kiskiminetas. There are more than a dozen Book of Mormon names that are the same as or nearly the same as modern geographical locations.Kiskiminetas: The petition to create the township was sent 22 December 1831, but it did exist as a post office before then, named after the Kiskiminetas river.
| Actual Pace Names | Book of Mormom Place Names | My Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Alma | Alma, Vally of | First white settler in 1833. Alma was formed from Willing in 1854 and named at that time. |
| Antrim | Antum | Antrim Township is in the south of Pennsylvania. It's a small town, 230-290 miles away. (As the crow flies/using modern roads.) |
| Antioch | Ani-Anti | Antioch Ohio was not founded until 1837. This is also a Biblical city, so the Bible would make more sense as a source. I'm not sure what the argument is that makes Ani-Anti similar to Antioch. |
| Boaz | Boaz | I cannot find any nearby cities named Boaz. There is one in West Virginia 340-430 miles away. This is the name of a Biblical figure. |
| Hellam | Helam | Hellam is a small city in the south of Pennsylvania. Did Joseph visit here after Antrim? |
| Jacobsburg | Jacobugath | Jacobsburg, Ohio was a newly created town 280-370 miles away. |
| Jerusalem | Jerusalem | Only 30-40 miles from Palmyra. But wouldn't he have gotten the name from the Bible? |
| Jordan | Jordan | A small, new city, but only 40-50 miles from Palmyra. But it is also a Biblical location. |
| Kishkiminetas | Kishkumen | Post office 200-260 miles away from Palmyra. |
| Lehigh | Lehi | There is a Lehigh Valley in eastern Pennsylvania 190-250 miles away. |
| Mantua | Manti | Mantua, Ohio was a post town 240-280 miles away |
| Moraviantown | Morianton | This is where Tecumseh died, 240-280 miles away from Palmyra. |
| Noah Lakes | Noah, Land of | Can't find any nearby Noah Lakes, at least none that existed at the time of Joseph Smith. But surely the Noah from the bible would be a better source? |
| Oneida | Onidah | As noted above, 80 miles, not so far away. |
| Oneida Castle | Onidah, Hill | This is right next to Oneida, I'm not sure it needed a separate entry, but okay. |
| Rama | Ramah | As noted above, Joseph would have had to find it on a map, as the 250 mile journey would not have helped him as it was named before it was settled. |
| Ripple Lake | Ripliancum, Waters of | I can't find any Ripple Lake near Palmyra. There is one 600 miles away as the crow flies, but it would take 920 miles to take roads around the lakes. |
| Sodom | Sidom | There's a Sodom hamlet in New York, 220-280 miles away. It's also a pretty famous Biblical city. |
| Shiloh | Shilom | There's a Shiloh, Pennsylvania that was named after a church, dedicated in 1883. It is also a Biblical name, so that's probably a better source. |
| Sherbrooke | Shurr | Hyatt's Mills was renamed Sherbrooke in 1818. It was 280-340 miles away. |
Source: Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look, Vernal Holley
Why are there so many names similar to Book of Mormon names in the region where Joseph Smith lived? This is all just a coincidence?
UPDATE: Additional information and analysis can be found at cesletter.org/mapsGiven that only three of the twenty were in the region where Joseph Smith lived, six are in the Bible, and three don't seem to have existed at the time, I'm going to say, yeah, it's just a coincidence. Especially when you consider that Jeremy removed six in his 2015 update and there are another 60 location names not listed. All of these come from a map that Vernal Holley proposed in 1983 to explain how Joseph came up with some of the place names in the Book of Mormon. However, he apparently used modern maps, rather than maps that were available by 1829, and that's why so many of his places don't exist.
This would also mean that you would need to show that they existed on a map at that time—many of them were too small or too new to show up. However, Jeremy doesn't claim Joseph used a map, but rather that he would have actually visited these places or otherwise been aware of them, but then you run into the problem that so many of them were not close to where Joseph Smith lived, and you are left questioning how well-traveled Joseph Smith was. It would be like me traveling from my home in northern Utah to areas as far away as St. George, Utah or Bozeman Montana. We know that Joseph Smith at least travelled to Harmony, Pennsylvania to work and that was 110-140 miles away. However, this is far smaller than the distances Jeremy is suggesting.
Jeremy's update is to respond to common criticisms, like that place names may have been known by their names earlier than they were organized, and that's why he was fine leaving things in that weren't named until later on. He also confirms that he believes Joseph would have known these places by traveling, not by looking at maps. (Though he also mentions a book of proper names.) He also said that you can't always go off of what is on Wikipedia.
For lengthier commentary, you can check out this Wheat and Tares article that goes through all the Vernal Holly Map locations.
HILL CUMORAH
Off the eastern coast of Mozambique in Africa is an island country called “Comoros.” Prior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, “Camora.” There is an 1808 map of Africa that refers to the islands as “Camora.”
Camora is near center in the above 1808 Map of Africa
The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly “Camora”)? Moroni. “Camora” and settlement “Moroni” were names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd (a pirate and treasure hunter) which many 19th century New Englanders – especially treasure hunters – were familiar with.
As you perhaps noticed, "Moroni" the capital of Comoros, is not named on the map, so that interesting coincidence doesn't really help us.
But it doesn't seem that Jeremy is trying to say that Joseph used the map, but from the next couple paragraphs, he will instead claim Joseph got them from stories of Captain Kidd. Unfortunately, Jeremy and those that hold this theory have not provided a source that stories of Captain Kidd stories included stories of Camora and Moroni, and I cannot find one either.
In fact, the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled “Camorah.”
I think Jeremy is reading a little much into the spelling. First, the map looks like it is spelled Comora to me, and I can't find any claim that the island used to be spelled Camora. In fact, there's a 1748 French map of Anjouan that clearly labels it as "une des Isles de Comore."
It doesn't really matter though, because Oliver Cowdery spelled it Cumorah—see Royal Skousen's discussion for Mormon 6:2 (pg 3636) in his Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon.
The original manuscript isn't extant here, but there at this part, Scribe 2 (probably John Whitmer) initially wrote Camorah as he copied from the original manuscript to create the printer's manuscript. Oliver Cowdery frequently mixed up his a's and u's, so that isn't surprising. Oliver proof-read the printer's manuscript, and replaced the initial a with an u, indicating the spelling should be Cumorah. However, the original manuscript was used to set the type for this portion of the Book of Mormon, not the printer's manuscript, so John Gilbert, the typesetter, didn't receive this correction, and so it was printed as Camorah.
There are nine times that the Book of Mormon uses the word Cumorah, all in Mormon. Only the first one in the printer's manuscript was initially spelled Camorah (and then corrected to Cumorah) Six of the others were spelled Cumorah and the other two were spelled Comorah.
Oliver called out the spelling error in an 1835 Messenger and Advocate article:
By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon you will read Mormon's account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped around this hill Cumorah. [It is printed Camorah, which is an error.]
Brackets are in the original.
Pomeroy Tucker was born in Palmyra, New York in 1802, three years before Joseph Smith. He is considered to be a contemporary source. This is what he said about Joseph Smith:
“Joseph ... had learned to read comprehensively ... [reading] works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the ‘dime novels’ of the present day. The stories of Stephen Buroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions.”
I should note that the claim is Pomeroy Tucker said Joseph read stories of Captain Kidd. He does not claim that Joseph used stories of Captain Kidd to write the Book of Mormon. Pomeroy Tucker was writing in 1867 and believed that Sidney Rigdon had gotten ahold of "Manuscript Found" by Solomon Spalding, made some alterations, and that the uneducated and ignorant Joseph Smith copied that to produce the Book of Mormon (pg. 121-126).
Some apologists say that Tucker’s Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress is “anti-Mormon” and thus anything in the book cannot be trusted. If this is true, why then did LDS scholar and Church History compiler B.H. Roberts quote Tucker for background information on Joseph Smith? Also, FairMormon has an article in which they quote Tucker’s book 4 times as support for Joseph, and they even refer to Tucker as an “eyewitness” to Joseph and his family. Is Tucker’s peripheral information only useful and accurate when it shows Joseph and the Church in a positive and favorable light?
It is anti-Mormon, but that's not why "it can't be trusted." Trustworthy historical accounts will support one another, and can otherwise be verified. Even if unique, it can still be true if it fits in with surrounding events. But even multiple sources saying the same thing doesn't necessarily mean anything if it can be shown to be false. As an example, like I just said, Pomeroy Tucker advocated that Sidney Rigdon used the Solomon Spalding manuscript in order for Joseph Smith to create the Book of Mormon. This was a popular theory at the time that multiple sources affirmed. Even ignoring fact that Sidney Rigdon didn't meet Joseph Smith prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon, the widely popular Solomon Spalding theory was laid to rest when it was found and published in 1885, and shown to have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.
Here is something else that Pomeroy Tucker also said (pg. 48) "The work of translation this time had been done in the recess of a dark artificial cave, which Smith had caused to be dug in the east side of the forest-hill near his residence, now owned by Mr. Amos Minor." He also reported that Joseph Smith translated by looking at the plates from behind a curtain. This doesn't match firsthand descriptions of the translation process. Jeremy disagrees with these things Pomeroy Tucker claimed several times in the CES Letter. Does that mean Tucker's peripheral information only useful and accurate when it shows Joseph and the Church in a negative and unfavorable light?
The reality is that one false thing doesn't mean everything is false, and one true thing doesn't make everything true. The FAIR article isn't saying "this looks favorably on Joseph, therefore it is true." Read it, and you'll see that they use his book to corroborate what Joseph Smith had said. (Tucker corroborates when the Smith family arrived in Palmyra and settled on the farm, and that there were revivals that Joseph Smith attended.) And that's how history works.
The CES Letter didn't provide a source on how B. H. Roberts quoted Pomeroy Tucker. I did find in his Comprehensive History of the Church that Roberts calls him a "Vender of Idle tales," criticizing his description of the Smith family by pointing out that in the 1834 book, Mormonism Unvailed they collected affidavits by many people in Palmyra specifically for derogatory statements, so you would expect if Tucker's description to be true, then they would have included it as well, but they did not.
I can't find anything positive Roberts had to say about him. But that does go to show that histories are valuable when the corroborate each other, and less valuable when it doesn't fit in or they have an agenda.
“We are sorry to observe, even in this enlightened age, so prevalent a disposition to credit the accounts of the marvellous. Even the frightful stories of money being hid under the surface of the earth, and enchanted by the Devil or Robert Kidd [Captain Kidd], are received by many of our respectable fellow citizens as truths.”
– Wayne Sentinel, Palmyra, New York, February 16, 1825
Notice that this is considered “prevalent” and “received by many of our respectable fellow citizens as truths.” The above contemporary newspaper quote from Palmyra, New York, in 1825 was not tainted by any desire to damage Joseph Smith. This article provides a snapshot of the worldview of 1825 New England.
Not only that, but it is a reprint of the Windsor Journal so Pomeroy Tucker didn't even originally write the article.
There were other people who claimed or speculated that Joseph Smith actually tried to find Captain Kidd's buried treasure, such as William Purple writing in 1877 speculating while remembering Joseph's 1826 Bainbridge trial and Stephen S. Harding in 1882 remembering a not currently extant Brookville Enquirer printed in the fall of 1827 that Joseph Smith had searched for hidden treasure "supposed to have been buried by Captain Kidd."
If the argument is that people in Joseph Smith's day believed that Captain Kidd had buried treasure, and Joseph may have heard these stories, you'll find no complaint from me.
The Hill Cumorah and Moroni have absolutely nothing to do with Camora and Moroni from Captain Kidd stories? Stories that Joseph and his treasure hunting family, friends, and community were familiar with? The original 1830 Book of Mormon just happens to have the uniform “Camorah” spelling? This is all just a mere coincidence?
And suddenly it all comes together why Jeremy was trying so hard to convince us that Joseph Smith heard Captain Kidd stories—it was all building up to how he could then assert that Joseph must have gotten the names Cumorah and Moroni from the Captain Kidd stories.
So to summarize the argument, we have five claims: 1. Joseph Smith heard stories about Captain Kidd. 2. Captain Kidd spent some time in the Comoro Islands. 3. One of the cities in the Comoro Islands is named Moroni. 4. Stories of Captain Kidd spoke of Comoro and Moroni, with 5. Comoro spelled "Camora."
However, Jeremy only fleshed out the first part of the argument, the second and third are pretty straightforward. But he failed to provide evidence for the last couple, and without evidence for the fourth premise, there is no argument. Anyone researching the claim should be able to ask, "Did Captain Kidd stories mention the Comoros islands or its capital city of Moroni?" I tried to find a source, but I couldn't. Is it possible? Sure, but without this connecting piece, the argument that it is more than just a coincidence fails.
If Moroni and the Comoros islands were a part of Captain Kidd stories, then why didn't Pomeroy Tucker or others who believed Joseph Smith was familiar with them ever claim that that is where he got the name Cumorah or Moroni from? Did they all just happen to overlook the connection?
The first person I can find to claim a connection was Ronald V. Huggins, in his 2003 article From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a quarterly peer-reviewed journal that encourages a wide variety of viewpoints. The book he mentions is A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates (Volume 1 and Volume 2) and in a footnote, he helpfully identifies which of the Comoros islands are mentioned:
The edition used here is Daniel Defoe, A General History of the Pyrates, ed. Manuel Schonhorn, (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1972). Johanna is mentioned in the accounts of Captains England, 118, 130, 132; Misson, 407-16; Tew, 424-26; Kidd, 443; Bowen, 461; White,478; Condent, 584; Cornelius, 605; Williams, 503; Burgess, 510; and North, 516. Mayotta is mentioned in the accounts of Captains England, 118; Bowen, 461, 478, 481; White, 478, 481; Howard,493; Williams, 503; and North, 516, 521, 539. Mohilla is mentioned in the accounts of Captains Misson, 407-14, 416, 418; Kidd, 443; and Williams, 503. Comoro is only mentioned in the account of Captain North, 516.
I bolded the island names so it is a bit more readable. These show up on other maps today as the islands of Anjouan, Mayotte, Mohéli, and Grande Comore.
I should also point out that the book spells it as Comaro, so the spelling is even less significant than the map. And it doesn't mention the city of Moroni at all. I did find a place in the book called Cape Camorin, however that is not in Comoros, but off the coast of India.
Here is the entirety of what it says of Captain Kidd in the Comoros islands:
It happen’d that at this Time the Pyrate Ships were most of them out in search of Prey; so that according to the best Intelligence Captain Kid could get, there was not one of them at that Time about the Island, wherefore having spent some Time in watering his Ship, and taking in more Provisions, he thought of trying his Fortune on the Coast of Malabar, where he arrived in the Month of June following, four Months from his reaching Madagascar. Hereabouts he made an unsuccessful Cruize, touching sometimes at the Island of Mahala, sometimes at that of Joanna, betwixt Malabar and Madagascar: His Provisions were every Day wasting, and his Ship began to want Repair; wherefore, when he was at Joanna, he found Means of borrowing a Sum of Money from some French Men who had lost their Ship, but saved their Effects, and with this he purchas’d Materials for putting his Ship in good Repair.It does not appear all this while that he had the least Design of turning Pyrate; for near Mahala and Joanna both, he met with several Indian Ships richly laden, to which he did not offer the least Violence, tho’ he was strong enough to have done what he pleas’d with them; and the first Outrage or Depredation I find he committed upon Mankind, was after his repairing his Ship, and leaving Joanna; he touch’d at a Place call’d Mabbee, upon the Red Sea, where he took some Guinnea Corn from the Natives, by Force.
(Italics in original.) So apparently he sailed between Mahala and Joanna, and it was described as an "unsuccessful Cruize" where he did not do violence to several richly laden Indian ships.
Curious to see what sorts of responses Jeremy has given to others, I see that he actually linked the 1748 French map of Anjouan I mentioned above. He circled "Comore" apparently forgetting that the spelling was part of his argument and then shows that there is a village called "Meroni" on that map. (He calls it "an anchorage" but to be clear, the anchor symbol represents an anchorage, but the little triangle to the side of Meroni is the village, all the villages are named.) Note that this is a different city on a different island with a similar name. However, Jeremy makes clear that he doesn't claim Joseph got it from this or any map, but from Captain Kidd stories.
As far as I can find, no one has been able to find a story of Captain Kidd that mentions Comoro (spelled Camora or otherwise) or Moroni (or Meroni).
8. There was a book published in 1823 Vermont entitled View of the Hebrews. Below is a chart comparing the View of the Hebrews to the Book of Mormon:
This and the next couple points talk about comparisons between the Book of Mormon and other books. Before getting to the comparisons, I want to give some background information just on this type of argument first.
I mentioned this before, but the early critics of the Church claimed for decades that Joseph Smith copied an unpublished novel written by Solomon Spalding in about 1812. This novel came to be known as Manuscript Found. A man named Doctor Philastus Hurlbut was excommunicated in 1833, and that same year, he was hired by a committee of Ohio residents to collect damaging information about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. He acquired many testimonies that claimed to be from Spalding's family and friends who asserted that characters and incidents in the Book of Mormon originated with Spalding.
Meanwhile, Hurlbut contacted Spalding's widow, and located the manuscript in an old family trunk at the home of Jerome Clark. However, he was disappointed with what he found, that it was not at all like the Book of Mormon. He sold the manuscript and what he had written to E. D. Howe, who then published in 834 Mormonism Unvailed. Spalding's manuscript remained unpublished, and then became lost among other papers in his office.
In the 1830s, L. L. Rice bought Howe's newspaper, along with papers that had belonged to him. In 1884, he discovered the Spalding manuscript among these papers, and donated them to the president of Oberlin College. In 1885 the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints published the Spalding manuscript, and the following year The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also published a copy. The document does not support the testimonies published in Howe's book
With the Spalding manuscript theory out of commission, people turned to look for other sources, and they made new claims about where Joseph Smith copied the Book of Mormon from. I. Woodbridge Riley wrote The Founder of Mormonism, published in 1902, and claimed Joseph Smith copied from a number of sources, including Ethan Smith's book, A View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America.
| VIEW OF THE HEBREWS Online Source | BOOK OF MORMON Online Source | |
| Published | 1823, first edition 1825, second edition | 1830, first edition |
| Location | Vermont Poultney, Rutland County | Vermont Sharon, Windsor County |
| NOTE: Oliver Cowdery, one of the Book of Mormon witnesses, lived in Poulney when View of the Hebrews was published. | NOTE: Windsor County is adjacent to Rutland County. |
He will say at the end of the long list of comparisons, but Jeremy is getting this list from B. H. Roberts. In 1922 he investigated the relationship between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. That essay and others were published in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon. I'll talk more about his work later when Jeremy talks more about it, but for now, to understand these parallels, B. H. Roberts was playing Devil's advocate to anticipate the criticism, so that the Church could be proactive in responding to it.
For these first few parallels, I just want to point out that everyone knows (or should know) that the Book of Mormon was published in Palmyra, New York. Sharon, Vermont is where Joseph Smith was born. I don't know why Jeremy made this mistake, when B. H. Roberts sure didn't (pg 155):
The book, then, was in existence—first and second editions respectively—seven and five years before the publication of the Book of Mormon, and was written and published by a man residing in a county adjoining that in which the Smith family lived—not more than fifty miles from Sharon, as the crow flies. It had a wide circulation in New England and in New York, running through two editions in a few years.
I think Jeremy is just copying the pages he cites (pages 240-242 and 323-344) without actually understanding them. Those first three pages are a brief summary, while the larger 22 page section is A Parallel which represents a two-column abbreviated version of A Book of Mormon Study. The quoted part of the table so far represents B. H. Roberts' items 1-3, but does not say or imply that the Book of Mormon was published in Sharon, as it also mentions Palmyra. I don't know if it was actually the case, but it makes it seem to me like Jeremy was dissatisfied with the parallel, and so edited it to make it look stronger than it actually is. The notes indicating proximity also don't come from B. H. Roberts.
Here is a description of Ethan Smith's book, which you can use to make further comparisons. A View of the Hebrews is 187 pages long, with four chapters, a conclusion, and an appendix. It is in an essay format where he explains the scattering and gathering of Israel (chapters 1 and 2), the current state of Israel, including an argument that the American natives are the tribe of Israel (chapter 3) and a plea that it is our responsibility to help gather Israel (chapter 4).
Two years after the first edition was a 226-page 2nd edition with added material. Some of the cited parallels come from the 2nd edition, so my page number references will be from that edition that I linked above. With that background, let's look at the comparisons that B. H. Roberts made:
| The destruction of Jerusalem | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is Item #10 in A Parallel. The first chapter of Ethan Smith's book describes the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, whereas in the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family flee Jerusalem before the Babylon destruction of Judah, which is about 587 BC. | ||
| The Scattering of Israel | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is Item #11 in A Parallel. The second chapter in A view of the Hebrews is on the restoration of the lost 10 tribes, so it briefly describes how they were lost when Assyria destroyed Israel in 725 BC. The Book of Mormon also talks about the scattering and gathering of Israel. One interesting observation, A View of the Hebrews claims that the American Indians are the lost tribes. Orson Scott Card noted that the Book of Mormon is not "a book about the Ten Lost Tribes" which is what you would expect in Joseph's culture, but "contrary to all expectations, the lost tribes are barely hinted at; they have almost nothing to do with the story." And that's true, they are only mentioned four times in the scriptures. 1 Nephi 22:3-4 says that most of the tribes have been scattered to unknown locations. 2 Nephi 29:12-14 notes that the lost tribes will write scriptures that we will one day have. In 3 Nephi 17:4, Jesus tells the Nephites that He will visit the lost tribes. And in 3 Nephi 21:26-29 Jesus says that the lost tribes will be gathered in. The "ten lost tribes" refers to those who escaped from Assyria to the north in 725 BC. This is consistent with the Book of Mormon. Although Lehi and Ishmael were from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the Nephites apparently didn't consider themselves among the lost tribes since the groups were over a hundred years apart. | ||
| The Restoration of the Ten Tribes | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is the 3rd item in B. H. Roberts' summary beginning on page 240. This is the subject of Ethan Smith's second chapter, that the lost tribes of Israel will be found, and that Israel will be restored to their land. The Book of Mormon also talks about the restoration of Israel, though like I said in the last bullet, the specific part about the lost ten tribes, they are only briefly mentioned. | ||
| Hebrews leave the Old World for the New World | ✔ | ✔ |
| Ethan Smith references James Adair (pg 56) and others who believed the Native Americans were the lost ten tribes, saying, "Mr. Adair gives his opinion, that the ten tribes, soon after their banishment from the land of Israel, left Media, and reached this continent from the north-west, probably before the carrying away of the Jews to Babylon." He later says that other Native American tribes "probably migrated to this western hemisphere at periods subsequent to the migration of the Indians. They, or some of them, might have come from the north of Europe; from Norway to Iceland, then to Greenland, and thence to the coasts of Labrador, and farther west." (pg. 135) This is the 6th item in B. H. Roberts' summary, that "the peopling of the New World was by migrations from the Old" and here he shifts from talking about Israelites to the Jaredites, which we will see in the next few items in the table. The Book of Mormon asserts that Jared and his friends and their families, as well as Lehi and his family floated across the ocean to arrive here. | ||
| Religion a motivating factor | ✔ | ✔ |
| A View of the Hebrews (pg 51) quotes 2 Esdras 13:41-42 from the apocrypha: "But they [the ten tribes] took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land." In Ether 1:38, Jared said to his brother, "Go and inquire of the Lord whether he will drive us out of the land, and if he will drive us out of the land, cry unto him whither we shall go. And who knoweth but the Lord will carry us forth into a land which is choice above all the earth?" Although B. H. Roberts made the comparison with the Brother of Jared (7th item in his summary), I assumed at first that it was comparing it to Lehi, so he's worth mentioning. In a vision from God, he saw that Jerusalem would be destroyed. He preached to the people warning them, but they rejected him. God again warned Lehi in a dream that he should escape with his family into the wilderness. Over time, they were led by God to a land of promise. | ||
| Migrations a long journey | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is also mentioned in the 7th item in B. H. Roberts' summary. Of course, any journey such would necessarily be long. You actually have to read Studies of the Book of Mormon to understand that what he actually meant is length of time to travel (pg 185) not the distance. Ethan Smith says it took the ten tribes a year-and-a-half to travel. (2 Esdras 13:45) The Jaredites took an unknown length of time to get to the "great sea which divideth the lands" (Ether 2:13) and after four years staying there, the brother of Jared was chastened by the Lord, and they were driven by the wind in barges for 344 days before arriving in the promised land (Ether 6:11). Lehi and his family traveled in the wilderness for eight years (1 Nephi 17:4) then they built a boat, and after "many days" arrived in the promised land (1 Nephi 18:23). | ||
| Encounter "seas" of "many waters" | ✔ | ✔ |
| Ethan Smith interprets "And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river" (Esdras 13:43) as that "he must mean, they repassed this river in its upper regions or small streams, away toward Georgia; and hence must have taken their course between the Black and Caspian seas." I don't think Ethan Smith is saying that they actually "encountered" the seas, But anyway, B. H. Roberts makes the comparison with the Jaredites (again in the 7th item in his summary), but they not only "encountered" many waters (Ether 2:6) but they crossed them. | ||
| The Americas an uninhabited land | ✔ | ✔ |
| Already quoted, 2 Esdras 13:41 says the ten tribes would go "where never mankind dwelt." He asserts that the evidence shows that land was "our own continent." This is back to the 6th item in B. H. Roberts' summary, so also about the Jaredites. When the Lord spoke to the brother of Jared in the valley of Nimrod, "the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been." They eventually make it to the promised land. Joseph Smith said that the angel Moroni informed him that the Book of Mormon is an account "of the former inhabitants of this continent." | ||
| Settlers journey northward | ✔ | ✔ |
| In 2 Esdras 13:45, it says "For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth." Ethan Smith notes that "this place where no man dwelt, must of course have been unknown by any name. But Ararat, or Armenia, lay north of the place where the ten tribes were planted when carried from Palestine. Their journey then, was to the north, or north-east." This is in the 7th item in B. H. Robert's summary. When Jared and his brother leave the great tower with their families and friends, they go to the valley of Nimrod, "which was northward" to hear the instruction of the Lord. This is the only mention of "north" or any cardinal direction in their journey. And for those like myself that thought these bullets were all about Lehi and his family, they went south, then east, and never traveled northward. | ||
| Encounter a valley of a great river | ✔ | ✔ |
| 2 Esdras 13:43, quoted above says they crossed the Euphrates River. He doesn't mention a valley, but B. H. Roberts says "entered into the Euprates" must necessarily mean "into the valley of it". This is again from B. H. Roberts's 7th item. Ether doesn't actually mention a river, they only talk about the valley of Nimrod where they first traveled after leaving the great tower. B. H. Roberts didn't mention it, but Lehi and his family do stop in a valley with a river after leaving Jerusalem. | ||
| A unity of race (Hebrew) settle the land and are the ancestral origin of American Indians | ✔ | ✔ |
| Okay, we are back from the Jaredite comparisons to the Lehi comparisons. This is the 12th item in B. H. Roberts' summary. Note however that the presence of the Jaredites shows that they were not a unified race of Hebrews. B. H. Roberts says they don't count, since they were wiped out (pg. 205). However, Hugh Nibley puts forward that it was not necessarily an extermination of the entire population, since it appears as though features of Jaredite culture (especially personal names) were later part of Nephite culture. Note that Ether's prophecy in Ether 13:20-21 is just that Coriantumr's household and people of his kingdom should be destroyed, so members outside his kingdom would not have been affected. Meanwhile, Orson Scott Card pointed out that the Mulekites did not keep records, so he suggested the possibility that the Mulekites were actually the native population, and that King Zarahemla only claimed to be a descendant of Zedekiah to assert his supremacy, and the Nephites took them at their word. For a more traditional interpretation that Mulek really did come from Jerusalem, I would suggest you could interpret that Mulek and those he was with mixed with the native population, and since they didn't keep records, no one would have known. Anyway, this is the argument that Ethan Smith is making in Chapter 3. The Book of Mormon doesn't really make the argument, it just depends on your assumptions and how much you read into the text. | ||
| Hebrew the origin of Indian language | ✔ | ✔ |
| A View of the Hebrews notes many similarities between Hebrew and Indian languages that both "are found without prepositions, and are formed with prefixes and suffixes; a thing probably known to no other language." Ethan Smith also notes many words and phrases from various Indian tribes that are the same as in Hebrew. B. H. Roberts made the claim in the 14th item in his summary. The Nephites taught their children in Hebrew, "the language of their fathers" (e.g. Mosiah 1:2). Other groups that didn't keep records had their language corrupted: The people of Mulek (Omni 1:17-18) and the Lamanites (Mosiah 24:4). Even the Nephites themselves had their language change (Mormon 9:33). As mentioned before, the Jaredites probably weren't wiped out, and they did not speak Hebrew—unless Hebrew is the unaltered language from the tower of Babel, which is not something it claims. Brian D. Stubbs is an expert in Linguistics, and published in 2011 Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary which is a standard reference work in comparative Uto-Aztecan linguistics. In 2015, he published Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan where he talks about cognates that provide strong evidence for links between Uto-Aztecan (a family of Native American languages) with two versions of Semitic and with Egyptian. (Reviews from John S. Robertson and Jeff Lindsay. Response to criticism from Brian D. Stubbs.) | ||
| Egyptian hieroglyphics | ✔ | ✔ |
| Now we are back to A Parallel, and this is item #8. Ethan Smith referenced Alexander Humboldt, quoting him as saying "a harp represented in the hieroglyphical paintings of the inhabitants of the north west coasts of America, is an object at least as remarkable, as the famous harp on the tombs of the Kings of Thebes." Although Humboldt declined to comment on their origin, Ethan Smith asks, "How should the American Indians be led to paint the Jewish harp? … Whence could have been derived the knowledge of the accurate hieroglyphical paintings, which the most learned author exhibits as found among some of the Indians; unless they had learned them from people to whom the knowledge of hieroglyphics had been transmitted from Egypt, its original source?" (pg 140) Although the Book of Mormon doesn't use the word "hieroglyph" Nephi says he wrote his record "in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2) and Moroni said that they wrote "in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech." B. H. Roberts assumes it must refer to hieroglyphs, but could refer to Hieratic or Demotic, which were also ancient Egyptian scripts. Archaeology in the Americas has not found Egyptian hieroglyphics. But Moroni claimed that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:34), so I wouldn't expect it to be found. But ancient Mesoamericans did have a writing system, and that is one similarity. Jerry D. Grover has argued that the reformed Egyptian on the "Caractors" document resembles Mesoamerican, Egyptian, and Hebrew. | ||
| Lost Indian records | ✔ A set of "yellow leaves" buried in Indian hill. Elder B.H. Roberts noted the "leaves" may be gold. | ✔ Joseph Smith claimed the gold plates were buried in Hill Cumorah. |
| Ethan Smith beginning on pg.166 related a story that Joseph Merrick after plowing Indian Hill found a black strap, six inches long, and one-and-a-half inches wide, made out of a thick raw hide, sewed and made water tight with the sinews of some animal. When he succeeded in sawing it open, he saw it contained four folded leaves of old parchment, dark yellow and containing some kind of writing. He gave the three surviving leaves to Sylvester Larned, who took them to Boston, and learned that they were Hebrew, and contained (1) Deuteronomy 6:4-9, (2) Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and (3) Exodus 13:11-16. Ethan Smith noted that these are three of the four leaves Jews would have on their phylacteries, and presumably that's what the fourth would have been. To him, that gave credence to another story (pg 171) that Rev. Chauncey Cook told him that another minister related to him, saying that "an old Indian informed him that his fathers in this country had not long since had a book which they had for a long time preserved. But having lost the knowledge of reading it, they concluded it would be of no further use to them; and they buried it with an Indian chief." (B. H. Roberts summarizes it in A Parallel item #5, but he doesn't suggest the yellow leaves may be gold instead of parchment, but rather it may suggest a gold color.) Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon plates were buried in a hill near his farm. He began talking about it in 1823, but A View of the Hebrews didn't include this story until the second edition in 1825. | ||
| Breastplate, Urim & Thummim | ✔ | ✔ |
| This comes from A Parallel item #7. Ethan Smith referenced James Adair's arguments that the Native Americans are Hebrew, one of which is that like the Jews, the Indians had "their prophets, high priests" and that "before the Indian Archimagus officiates in making the supposed holy fire for the yearly atonement for sin, the sagan (waiter of the high priest) clothes him with a white ephod, which is a waistcoat without sleeves. In resemblance of the Urim and Thummim, the American Archimagus wears a breast plate made of a white conch-shell with two holes bored in the middle of it, through which he puts the ends of an otter skin strap, and fastens a buck horn white button to the outside of each, as if in imitation of the precious stones of the Urim." Joseph Smith explained that along with the Book of Mormon plates was also two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate, which was prepared by God for the purpose of translating the book. (Joseph Smith—History 1:35). He and others called them the "Urim and Thummim" but some have argued that he might not have actually called it Urim and Thummim until later on. The earliest reference to that term is in the 10 August 1832 Boston Investigator, reporting on an interview 5 days earlier with two preachers (Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde) who said the Book of Mormon was translated "through the medium of the Urim and Thummim" explaining that they were found with the plates. In the January 1833 issue of the Evening and Morning Star where W. W. Phelps wrote (pg 116) "It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)". | ||
| Prophets, spiritually gifted men transmit generational records | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is again from A Parallel item #7. This is again related to the parchment found in Indian Hill (pg. 172). In the page previous, Ethan Smith related a story that Rev. Chauncey Cook told him that a minister told him that Rev. Dr. West told him that an old Indian told him that they "had not long since had a book which they had for a long time preserved. But having lost the knowledge of reading it, they concluded it would be of no further use to them; and they buried it with an old Indian chief." Back with the parchment, Ethan Smith said the phylacteries suggest "After their knowledge of reading had long been lost, some chief, or high priest, or old beloved wise man, (keeper of their tradition) fearing these precious leaves would get lost" and preserved them, sewing them in raw hide, and thus safely brought down to a period near to the time when the natives last occupied Indian Hill." In the Book of Mormon, the plates were passed through prophets or kings through the generations, and they added their own records to it. John L. Sorensen has said in Mormon's Codex that "many uses of written documents are known from Mesoamerica. At least 14 of those uses are represented or are referred to in the Nephite record: for example, records of contemporary events, letters of correspondence, adventures of individual heroes or villains, and genealogies." | ||
| A man standing on a wall warning the people saying, "Wo, wo to this city ... to this people" while subsequently being attacked | ✔ Jesus, son of Ananus, stood on the wall saying "Wo, wo to this city, this temple, and this people." - Came to preach for many days - Went upon a wall - Cried with a loud voice - Preached of destruction of Jerusalem - Had stones cast at him (View of the Hebrews, p.20) (pg 11 in the second edition) | ✔ Samuel the Lamanite stood on the wall saying "Wo, wo to this city" or "this people". - Came to preach for many days - Went upon a wall - Cried with a loud voice - Preached of destruction of Nephites - Had stones cast at him |
| B. H. Roberts didn't make this comparison. When Ethan Smith was relating the destruction of Jerusalem, he quoted Josephus regarding Jesus, the son of Ananus, who exclaimed for seven years through the streets of Jerusalem "A voice from the east—a voice from the west—a voice from the four winds—a voice against Jerusalem and the temple—a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides—a voice against the whole people!" At the end of the seven years his cries were "peculiarly loud and urgent." This was 70 AD, and at the beginning of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, he climbed the walls, and exclaimed, "Wo, wo to this city, this temple, and this people" and just as he added to the last "Wo, wo to myself!" then a stone from a Roman siege machine struck him dead on the spot. (pg 11. See also The Wars of the Jews 6.5.3) Samuel the Lamanite went to Zarahemla to preach of their wickedness, but after many days he was cast out. The voice of the Lord commanded him to return, and when they wouldn't let him enter, he got on the wall and cried with a loud voice, prophesying whatever the Lord put in his heart (Helaman 13:1-4). He told the people that in 5 years, a new star would arise, which would be the sign of Jesus Christ's birth. He also said that there would be three days of darkness along with much destruction as a sign of His death. (Helaman 14) He also taught that in four hundred years, heavy destruction awaited this people, unless they repent (Helaman 13:5-6), saying "wo unto him that repenteth not. Yea, wo unto this great city of Zarahemla; for behold, it is because of those who are righteous that it is saved; yea, wo unto this great city ... Yea, wo unto this people, because of this time which has arrived, that ye do cast out the prophets, and do mock them, and cast stones at them, and do slay them, and do all manner of iniquity unto them, even as they did of old time." (Helaman 13:11-12, 24) After Samuel had delivered his message, there were many who were angry and cast stones and arrows at him, but the Spirit protected him that they could not hit him, and many who saw that they could not hit him became believers. But many more didn't believe, and called for their captains to take him and bind him, but Samuel jumped down off the wall and fled back to his own country. (Helaman 16:2-7) | ||
| The Gospel preached in the Americas | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is in the second to last item in B. H. Roberts' summary of similarities. Ethan Smith said that there was a greater similarity between the Indian religion and Christianity. He said that when the Indian children came home from the Indian school and talked about what they had learned, "the old Indian said; Now this is good talk. This is such as we used to hear when we were children from the old people, till some of the white people came among us, and destroyed it. We thank the Great Spirit that he has brought it back again!" (pg. 142) This is really the only part I know where he mentions the similarity to Christianity, and only going so far to say that there is "a far greater analogy between much of the religion of the Indians, and Christianity, than between that of any other heathen nation on earth and Christianity." Ethan Smith's goal in the book, however, is to show that natives descend from Hebrews, and does not consider that they had the Christian gospel. The entirety of the Book of Mormon shows that God chose prophets in the New World, who proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ to the people. | ||
| Quotes whole chapters of Isaiah | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is from item #12 in A Parallel. The fourth chapter (pg 175) of A View of the Hebrews is devoted to saying it is our responsibility to help gather Israel. Ethan Smith quotes the entirety of Isaiah 18, all seven verses, one verse at a time, and providing an explanation for each verses, explaining that it was written for us in our time. Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi, and Jesus all quote full chapters of Isaiah, such that the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah 2-14, 29, and 48-54. | ||
| Good and bad are a necessary opposition | ✔ | ✔ |
| Ethan Smith related how an Indian chief told Du Pratz that they worshiped "the great and most perfect Spirit" who created all things, including "little spirits, called free servants, … some good, some bad; and that the bad have a chief who is more wicked than the rest." (pg. 71) Later, he references Alexander Humboldt, "'These embrace a great number of curious subjects... the struggle between Quaulz and Matlax, the good and bad principle by which the world of goverened; …' Here is a traditional peculiarity of Israel … The struggles of the good and bad principle seems very congenial to ancient revelation." Lehi taught his son, Jacob, that "it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2). Ethan Smith didn't say that good and bad are necessary, and B. H. Roberts just said (3rd to last in his summary of similarities), "Some of Ethan Smith's people's believed in the constant struggle between the good and the bad principle, by which the world is governed." | ||
| Pride denounced | ✔ | ✔ |
| This comes from A Parallel #14. A chief of the Delaware Indians told a couple men from the Union Station that his ancestors believed in one God, a heaven and a hell. "He said, he also knew it wrong if a poor man came to his door hungry and naked, to turn him away empty. For he believed God loved the poorest of men better than he did proud rich men." (pg 75) There are many instances where pride is denounced in the Book of Mormon. For example, 2 Nephi 9:30,42 "Wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. … and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them." | ||
| Polygamy denounced | ✔ | ✔ |
| This comes from A Parallel #15. The same Indian chief in the previous item continues, "Long time ago, (he added) it was a good custom among his people to take but one wife, and that for life. But now they had become so foolish, and so wicked, that they would take a number of wives at a time; and turn them away at pleasure!" Jacob in the Book of Mormon taught "hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me" (Jacob 2:27-28). | ||
| Sacred towers and high places | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is in B. H. Roberts' 6th to last summary of similarities. Ethan Smith references the Archæologia Americana, containing Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society published in 1820. He says they describe a "stone fort enclosing forty acres or upwards. This contains two stone tumuli; 'Such (says the author) as were used in ancient times as altars, and as monuments.'—He adds; 'I should rather suspect this to have been a sacred enclosure, or "high place," which was resorted to on some great anniversary.'" (pg 146) He also says, "These ancient works of the native Americans may well remind us of what was said in the Old Testament writings of the ancient 'high places' of Israel. (pg 152) He notes that Biblical references can be for both true and idolatrous worship. Likewise, there are also towers for true and false worship in the Book of Mormon. B. H. Roberts speaks of the tower wicked King Noah had built, and the tower in Nephi's garden by the highway. I would also add the tower used by the Zoramites. John L. Sorensen observed in Mormon's Codex that "Sacred 'towers' were constructed by the Nephites that were similar to Mesoamerican 'towers' or pyramidal substructures, all such constructions having had a primarily religious purpose. Moreover the one instance, in the book of Helaman, when a private tower structure was used as a site for prayer and religious discourse has Mesoamerican parallels." | ||
| Messiah visits the Americas | ✔ Quetzalcoatl, the white bearded "Mexican Messiah" | ✔ |
| This is from A Parallel #18. Ethan Smith related a tradition of Quetzalcoatl, the name signifying a serpent of green feathers, but at the same time, they described him as "'a white and bearded man.' 'He was high priest of Tula, legislator, chief of a religious sect who inflicted on themselves the most cruel penance.' 'He introduced the custom of piercing the lips and ears; and lacerating the rest of the body with prickles and thorns.' 'He appeased by his penance divine wrath.' … 'The reign of Quetzalcotl was a golden age of the people of Anahuac. The earth brought forth without culture the most fruitful harvests. But this reign was not of long duration.' 'The Great Spirit offered Quetzalcotl beverage, which in rendering him immortal, inspired him with a taste for travelling, and with an irresistible desire of visiting a distant country called Tlapallan.' … 'He preached peace to men, and would permit no other offerings to the Divinity than the first fruits of the harvests.' 'He disappeared, after he had declared to the Cholulans that he would return and govern them again, and renew their happiness.'" He also quoted Montezuma, "We know by our books, … that myself and those who inhabit this country, are not natives, but strangers, who came from a great distance. We know also that the chief who led our ancestors hither, returned for a certain time to his primitive country. We have always believed that his descendants would one day come to take possession of this country. Since you arrive from that region where the sun rises; and as you assure me you have long known us; I cannot doubt but that the king who sent you is our natural master." Ethan Smith summarized this in this way, "Though their ancient 'legislator' is called by a name importing the serpent of green feathers; yet he was an ancient man, a white man and bearded; called by Montezuma, a saint who led them to this country, and taught them many things. Who could this be but Moses, the ancient legislator in Israel?" He compares the "cruel penance" to the strictness of the Law of Moses, the "serpent of the green plumage" to the brazen serpent Moses raised in the wilderness, an emblem of healing power. Piercing ears to the requirement for servants unwilling to leave their masters, the lacerating the body to self-denial in the Law of Moses, appeasing divine wrath to Law of Moses sacrifices, the golden age to the 7 years of plenty in Egypt, and other comparisons. (pp 156-159) B. H. Roberts ignored the comparisons to Moses, instead seeing similarities to Jesus Christ. Unlike A View of the Hebrews the Book of Mormon actually has Jesus visit the Americas. He descends from heaven, teaches His gospel, heals their sick, and establishes His Church (3 Nephi 11-28). The people have a period of unity and prosperity for 100-200 years (4 Nephi). | ||
| Idolatry and human sacrifice | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is the 16th item in B. H. Roberts' summary of similarities. Ethan Smith actually went to great length to show that the Indians did not practice Idolatry, but believed in only one God, the Great Spirit (pp 70-78). But he does mention a few exceptions, particularly "some Indians far to the west" where before and after going to war "they sacrifice a dog, and have a dance. On these occasions they formerly sacrificed a prisoner taken in the war; but through the benevolent exertions of a trader among them, they have abandoned the practice of human sacrifice" (pg 74). B. H. Roberts suggested that this was enough for someone to argue as a source for Book of Mormon references for the Lamanites worshiping idols (Alma 17:15, 31:1) and human sacrifice (Mormon 4:15,21). John L. Sorenson noted in Mormon's Codex that human sacrifice appears in the archaeological record by the fifth century AD, which corresponds with its appearance among the Lamanites in the fourth century. | ||
| Hebrews divide into two classes, civilized and barbarous | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is from A Parallel #9. Responding to criticism that the Indians cannot be the lost ten tribes due to their lack of civilization, Ethan Smith pointed out the more civilized ruins found by archaeologists, and said, "The probability then is this; that the ten tribes, arriving in this continent with some knowledge of the arts of civilized life; finding themselves in a vast wilderness filled with the best of game, inviting them to the chase; most of them fell into a wandering idle hunting life. Different clans parted from each other, lost each other and formed separate tribes. Most of them formed a habit of this idle mode of living, and were pleased with it. More sensible parts of this people associated together, to improve their knowledge of the arts; and probably continued thus for ages. From these the noted relics of civilization discovered in the west and south, were furnished" (pg. 130). The Book of Mormon suggests not just two classes, but two kingdoms, each possessing the characteristics of the two classes. There are also times where it is the Nephites who are wicked, and the Lamanites are righteous. | ||
| Civilized thrive in art, written language, metallurgy, navigation | ✔ | ✔ |
| This comes from the 11th item in B. H. Roberts' summary of similarities. Before dividing in to classes, Ethan Smith noted that ancient Israel knew something of "the mechanic arts, of writing, and of navigation" and that American archaeology had found "brick, earthen ware, sculptures, and some implements of iron, as well as other metals, and other tokens of considerable improvement;" and so argued that this supported them descending from the ten tribes (pg. 129). As for the book of Mormon, I don't know that it mentions art much at all, let alone that it was something that the civilized Nephites thrived in that the barbaric Lamanites did not. It does say that they had written language, however, it appears that the Lamanites may have writing as well, since there are references to sending proclamations and epistles. The only times that the Lamanites are mentioned in connection to metal seems to be in Helaman 6, which was a time of peace and prosperity among the Nephites and Lamanites. It also seems that the Nephites and Lamanites had equal levels of navigation. B. H. Roberts seemed to make his comparison based solely on 2 Nephi 5 (according to page 190) that Nephi took those who believed in God, and they traveled into the wilderness taking with him the brass plates which was their written scriptures. He also took the sword of Laban, and made others like it. Mesoamerica had writing for thousands of years, and in Mormon's Codex John L. Sorensen noted that "Metals are 'not supposed to have been' in use in Pre-Classic or Classic Mesoamerica, before about AD 900, but archaeological finds and linguistic data now show that metallurgy was known in Book of Mormon times." | ||
| Government changes from monarchy to republic | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is the 5th to last summary of similarities. Ethan Smith wrote of the Zac, of Bogota, and the Incas of Peru where "despotism was concealed under the appearance of a gentle and patriarchal government." He said that a "theocratico patriarchal" government most resembles Israel (pg. 137). Quoting Alexander Humboldt, he said "'But the Mexican small colonies, wearied of tyranny, gave themselves republican constitutions" (pg 138). He doesn't go into further detail on what that entailed, only showing that they were civilized "from ancient date." In the Book of Mormon, at the end of the book of Mosiah, they changed from a monarchy to a "reign of the judges" where a chief judge chosen by the voice of the people rules over the nation. However, looking at how it actually worked, they typically ruled for life, and their successor was typically a son. In effect, it is an elected monarchy, with little resemblance to any kind of republic. John L. Sorenson has noted in Mormon's Codex that "Election or ratification of a new ruler by 'vote' of his subjects was sometimes the custom." | ||
| Civil and ecclesiastical power is united in the same person | ✔ | ✔ |
| B. H. Roberts had this in his summary as the 4th to last item. A View of the Hebrews quotes Humbolt as saying that one of the curious subjects the writings of Mozino embrace includes "the union of civil and ecclesiastical power in the same persons of the princes" and then Ethan Smith noted the similarity to Israel, "the origin in the same person of civil and ecclesiastical government" (pg. 141) In the Book of Mormon, we see that with the kings in the Book of Mosiah, that Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah were not only political leaders, but religious ones. B. H. Roberts used Alma the Younger as an example, that he was both chief judge and high priest at the beginning of the book of Alma. In Mormon's Codex, John L. Sorenson has said that in Mesoamerica, "Central to ancient governance was the idea that kings (or at lesser levels, lords or nobles) were divinely designated (or were themselves considered divine) rulers with powers conferred on them 'by right.' (This was contrary to New England where the Book of Mormon was first published.)" | ||
| Long wars break out between the civilized and barbarous | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is the 9th item in B. H. Roberts' summary. Ethan Smith made the hypothesis "that tremendous wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren, till the former became extinct" to explain "the ancient works, forts, mounds, and vast enclosures" from centuries before Columbus (pg. 130). The Book of Mormon tells of several large wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites. John L. Sorenson noted in Mormon's Codex, "Warfare was of major significance in the culture and history of both Mesoamerica and Book of Mormon peoples. Recognition of its significance represents a major change in archaeological thought in recent decades … Religion played a major role in warfare and was sometimes the primary cause of conflict, according to both sources." | ||
| Extensive military fortifications, observations, "watch towers" | ✔ | ✔ |
| This is the 7th to last item in B. H. Roberts' summary. Ethan Smith told of some ancient ruins near Newark, Ohio, "There is a fort including forty acres, whose walls are ten feet high. It has eight gateways, each of the width of about fifteen feet. … Near this fort is another round fort containing twenty-two acres, and connected with the first fort by two parallel walls of earth about the size of the other walls. At the remotest part of this circular fort, and just without a gateway, is an observatory so high as to command a view of the region to some distance" (pg 145). Wicked king Noah built a tower in Mosiah 11, from which in Mosiah 19, he was able to see the army of the Lamanites approaching. Moroni built fortifications by digging up heaps of earth, with timbers and towers build on top (Alma 50:1-6). John L. Sorenson said in Mormon's Codex, "A pyramid at Kaminaljuyu suggested by archaeologists to have functioned as a military watch tower agrees in general in time, place, and function with a Book of Mormon description of the use of such a structure in the second century BC." | ||
| Barbarous exterminate the civilized | ✔ | ✔ |
| This comes from the 10th item in B. H. Roberts' summary. This continues the quote in one of the earlier lines, where Ethan Smith suggested a division between civilized and barbarous, "But the savage tribes prevailed; and in process of time their savage jealousies and their rage, annihilated their more civilized brethren, And thus, as a holy vindictive Providence would have it, and according to ancient denunciations, all were left in an 'outcast' savage state" (pg. 130). The Lamanites certainly exterminate the Nephites, however by that time, by Mormon's description, the Nephites were no more civilized than the Lamanites. In Mormon's Codex, John L. Sorenson said, "Around AD 350 the Central Depression of Chiapas was depopulated almost totally due to war instigated by foes from Guatemala." This is the same time period that the Nephites retreated northward from Lamanite aggression, and he identifies that region as the Sidon river basin. He also compares the extermination of the Nephites near 400 AD with the Terminal Classic era, a few centuries later. | ||
| Discusses the United States | ✔ | ✔ |
| This seems to be regarding the 5th item in B. H. Roberts' summary. Ethan Smith taught in his last chapter that Isaiah 18 is a message to us as United States citizens, that we have a responsibility to bring the Native Americans to a knowledge of the gospel. The Book of Mormon doesn't discuss the United States at all. B. H. Roberts wrote that the purpose of the book the same, as expressed in the title page, that its purpose is "to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile … to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself to all nations." | ||
| Ethan/Ether | ✔ Elder B. H. Roberts noted: "Ethan is prominently connected with the recording of the matter in the one case, and Ether in the other." | ✔ |
| This is from the last part of the 7th item in B. H Roberts' summary. He expanded on this back on page 187: "In taking leave of the Jaredites and this Book of Ether, one word more, this name 'Ether.' Rather an unusual name, is it not? I do not find it among Bible names nor in any list of proper names of the unabridged dictionaries so far consulted. Could it be that it was a variation made from the 'Ethan' of Mr. Smith’s name-author of the View of the Hebrews? Ethan = Ether! Not impossible, at least; … Do not take the idea too seriously, however, it is merely a passing suggestion of a bare possibility." | ||
| Source: B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.240-242,324-344 | ||
In analyzing all the claims on this list, I had to ask, "Is this a claim that A View of the Hebrews makes? Is this a claim that the Book of Mormon makes? And What did B. H. Roberts say about their connection?" Doing it in reverse order made things easier, but was still extremely difficult. It seems that most others who have done this sort of in-depth analysis have ignored what B. H. Roberts had said, and struggled to see what the connection was.
I'd say that they are right to struggle, though—many of the similarities are extremely tenuous in the first place, and the CES Letter presents several of them poorly. In order to do a proper defense, first we would have to flesh out the actual argument. That's why this is considered a Gish gallop, it is just a big list designed to overwhelm you, and then you think, "wow, they must be right!" because the effort to actually research the claims are too great.
Here are my overall thoughts on A View of the Hebrews.
I think it first helps to organize everything that the book is saying. Ethan Smith is making the argument that the lost 10 tribes traveled north out of Assyria, found their way to the Americas. He presents several pieces of evidence to support the claim that native Americans originated from Israel:
- These natives all appear to have had one origin
- Their language appears to have been Hebrew
- The Indians had their ark of the covenant
- They have had circumcision
- They generally have acknowledged one and only one God
- Remarks of William Penn compared them to Hebrew in appearance, dress, beliefs, feasts, calendar.
- They have a superior tribe, comparable to the tribe of Levi
- Their description seems similar to a description by Isaiah
- Indians are divided into tribes, like the tribes of Israel
- The Indians had cities of refuge, as the ancient Hebrews
- A variety of traditions, historical and religious, go to evince that they are the ten tribes of Israel
- Testimonies of several others
- Good original character of the natives
- Description of natives of New Spain [Latin America]
- Indian Pyramids
- American High Places like those of ancient Israel
- Pyramid of Cholula
- Traditions of an ancient celebrated character, probably Moses
- Traditions of a Trinity in Unity in God
- Phylacteries, or ancient Hebrew writings, found on Indian Hill, in Pittsfield
This is the bulk of the book. He opens the book by talking about the Roman destruction of Israel, then backs up to talk about the lost ten tribes. He argues that just as the scattering was literal, the restoration should be expected to be literal. From there, he moves into his argument. Once he is done, he relates Isaiah 18, explaining each of the seven verses, and tells how it is for us in our day, that we have a responsibility to gather Israel.
For Joseph Smith to use A View of the Hebrews as a "ground plan" for the Book of Mormon, one would expect that Joseph would include elements from Ethan Smith's book that "prove" that the natives are actually Hebrew in origin. However, Joseph didn't include many of those similarities. In fact, Joseph takes it a step further and claims that the natives weren't just Hebrew, they were Christian.
If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then we probably wouldn't be surprised to find evidence of Hebrew connections to ancient America. But of course that's also part of the argument, that Joseph Smith could have known all this from A View of the Hebrews. Then again, an earlier item in the CES Letter argued that there was no archaeological support for the Book of Mormon, so you would have to ignore that part.
Joseph Smith actually quoted from A View of the Hebrews in a 1 June 1842 Times and Seasons article introducing it this way:
If such may have been the fact, that a part of Ten Tribes came over to America in the way we have supoosed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to do this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows:
He then quotes the portion regarding the phylacteries found in Indian Hill by Joseph Merrick, beginning on pg. 168 in the edition that I linked. Joseph seems unconcerned that anyone would recognize it as the source of The Book of Mormon.
In an article by Bruce E. and Brian Dale, they did a bayesian statistical analysis of positive and negative correspondences between the Book of Mormon and The Maya, which is a book by Dr. Michael Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican scholar and skeptic of the Book of Mormon. In order to avoid cherry-picking, they took every claim his book made and compared those to what the Book of Mormon said, and only not considering those where the Book of Mormon makes no claim. They found 131 specific positive correspondences, 51 of which were also detailed and unusual. There were only six negative correspondences.
But maybe positive parallels are just easier to find? So to see if they got similar results, they also compared The Maya with A View of the Hebrews, and found 15 positive and 9 negative correspondences, and by comparing with their skeptical prior, they conclude that there is no reason to believe that it accurately reflected the world of ancient Mesoamerica as set forth in The Maya.
Reverend Ethan Smith was the author of View of the Hebrews. Ethan Smith was a pastor in Poultney, Vermont when he wrote and published the book. Oliver Cowdery – also a Poultney, Vermont resident – was a member of Ethan’s congregation during this time and before he went to New York to join his distant cousin Joseph Smith. As you know, Oliver Cowdery played an instrumental role in the production of the Book of Mormon.
Larry E. Morris published an article that talks about Oliver Cowdery's Vermont years. He addressed the claim that Oliver was a member of Ethan Smith's congregation, most particularly made by David Persuitte in his 1985 publication Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. There is an 1818 record of three of William Cowdry's children being baptized in the Poultney church that Ethan Smith would be over three years later.
The fact that they were all baptized the same day (ages 7, 4, and 1) calls into question how regularly they attended church. Compare with William's parents, who had him baptized at 1 month. Also only Oliver's step-mother Keziah, and Oliver's three half-sisters are mentioned in the church records. Added to that, there is some evidence that Oliver was living with a cousin in Wells, Vermont between 1820 and 1822, which is the same time that Ethan Smith began preaching for the congregation. Oliver left Vermont around 1825, and there is no evidence that he met Joseph prior to their first meeting in 1829.
Oliver was a third cousin with Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. Perhaps Jeremy is close with his third cousins, but there is no evidence that Oliver and the Smith's were ever aware of their relationship, or that they had met prior to 1828. Consider: how many of your parent's third cousins do you know?
Using Family Search, I counted that Joseph had 7,610 third cousins or closer. I saw that there were lots of errors, and probably lots of missing children, so even though I counted, it is likely not the correct number. But making a calculation based on this information to extrapolate how many relatives Joseph Smith had, I estimate that Joseph Smith had about 65,093 third cousins once removed or closer. That is a lot of people, meaning it is very likely to meet one randomly and not know they were related.
In fact, in this Popular Science article, according to data from the chief science officer of MyHeritage and data scientist Yaniv Erlich, "from 1650 to 1850, a given person was, on average, fourth cousins with their spouse" because in those days, travel was limited and most people married "someone who lived with in a six-mile radius of where they were born." Even today, we are all much more closely related than you might think—they say according to Erlich that "by 1950, married couples were, on average, more like seventh cousins".
Perhaps some concrete examples will help. Joseph Smith and Ethan Smith themselves were fourth cousins twice removed. And not because their last names were Smith—they were related on Joseph's mother's side. Oliver Cowdery was also fourth cousins twice removed with Ethan Smith, but on a different line from his relationship to Joseph. Oliver was related to Ethan on his father's side, and related to Joseph on his mother's side.
This direct link between Joseph and Oliver and View of the Hebrews demonstrates that Joseph is very likely to have been aware of the theme and content of that book. It gives weight to all the similarities described in the preceding comparison chart. Apologists may point out that the Book of Mormon is not a direct, word-for-word plagiarism of View of the Hebrews, and indeed that is not the claim. Rather, the similarities should give any reader pause that two books so similar in theme and content would coincidentally be connected by Oliver Cowdery.
It is important to note here that Jeremy points out that "a direct, word-for-word plagiarism" is not the claim. B. H. Roberts stated it more clearly that the claim is that A View of the Hebrews served as the "ground plan" for the Book of Mormon, using similar themes and content.
However, given that Oliver Cowdery didn't meet Joseph Smith until 1829, Oliver's connection to Ethan Smith, even if legitimate, is irrelevant. Joseph had already been translating with Martin Harris the Book of Mormon, and though we don't have the lost pages, we know that they covered the same period from 1 Nephi to Omni.
Consider that even if A View of the Hebrews did serve as the ground plan for the Book of Mormon, how is it that Joseph Smith correctly identified which things were part of ancient Mesoamerica, and which were not? When looking at parallels, it also helps to look at "unparallels"—ask yourself, "why would Joseph Smith copy X and not Y?"
LDS General Authority and scholar Elder B.H. Roberts privately researched the link between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews, Joseph’s father having the same dream in 1811 as Lehi’s dream, and other sources that were available to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and others before the publication of the Book of Mormon
While it's true that A View of the Hebrews wasn't the only thing he researched, I can't find where looked into Lehi's dream. I should also point out that he didn't make a connection between A View of the Hebrews and Oliver Cowdery, and as far as I can tell he only talked about sources possibly being available to Joseph Smith, and not Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and others.
I. Woodbridge Riley was the first to suggest a connection between Lehi's vision of the tree of life, and a vision that Joseph Smith Sr. had had after moving to New Hampshire in 1811. He claimed in his 1902 book, The Founder of Mormonism that the Book of Mormon in many parts was "but a thinly veiled autobiography" and said that the acts of Nephi "are the acts of Joseph".
This is the second of seven visions of Joseph Smith Sr. where he was traveling on a broad road through a desolate field, with a guide at his side, who explained it was "the desolate world." Then he turned off into a narrow path by a beautiful stream of water with a rope running along it, about as high as a man can reach. Beyond him was an umbrella-shaped tree in a valley with a kind of fruit "like a chestnut bur and as white as snow, or, if possible, whiter." After the bur opened and he ate the fruit inside, he went and brought his family, who also ate. He then saw "a spacious building standing opposite the valley" which looked like it reached to the heavens, filled with finely-dressed people who "pointed the finger of scorn" at them, but they ignored them.
He asked the guide what the fruit meant, and he told him "it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments." The guide told him he had two more children to bring. After questioning the guide, he saw and brought the two others, and they all ate "by double handfuls." He asked the guide what the building meant, and he was told that "it is Babylon, and it must fall."
There are a lot of similarities, but we should also keep in mind that it wasn't written down until after the Book of Mormon was published, and so it's just as likely that the Book of Mormon influenced how Lucy Mack Smith described the vision.
Tree of Life type of dreams aren't uncommon—In 1830, Robert Mason told young Wilford Woodruff of a vision that he had had in his field in an open day in about 1800. He found himself in an orchard of fruit trees, but despite the vast number of trees, there was no fruit. Then they began to fall to the ground as if by a whirlwind, until none remained. But then new shoots sprung up from the roots, forming beautiful trees with beautiful fruit. But as he was about to eat, the vision ended, and he did not taste the fruit.
Robert Mason prayed to know the meaning of the vision, and the voice of the Lord told him that this was in answer to his prayers about which church to join—that His Church was not yet organized on the earth, but in the next generation, it would be made manifest. He would live to be made acquainted with it, but not be able to have its blessings before dying.
The Tree of Life of course comes from the Bible, and was the tree that provided eternal life in Genesis. Methodist preacher and biblical scholar Margaret Barker suggested that the Book of Mormon Tree of Life fits in well with the world of 600 B.C. and her own theory that Josiah's reforms removed theology about Heavenly Mother from the Bible:
The tree of life made one happy, according to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:18), but for detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the noncanonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruit like grapes (1 Enoch 32:5), and a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruit like white grapes. I do not know of any other source that describes the fruit as white grapes. Imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruit made one happy, and the interpretation that the Virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh (1 Nephi 11:14–23). This is the Heavenly Mother, represented by the tree of life, and then Mary and her Son on earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.
She also noted that although the King James Version has the iron rod to "break" the nations (Psalm 2:9) the Septuagint uses the word "shepherd" instead. "Lehi's vision has the iron rod guiding people to the great tree—the older and probably the original understanding of the word."
Elder Roberts’ private research was meant only for the eyes of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and was never intended to be available to the public. However, Roberts’ work was later published in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon. Based upon his research, Elder B.H. Roberts came to the following conclusion on the View of the Hebrews:
“Did Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon’s origin.”– B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.240
B. H. Roberts served as one of the seven presidents First Council of the Seventy, and also as Assistant Church Historian. He is probably most well known for his six-volume History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Truman G. Madsen, a BYU professor of religion and philosophy published in 1979 an article on B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon. Elder James E. Talmage recorded that on 4 and 5 January 1922, B. H. Roberts made an oral presentation before the general authorities concerning issues that critics had about the Book of Mormon. Elder Talmage wrote that he and others were asked to help Elder Roberts prepare answers, and he predicted that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated.
Later in March that same year, B. H. Roberts prepared a draft of a written report to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, and among other things it included a series of parallels with Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. These were put together in a typewritten manuscript titled Book of Mormon Study. It is not clear how much was ever actually submitted to them, but it is clear that it was written for them. This and other writings were eventually published in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon.
It was not intended to be balanced, and given that Roberts continued to testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, this discussion of parallels is best described as him being a "devil's advocate" by presenting the critical argument so that the Church could then present a strong defense for those claims. He used a similar method when he was Mission President of the Eastern States Mission from 1922-27, teaching missionaries how to defend the Church.
Most importantly, in a 1923 letter intended to go with his report, Elder Roberts wrote:
Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] . . . for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well as that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.
Before his death in 1933, B. H. Roberts said that he had concluded Ethan Smith played no part in the formation of the Book of Mormon, that they were not only independent, but incompatible. After his death, his list of parallels was shared without his cover-letter disclaimer, leading people to question his faith. However, it and other correspondences were included when Elder Robert's three essays were published in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon (pg. 57).
While this does not prove that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the View of the Hebrews, it does demonstrate that key elements of the story of the Book of Mormon – i.e. Native Americans as Hebrew descendants, ancient records of natives preserved, scattering and gathering of Israel, Hebrew origin of Native American language, etc. pre-dated the Book of Mormon and were already among the ideas circulating among New England protestant Americans.
Jeremy was careful to point out just a few paragraphs earlier that plagiarism was not the claim, so it seems odd that he would say it fails to prove something he isn't even claiming, especially since he added both paragraphs in his 2017 update. Speaking of claims not made, the Book of Mormon also doesn't claim that Hebrew is the origin of Native American language. I should also point out that the scattering and gathering of Israel is already a big part of the Bible.
Earlier he said his claim was, "the similarities should give any reader pause". I would suggest that if that is true, then the similarities between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica should really give any reader pause.
The parallels between the Book of Mormon and genuine history are far more striking than with the View of the Hebrews. I mentioned several paragraphs back, but for a reminder, there were only 15 positive correspondences and 9 negative between A View of the Hebrews and The Maya, compared with 131 positive and 6 negative correspondences with the Book of Mormon.
With these ideas already existing and the previously cited issues with KJV plagiarism, errors, anachronisms, geography problems, and more issues to come, is it unreasonable to question Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon origins as Church Historian B.H. Roberts did?
The purpose of B. H. Roberts' questions were to get answers, so that we are ready to defend the Book of Mormon. No, it's not unreasonable to question the Book of Mormon origins. But it is unreasonable to dismiss the answers. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but the goal with asking questions should be to get answers.
9. The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain: This book was an 1819 textbook written for New York state school children. The book depicted the events of the War of 1812 and it was specifically written in a Jacobean English style to imitate the King James Bible. This affected scriptural style was calculated to elevate the moral themes, characters and events depicted in the narrative to inspire the readers to “patriotism and piety.” Readers already accustomed to revere scriptural sounding texts in the ancient Bible would be predisposed to revere this history book which employs the same linguistic style.
It was actually published in 1816. It was only with the second edition, published in 1817 that was marketed as a textbook, where the title was changed to The Historical Reader with the subtitle or subheading, containing "The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain From June, 1812, to February, 1815 In the Scriptural Style." Altered and adapted for the use of schools throughout the United States. In 1819, there were six editions under the original title, and eight more as The Historical Reader, all 14 of these calling themselves the third edition.
The first person to claim a connection to The Late War was Rick Grunder, who examined many different sources, claiming that Joseph Smith copied tons of different sources for the Book of Mormon and for Latter-day Saint theology. In 2008, he published his research as Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source on CD-ROM with 2,307 pages on 500 entries. One of those entries was on The Late War. Jeremy will cite Rick in a minute, and I'll go into more detail later, but I think it's helpful to know some background first.
A few months after the Letter to a CES Director was first published, The Late War got some more attention at the annual conference for the Exmormon Foundation in Salt Lake City. (Jeremy added this item and the next item in his 2015 update.) Chris and Duane Johnson proposed a statistical model for discussing authorship of the Book of Mormon. They broke thousands of books down into strings of words four words long, and compared with the Book of Mormon, giving each book a score. I'll revisit this again in more detail after the list of comparisons when Jeremy cites them as a source, but they saw that The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain had the highest score, so they concluded it influenced the Book of Mormon.
They say "other than Bible quotes, the data does not suggest plagiarism, but rather authorship, or in other words 'remixing' existing information." They give as a hypothesis that Joseph Smith read The Late War and it "subconsciously affected his choice of words and writing style in the Book of Mormon."
Benjamin L. McGuire published an article pointing out the flaws in that conclusion. Nearly 14% of the similarities were just in the copyright statement, which of course isn't part of the actual text of the Book of Mormon. Out of all the four-word phrases in either book, less than 1% are shared in the other, which isn't very much. 1.4% of the four-word phrases in Pride and Prejudice were in the relatively unknown 1810 book The Officer's Daughter, and it wouldn't make sense to say it influenced Jane Austin.
The first edition of The Late War had the highest score, but the second edition, marketed to schools had a lower score. Despite being marketed that way, there is no indication that it was ever actually used in a school as a school text.
Benjamin L. McGuire had earlier published a pair of articles reviewing Rick Grunder's book. In part one he talks about approaches to parallels and the difficulties associated with unsorted parallels, among other things, and then in part two, he applies a methodological framework to examples from the collection.
The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon:
1: Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation;
2: That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia;
3: Even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sannhedrim [sic, and additionally, Gilbert Hunt consistently spelled it "Sanhedrim" but the word is normally spelled "Sanhedrin"] of the people, who were assembled together.
4: And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers…
I should note that Jeremy is actually quoting The Historical Reader here which has some changes from The Late War.
The only similarities to the Book of Mormon is that it is written in the same style as the King James Bible. Both frequently use "Now it came to pass". Both use "in the [ordinal] year". Neither ever use the word "era" nor do either ever say "of the same year" but the Bible does use "of the same month". Both use the date format "In the [ordinal] month, on the [ordinal] day of the month." Both have chief governors. Neither use the word "Sanhedrin" but the KJV Bible usually translates it as "the council". (As an aside, Gilbert J. Hunt using "Sanhedrin" to refer to congress reminds me of loan-shifting, which I talked about earlier.)
The Book of Mormon people didn't have surnames, but that is how surnames are phrased in the Bible. "Assembled together" and "Gathered together" are from both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Both also explain how names of cities came about, though they typically say they "called the name of the city" rather than the passive "name of the city was called" but there are some examples in the Bible of that. "Extendeth" only shows up in the Bible, "uttermost" is in both, and "albeit" is only in the Bible, as is the phrase, "slept with his fathers."
So no, it reads more like the Bible than the Book of Mormon. Stanford Carmack, an expert in linguistics, specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis, published a paper comparing the Book of Mormon syntax to The Late War and other pseudo-Biblical texts, concluding that "The Late War pales in comparison with the Book of Mormon in terms of archaic usage." Many archaic Early Modern English examples found in the Book of Mormon are also not found in the Bible, and so could not have even been learned from studying the Bible, let alone The Late War.
There are some small verbatim phrases, but no similar themes or story-lines. The Late War is about the war of 1812, so it has literally nothing to do with Book of Mormon themes or story-lines, except the general idea that they both talk about war.In addition to the above KJV language style present throughout the book, what are the following Book of Mormon verbatim phrases, themes, and storylines doing in a children’s school textbook that was used in Joseph Smith’s own time and backyard – all of this a mere decade before the publication of the Book of Mormon?
When deciding if something similar is a true parallel or not, think, "Would someone reading X actually be inspired to say Y?" I'm reminded of a board game called Dixit where using this strategy can help you do well. Players have a hand of cards with weird pictures on them, one player comes up with a "story" (a word, phrase, or even sound) to go with one of them, other players put in their cards, and then players have to figure out which is the real one. Since other players want people to guess theirs, you can usually find subtle similarities, but to do well, instead of working backwards—Does card X go with story Y?—it helps to think of it forwards: If they were looking at card X, would they actually come up with story Y? I think looking at the parallels with The Late War using a similar mindset would be helpful.
I feel like all the "similarities" in The Late War are pure coincidence. In 2002, Jeff Lindsay made a parody of this type of argument, where he "argues" that Joseph Smith plagiarized from Walt Whitman's 1855 book, Leaves of Grass, citing many parallels.
The Book of Mormon mentions "curious workmanship" five times. One is from the Eight Witness statement, which isn't part of the text, but still uses the archaic definition for curious as ingenious. Besides that, there is 1 Nephi 16:10 and Alma 37:39 on the Liahona, 1 Nephi 18:1 on Nephi's construction of the ship, and Ether 10:27 on unspecified weapons of war.
- Devices of “curious workmanship” in relation to boats and weapons.
In The Late War, "curious workmanship" is used four times, 12:12 for a sword given to Captain Jones, 13:13 for a sword owned by Captain Carden, 19:13 to describe the rifles used by the men on the Forsyth, and 50:7 to say curious steam-boats contained an "abundance of curious workmanship therein."
In The Late War 19:32, at the battle of York, as General Zebulon Pike was approaching the fort, he didn't notice any British soldiers, so he approached with caution. A "stripling, from the south, with his weapon of war in his hand" says he saw a British soldier, and so gets permission from General Pike to go ahead of the American Troops to kill him. But as he returned, the withdrawing British garrison blew up their powder magazine, and General Pike and many others were killed by flying rocks and other debris.
- A “stripling” soldier “with his “weapon of war in his hand.”
The Book of Mormon speaks of "stripling soldiers" in Alma 53:22 who did not covenant to refrain from battle as their parents had, and they chose Helaman as their leader. In Alma 56:57, the "stripling Ammonites" had fought bravely, and none were slain, and the Lamanites surrendered themselves as prisoners of war. The Book of Mormon does not use the phrase "weapon of war in his hand" but does say in Alma 53:19 that they "took their weapons of war to defend their country." I think Jeremy might just be quoting The Late War but the way he does it seems to imply that he is quoting both.
If you are interested in the word itself, the Bible uses "stripling" once. Saul, referred to David after he killed Goliath asked in 1 Samuel 17:56, "Inquire thou whose son the stripling is." The Late War uses it more in this context, as a noun, rather than an adjective like the Book of Mormon.
Moroni was the chief captain, not Helaman. Helaman was chosen by 2,000 young men to be their leader, and he marched ahead of them. They fought with miraculous strength such that none were killed. It doesn't say whether they or other soldiers were compensated or not, but the stripling soldiers weren't compelled to fight if that is what is meant.
- “A certain chief captain…was given in trust a band of more than two thousand chosen men, to go forth to battle” and who “all gave their services freely for the good of their country.”
In The Late War William Hull was called a chief Captain and was given trust of "more than two thousand chosen men" in 6:2. General Hull led an invasion of Canada. He was unsuccessful, and he retreated to Fort Detroit, where he surrendered. Chapter 50:16, a verse was added in The Historical Reader that mentions that a few skillful men were appointed commissioners to construct a steamship, and "they all gave their services freely for the good of their country."
This seems to be a mistaken quote, since the two groups have nothing to do with each other. I would suggest instead 35:5, which is about General Andrew Jackson (called a "chief captain") in the Creek War: "Immediately Jackson took two thousand hardy men, who were called volunteers, because they fought freely for their country, and led them against the savages." They killed 300 native Americans, while 17 Americans were killed. Incidentally, these soldiers mostly came from Tennessee, and so is why it is called "the volunteer state."
Since the one Jeremy actually used was far weaker, it makes me suspect that he did not actually read The Late War. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt: The connections are so weak, I'm sure they can be hard to find even if you are trying to manufacture them.
Mormon first describes Captain Moroni's defenses in Alma 49:4, "… the Nephites had dug up a ridge of earth round about them, which was so high that the Lamanites could not cast their stones and arrows at them that they might take effect, neither could they come upon them save it was by their place of entrance." Verse 18 mentions that there was also a deep ditch.
- Fortifications: “the people began to fortify themselves and entrench the high Places round about the city.”
Probably the most complete description is in Alma 50:1-4: "… for he caused that his armies should commence … in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites. And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of ta man, round about the cities. And he caused that upon those works of timbers that there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high."
Another description is in Alma 53:4, "And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and earth, to an exceeding height."
Gilbert Hunt describes the fortifications in the War of 1812 this way in 51:14-16,22: "So the people began to fortify themselves and entrench the high places around about the city. And when they went out in its defence, to build their strong holds and to raise up their battlements; lo! the steam-boats of Fullon conveyed them thither, about a thousand at a time, even towards the heights of Brooklyn in the east, and the heights of Haerlem in the north. The young and the old, the rich and the poor, went out together; and took with them their bread and their wine; and cast up the dirt for the defence of the place, freely, and without cost to the state. … Thus for an hundred days did the people of New-York prepare themselves for danger, and cast up entrenchments for many furlongs round about the city; so that he people of Britain were afraid to go against it."
For some extra context, this is referring to how there were a number of forts built in response to the British invasion and burning of Washington D.C. on 24 August 1814. They were built as redoubts, often relying on earthworks and/or stone and wooden timbers, which traditionally served to shelter soldiers posted outside the main fort, but in America in most cases they served as the main fort itself.
Fort Greene, already built at the beginning of the war, was built on high ground that overlooked Wallabout Bay and the Brooklyn Navy Yard. In 1814, in a line to the south-west, connecting Fort Greene with Gowanus Creek these "forts" were built: Fort Cummings, Washington battery, Fort Masonic, and Fort Fireman. They were close enough that grapeshot could cover the area in between, and earthworks connected this line of forts.
The Book of Mormon fortifications weren't just in a line, nor as a small redoubt, but actually surrounded the city, creating a stronghold.
Here is how the Liahona is described in the Book of Mormon, in 1 Nephi 16:10, "... a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whether we should go into the wilderness." Verses 28-29 say that the pointers "did work according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them" and it also had writing upon them, "and it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it."
- Objects made “partly of brass and partly of iron, and were cunningly contrived with curious works, like unto a clock; and as it were a large ball.”
Here is how The Late War describes torpedoes beginning in 50:24, "Now these wonderful torpedoes were made partly of brass and partly of iron, and were cunningly contrived with curious works, like unto a clock; and as it were a large ball. And, after they were prepared, and a great quantity of the black dust put therein, they were let down into the water, nigh unto the strong ships, with intent to destroy them; And it was so, that when they struck against the bottom of the ship, the black dust in the torpedo would catch fire, and burst forth with tremendous roar, casting the vessel out of the waters and bursting her in twain." We think of torpedoes today as a self-propelled explosive, but in the War of 1812, it referred to a kind of floating mine.
Jeremy is about to describe these similarities as "astounding" but the similarities disappear with only a little bit of context.
This comes from 54:7, speaking of the British soldiers, "Their polished steels, of fine workmanship, glittered in the sun, and the movement of their squadrons was as the waving of a wheat-field, when the south wind passeth gently over it."
- “Their polished steels of fine workmanship.”
I can't guess what the Book of Mormon parallel is even supposed to be. "Polished" only shows up when Nephi is quoting Isaiah in 1 Nephi 21:2, "And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;" and "fine workmanship" is associated with steel only in Jarom 1:8, "And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war."
After following a link Jeremy will give later on, I was able to find the claim and yes, he is referring to Jarom 1:8. So apparently I could guess, it just wasn't similar enough that I doubted that was what he was referring to.
This is again talking about fortifications, and from the exact spot as a few paragraphs ago. This verse is a bit earlier, at 51:7, talking about the Jersey Blues who were camped nearby ready to serve, and when their term was up, they worked to build fortifications, as already discussed.
- “Nevertheless, it was so that the freeman came to the defence of the city, built strong holds and forts and raised up fortifications in abundance.”
"Nevertheless, it was so that the freemen who came to the defence of the city, built strong holds and forts, and raised up fortifications in abundance, inasmuch as the whole place was as one camp." I don't think this presents anything new that the previous bullet didn't cover.
In the Book of Mormon, three of the twelve disciples of Jesus are blessed that they will never taste of death. This event is in 3 Nephi 28, and they are mentioned again in 4 Nephi 1:14,37 and Mormon 8:10-11.
- Three Indian Prophets.
During the Creek War, General Ferdinand Claiborne led an attack on an Indian village called Econochaca, translated by the Americans as "Holy Ground". It got this name because Creek prophets performed ceremonies there to create a spiritual barrier there. The Late War speaks of these prophets in 35:19-21, "And he marched with is army through the wilderness more than an hundred miles, to a town built upon a place called by the savages the Holy-ground, where three of the Indian prophets dwelt. Now there were lying prophets among the savages, even as there were in the days of old; and they prophesied according to their own wishes; And those of shallow understanding believed them, and were led into a snare, whereby their whole tribe was nigh being destroyed."
After General Claiborne's initial attack, they fled. It goes on to describe how General Jackson came and his army killed 750 warriors, and 250 women and children were captured. In 35:29, it says "Manahoee, their chief prophet, was smitten in the mouth, and slain, and two other false prophets were slain with him."
The rod of iron is described in the Book of Mormon as part of Lehi's dream (1 Nephi 8) where he saw a rod of iron extending along the bank of a river by a path that led to the tree which produced a white fruit, which Lehi was standing next. He saw that those who pressed forward, clinging to the rod of iron were able to come to the tree through mists of darkness.
- “Rod of iron.”
Nephi has the same vision, and saw that the iron rod "was the word of God" (1 Nephi 11:25) and that "whoso would hearken unto the word of God and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish, neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness to lead them away to destruction (1 Nephi 15:24).
In The Late War, the British are upset when they receive the American declaration of war, saying in 3:4, "we will rule them with a rod of iron; and they shall be, unto us, hewers of wood and drawers of water."
A better comparison would be with Revelation 19:15, when Jesus returns, "out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God."
The Late War is a book about the War of 1812, and it characterizes the British as "wicked" and I don't know that it explicitly calls the Americans "righteous" but it certainly casts them in a positive light. The Nephites are generally described as righteous and the Lamanites as wicked, though there are times where the Nephites fall into wickedness.
- War between the wicked and righteous.
Good vs. evil is an extremely common theme in literature, and would require additional details to make the case that this parallel is significant.
I can't find what correlation they are referring to here. For this one, Jeremy seems to be using a generic description, not specifically quoting either book, making finding matches difficult.
- Maintaining the standard of liberty with righteousness.
In Alma 46, Amalickiah wanted to be king, and flattered many "to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them". Moroni was upset, rent his coat and wrote on a piece of it, "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" and he put it at the end of a pole, waving it in the air inviting all to enter into a covenant with God to maintain that title. Others also rent their garments as a token of that covenant.
Amalakiah and his people fled, but some were captured. Of those who were captured, those who would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom were put to death. After that, Moroni "caused the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land, which was possessed by the Nephites; and thus Moroni planted the standard of liberty among the Nephites."
The title of Liberty makes an appearance again in Alma 51. Moroni had fortified cities, but some people disagreed when Nephihah's son Pahoran was appointed to fill the judgment seat, and they wanted him to alter the law to establish a king over the land, and so they were called "king-men". The conflict was settled by the voice of the people, but they were so upset that when Amalakiah came to fight, they refused to take up arms to defend the country. Moroni marched against them, killing 4,000, and putting other of their leaders in prison. "And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country."
The third time it appears is in Alma 62. Moroni had learned that a group of people rebelled against Pahoran, taking possession of Zarahemla and appointing Pachus as a king over them. Pahoran fled to the land of Gideon. Moroni left Lehi and Teancum in charge, while he took a small number of men to Gideon, "and he did raise the standard of liberty in whatsoever place he did enter, and gained whatsoever force he could in all his march towards the land of Gideon. And it came to pass that thousands did flock unto his standard, and did take up their swords in the defence of their freedom, that they might not come unto bondage." Pachus was killed in battle, his men received their trial, as did the king-men who had been imprisoned previously. All who would would fight against rather than defend the country were put to death.
The Late War mentions a "standard" twice, one was the British Flag though, so let's look at the one about the American flag. General William Hull went to Canada, which was under British rule, and issued a proclamation from the United States government, and in 6:13-17 where "he invited the people of the province of Canada to join themselves to the host of Columbia, who were come to drive the servants of the king from their borders. And it came to pass, that a great multitude flocked to the banners of the great Sanhedrim. Nevertheless, they knew not that they were to be entrapt. However it was so, that William departed from the province of the king, and again passed the river. And when the husbandmen of the province of Canada, who had joined the standard of Columbia, learned those things, they wept bitterly; for they were left behind."
This seems a replay of the one a couple bullets ago. However, instead of wars between "wicked and righteous" it is more specifically between two groups of Indians.
- Righteous Indians vs. savage Indians.
Nephites vs. Lamanites seems to fit for the Book of Mormon again. In The Late War, usually when Indians are mentioned, they are fighting against the United States, not another Indian tribe. But there is one point where a few native American nations side with the United States and fight against those native Americans on the British side. 26:18-28
I addressed the reference in The Late War already under the "Three Indian Prophets" bullet. The only reference to false prophets in the Book of Mormon is a brief reference in 4 Nephi 1:34, "Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again."18 Now there were some amongst the tribes of the savages, who had been instructed in the ways of God, and taught to walk in the path of righteousness;
19 For the chief governor of the land of Columbia, and the great Sanhedrim of the people, had taken them under their care,
20 And sent good men amongst them to preach the gospel, and instruct them in the sublime doctrine of the Saviour of the world.
21 And they hearkened unto the preachers, and were convinced, and their natures were softened.
22 Amongst these tribes were those who were called, the Six nations of New-York Indians:
23 And their eyes were opened, and they saw the evil and the wickedness of Britain.
24 So their chiefs and their counsellors rose up and made war against the province of Canada, and fought against the hired savages of the king of Britain.
25 But in all their acts they suffered not the spirit of barbarians to rule over them.
26 They remembered the good counsel given to them by their aged chief.*
27 And when the red savages and the men of Britain fell into their hands, they raised neither the tomahawk nor the scalping knife.
28 Nay, they treated them kindly; and those who were slain in battle they disturbed not; and their humanity exceeded the humanity of the white men of Britain.* Alluding to an eloquent speech, delivered about that time, to the Six Nations, by one of their old warriors.
- False Indian prophets.
- Conversion of Indians.
This is related with the item two bullets up. Converted Indians fought against the British and the Indians they employed. There are converts in the Book of Mormon, and since they are all Indians, I suppose every convert is supposed to be a parallel.
In the Book of Mormon, in Helaman 1, Kiskumen murdered the chief judge, and he and those who sent him "entered into a covenant, yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker, that they would tell no man" (Helaman 1:11). Gadianton became leader of this band, and "it was the object of all those who belonged to his band to murder, and to rob, and to gain power, (and this was their secret plan, and their combination)" (Helaman 2:8). Kishkumen was killed when he again tried to kill the chief judge, but Gadianton and his band escaped into the wilderness.
- Bands of robbers/pirates marauding the righteous protagonists.
Gadianton continued to work, unknown to the government "in the more settled parts of the land" establishing his "secret combinations" (Helaman 3:23) and they "began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain." They were called "Gadianton's robbers and murderers." They were found mostly "among the more wicked part of the Lamanites" but also among the Nephites (Helaman 6:17-18). However, the Lamanites did hunt them out, and preached the Gospel, such that they were destroyed, while the Nephites did build them up and supported them (Helaman 6:37-38) such that they son usurped the power in the land, filling the judgment seats (Helaman 7:4). After internal war and famine, the Gadianton robbers became extinct (Helaman 11:1-2,10).
However, a few years later, a group of people sought out the secret plans of Gadianton, and began a war with the Nephites and Lamanites, where they would murder and plunder, and retreat back to the mountains and wilderness (Helaman 11:24-26). They continued to grow in 3 Nephi 1, and in 3 Nephi 2 the Nephites and Lamanites went to battle with them, driving them back into the mountains. In 3 Nephi 3, Giddianhi, the leader and governor of the "secret society of Gadianton" sent a letter to Lachoneous, the chief judge and governor over all the land, inviting them to surrender, and to join with them.
Lachoneous instead sent a proclamation that every one should gather together into the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful, and the land in between, and the armies of the Nephites and Lamanites protected them. In 3 Nephi 4, the robbers went to battle, since "there was no way they could subsist save it were to plunder and rob and murder." They are unsuccessful, and are eventually all slain or imprisoned. In 3 Nephi 5, the gospel was preached to them, and those who "would repent of their sins and enter into a covenant that they would murder no more" were set free, while those who did not, "were condemned and punished according to the law."
In this way, the Gadianton robbers were wiped out. It wasn't until nearly 250 years later that people began again to "build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton" who did eventually "spread over all the face of the land" (4 Nephi 1:42-46). Mormon wrote that they "were among the Lamanites" and "did infest the land" (Mormon 1:18) and the Nephites went to war against the Lamanites and Gadianton robbers, followed by a treaty (Mormon 2:27-28). After the Nephites were destroyed, Moroni wrote that "there are none save it be the Lamanites and robbers" (Mormon 8:9).
Let's compare that to The Late War. At the time, England was at war with France. The United States, as a neutral country, felt it could do commercial activities with any other country. Britain didn't like France getting supplies from the United States, so they prevented those ships from leaving. President James Madison in his 1812 war message to congress said that when they complained to Britain, "her government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of honor and confidence."
The Late War described his war message this way in 1:17-18, "And it fell hard upon the people of Columbia; for the king said unto them, Ye shall come unto me and pay tribute, then may ye depart to another country. Now these things pleased the pirates and the cruisers and all the sea-robbers of Britain mightily, inasmuch as they could rob with impunity the commerce of Columbia, under the cloak of British honor."
The British are again called robbers in 45:50-51. Soon after the British had burned Washington D. C., the people of Alexandria surrendered. Captain Gordon promised he wouldn't destroy the town if citizens surrendered all their naval stores, shipping, and merchandise intended for export. They stayed in Alexandria six days before sailing back down the Potomac, taking on a lot of cargo. Gilbert Hunt says they "took their merchant ships; and compelled the people to open their store-houses, and put into the vessels their flour, even sixteen hundred barrels, and their wine, and their cotton, and a thousand hogsheads of the sweet-scented plant. So the robbers of the king took them away, sacked the town, and laughed at the people thereof, for trusting to the faith of British honor." Americans attacked the heavily-laden ships, though didn't sink any.
Finally, Gilbert Hunt tells of when Daniel Patterson raided the base of the pirate Jean Laffite at Barataria Bay and captured several small ships in 49:37-38, "About this time a band of sea-robbers and pirates, who had established themselves upon the island of Barrataria, were committing great wickedness and depredations; and were ready to assist the men of Britain. But a valiant man, called Daniel, sur-named Patterson, went against them with his fighting vessels, and scattered them abroad, and took their vessels, and destroyed their petty establishment of sea-robbery." No further details are given.
As with all these others, the only similarity is the word "robber" but when you actually look at the details, they are nothing alike, and importantly, it isn't clear how the description in The Late War could possibly influence the Book of Mormon.
There are many references in the Book of Mormon to engraving records. (Also engraven and engravened records and engravings.)
- Engraving records.
Engraven on the plates of brass were the five books of Moses (which includes the creation of the world and the Law of Moses), the record of the Jews and the prophecies of the holy prophets from the beginning down to the reign of King Zedekiah, including many prophecies of Jeremiah, and Lehi's genealogy. When Nephi saw the in vision the record carried by the Gentiles, the Spirit told him it was "like unto the engravings" on the brass plates. Nephi read many things to his brothers which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he interpreted Isiah for them, copying them to his own plates. When Nephi fled from Laman and Lemuel, he took the records engraven upon the plates of brass with him, and the Lamanites would later develop a tradition that Nephi had robbed them, taking the records which were engraven on the plates of brass.
Nephi made two sets of plates, one which should be engraven an account of the reigns of kings and the wars and contentions of his people, and the other should be engraven the ministry of his people. Nephi wrote that on the first plates he did engraven the record of his father, his genealogy, and the more part of their proceedings in the wilderness, and many of his prophecies. On the second he engravened that which is pleasing unto God.
Nephi passed his second set of plates to Jacob, saying that the history should be engraven on his other plates, and that on these should be engraven preaching, revelation, or prophesying. Jacob commented on the difficulty of engraving their words on plates, but they labor diligently that they may learn with joy concerning their first parents, and that they may know that they knew of Christ and had a hope of his glory.
Jarom was next to use the word "engraven" commenting that on the other plates were engraven the record of their wars, and Abinadom gave a similar statement.
King Mosiah interpreted the engravings on a large stone brought to him by the gift and power of God, which told about Coriantumr and the slain of his people, and some about his fathers that came from the tower.
King Benjamin taught his sons concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass. Without them, and without knowing the Egyptian language, they would not have been able to read the commandments and understand the mysteries of God, and would have dwindled in unbelief. He gave his son Mosiah charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass.
King Limhi sent 43 of his people into the wilderness to find the land of Zarahemla, and they instead discovered a land covered with bones and ruins, and brought 24 gold plates filled with engravings, which no one was able to interpret. Ammon told them that he King of Zarahemla could interpret such engravings.
King Mosiah took the records engraven on the plates of brass and other things and conferred them to Alma.
Using a figure of Speech, Alma asked "Can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?"
Alma conferred the plates of brass "which contain these engravings" to his son Helaman. When Helaman's son Helaman receives the plates from his uncle, Shiblon, it says that "all those engravings" that Helaman had were written and sent forth throughout the land, except the parts Alma had commanded should not go forth.
Mormon comments that there were many records, but he made his record according to the record of Nephi, which were engraven on the plates of Nephi. He also said he was about to write all the words Jesus taught which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbid it, saying He will try the faith of His people.
Ammaron told Mormon about the engravings that he had deposited in the hill Shim, saying he should take the plates of Nephi and engrave on them all the things he observed concerning the people.
Outside the Book of Mormon text, the three witnesses testified that they saw the engravings upon the plates which were shown them by an angel, and the eight witnesses also said they handled the plates, and saw the engravings, which had the appearance of ancient work and of curious workmanship.
The Late War uses the term "gravings" which does not appear in the Book of Mormon, and "graven" which the Book of Mormon only uses speaking of "graven idols". In Chapter 31, United States Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry successfully attacked a British naval squadron on Lake Erie, causing them to surrender. Gold and silver medals were created with his bust on one side and a fleet of ships on the other. Around the edges were in Latin, "OLIVERUS H. PERRY. PRINCEPS STAGNO ERIENSE* CLASSIM TOTAM CONTUDIT" (Oliver H. Perry in command destroyed an entire fleet on Lake Erie.) and on the back, "VIAM INVENIT VIRTUS AUT FACIT* INTER CLASS.AMERI. ET BRIT.DIE X.SEP. MDCCCXIII" (Valor finds a way. Between the fleets of America and Britain, 10 Sep 1813)
Captains Perry and Elliot were awarded a gold medal, and silver medals were awarded to each of the commissioned officers serving on board. Bronze medals were restrikes. The US mint also made a similar medal for the Government of Pensylvania, in silver and bronze. The Front says "OLIVERUS HAZARD PERRY. PRO PATRIA VICIT*" (Oliver Hazard Perry, he conquered for his country) "PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA" and on the back, no ships just a wreath, and saying, "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY; AND THEY ARE OURS" IN TESTIMONY OF HIS PATRIOTISM AND BRAVERY IN THE NAVAL ACTION ON LAKE ERIE SEPTEMBER 10.1813"
This is described at 31:32-33 in this way, "Moreover, the great Sanhedrim honored Perry with great honor; yea, they thanked him, and gave him medals, with devices curiously wrought. Likewise, the people gave him much silver plate, with engravings thereon, mentioning his deeds."
Later on, it describes an unsuccessful attack on Montreal (the Battle of the Chateauguay) and Major General Wade Hampton ended it by retreating. 36:25-26 speaks in a figurative sense, "Moreover, Hampton received much blame in the thing; and he was even taxed with the crime of drinking too freely of the strong waters. But the imaginary evils which the children of men commit are oftentimes graven in brass, whilst their natural good deeds are written in sand."
This is a repeat of the Standard of Liberty bullet a few ago, where I covered all the references. This one specifies one pair. Captain Moroni was rallying people to come help retake Zarahemla from those who had taken it over, an endeavor he succeeded at. Meanwhile General William Hull invaded Canada and sent out a proclamation, encouraging the people of Canada to join themselves to America. According to Gilbert Hunt, people did rally, but they were left behind while General Hull went back to Detroit. In the next chapter, though, the British attack, and General Hull surrenders Fort Detroit.
- “And it came to pass, that a great multitude flocked to the banners of the great Sanhedrim” compared to Alma 62:5: “And it came to pass that thousands did flock unto his standard, and did take up their swords in defense of their freedom…”
Christopher Columbus is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon by name, but 1 Nephi 13:12 is generally interpreted to refer to him: "And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land." It doesn't mention his "worthiness" but it does say that the Spirit "wrought" upon him.
- Worthiness of Christopher Columbus.
The Late War gives a brief history of America in chapter 20. It also doesn't speak of the worthiness of Columbus, but instead says he fought "against ignorance and stupidity." Here's the full context from 20:3-10:
3 Moreover, the name of the country was called after the name of a great man, who was born in a place called Genoa; being in Italia, on the sea-coast.
4 His name was Christopher, sur-named Columbus.
5 As the righteous man struggleth against wickedness, so did he against ignorance and stupidity.
6 Nevertheless, it came to pass, in the fourteen hundred and ninety-second year of the Christian era, that he crossed the waters of the mighty deep, a thing that had never been known among the sons of men:
7 And the place where he landed was an island in the sea, nigh unto the continent of Columbia, called San Salvador; which, being interpreted, signifieth a place of safety.
8 And the place was inhabited by wild savages, and they were naked.
9 Now when the people heard that Columbus had found a new land, they were astonished beyond measure, for it was many thousand miles off; moreover, some of them strove to rob him of the honor, and he was treated wrongfully.
10 But his name was lifted up above his enemies, and it shall not be lost.
Britain and the United States are on opposite sides of the Atlantic ocean, and since this is the story of a war between the two, it wouldn't be unusual for it to talk about ships crossing the ocean. But actually, all the references to the ocean are about ships being in the ocean, and not explicitly crossing the ocean. There are a few times where it talks about being on the other side of the ocean, but it only seems to talk about battles, and I haven't found anything about crossing the ocean. The only explicit reference I can find is the Columbus quote above. Except that one doesn't explicitly reference his ships either, though of course we know he used ships to do so. Meanwhile, the Book of Mormon reference to Columbus also doesn't explicitly reference ships.
- Ships crossing the ocean.
The Book of Mormon reference to a ship crossing the ocean is Nephi's ship. Although it doesn't use the word "ocean" we understand that the Book of Mormon took place in the Americas, and so necessarily would have required to cross the ocean.
This seems to be regarding Chapter 29, the battle of Fort Stephenson. This one was hard to find since it doesn't mention skin color at all, but the last part is similar enough that I think that's what they are talking about. For the most part, the Native Americans were on the British side in the War of 1812. In this battle, there were about 1000 Natives and 500 British, with Henry Proctor being their commander. Gilbert Hunt didn't say, but fur trader Robert Dickson worked with Shawnee Chief Tecumseh to led the Native Americans part of the army. Major George Croghan defended the fort, and though their numbers were few, the attackers could do little against the fort without being killed. 29:21-22, "And the deep ditch that surrounded the fort was strewn with their slain and their wounded. So the host of Britain were dismayed and overthrown. and fled in confusion from the fort into the forest; from whence, in the dead of night, they went into their vessels, and departed from the place." Gilbert Hunt said that Britain lost about 150, and the Americans went and healed the wounded. Only one American was slain, seven wounded.
- A battle at a fort where righteous white protagonists are attacked by an army made up of dark-skinned natives driven by a white military leader. White protagonists are prepared for battle and slaughter their opponents to such an extent that they fill the trenches surrounding the fort with dead bodies. The surviving elements flee into the wilderness/forest.
Likewise, I assume that the Book of Mormon "parallel" is supposed to be Alma 49, which again doesn't mention skin color. King Amaliciah had sent his army to destroy the city of Ammonihah, but they found that it was heavily fortified. So the captains of the army decided to attack the city of Noah, swearing an oath that they would destroy the people of that city. It was even more strongly fortified, but they attacked anyway because of their oath. They tried to enter at the entrance, but failed. Then they tried to dig down the banks of earth, but "they were swept off by the stones and arrows which were thrown at them; and instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies." They kept attacking until their chief captains were all slain, and they "fled into the wilderness" and returned to the land of Nephi. By then over 1,000 Lamanites were killed, while no Nephites were killed, though there were 52 wounded.
At the death of Jesus Christ, there was great destruction. Beginning in 3 Nephi 8:12, it says that in the land northward, "the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough. And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate … And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth. And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land. … all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land."
- Cataclysmic earthquake followed by great darkness.
The darkness is described this way, beginning in 3 Nephi 8:20, "And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness; And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all; And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen".
In The Late War, it talks about the Battle of York in chapter 49, the retreating British blew up their powder magazine. I had talked about this in an earlier bullet, on the "stripling, from the south" but didn't notice what they are comparing now. Gilbert Hunt described it in this way:
37 But as the young man returned to where the army stayed, behold! the black dust in the hold caught fire, and it rent the air with the noise of a thousand thunders:
38 And the whole army fell down upon their faces* to the earth; and the stones, and the fragments of rocks, were lifted high; and the falling thereof was terrible, even unto death.
39 Yea, it was dreadful as the mighty earthquake, which overturneth cities.
40 And the whole face of the earth round about, and the army of Zebulon, were overshadowed with black smoke; so that, for a time, one man saw not another:
41 But when the heavy clouds of smoke passed away towards the west, behold the earth was covered with the killed and the wounded.
Not only was the explosion compared to an earthquake, it was also compared to thunder, and it noted that earthquakes overturn cities. It also mentions fragments of rock, and even the phrase "the whole face of the earth" which is almost "face of the whole earth." This is probably the best comparison on the list, and yet Jeremy didn't even list all the similarities. The problem though comes in when you try to actually explain the similarity. We are still left wondering how/why Joseph would read about a powder explosion and then come up with a nationwide cataclysm.* However strange this may appear, it is a fact that the concussion of the air produced that effect on nearly all who fronted the explosion,
In the Book of Mormon, Ether says that the people prospered and listed the animals they had in Ether 9:18-19, "And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man. And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms."
- Elephants/mammoths in America.
In The Late War, Gilbert Hunt gives a history of America, saying that it was a "plentiful land" and also lists the animals here, in 20:14-17, "From the small insect, that cheateth the microscopic eye, to the huge mammoth that once moved on the borders of the river Hudson; on the great river Ohio; and even down to the country of Patagonia in the south. Now the height of a mammoth is about seven cubits and an half, and the length thereof fourteen cubits; and the bones thereof being weighed were more than thirty thousand shekels; and the length of the tusks is more than six cubits. It is more wonderful than the elephant; and the history thereof, is it not recorded in the book of Jefferson, the scribe? The fierce tiger and the spotted leopard dwell in the dark forests; and the swift-footed deer upon the mountains and high places."
It turns out that this is an unparallel—Gilbert Hunt says that the mammoths are gone, instead of saying they are used by man. He also lists other animals that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention.
Jeremy uses Rick Grunder and Chris and Duane Johnson as his sources, so we have to look at them to see what he's talking about. For this bullet, instead of being influenced by The Late War, they are responding to claims made regarding Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon by basically saying "these same Hebraisms are also in the The Late War, so that doesn't say anything about the antiquity of the Book of Mormon." Most of these are also found in the Bible, so I would think claiming that as a source would be a better argument. Here are the ones they list, with my comments on them, drawing from Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights you may have missed before and Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon.
- Literary Hebraisms/Chiasmus.
- Adverbials - Hebrew has fewer adverbs, and so often uses prepositional phrases using "with" or "in" so like "with joy" instead of "joyfully" and you can find examples of this in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and The Late War.
- Cognitive Accusative - Using an object derived from the same root as the verb, e.g. "I have dreamed a dream" (1 Nephi 3:2) This is also in the Bible, "she vowed a vow" (1 Samuel 1:11), and similarly in The Late War "the great Sanhedrim honored Isaac with great honor" (8:21)
- Compound Prepositions - Hebrew often used a preposition plus a noun, instead of just a noun, so "by the hand of the Lord" instead of just "by the Lord." Similarly "from before" instead of just "from." This is found in all three.
- Conjunctions
- Hebrew uses the word and much more frequently. One clear example is in lists, where and is used for each item (See Joshua 7:24, 1 Samuel 17:34-35, and Helaman 3:14). Hebrew didn't have commas, so uses and instead. One example of repeated and in The Late War is in 33:26-27
- Conjunctions are also used to mark parenthetical statements, like in Alma 1:15, "And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him..."
- In Hebrew, the same conjunction can be used for both and and but, such as Moroni 9:4, "And when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it"
- Hebrew used the expression and also to emphasize close links between two things as in Mosiah 27:8, 14, and 21
- Construct State - This is where "of the" is used in descriptive or possessive phrases. So instead of iron rod, it is "rod of iron" and is typical in all three books. Here's an interesting one in the Book of Mormon, in the war chapters, the Lamanite prisoners are also called "prisoners of the Lamanites" (see Alma 53:1) which a native English speaker would mistakenly assume is possessive, rather than descriptive. That is to say, it sounds like it should be interpreted, the Lamanite's prisoners when it should be interpreted Lamanite prisoners. In Alma 54:3, Mormon seems to correct himself, "there was not a woman nor a child among all the prisoners of Moroni, or the prisoners whom Moroni had taken". Even though the meaning is clear to us in English, it seems Mormon needed to clarify that Moroni possessed the prisoners rather than described the prisoners—these were Moroni's prisoners, not something like the Moroni prisoners.
- Definite Article - Like and, "the" is also repeated in lists, as in "the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses" (2 Nephi 5:10).
- Negative Questions - This would be like questions beginning with "Are they not..." and are found in all three.
- Numbers -
- Avoids complex number forms such as mono-, bi-, multi-, and poly-
- Numbers use the conjunction and: "thirty and two" rather than "thirty-two"
- Numbers are often without the noun: "my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately" (Alma 57:19) KJV often adds in a noun in italics to be more clear, "he measured six measures of barley" (Ruth 3:15)
- In The Late War I noticed they often used "two score and ten" to say "fifty" and seems a hyper-correction. The Book of Mormon only uses threescore, the Bible uses that and fourscore, and neither use twoscore.
- Plural Amplification - Hebrew sometimes uses a plural instead of singular to emphasize an idea, as in Jacob 5:72, "labor with their mights". The Late War has "rejoicings of the people" and other examples.
- Simile Curses - A literary form found in the Old Testament and ancient Near East, it is also found in the Book of Mormon, for example, Mosiah 12:3, "the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace." The example offered is 11:11, "if ye go over to fight against them, ye will be as sheep going to the slaughter" which is from the Bible.
- Whirlwind - Not actually a Hebraism, just used as an example that Joseph wasn't using words from his own environment (which would have been tornado) and they use it to show that's not unusual. Both Bible and The Late War also use the term "Whirlwind"
There are other examples of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. Here are some not listed:
- Antenantiosis - stating a proposition in terms of the opposite, such as "despise not the revelations of God" (Jacob 4:8) to encourage us to obey the word of God.
- Subordinate Clause - "because that" is in the Bible, but is awkward in modern English, and does not appear in The Late War, and many examples were dropped from the original Book of Mormon.
- Relative Clause - In English, a relative clause usually follows immediately after what it refers to, while in Hebrew this isn't always the case. So, "The Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, who were the armies of Pharaoh" (1 Nephi 17:27) instead of "the Egyptians, who were the armies of Pharaoh, were drowned in the Red Sea."
- Colophones - Although in the list of Hebraisms, they were actually used extensively in Egyptian documents. It is a brief description to identify the purpose of writing. (e.g. "I, Mormon, make a record of the things which I have both seen and heard".
- Hebrew terms for law - Hebrew uses several terms to represent the English word law, as in 2 Nephi 5:10 they say, "we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses" instead of just "We kept the law of Moses."
- Interchangeable Prepositions - Hebrew prepositions in and to are often interchangeable. 1 Nephi 7:12 "let us be faithful in him" changed to "let us be faithful to him" to reflect normal English use.
- Land of Jerusalem - spoken of as if by a native, one always goes up to Jerusalem, and down from Jerusalem. Also, land of Jerusalem refers to the city, as well as the surrounding region.
- Merismus - Once a pattern is established (such as elements of the gospel: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism of water, baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, endurance to the end, and eternal life) then the mention of just two or more of the items can be used to represent the entire series (Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, chapter 4: By Objective Measures: Old Wine in New Bottles, pp. 141-143. See also The Gospel according to Mormon for how the pattern of the elements of the gospel is established in the Book of Mormon)
- Poetry - "O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!" (1 Nephi 2:9-10)
- Pronouns -
- In Hebrew, Pronouns are repeated in lists, as in 3 Nephi 30:2.
- Pronouns are also repeated for emphasis, as in "I, even I" as in Mosiah 2:26, and Genesis 6:17. Possessive pronouns are put at he end, as in "hear the words of me" (Jacob 5:2).
- Pronoun that used in clause immediately following, e.g. "I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles" (1 Nephi 13:15) unnecessary or redundant in English, but often used in Hebrew.
- Parallelism -
- Two lines repeated or echoed, as 3 Nephi 29:5, "Wo unto him that spurneth at the doings of the Lord; yea, wo unto him that shall deny the Christ and his works!"
- Two lines contrasting thoughts, as Alma 5:40, "For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil."
- Similar lines alternate, making an AB, AB, AB pattern, as in 1 Nephi 19:10, "and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos"
- Prophetic Speech -
- Occasionally prophets will speak of things to come as if they had already happened, using present or past tense instead of future tense. This appears in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
- Book of Mormon prophets use the same prophetic formulas as Biblical prophets
- Tree of Life -
- Nephi saw a connection between the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary, reflected in the Canaanite worship of Asherah. (Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, chapter 6: Not Joseph's and Not Modern, pp. 214-219)
- Similarities found in Mesopotamian, and Egyptian literature (Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, chapter 11: Converging Paths: Language and Cultural Notes on the Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Book of Mormon, pp. 397-398)
- 13 snapshots of desert life offered as evidence that Lehi's dream was written by someone from the desert world of the Middle East (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, chapter 20: "Lehi's Dream")
- Titles and Names of Deity - Ancient Babylonian gods had many names. In the Old Testament, there are many names and titles for God. The same is true for the Book of Mormon—by one count, there are 101 names or tiles for Jesus Christ.
Some of these also appear in The Late War, they are just not mentioned in the references that the CES Letter uses. Many appear in the Bible, so it would be more reasonable to suggest that Joseph Smith and Gilbert Hunt got them from there, rather than trying to suggest Joseph needed Gilbert as a source. Those that appear in the Book of Mormon and not the Bible are the ones that are more significant.
Chiasmus - Again from the source Jeremy is using, the claim is that chapters 1 and 2 of The Late War make a giant chiasmus comparable to Alma 36.John W. Welch first discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon in 1967. In 1970, he completed his master’s thesis, comparing the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and other ancient texts. In 1972, he wrote an article on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon in the Ensign.
Chiasmus is a literary pattern where ideas are repeated in opposite direction. First noticed in the Bible in the 19th century, it has gained a lot of attention in more recent years. Because of its prevalence in Hebrew writing, its existence in the Book of Mormon is believed to be evidence of its ancient origin.
In 1995, John Welch published an article on Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus listing 15 items:
- Objectivity - Are the links obvious, using identical or nearly identical words or phrases? Or do they depend on distant parallels or imaginative commentary to explain?
- Purpose - Is there an identifiable literary reason why the author might have used chiasmus in the text? Such as concentrating attention at the center, drawing meaningful contrasts, aiding in memorization, or emphasizing the feeling of closure?
- Boundaries - Does it operate across a literary unit as a whole? Or does the proposed structure cross over natural barriers, unnaturally chop sentences in half, or fall short of natural boundaries in the text?
- Competition with Other Forms - Is it the only structuring device, or is there another literary structure that defines it better?
- Length - The longer the proposed chiasm, the more likely it is to be intentional. However, a long chiasm is only as strong as its weakest links.
- Density - Tightness in the text is indicative of greater craftsmanship.
- Dominance - Do the elements account and embrace the dominant nouns, verbs, and distinctive phrases? Or does it rely on relatively insubstantial or common words and ideas in the text?
- Mavericks - Do the chiastic pairs stand alone, or do key elements also appear extraneously outside the proposed structure?
- Reduplication - If some word or element appears over and over within the system, the likelihood is greater that some other kind of repetition (including random repetition) is predominant in the passage instead of chiasmus.
- Centrality - The crux of a chiasm is generally its central turning point. The clearer the reversal at the center point, the stronger the chiasticity of the passage. Without a well-defined centerpiece or distinct crossing effect, there is little reason for seeing chiasmus.
- Balance - Ideally, the elements on both sides of the proposed focal point should be nearly equal in terms of number of words, lines, or elements.
- Climax - A strong chiasm will emphasize the central element of the passage as its focal climax.
- Return - A chiasm is more complete where its beginning and end combine to create a strong sense of return.
- Compatibility - Do they continue to use chiasmus or related forms of parallelism on other occasions, or is this an isolated event?
- Aesthetics - Does it look nice? Chiasmus, like all poetry, is an art form.
Since that time, claimed chiasmus in other works have been used in either an attempt to support or detract from the Book of Mormon, or to support other claims in topics of debate. Boyd F. and W. Farrell Edwards wrote an article in 2010 to answer the question: When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence? This builds off a mathematical approach they developed in a 2004 paper, Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance? The idea is that by using a statistical analysis, they can calculate the likelihood that a proposed chiasm could have appeared at random. If the likelihood is low, then that would provide evidence that it was instead intentional.
To be objective, they require that element pairs share the same significant word(s) instead of just synonyms. They also require chiastic boundaries be at the ends of sentences or significant phrases. These two rules prevent artificial inflation of the significance of a chiasm. They do, however, permit repetition outside the chiastic form if the repetition is confined to be within the boundaries of one chiastic element.
After that, given the number of repeated elements that fit the chiastic form (n) and the number of appearances of repeated elements that do not fit the chiastic form (R) they calculate the likelihood (L) that the chiasm could have appeared by chance within the particular passage.
Equation 1 Individual likelihood (for general n and R = 0)
For R > 0 they wrote a program, CHIASMUS to make the calculation, and is available for free download.L = 1/(1*3*5*7...*(2n-1))
A longer book has more opportunities for a chiasm to appear by chance, so they then count (N) the number of opportunities in the parent work for the chiasm to appear, and then calculate (P) the likelihood that the chiasm could have appeared by chance in the parent work.
Equation 2 Overall likelihood P = 1-(1-L)N
So what does this all say for The Late War? They present a chiasm with 22 elements, however many of the elements do not represent key phrases.
This covers chapter 1, 2, and the first verse of chapter 3. The boundaries do not lend well for the claim that it is intentional. It begins and ends with "it came to pass" which fails to provide that "strong sense of return." Other items include the words "nevertheless", "all the", and "great". Even some of the better looking ones, like "The great sanhedrim of the people" shows up more than just the pair. If we include words like "nevertheless" as a pair, then we also have to look at the seven times "inasmuch" is used.
For the objective statistical analysis, The Late War wasn't part of their report, but we can do it ourselves. Looking at the chapters, there are a lot of repetitions. It crashes the program trying to count all the combinations. Basically, with so much repetition, you are guaranteed to find something, and there is a 100% probability that it can be explained by random chance.
You can actually do better by pairing up full ideas rather than individual words, and that is why Alma 36 does so well in the statistical analysis. So for The Late War, you could instead have it begin and end with the doors of congress closing and opening, and then finding pairs of themes as they read the president's war message, then make their declaration of war. However, even just using ideas, they are still repeated outside the chiastic form. Even if I am being generous, there's still a 20% probability that it is random, well above the 5% standard.
There were 17 ships on Lake Ontario between Britain and the United States, "However, they cut down the tall trees of the forest, and hewed them, and built many more strong vessels; although they had no gophar-wood amongst them in these days. And they made stories to them, even to the third story, and they put windows in them, and they pitched them within and without with pitch; after the fashion of the ark." (27:12-13)
- Boats and barges built from trees after the fashion of the ark.
This is of course in reference to the ark that Noah was commanded to build, Genesis 6:14-16, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."
The construction of the Jaredite barges are described in Ether 2:17, "And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends therof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."
The barges are compared to Noah's ark in Ether 6:7, "And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters."
Note also that the Jaredite barges specifically did not have windows (Ether 2:23-25, leading to major plot point of Ether 3). The description in the Book of Mormon does not match that of the Bible or The Late War, the only similarity is being compared to the ark. However, there is an ancient Hebrew tradition that the "window" in the ark was actually a pearl or gem that Noah hung in the ark that illuminated the ark. The Hebrew word צהר tsohar translated "window" here actually means "a light."
According to this Ensign article, the phrase "and it came to pass" shows up 1,404 times in the Book of Mormon, compared with 727 times in the Old Testament. It comes from a Hebrew word ויהי wayhi, which literally means "to become" but is also used in narration to connects two ideas, usually to indicate a progression from one to the next. In more modern English, in telling a story, we might use "and then." The KJV usually translated it in this sense as "it came to pass" and you can find similar meanings with "and so it was." Modern translations often don't translate it, treating it as simply a linguistic marker. Joseph Smith actually removed some of the "it came to pass" phrases from the Book of Mormon.
- A bunch of “it came to pass.”
Since it is a major feature of narrative story telling in the Bible, it shouldn't come as a surprise of its prevalence in The Late War or the Book of Mormon.
This item links to an article by Chris and Duane Johnson, whom I mentioned earlier that claimed The Late War influenced Joseph Smith in writing the Book of Mormon as the result of computer analysis of many different books, looking for similar words. This is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, the name of which comes from the idea that someone could shoot randomly at a barn, then draw a bullseye around the largest cluster, making others think that they are a sharpshooter. There's a website, spurious correlations, that shows if you look hard enough, you can find correlations between anything.
- Many, many more parallels.
That's the problem with all the parallels listed. If it wasn't The Late War, it would have been something else. They had no threshold for determining influence, and they don't even attempt to prove that shared n-grams is evidence of influence, they just assume it.
Their computer analysis found 549 shared 4-word phrases common to both texts. 75 of these are in the copyright application statement. The Late War has 51,221 possible 4-word phrases, so less than 1% of possible phrases were supposedly taken. And given the Book of Mormon has 202,830 unique 4-word phrases, less than a quarter of a percent could have come from The Late War. If we focus on those that are the same, then we would forget that the vast majority of the books are completely different. Even then, because the books are completely different, when you actually read and compare the phrases that match, you find that it is only the words, and not the context that matches. Taken together, the idea that The Late War influenced the Book of Mormon lacks explanatory power.
The parallels and similarities to the Book of Mormon are astounding. This web page outlines very clearly and simply just how phenomenally unlikely it is that so many common rare phrases and themes could be found between these books without the Late War having had some influence on the Book of Mormon.He links again to the same item in the last bullet. In context, the parallels and similarities are not astounding. When you actually look at them, you can see how phenomenally unlikely it is that The Late War had any influence on the Book of Mormon.
There's a section on the page devoted to "rare phrase matches." This refers to their computer analysis, which I'll describe in more detail here. First, they removed matches that are also in the Bible. This is important, because the Bible shares 2,341 4-word phrases with The Late War and 25,020 with the Book of Mormon. With remaining matches, they give them a weighted value based on how often it showed up in other texts (They explain with an example that "Millennium Falcon" should be more significant than "it is").
To create the weighting, they took 5,000 random books of their set from 1500 to 1830, and divided them into n-grams. (They used n-grams of length n=4 throughout). They discarded n-grams with frequency less than 4 to remove erroneous n-grams due to OCR errors, and then this served as the "baseline frequency" for each n-gram. So then they compared the n-grams of the Book of Mormon with the n-grams of each book, they multiplied it by the inverse of the baseline frequency. (So highest would be 1/4, while a phrase found 1,000 times in the baseline would be 1/1000.) These are then added up, and divided by the total word count of each book. They compared with 135,270 books, and the first edition of The Late War, between the United States and Great Britain, from June 1812, to February 1815: written in the ancient historical style had the highest score.
The "rare phrases" refers to the 159 4-word phrases with the maximum weight of 1/4.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this topic, Benjamin McGuire pointed out the problems with their methodology in his article, The Late War Against the Book of Mormon. I'll summarize what he found, including my own thoughts.
Consider—since the purpose of weighting is to determine influence, what if there was one very influential source that influenced many books? It would show up many times in the baseline, and therefore would get a low score. You can actually see that in their data. The n-gram act-entitled-an-act showed up in both, and was given a score of 1/3350. That text isn't actually in either book, it is in the copyright statement. We know the copyright statement influenced both books, yet we don't see it because it is prominent in the baseline. Of course, The Late War wouldn't have been the cause of that, but the method would have also failed to find the true source.
Then consider other problems with the baseline itself. The books covered a wide range of dates and places. If they were really trying to get rid of common phrases so that rare ones stuck out, then wouldn't it make more sense to choose a baseline sample around the time (before and after) and place the Book of Mormon was published? Perhaps the reason the books with the highest scores had such a high score is because they shared phrases that actually were common in their time, but not for the entire range of 1500-1830? Then again, I suppose the Elizabethan language would skew that, since that wasn't common at the time. Is that perhaps why the Book of Mormon matched so well with another book using that style of language?
Perhaps also 5,000 books is too small a sample? Take a look at Google Books Ngram Viewer. In this link, I listed the four n-grams cast-away-and-they, their-cries-and-their, the-king-which-was, and the-waters-edge-and. You can plainly see that the middle two were more common than the other two, however in their baseline, it is actually the first two that were the rare phrases at 1/4, while the latter were matches that were more common, at 1/69 and 1/71. And the-king-which-was is even far less common than than the other two at the same level, prepared-to-meet-the and them-with-their-own. Of course, Google is counting by books, not by references, so that could be a reason it is different. They say the reason they didn't want to use Google's data was because they couldn't easily tell which books those 4-grams came from, and they wanted to do their own n-gram analysis.
I haven't systematically checked the hundreds of matching phrases, but whatever the case, they say at least they are consistent. That doesn't really help with their claim that rare phrases are greater evidence of influence. However, they never actually show that. The study assumes that 4-grams can show influence, and they go looking for matches. But thanks to large digital archives, any search for parallels will inevitably return long lists of matches. Maybe the reason the first edition ranks higher than later editions is because the copy on archive.org is missing a couple pages? If we reject that one, then there is a new highest rank: Copies of Letters Sent to the Clergy of Exeter, from 1796 to 1800, with Communications and Prophecies put in the Newspapers in 1813 by Joanna Southcott, published in London.
What is the threshold? Are we to believe that the Book of Mormon could only have been revealed to Joseph Smith if it only contained 4-word phrases that had never been used before? That's not really how language works, nor is it anything a Latter-day Saint would claim.
Another problem is that the phrases are removed from their context. Punctuation is removed, and so the 4-grams often cross natural textual lines, and so aren't recognized as phrases. Depending on how you count, by my own analysis, maybe half the "rare phrases" are actually the last part of one phrase followed by the beginning of another. For example, to-pass-that-one isn't a phrase, it is the end of "it came to pass" and the beginning of a new phrase that begins with "that one of". About 12% of these "rare phrases" are just "a phrase next to it came to pass. Instead of showing an actual rare phrase, it is really just saying that those two phrases are rarely put next to each other. These types of n-grams are naturally more rare. How would such an n-gram show influence?
Most of the n-grams that cross a phrase boundary can be described as "two phrases from the Bible that don't follow one another in the Bible." Even those that don't cross a phrase boundary, most still match 3 words from the Bible, and just have a one-word change. 83% are very similar to the Bible in this way, 16% are less similar, but still have minor resemblance to the Bible. Only 2 out of the 159 didn't really resemble anything in the Bible.
For the most part, it seems they used the first printed edition of the Book of Mormon. However, five of the ones on the list represent textual variants, and if you use Royal Skousen's Earliest Text of the Book of Mormon, those five don't match up.
In the article Jeremy linked, they only list about 104 matches (about two-thirds) and they quote a bit of the surrounding context. I feel like they quote enough to show that the context is different enough that it is unlikely that the phrase influenced Joseph Smith, so the idea that they take the opposite position is perplexing.
Former BYU Library Bibliographic Dept. Chairman and antique book specialist Rick Grunder states in his analysis of The Late War (p.770):
“The presence of Hebraisms and other striking parallels in a popular children’s textbook (Late War), on the other hand – so close to Joseph Smith in his youth – must sober our perspective.”
The Late War is one of 500 entries from Rick Grunder's 2,307 page collection, Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source. In it, he claims that nothing Joseph Smith did was original, that the Book of Mormon and his theology came from hundreds of other sources. Benjamin L. McGuire responded more generally to the entire book in his essay, Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One and Part Two. The articles are long, but here are some good points that stuck out to me, which I will summarize here.
Parallels by themselves aren't interesting—we expect to find them when we compare anything, especially if they are from the same environment. We can learn more by also comparing the differences.
In examining parallels, Grunder claims to avoid using them incorrectly, but McGuire argues that he missed three important guidelines: similarity is not the same as identity, comparative work should also discern differences, and comparison is not an end in itself.
The Church doesn't claim to be "unique" but rather a restoration. It also happened at a real time and place, and so we should also expect similarities to that time and place. Latter-day Saints would say it is incorrect to say the Church is a result of the cultural environment, but it is part of it.
Randomness is also a factor. When you have an unlimited number of things to compare with, you will inevitably find parallels, so the similarities are just coincidence, and not significant. Grunder seems to recognize this in a discussion on Nahom, where even though he agrees the name is similar and in an appropriate location, he dismisses it as random chance. Apparently "coincidence" only applies to other's arguments and not your own? That is why examining the strength of a parallel is important. Besides being in the right location, The meaning behind Nahom and the way it is used in the Book of Mormon add to its strength.
In part 2, he goes into more specific examples. Grunder says Cumorah is similar to Comora, Comorant, Comorin, Go-mor'rah and its variant Gomorrah. If all we are concerned about is similar letters and sounds removed from their meaning, then we will inevitably find similarities, since all words are sequences of letters and sounds. And the more variation we allow, the easier it becomes. And also consider that if one is the source, then that shows that all the others must be coincidence. They can't all be the source, and if you are trying to show a relationship, then you'd have to argue one as stronger than the others, which he doesn't do.
Longer strings of identical words are more promising, but it is also important to perform a negative check. For example, Grunder argues that the phrase "secret combinations" was taken from anti-Masonic literature. However, contrary to his argument that it was exclusively used to refer to such groups, it was actually a minority, and the phrase referred to many groups even at the time the Book of Mormon was published.
Beyond words, you can look for parallels in theme. But these can also have a limited number of choices, making making parallels inevitable. For example, there are different ways to choose a leader, but not many beyond inheritance, election, appointment, or by chance. So for a proper analysis, we would need to look at the full context and compare similarities with the differences.
Parallels are traditionally presented in the two-column format, and is used by Runnells, Grunder, and the Johnsons. However, this approach removes parallels from their context, and hides their differences. They often put things in their own words, which make different things look alike. Columns make you assume the latter is copied from the first, but that ignores other explanations for similarities. You can pretty much reduce any literature this way, and it is deceitful.
When discussing parallels, the differences are as important as similarities. Parallels need to be examined in detail within their context. McGuire says that we should consider rhetorical values, the intentions of an author, and the purposes of a text. Using these principles he goes through one example from Grunder's work where he gives a parallel for Joseph once describing that the mind is like a "tightly-strung bow." He shows that the context doesn't match, and instead shows a different story that was being directly referenced is a better source.
He concludes with some of what he said earlier, that "It should be quite obvious that Mormonism is a real movement, coming from a real historical period and from a recognizable environment. It seems reasonable that we should see environmental influences coming from that time and place within Mormonism." He notes that more than a dozen of the parallels relate to the Temperance Movement, compared with the Word of Wisdom. But it shouldn't be surprising that it should become a topic for religion in general or for Latter-day Saints specifically. But it can be valuable seeing the differences, too.
Quoting Tennyson, McGuire describes Grunder as a man with no imagination who believes the poet also has no imagination and must copy from older works, and the Mormonism that Grunder presents lacks the flavor that it actually has.
10. Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon:
The first chapter:
1. And behold it came to pass, in these latter days, that an evil spirit arose on the face of the earth, and greatly troubled the sons of men.
2. And this spirit seized upon, and spread amongst the people who dwell in the land of Gaul.
3. Now, in this people the fear of the Lord had not been for many generations, and they had become a corrupt and perverse people; and their chief priests, and the nobles of the land, and the learned men thereof, had become wicked in the imagines of their hearts, and in the practices of their lives.
4. And the evil spirit went abroad amongst the people, and they raged like unto the heathen, and they rose up against their lawful king, and slew him, and his queen also, and the prince their son; yea, verily, with a cruel and bloody death.
5. And they moreover smote, with mighty wrath, the king’s guards, and banished the priests, and nobles of the land, and seized upon, and took unto themselves, their inheritances, their gold and silver, corn and oil, and whatsoever belonged unto them.
6. Now it came to pass, that the nation of the Gauls continued to be sorely troubled and vexed, and the evil spirit whispered unto the people, even unto the meanest and vilest thereof…
…and it continues on. It’s like reading from the Book of Mormon. When I first read this along with other passages from The First Book of Napoleon, I was floored. Here we have two early 19th century contemporary books written at least a decade before the Book of Mormon that not only read and sound like the Book of Mormon but also contain so many of the Book of Mormon’s parallels and themes as well.
Published in London in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, the Tyrant of the Earth was written by Michael Linning under the pseudonym "Eliakim the Scribe" attempting to use the language of the Bible. It describes what led to the French revolution, how Napoleon rose to power, and contrasts the misery under him to the happiness of the people of Great Britain.
So again, like The Late War, the book has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, except that it was written in the same style. Unlike the opening to the previous item, it doesn't even sound like the Bible, let alone the Book of Mormon.
To be sure, some things are Biblical, and they also appear in the Book of Mormon. "And behold", "it came to pass", "latter days", "the sons of men", "dwell in the land of", "fear of the Lord" and "gold and silver".
Only the Bible has "greatly troubled", "chief priests" and "raged". The Book of Mormon also has "nobles" but only where it quotes Isaiah. The Bible has "an evil spirit" while the Book of Mormon only has "the evil spirit", neither have "this evil spirit". Both have "the face of the earth" but only the Bible has "on the face of the earth", while "upon" is far more common. The Bible has "rose up against" though they both have the related "rise up against."
A couple things are more like the Book of Mormon. "Guards" is only in the Book of Mormon. "Yea, verily" is in the Book of Mormon, but the KJV doesn't combine them. (Though later translations do.) The Book of Mormon has "become wicked" which the Bible does not, though the earliest text had "were … become wicked" rather than "had".
A lot of the differences are like that, how Early Modern English was written. Although "amongst" is Early Modern English, and appears in the Bible and Book of Mormon, "among" is far more common, and so "among the people" appears, but "amongst the people" does not. Instead of "who dwell" the Bible and Book of Mormon have "which dwell" (the Book of Mormon was changed in later editions). The Bible and Book of Mormon use "as the heathen" rather than "like unto the heathen".
"Imagines" doesn't appear in the Bible or Book of Mormon. Neither does "in this people". When people have the fear of the Lord, it is usually described as being "upon" them, not "in" them. The Book of Mormon usually has "wicked and perverse" while the Bible usually has "faithless and perverse" and the closest to "corrupt and perverse" is from the Bible, "perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds". The Bible and Book of Mormon have "seize upon" followed directly by an object, never "seized upon" and never interrupted with a conjunction. They also never have "the learned man" only "the learned".
Although most the words themselves might be Biblical, the way they are constructed doesn't seem to resemble Biblical language at all.
I linked it when discussing The Late War, but I'll expand on it here. In 2018, Stanford Carmack published an article, Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text? In it, he compared several kinds of syntax between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. He also looked at four pseudo-biblical texts, including The Late War and The First Book of Napoleon. (The other two are The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times and The American Revolution) He concluded that the Book of Mormon has high levels of archaic (morpho)syntax, which could not have been learned from these pseudo-biblical works, which have much lower levels of archaic (morpho)syntax.
The Book of Mormon also has a lot of vocabulary and syntax from the 16th and 17th centuries, which is also not found in the Bible, so Joseph Smith couldn't have gotten it from there, either. The Book of Mormon also importantly differed from Joseph Smith's grammar. Here is a summary of the 10 kinds of syntax examined:
- Agentive of and by — So for example "Moses was commanded of the Lord" (1 Nephi 17:26) is an archaic way to say "Moses was commanded by the Lord" how we would say it today. The Bible has the highest rate of of at 72%, but the Book of Mormon is also very high at 46%. The First Book of Napoleon is around 15%, and the others less than 10%.
- Lest syntax — In sentences following lest, a modal auxiliary verb is used some of the time, as in "lest perhaps that I should be destroyed". Most commonly in Early Modern English in decreasing order were should, might, may, would, will, and shall. The Bible uses an auxiliary verb 20% of the time, most commonly should and least commonly shall, as expected. The Book of Mormon uses shall more frequently, and given that lest-shall did not continue into the late modern period strongly, it could be described as a Biblical hypercorrection. However such an argument lacks support given that none of the four pseudo-biblical books showed similar behavior.
On the other hand, one passage from Jacob 5:65 "...lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish..." exhibits variation in auxiliary selection, not found in the Bible or pseudo-biblical texts, but is found in Early Modern English. - Personal that, which, and who(m) — This is talking about phrases like "those who were there", "the people that heard those things", and "our Father which art in heaven." Who is most common today, but in the 1500s and 1600s that was the most common. Today, that is about 10%, and which is very rare. The KJV uses that the most (83.5%) followed by which (12.5%) and who(m) only 4% of the time. The earliest text of the Book of Mormon used which most often (52%), then that (30.5%) and then who(m) (17.5%).
This might seem like a biblical hyper-correction, but personal that would be a more likely choice, as with the American Chronicles, which used it 58.4% of the time. Other most pseudo-biblical works still used who(m) the most. Personal which is rare in these other texts. Personal which was also not part of Joseph's vocabulary, yet it appears over a thousand times in the Book of Mormon. Joseph edited most of them out in favor of who(m) in the the 2nd edition of the Book of Mormon. - Periphrastic did — The Book of Mormon uses did followed by an adjacent infinitive to express past tense 24% of the time, far more than the Bible (1.2%) and pseudo-biblical works (<1%). This high rate is rare, only being common during the middle of the 1500s. Joseph Smith's own language lacked periphrastic did, meaning this wasn't his own language.
- More-part usage — When the Book of Mormon uses the more part, it follows it with of, because it is always followed by a prepositional phrase. The Bible never follows the more part with a prepositional phrase, and the more part is not found in pseudo-biblical texts at all. However, the more part of was used with similar rates to the Book of Mormon in the early modern period, and no other time.
- Had (been) spake — had spake appears in the Book of Mormon 12 times, or 20% of the time compared with the more common had spoken. However, had spake never appears in the King James Bible, nor in pseudo-biblical texts. It is also rare in the 1800s at all. Since the Book of Mormon also has had been spake and of which hath been spoken which never appears in the textual record after the 1600s, this suggests that had spake is an archaism, and not from Joseph's language.
- The {-th} plural — In modern English, verbs conjugate to agree with person and number, as in "to dance" becomes "I dance", "you dance", "he/she dances", "they dance". In Early Modern English, there was also "thou dancest" and "he/she danceth". However, though less common, during the early modern era, {-th} could also appeared in plural contexts, as in "they danceth". There was originally some variety, but its usage diminished over time. The Bible does not have have any unambiguous {-th} plural, there are a few possibilities in the pseudo-archaic texts with limited variety, but the earliest text of the Book of Mormon has close to 150 examples of the {-th} plural, and with all the variety found in Early Modern English, matching overall usage patterns.
- Verbal complementation — 3 Nephi 2:3 has "causing them that they should do great wickedness in the land" and the them makes it a complex finite construction, a strong marker of archaism. More commonly would be a simple finite syntax, leaving out the them, "causing that they should do great wickedness in the land." But even more common is to use the infinitive, "causing them to do great wickedness in the land."
Stanford Carmack goes through five high-frequency verbs, cause, command, desire, make, and suffer, and the Book of Mormon has a much higher rate of finite construction than infinitive, and much higher than the Bible and pseudo-biblical texts.
The only similarities is that they use the King James style, however the similarities are only skin-deep. When you actually examine the language, evidence supports that the Book of Mormon syntax better represents Early Modern English, which Joseph Smith could not have gotten from reading the Bible or from reading these pseudo-biblical texts.
The following is a side-by-side comparison of selected phrases the Book of Mormon is known for from the beginning portion of the Book of Mormon with the same order in the beginning portion of The First Book of Napoleon (note: these are not direct paragraphs):
THE FIRST BOOK OF NAPOLEONCondemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…their inheritances their gold and silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…small in stature…Jerusalem…because of the perverse wickedness of the people.BOOK OF MORMONCondemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Nephi…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…his inheritance and his gold and his silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of his heart…large in stature…Jerusalem…because of the wickedness of the people.
In 2015, Jeremy added The First Book of Napoleon item to the CES Letter, and then in 2017, Jeremy updated the text to introduce this item. It used to say this was a side-by-side comparison of the beginning of each book. Confronted with accusations of dishonesty, he changed it to "selected phrases the Book of Mormon is known for" from the beginning "portion" of the Book of Mormon "with the same order" in the beginning "portion" of The First Book of Napoleon. He also added the note to say, "these are not direct paragraphs".
That is correct, these are not direct paragraphs. They aren't even close. In the last item, I talked about how the double-column format is inherently deceitful, and I would say presenting whole chapters as a single paragraph is even worse. The ellipsis mark (…) indicates that words were removed, however proper use is to remove unnecessary parts of a quote, leaving enough quoted to get the idea across. The remaining portions are supposed to be grammatically correct, and so given that these quotes are not, that indicates something wrong is going on here.
Jeremy copied this comparison from Chris Johnson, whom I talked about earlier finding The Late War through their statistical analysis. At the same time, they found The First Book of Napoleon as #3 on their list. As I mentioned in that section, the second best match they found was Copies of Letters Sent to the Clergy of Exeter, from 1796 to 1800. No one seems to talk about that one though. If we start to question how Joseph might have read this book published in London in 1813, we might start to question if the statistical analysis has any merit.
Anyway, back to the "selected phrases"—the quotes from The First Book of Napoleon begins in the foreword, and last until Chapter 3, 22 pages later. The quotes from the Book of Mormon come from the title page, and end 9 pages later, counting pagination using the first edition. (Chapter I in first edition, chapter 3 in current Latter-day Saint edition.)
So yes, the ellipses removes large chunks of material, deceptively making two texts seem the same. When placed back in their original context, they are not actually the same. Let's take a look. For these, I will be using Royal Skousen's earliest text for the Book of Mormon.
The First Book of Napoleon (i)PIOUS and RELIGIOUS READER! let not thy feelings be offended, and withhold thy censure, until thou shalt find in these pages a single sentiment inconsistent with the spirit and principles of that holy religion which thou professest; and condemn not the feebly imitative manner of writing therein occasionally employed, until thou canst point out a language more impressive, or more appropriate, than that in imitation whereof these chapters are framed.
The Book of Mormon (title page)And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men. Wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ.
Michael Linning, writing as Eliakim the Scribe is telling the reader to not condemn the "feebly imitative manner of writing." The Book of Mormon is telling the reader to not condemn the "things of God". Besides what I already said about ellipses, you can also see that Jeremy misused "(writing)" which should have appeared in square brackets to indicate it was text that does not appear in the original.
The First Book of Napoleon (ii)NAPOLEON! if peradventure, this little volume should ever reach thee, may its truths sink deep into thine heart, and remember in the midst of the torrents of blood thy guilty ambition is shedding, and the ruin and desolation it is spreading far and wide, that thou art a mortal man; and one day, perhaps ere long, thy soul shall be required of thee, and an account of all thy deeds by that omnipotent, unerring and upright Being, who, as he made and governeth, so in like manner shall he judge the world.
The Book of Mormon (Introduction to 1 Nephi)An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah and his four sons, being called, beginning at the eldest, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi.
Nephi is introducing his record, talking about itself, that it is an account of his family. Eliakim, still in the foreword, is speaking to Napoleon, condemning him, and reminding him that he must make an account of his deeds at judgement day.
The next one is just the titles of the books: The First Book of Napoleon is on page iii, at the beginning of the Table of Contents. For the Book of Mormon, the printer's manuscript called the first book, "The Book of Nephi" and this was changed to "The First Book of Nephi" when printed to distinguish it from the other books of Nephi. This is simply the same format as the Bible for "The First Book of Samuel".
This points out another problem with Jeremy's summary. He introduced it saying that they were in the same order, but they are not. Ellipses are also not supposed to be used to reorder things. Given that reordering is going on, that also might mean that the previous text, "an account" could have been from the beginning of the title page, "An account written by the hand of Mormon" which is still in the same sort of context that Nephi was writing. Or how about 1 Nephi 1:17, "I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days" also in the same context?
The First Book of Napoleon (v)1. The dominion of the Tyrant extendeth itself upon the face of the earth
The Book of Mormon (1:10-11)10. And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
11. And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth. And the first came and stood before my father and gave unto him a book and bade him that he should read.
In Jeremy's updated introduction, he said "phrases the Book of Mormon is known for" perhaps to justify why the phrases aren't next to each other. Although "upon the face of the earth" does appear in the Book of Mormon 26 times compared to the Bible's 12 times, I don't know that it is actually "known" for the phrase. I would also say the same thing for the rest of the phrases as well. The phrases "the land", "Jerusalem" are especially less impressive, but even the longer ones, when you are searching across so many pages of so many books, something is bound to match.
It is like a version of the birthday paradox, which asks the question how many people do you need before you have a high probability of two matching birthdays? You might expect a lot, but it only takes a room with 23 people in it before you have a 50% probability of two people with matching birthdays. Even though there is a low probability of any one day, because it doesn't matter the day, it only matters that they match, as the number of people grows, the number of possible connections outweighs the initial low probability. Of course using a biblical phrase like "upon the face of the earth" isn't really a low probability, but it doesn't matter what the particular phrase is, all they are doing is looking for any matches. If you search long enough, you will inevitably find a match. It might be something if there was more to it, like if it were used in a similar context, then that would bring down the probability. But as you can see, the context is totally different. One is that the dominion of Napoleon extended across the world, the other is that the 12 Apostles spread out across the world.
The place the phrase appears in The First Book of Napoleon is in the table of contents, where it reproduces the introduction for chapter IX on page 56. So is it really fair to say that it is "in the same order"?
The First Book of Napoleon (1:1)And behold it came to pass in these latter days, that an evil spirit arose on the face of the earth, and greatly troubled the sons of men.
The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 1:12)And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord
There are actually 7 times the Book of Mormon uses the phrase "it came to pass" before the next phrase, "the land" and since the ellipses removed all context, it isn't clear which one might be referred to here. Not that it matters, it came to pass is an idiom used in narration to connects two ideas, usually to indicate a progression from one to the next. It appears frequently in the Bible, so suggesting that Joseph Smith got it from both The Late War and The First Book of Napoleon is not realistic.
The First Book of Napoleon (1:2-5)2. And this spirit seized upon, and spread amongst the people who dwell in the land of Gaul.3. Now, in this people the fear of the Lord had not been for many generations, and they had become a corrupt and perverse people; and their chief priests, and the nobles of the land, and the learned men thereof, had become wicked in the imaginations of their hearts, and in the practices of their lives.
4. And the evil spirit went abroad amongst the people, and they raged like unto the heathen, and they rose up against their lawful king, and slew him, and his queen also, and the prince their son; yea, verily, with a cruel and bloody death.
5. And they moreover smote, with mighty wrath, the king's guards, and banished the priests, and nobles of the land, and seized upon, and took unto themselves, their inheritances, their gold and silver, corn and oil, and whatsoever belonged unto them.
The Book of Mormon (2:4)And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house and the land of his inheritance and his gold and his silver and his precious things and took nothing with him save it were his family and provisions and tents, and he departed into the wilderness.
I combined these two since it's the one time that more than one is in one verse. "And it came to pass" is the 7th one since "upon the face of the earth" in the previous chapter. There's nothing really noteworthy about "the land". Since they didn't care to be grammatically correct, I wonder why not "the land of"?
"Gold" and "silver" are frequently mentioned together, so that's not unusual. Speaking of probabilities in an earlier item, by allowing similar phrases instead of demanding exact phrases, that can increase your rate of matches. If it wasn't this, it would have been something else.
As you can see, the contexts are very different. Lehi left behind his land, his inheritance, and his treasure—contrast that with an evil spirit spreading through the land of France, and the French seizing their leader's inheritances and their treasure.
The First Book of Napoleon (1:9-10)9. And while this spirit raged in Gaul, the curse of GOD was upon the land, and bloodshed, murder, and rapine, and all manner of blasphemy, wickedness, and uncleanliness, prevailed amongst the people thereof.10. And they not only despised the commandments of the LORD, but also blasphemed the name of the only true and living GOD, and they made idols and false gods to themselves, and fell down and worshipped them.The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 2:9-10)9. And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness.10. And he also spake unto Lemuel, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord.
"The commandments of the Lord" is a phrase that occurs frequently in the Bible, there is no need to think that Joseph would have gotten it from The First Book of Napoleon.
The First Book of Napoleon (2:10)But the Gauls were altogether a wicked and perverse people, and the tree which they had planted in the midst of them was a blasted tree, and lo and behold, it brought forth nothing but bad and forbidden fruit, and all manner of unrighteousness, such as pertaineth unto the idol of whom it is before-written, and whom they, in the foolish imaginations of their hearts, had vainly worshipped.
The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 2:11)Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel. For behold they did murmur in many things against their father because that he was a visionary man and that he had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance and their gold and their silver and their precious things, and to perish in the wilderness. An this they said that he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.
The context here is different, one describing the wicked, the other is the wicked mocking revelation.
The phrase "imagination of [his/their] own heart" or "imagination of [his/their] evil heart" is from the Bible, but it is never proceeded by foolish, so this is perhaps the strongest parallel. Looking at Google Books Ngram Viewer, it would eventually become a pretty common phrase. Not on the graph, but there are instances of the phrase as early as 1693, and there is nothing particularly special about its usage here that would suggest that The First Book of Napoleon is where it came from.
Speaking of which, unlike The Late War, they don't even offer a hypothesis about how Joseph Smith would have read The First Book of Napoleon. While The Late War is very pro-American and anti-British, The First Book of Napoleon is very anti-British and pro-French.
The First Book of Napoleon (3:1-2)1. Now, in the land called Corsica, which is an island in the sea, there was a man born, and his name was NAPOLEON.2. And this man, though small in stature, was nevertheless vast in spirit, and he not only conceived unto himself, great and marvellous designs, but was moreover wicked, and cunning in council, mighty in deeds, and powerful in war.
The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 2:16)And it came to pass that I Nephi being exceeding young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore I cried unto the Lord. And behold, he did visit me and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.
There is nothing to suggest that Nephi is intended to be like the opposite of Napoleon. Napoleon's description is similar to the man in Luke 19:3, who was "little of stature", but modern translations often use "short in stature" or "small in stature". Looking through Google's Ngram Viewer, the more natural "tall in stature" would have been a more common opposite to "small in stature", but the Bible uses "of great stature" to describe tall people.
The First Book of Napoleon (3:6-7)6. And lo this man went into the land of Egypt, with many ships and a mighty army; and having conquered the inhabitants thereof, he proceeded against Palestine, and threatened the city of Jerusalem.7. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how are the mighty fallen, and how nearly hadst thou been conquered, yet a second time, by the arm of an infidel.
The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:2)2. And it came to pass that he spake unto me, saying: Behold, I have dreamed a dream in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem.
The First Book of Napoleon has three instances of Jerusalem, while the Book of Mormon has four before the next phrase. But I suppose if they tried to compare "Jerusalem … Jerusalem, Jerusalem" with "Jerusalem … Jerusalem … Jerusalem … " more people might have noticed.
The first part of the Book of Mormon takes place in Jerusalem. Napoleon briefly was about to attack Jerusalem, there is no similarity here.
The First Book of Napoleon (Chapter 3 Heading)1. The Birth-place of the Tyrant Napoleon.—2. He professeth himself to be a worshipper of the idol.—3. He goeth into the land of Egypt, wageth war, and sojourneth for some time there.—4. He threateneth Palestine and Jerusalem.—5. He returneth suddenly from thence, and destroyeth the first Idol, and putteth himself at the head of the armies of the Gauls.—6. He becometh a mighty Conqueror, powerful in war, and overwhelmeth many of the kings and princes of the earth.—7. He is a punishment unto the nations for wickedness of their ways.—8. The oppressed cry aloud unto the LORD for relief from the oppressor; but for a season he listeneth not unto them, and hardeneth the Tyrant's heart, because of the perverse wickedness of the people.
The Book of Mormon (3:17)For he knowing [knew] that Jerusalem must be destroyed because of the wickedness of the people
This time we have to rewind in The Book of Napoleon, since they are out of order. Though the Book of Mormon has "wicked and perverse" elsewhere, it never has "perverse wickedness". Contrast the contexts that Jerusalem would be destroyed because of the wickedness of the people, with the Lord hardening Napoleon's heart because of the wickedness of the people.
Those in Joseph's day knew that he was uneducated and could not have written the Book of Mormon. These newer theories that Joseph was actually a sponge that read all sorts of books and used them somehow to produce the Book of Mormon seem unacquainted with history. The only supporting evidence are these lists of parallels, but given such a large dataset of digitized books, finding matches is inevitable. As I said in the previous item, one good example is Jeff Lindsay's satirical article that Joseph Smith plagiarized Walt Whitman's 1855 book, Leaves of Grass, citing many parallels.
11. The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead.If you believe that the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian theology, then either you do not understand the Trinity, or what the Book of Mormon teaches.
The Trinity was an idea codified in response to several controversies in the second century, and is perhaps best defined in the Athanasian Creed, which says in part:
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. … So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.I think that Latter-day Saints often have kind of a strawman view of the Trinity—we might point at the baptism of Jesus Christ and say, observe that the three members of the Godhead were represented as separate persons and say, "see, not the Trinity!" However, Catholics and Protestants are well aware of the baptism of Jesus. It doesn't contradict the Trinity because part of that theology is that there are three persons that should not be confounded.
It is perhaps easier to think of the Trinity in terms of what it is not. There are three main heresies that stem from common misconceptions of the Trinity. First, in the example above, the Trinity is not just three different names for the same being. This is a heresy called modalism. Instead, they teach that God is three separate Persons.
Second, knowing that they are three separate persons, it might be tempting to describe God as referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that they are each a part of God. However, this is a heresy called partialism. According to the Trinity, each member of the Godhead is God, and not part of God.
Third, knowing that each person of the Godhead is God, a natural conclusion might be that there are three Gods. However, this is a heresy called tritheism. the Trinity affirms that despite the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three separate individuals, each God, there is only one God.
Likewise, sometimes this emphasis on "we disagree with the trinity" leads to an incorrect understanding of Latter-day Saint theology. Sometimes you might hear "Latter-day Saints believe Jesus isn't God" but that is only true if we mean "isn't God the Father" We still believe that Jesus is God the Son. Using "God" to only refer to Heavenly Father can lead to this confusion, though to be fair, often times Trinitarians do the same thing.
Like Trinitarians, we also believe in a Godhead with Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Also like Trinitarians, we teach that they are separate persons, and that each is God. However, Latter-day Saints would probably fall in the tritheism heresy, since we don't believe that they are one in substance.
Stephen Webb, a Catholic theologian, recognized different understandings of the Trinity. He also studied a lot about Latter-day Saint theology and saw that we are basically Trinitarians who emphasize the threeness of God rather than the oneness of God.
Joseph Smith taught in Nauvoo, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." Another time in Nauvoo, he taught, that the three personages "are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator." These things are still taught today.
Latter-day Saints teach that when the scriptures speak of them being "one," we believe that they are one in purpose (or "agreed as one" in Joseph Smith's words). So in order for something to directly contradict either the Trinitarian or Latter-day Saint theology, it would have to explicitly reject one or the other of these interpretations.
Clyde D. Ford in his paper, Jesus and the Father. The Book of Mormon and the Early Nineteenth-Century Debates on the Trinity noted that "one of the problems for those advocating a Trinitarian interpretation is that the BofM does not include such basic Christian creedal terms as 'substance' and 'person.' This forces the student who wishes to argue for a Trinitarian interpretation to read these into the BofM."
He examined several different traditional arguments for the Trinity or for alternative positions, and described the Book of Mormon stance on each, if any. The problem is that the Book of Mormon lacks sufficient detail to support any one theology to the exclusion of the others. Instead, Book of Mormon passages are more like those in the Bible, and so any interpretation will rely on how we interpret ambiguous passages, including doctrines that are not actually present in the Book of Mormon, and favoring a certain set of proof texts over others.
Jeremy will talk about scriptures he believes supports the Trinity, so I'll expand more on this later.
Joseph Smith’s early theology also held this view.This argument suffers for the same reason it suffers in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith never taught that the Godhead are of one substance or essence, which is the important distinction between Trinitarian theology and Latter-day Saint theology.
In addition to that, as Joseph Smith was making his inspired revision of the Bible, beginning in 1830, he made some changes to John 1 that appear to make it sound less Trinitarian. (Changes noted with italics.)
Latter-day Saint theology is fine with the original, as long as we interpret it that the Word (Jesus Christ) is God (the Son) and is with God (the Father.) The change is also technically not anti-Trinitarian either, since Trinitarians also believe the Son is of God. But it does make it sound less Trinitarian, which is Jeremy's argument below as evidence for Joseph changing his views on the Trinity. Joseph Smith made these changes to the New Testament sometime in 1831 or 1832. If his early theology was Trinitarian, then it wasn't for very long, given it almost immediately changed.KJV John 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.JST John 1:1In the beginning was the gospel preached through the son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the son was with God, and the Son was of God.
And if so, that's also fine, too. The whole point of the restoration is that God revealed His truth to Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saints don't teach that it was done in a day. In fact, we teach that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining tot he Kingdom of God."
As part of the over 100,000 changes to the Book of Mormon, there were major changes made to reflect Joseph’s evolved view of the Godhead.
In case you don't click through to read the source, most of the changes were adding punctuation. According to Royal Skousen, here is the breakdown of changes in the Book of Mormon
Accidentals (variants that change the form, not the actual words)
- Punctuation 41,619
- Capitalization 19,455
- Spelling ampersands 15,577
- Adding chapter and verse numbers 9,677
- Spelling of common English words 7,982
- Periods for numbers 6,620
- Typos in editions 2,087
- Scribal slips in manuscripts 1,780
- Paragraphing 1,420
- Adding the word chapter 273
- Spelling of etc 18
Total: 106,508
Substantives (variants that actually change the words)
- Unintentional changes in the text 5,567
- Editing of the text 3,837
- Spelling of names 541
- Spelling of homophones 420
Total: 10,355
Conjectural emendations (changes where it appears that the original was a mistake)
- Oliver Cowdery in the manuscripts 131
- John Gilbert, the 1830 typesetter 167
- Joseph Smith (1837 and 1840 editions) 217
- Orson Pratt (1849 and 1879 editions) 17
- Franklin and Samuel Richards (1852 edition) 17
- German Ellsworth (1905 and 1911 editions) 8
- James Talmage (1920 edition) 130
- 1981 scriptures committee 10
- 2009 Yale edition 139
Of these changes, very few are ones that critics actually talk about. (In the linked article, Royal discussed five groups of these kind of changes.) One of them is the set of changes regarding the Godhead. But do they actually reflect a change in the Godhead? Let's take a look.
| ORIGINAL 1830 EDITIOIN TEXT View Online | CURRENT, ALTERED TEXT View Online |
| 1 Nephi 3 (p.25) And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh. | 1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh |
| 1 Nephi 3 (p.25) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! | 1 Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father |
| 1 Nephi 3 (p.26) And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; | 1 Nephi 11:32 And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; |
| 1 Nephi 3 (p.32) These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world; | 1 Nephi 13:40 These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; |
Jeremy's argument is that because Joseph Smith added "the Son of" to these phrases, that it represented a change in theology. However, this change doesn't change the theology, as both Trinitarians and Latter-day Saints teach that Jesus is God (the Son) and is the Son of God (the Father). The difference is that Trinitarians teach that they are one in substance, and this change does nothing to refute that.
Rather than changing theology, this better represents a clarification. The first change is where it calls Mary "the mother of God" and although true, it can be misleading, and Joseph may have changed it because it sounds too Catholic.
In 1835, Oliver Cowdery responded to an article published in The Pioneer that criticized the Book of Mormon, including this phrase, saying "The name of Jesus Christ was declared to Nephi 545 years before it was announced to Mary, and she, in true Roman phraseology, is called 'the mother of God.'" Oliver pointed out that the phase actually concludes with "after the manner of the flesh" which anyone who believes the New Testament knows to be true, so it doesn't make sense to argue Jesus had no mother according to the flesh.
Making this first change is probably what triggered the next three changes, which were all in the same chapter in the original Book of Mormon. There is no attempt made to change similar statements elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith continued to teach that Jesus is God so it doesn't represent an "evolved view of the Godhead."
In addition to these revised passages, the following verses are among many verses still in the Book of Mormon that can be read with a Trinitarian view of the Godhead:
In Jeremy's 2017 revision, he added "in addition to these revised passages" and changed "that hold a Trinitarian view" to "can be read with a Trinitarian view" so it appears that Jeremy recognizes that they do not explicitly present a Trinitarian view.
We could just as easily say that many General Conference talks "can be read with a Trinitarian view" simply because not all of them explicitly denounce Trinitarian theology. As you might expect, we interpret our scriptures according to our own theology, which was best described in the 1916 doctrinal exposition The Father and the Son.
However, as we will see, although these scriptures might sound Trinitarian to us, they are more easily interpreted as anti-Trinitarian.
38: Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?39: And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
This verse is not saying that Jesus is the same being as Heavenly Father—and if it were, that would also be an example of modalism, a heresy against Trinitarianism. This is using Father in a figurative sense, meaning that Jesus is the creator.
1: And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.2: And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son –3: The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son –4: And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
This seems to me to use language similar to how today we would explain that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. A Latter-day Saint interpretation of these verses is that Jesus is one in purpose with the Father. Though the divine investiture of authority, Jesus perfectly represents the Father in power and authority, and in this sense, Jesus may be called "the Father".
A Trinitarian reading these verses would again recognize the heresy of modalism, describing Jesus as both the Father and the Son. Although the Trinity affirms they are one God, they also require distinction between the persons, which is not being made here.
14: Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.15: And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
In addition to being the Father in the figurative sense that He is the Creator, Jesus is also the Father in another figurative sense, that he is Father of those who believe and follow after Him.
I think a Trinitarian reading this would see it in the same figurative sense. But if one were to take it literally, that Jesus is the Father and the Son, then that would again be modalism. Also, in the same chapter, Jesus shows the Brother of Jared His spirit body. I would suggest that this goes against the Westminster Confession which puts forward the idea that God is "invisible, without body parts, or passions."
15: “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.”
This is from the same sermon as Mosiah 15, and so would be speaking through the same context, that Jesus is the Father in the sense that He is the creator, or that He is the Father through divine investiture of authority. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is the Father, because that is modalism, a Trinitarian heresy.
Using these verses, one could instead argue that the Book of Mormon presents a modalist view of the Godhead. However, that would ignore many other references that are distinctly anti-modalist. Lehi saw God sitting on his throne, and One descended out of the midst of heaven (1 Nephi 1:8-10). Nephi saw in vision the baptism of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove (1 Nephi 11:27). Nephi heard the voice of both the Father and the Son (2 Nephi 31:11). Jacob said that they worshiped the Father in the name of Christ (Jacob 4:5). Alma taught that God said, "If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son" (Alma 12:33). When Jesus appeared, the people also heard the voice of the Father from heaven (3 Nephi 11:7). Jesus delivered the words He was commanded of the Father, and afterwards He went to the Father (3 Nephi 17:2-4). Moroni tells us that Jesus sits on the right hand of God (Moroni 9:26).
Boyd Kirkland made the following observation:
“The Book of Mormon and early revelations of Joseph Smith do indeed vividly portray a picture of the Father and Son as the same God…why is it that the Book of Mormon not only doesn’t clear up questions about the Godhead which have raged in Christianity for centuries, but on the contrary just adds to the confusion? This seems particularly ironic, since a major avowed purpose of the book was to restore lost truths and end doctrinal controversies caused by the “great and abominable Church’s” corruption of the Bible…In later years he [Joseph] reversed his earlier efforts to completely ‘monotheise’ the godhead and instead ‘tritheised’ it.”
This is a letter to the editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought published in the Spring issue of 1995. Kirkland made reference to his article published in the Spring 1986 issue of the same journal Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism and the Bible where he argued that Joseph Smith changed his views of the Godhead over time, as did the Church after him.
A similar argument was made by Kurt Widmer in his book Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830-1915, published in 2000. Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen published their review of his book in an article in the the 2nd 2001 issue of the FARMS Review of Books, titled The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths. The same criticisms they made of Kurt Widmer also apply to Boyd Kirkland.
The problem is that in order to argue that "the Book of Mormon and early revelations of Joseph Smith do indeed vividly portray a picture of the Father and Son as the same God" they rely on a few proof texts, and ignore everything that portrays them as not the same God. I have already pointed out Book of Mormon verses that contradict a modalist theology. For what Joseph Smith actually taught during this early period (1829-1833) you can look in the Doctrine and Covenants and read the revelations Joseph received.
Among many others, Jesus taught that He did the will of the Father (D&C 19). Joseph taught that Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, who suffered, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven to sit down on the right hand of the Father, according to the will of the Father (D&C 20:21-24). Jesus describes Himself as our advocate with the Father (D&C 29:5), and He pleads our case before Him (D&C 45:3-5). Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon describe in vision that they saw Jesus on the right hand of God (D&C 76:22-23), and throughout the vision they are described as separate beings.
Kirkland wondered why the Book of Mormon does not clear up questions on the Godhead. However, since the best way to refute the Trinity is to do so using Trinitarian terms (e.g. "the Father and Son are one in purpose, not in substance") and since the Book of Mormon was written in ancient America and Trinitarian theology developed in the Old World, it would be anachronistic for the Book of Mormon to do so. On the other hand, some have argued that the Book of Mormon presents a view of God that is consistent with ancient Judaism.
UPDATE: Additional information and analysis can be found at cesletter.org/trinitarian
This link doesn't work. Possibly a placeholder so that he could link additional criticism/response should the need arise without having to update the letter itself. In my response, I'm really just going to focus on responding to the CES Letter itself. Sometimes I'll need to expand to explain what the criticism is, as I've done to great extent here in the Book of Mormon section, but normally I'll try to stick to the topics of what Jeremy brings up in the CES Letter.
Assuming that the official 1838 first vision account is truthful and accurate, why would Joseph Smith hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead if he personally saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate and embodied beings a few years earlier in the Sacred Grove?
There is nothing anti-Trinitarian about the First Vision experience. Stephen in Acts 7:55-56 had a similar experience where he saw Jesus on the right hand of God. Part of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity is that God is three persons in one essence. Joseph Smith's vision is instead properly interpreted as anti-modalist.
The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants references I listed above are also anti-modalist, and can still be used to support Trinitarianism. It doesn't help Jeremy's argument that he seems to conflate modalism with Trinitarianism, but to be fair, I think most people do.
Possibly the strongest anti-Trinitarian statement found in the scriptures is in a later (1843) piece of instruction found in D&C 130:22-23 that says the Father and Son each have a body of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit. Jesus prayed in John 17:11,21 that the apostles would be one as He and the Father are one. Latter-day Saints (Joseph Smith included) argue that Jesus could not have meant to pray that they would become the same essence, but that they would be one in purpose. And as I said before, in Ether 3, the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, which is contrary to the idea that God is without body, parts or passions.
No comments:
Post a Comment