This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“This was an 1819 textbook written in King James Version style language for New York state school children, one of them very likely being Joseph Smith. The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon… Along with the above KJV language style presence throughout the book, what are the following Book of Mormon phrases, verbatim, themes, and storylines doing in a children’s school textbook that was used in Joseph Smith’s own time and backyard? A mere decade before the publication of the Book of Mormon?… The staggering parallels and similarities to the Book of Mormon are astounding.”
Here’s what happened: In 2014, some anti-Mormons “analyzed 110,000 books” to find “phrases matched with the Book of Mormon.” They found a bunch of matches in a random book called The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain. They concluded: “Joseph Smith read this book, and then some things were kind of ruminating, he had some ideas, and then he kind of remixed it, and he had a cool story.”
The problem with this approach is that books share random phrases all the time, especially if they are both based on bible language, which these two books are. Pick any random phrase from the Book of Mormon; for example, Alma 32:16- “blessed are they who humble themselves.” Google search this exact phrase for 19th century books. The result is at least three non-Mormon books: The Divine Word Opened. Sermons. (Third Edition.), The Family Fire-side Book: Or, Monuments of Temperance, The American Temperance Magazine, and Sons of Temperance. Does that mean Joseph Smith stole this phrase from one of these books?
So, this approach only looks for coincidences and does nothing to show how one book might be related to the other. Well, let’s go through each of the Book of Mormon phrases and themes that CES Letter claims relates to the book Late War :
- Devices of “curious workmanship” in relation to boats and weapons. The phrase “of curious workmanship” was a common idiosyncrasy in the 19th century. A Google Search results in hundreds of non-Mormon books from that era. Late War talks about a sword “of curious workmanship,” European weapons of war, and steam boats. The Book of Mormon talks about engravings of curious workmanship, timberwork, “all manner of work”, and the Liahona. Totally different things.
| A “stripling” soldier “with his “weapon of war in his hand.” Late War uses “stripling” as a noun, not as an adjective as CES Letter portrays it. That is a misquote. The word “stripling” is not associated with the word “soldier” like it is in the Book of Mormon. CES Letter adds another quotation mark after the word “soldier” to make it seem like this is the context, but this is a lie. Fact is, the word “stripling” was common in the 19th century, and thousands of non-Mormon books use the word. The phrase “weapon of war in his hand” does not appear in the Book of Mormon, or anything similar to it. Another misquote. So this alleged parallel is completely bogus, a total fabrication. |  |
“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.”
| Clever of CES Letter to locate this alleged parallel after the “stripling” parallel, to make them seem related. But the word “stripling” is not at all related to the “two thousand” men mentioned in Late War. The two thousand men are also not the ones who “gave their services freely for the good of their country.” That phrase appears hundreds of pages later in a totally different context, regarding a couple New York commissioners. The group of more than two thousand men are briefly mentioned and have no resemblance to the 2,000 stripling young warriors in the Book of Mormon. A Google search finds thousands of non-Mormon 19th century books about “two thousand” men, soldiers, warriors, young men, and stripling warriors. |
Fortifications: “the people began to fortify themselves and entrench the high Places round about the city.”
| I’m not sure why this is a problem. Two books about wars and battles happen to mention fortifications? Gee, shocker. Late War talks about citizens fortifying their homes from foreign attack, with only two mentions. The Book of Mormon mentions fortifying twenty-one times, in context of soldiers fortifying cities and strongholds. There is no original mention in the Book of Mormon about entrenchment or “high places.” Again, I don’t know why this parallel is significant, as two books about war would be expected to talk about fortifications. |
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.”
| Why doesn’t CES Letter say what “objects” of brass the book is talking about? Maybe because it was describing torpedoes, which obviously weren’t mentioned in the Book of Mormon, an object completely different from the Liahona. I assume CES Letter thinks this is similar to the Book of Mormons description of the Liahona? Even though it really isn’t similar. The Liahoa was only made of brass–not iron, and was not described as cunningly contrived or with curious works, or like a clock. CES Letter already mentioned “curious workmanship” in the first alleged parallel, so again, what is this phrase supposed to be similar to? |
“Their polished steels of fine workmanship.”
| The “steels” that are mentioned in Late War are muskets with bayonets on the ends. It was talking about guns, not the metal steel. The Book of Mormon obviously does not mention muskets or bayonets. But it is actually an interesting coincidence that “steels” are described as “of fine workmanship,” which is similar to Nephi’s description of Laban’s “precious steel” sword: “the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.” There are only a few hundred 19th century books in Google’s library that mention steel of fine workmanship. |
“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.”
| Repeat of the phony “fortifications” parallel. |
Three Indian Prophets.
| False. The reason CES Letter doesn’t quote Late War directly is because this isn’t what it says. It says, “…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…” Three of the Indian prophets. Not three in total. It is a ridiculous stretch to compare this with the Three Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They are not at all the same. |
“Rod of iron.”
| The “rod of iron” in the Late War is a quote from the bible, nothing like the iron rod in the Book of Mormon. “Then we will rule them with a rod of iron.” Thousands of 19th century books talk about a “rod of iron,” because this is from the bible. |
War between the wicked and righteous.
| There is only one mention of a “righteous” military leader or soldier in Late War, an American who treated British soldiers of war well. “Now Perry was a righteous man, and like the good Samaritan, took care of the halt and maimed.” I’m not sure how this relates to the Book of Mormon. Because some military leaders are nice and some not nice? That’s every book about war. |
Maintaining the standard of liberty with righteousness.
| No mention of a “standard of liberty.” I don’t find any mention of defending a standard, or flag, or insignia, or maintaining it with righteousness. I don’t know what CES Letter is referring to here. The only thing that comes close is a “great multitude” of Canadians who “flocked to the banners” of Columbia’s army. |
Righteous Indians vs. savage Indians.
| There is only one mention of an “Indian” in Late War–the false Indian prophets that we saw in the previous phony parallel. So I’m not sure what CES Letter is referring to here. The “savages” mentioned are not distinguished by race. There are British savages, American savages, Native American savages. There is no mention of a “righteous” Indian or Indian people. So this parallel is completely bogus. |
False Indian prophets
| Repeat of the previous phony parallel about “Three Indian Prophets.” CES Letter mentions they are false prophets this time in order to make it look like the previous mention was of true prophets, which it wasn’t. So CES Letter is basically lying. |
Conversion of Indians
| A history book about early America mentions Indians being converted to Christianity? Gee, what a shocker. |
Bands of robbers/pirates marauding the righteous protagonists.
| There is only two mentions of “robbers” in Late War: “A band of sea-robbers and pirates… ready to assist the men of Britain.” And, “the robbers of the king” who sacked an American town. There are no pirates in the Book of Mormon, and the Gadianton Robbers are not part of the Lamanites. “Band of robbers” was a common phrase in the 19th century, appearing in thousands of books. |
Brass plates
| No mention of brass plates or any writings having to do with brass in Late War. This is a completely bogus parallel. The only mention of brass objects are the torpedoes mentioned in the previous phony parallel. |
“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…”
| This is a repetition of the earlier phony argument about the “standard of liberty.” The context is completely different. Citizens of Canada “flocked” to the “banners” of Columbia’s army as they marched through. In the Book of Mormon, men “flocked” to a “standard” to join an army. A Google search finds thousands of 19th century books that mention many people flocking to a banner, flag, or standard. |
Worthiness of Christopher Columbus
| We would expect a history book about early America to talk about Christopher Columbus. Late War says of Christopher Columbus: “As the righteous man struggleth against wickedness, so did he against ignorance and stupidity. Nevertheless… he crossed the waters of the mighty deep.” This is nothing like the Book of Mormon describes him. All it says is the Spirit of God “wrought upon the man.” Nothing about worthiness. |
Ships crossing the ocean.
| A history book talks about ships crossing oceans? Shocking! |
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.
| I guess this is supposed to be similar to Amalickiah, a Nephite who led Lamanite forces against the Nephites? Well, I don’t find in Late War where this battle happened. Captain Woolbine “the white savage” maybe? But I don’t find the rest of what CES Letter talks about here, nor do I see how it compares to the Book of Mormon. Captain Woolbine was British, not an American traitor. Amalickiah’s people were not slaughtered filling up a trench. |
Cataclysmic earthquake followed by great darkness
| There is no mention of a great darkness or earthquake in Late War. All I find is a shadow from the smoke of guns filling the air in a battle amidst the roar of cannons. What does this have to do with the earthquakes and natural disasters in the Book of Mormon? |
Elephants/mammoths in America
| Late War does not mention elephants. But it does mention “the huge mammoth that once moved on the borders of the river Hudson.” Which is true. The mammoth did roam the borders of the Hudson thousands of years ago. But the Book of Mormon does not mention mammoths. So… how is this a parallel? |
Literary Hebraisms/Chiasmus The alleged Chiasmus structure is bogus. They include a bunch of phrases that never exist, compare phrases that are not at all simiar, combine parts of different verses, and include phrases that show up dozens or hundreds of times throughout the book.
A true chiasmus is a symmetrical structure of distinct phrases. Hickory, dickory, dock. The mouse ran up the clock. The clock struck one, the mouse ran down. Hickory, dickory, dock. You can’t just cherry-pick common words like “their” and “unto”, which show up many times throughout the vast three chapters that you are analyzing, and claim that it is symmetrical. The chiasmus structures within the Book of Mormon are distinct phrases or closely related phrases that don’t show up elsewhere, such as “the natural man” and “becometh as children.”
- Boats and barges built from trees after the fashion of the ark. The reference to Noah’s ark in View of the Hebrews is actually regarding “steam-boats.” Where does the Book of Mormon talk about steam boats? There is a totally different reference to “vessels” made of trees, which were ships carrying “an hundred of the engines of death.” No mention of barges. Not comparable to the Book of Mormon.
- A bunch of “it came to pass” “It came to pass” shows up 76 times in View of the Hebrews. It shows up 1,449 times in the Book of Mormon. That’s 19 times more frequent in the Book of Mormon. Many thousands of 19th century books use the phrase “it came to pass,” as it is a common bible phrase.
| Extensive computer analysis proves Late War has more in common with other books, such as The American Revolution by Richard Snowden, published in 1823. Late War shares 70 phrases that are 4-9 words long with the Book of Mormon, but shares 382 with American Revolution. |  |
Topics are much more militaristic and less religious than the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon uses twice as much archaic English words, and three times as many distinguishing phrases similar to the bible. The Book of Mormon has a lot in common with the bible–style, structure, and language– and much less in common with Late War. The similarities between Late War and the bible are exaggerations, such as extensive use of the phrase “the Lord” that don’t really fit the same context. If Joseph Smith had ripped off a rip-off of the bible, we would expect more exaggeration of selected phrases, not less.
Oh, did I mention there is zero evidence that Joseph Smith came in contact with the book Late War or could have possibly had access to it?
See also: Scriptural Style in Early Nineteenth Century American Literature
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | Some of the allegedly parallel phrases from Late War don’t appear in the Book of Mormon, or they aren’t actual Late War quotes. Brass plates are not mentioned. Great darkness is not mentioned. Barges and “stripling” soldiers” are not mentioned. Other parallels are greatly twisted. For example, the “worthiness of Christopher Columbus” is not mentioned in either book, though some aspect of Columbus is. CES Letter references Hebraisms and chiasmus in Late War, but the chiasmus revealed in their source is fake. CES Letter‘s claim that Late War “was used in Joseph Smith’s own time and backyard” is false. It was printed in New York city, but there is no evidence the book made it anywhere near where Joseph Smith grew up or was living. |
| Shifting Goalposts | In a previous argument, CES Letter claimed there were no elephants in North America in Nephite times. They refuse to admit that a mention of one animal could mean something similar. But now they frame Late War‘s (correct) claim that Mammoths once roamed the Hudson river as equivalent to saying there were elephants in America. So, now suddenly CES Letter admits that the Book of Mormon claim of elephants is actually a reference to an elephant-like animal? The study where CES Letter took this narrative from found that the Spaulding Manuscript is no more similar to the Book of Mormon than any random book. Yet CES Letter used a map from Vernal Holley’s book that pushes this phony narrative for a previous argument. |
| Cherry-picking | Anyone can cherry-pick a few idiosyncrasies that were common 200 years ago and draw a conspiracy theory relationship between the two random books. In a study, Jeff Lindsay found many striking parallels between the book Leaves of Grass and the Book of Mormon. Only problem? The Book of Mormon was published 20 years earlier. |
| Confirmation Bias | All of the alleged parallels are in wildly different contexts, and many exist because both books happen to reference the bible and Christianity among the American Indians in colonial times. |
| Etymology Fallacy | “stripling” soldier “ Is it just coincidence that CES Letter made a grammar error and added that quotation mark after the word soldier, so that it incorrectly seems like “stripling soldiers” are mentioned in Late War? Nah, couldn’t be. |
| Guilt By Association | CES Letter stresses alleged parallels having to do with racism: “Righteous Indians vs. savage Indians,” “False Indian prophets,” “Worthiness of Christopher Columbus,” “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.” Whites are righteous and Indians are savage apostates. This isn’t really how Late War portrays history, and it certainly isn’t how the Book of Mormon explains it. CES Letter frames Late War this way to incriminate the Book of Mormon as racist. The school textbook Late War was published in New York city, which is kinda close to where the Book of Mormon was translated, but there is zero evidence that the book made its way to upstate New York or that Joseph Smith had any contact with it. Even if someone does find evidence that it was used in school, Joseph Smith dropped out of school in the third grade. So how would he come across this textbook? |
| Dramatic Language | To boost their credibility, CES Letter calls their alleged parallels “astounding,” “staggering,” “devastating,” “must sober of perspective.” |
| Non-sequiter | A history textbook about the early United States would be expected to talk about Christopher Columbus. How is this evidence of a relationship with the Book of Mormon? |
| Big Lie Tactic – Like previous arguments, the narrative is hokey and unbelievable, but the audience is not supposed to actually believe it. The reader thinks, “Maybe Jospeh Smith read this textbook and it influenced him, maybe not. Who knows?” The point of this argument is not to convince us that Joseph Smith ripped off the writing style for the Book of Mormon, but to associate Joseph Smith with racism and colonialism. That is what really makes this argument effective. Even if you walk away shaking your heads at the claim that Joseph Smith stole themes, you still associate him now with racial supremacy. Thus, CES Letter establishes their Big Lie that Mormons are bigots. |  |
This is how CES Letter operates: through innuendo. They push the Big Lies, they wrap them in a veneer of science, and this convinces the weak-minded members of their audience that science is a superior alternative truth to Mormonism, and that science proves that Joseph Smith was a racial supremacist. This is what is known as superstition. Not science. This is like saying Joseph Smith was visited by an ancient alien in his First Vision at Cumorah, rather than God and angels. It is unscientific, goofy, and erases all faith.
The first Big Lie that CES Letter told was that there is no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon claims. This one singular lie leads to further lies that attack one’s testimony of the gospel. In this argument, that first lie intersects with a next big lie, which is that Joseph Smith was a racist.
CES Letter uses two classic Nazi propaganda tactics to set up this Big Lie: sharpshooter fallacy and glittering words. They cherry-pick few pieces of evidence out of context to ‘prove’ a sweeping conspiracy theory, and then they reinforce their allegation with emotional language.
Using the same tactic as in previous arguments, CES Letter builds a narrative for how Joseph Smith got the language, style, themes, and story-line for the Book of Mormon. One of the Book of Mormon’s strengths is its consistent originality of themes, stories, theology, and geography. By constraining the context of the argument, swinging back and forth between too much contradiction to too little contradiction, CES Letter makes their clownish argument sound almost reasonable, almost scientific.
In previous arguments, CES Letter demanded that Mormons validate every single thing mentioned in the Book of Mormon with plentiful physical evidence, or our narrative must be false. But now, CES Letter shifts the goalposts and cherry-picks a few loose parallels to some other random book . Why shouldn’t CES Letter have to validate every single comparison, if that narrative is true? Wouldn’t that be scientific?
CES Letter thus begins to set a frame for how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, which by all appearances is a miracle. How did a 14 year old boy come up with such imaginative themes? Easy. He stole it from his school textbook (even though he wasn’t in school). CES Letter cherry-picks a few bits of evidence and frames it in a way that almost sounds plausible, by ignoring tons of inconvenient facts to support their wild and complicated narrative.
This argument reaches fully into conspiracy theory land, as there is zero evidence that this school textbook made its way to upstate New York, and even if it did, Joseph Smith was not in school. Even if he had read it, the parallels are so flimsy and contrived, it is ridiculous to speculate anyone would copy a few elements or phrases in such wildly different contexts. The narrative just doesn’t make sense.
Contradiction Strategy – The human mind is trained to find patterns and dissimilarities. It is easy–lazy really–to cherry-pick a few vague similarities between two random books, dress up the language to sound more similar, and build a narrative that one book derived from the other. This is the same argument that Leftists use against the bible. They say it was ripped off Babylonian, Sumerian, and Egyptian legends. The human brain is trained to look for discrepancies and patterns, so this trick is common. Pareidolia is why people see the Virgin Mary in breakfast cereal and figures on Mars. It is confirmation bias.
When it comes to history, there is so much we don’t know and will never know. All we have are some fragments of bones in the ground and some texts that claim to be ancient. Fools jump to conclusions. Followers of Satan are easily tricked when it comes to pareidolia and history, because they are lazy and do not care to use critical thought. If there is vague evidence for something but we mostly don’t know what really happened because it is ancient history, followers of Satan will jump to lazy conclusions, whatever narrative is hyped on the History Channel and dressed up in emotional language.
It is easy to manipulate Satan’s followers when it comes to history because they rely only on what they can see and put no true faith in anything.
What does CES Letter believe in? What tenant of faith do hold that we can verify or discredit with these kinds of comparisons? Global warming? Human evolution? Give us something! Why don’t anti-Mormons discuss their alternative belief to the beliefs of the Book of Mormon and bible, and talk about physical evidences? Instead, they nit-pick and tear down an entire belief system with unscientific appeals to fake science.
This Marxist propaganda technique is especially insidious as it defines Mormons in a constrained and unfair frame, and it rallies non-Mormons or anybody who was sitting on the fence in solidarity against Mormons and their beliefs.