KJV,God & BoM- for Ben

[_marg]

My guess is that Ben no longer wants to discuss this because his arguments don't work for multiple audiences. He can criticize Tom's reasearch to those who view the Book of Mormon from a Smith-alone point of view, but that criticism suddenly breaks down when conversing with those of us who accept S/R.

I can understand Ben not wanting to discuss with me. In my frustration the other day I said I viewed him as a liar. To me the parallels are so persuasive and so obvious that to argue against them such as he did i.e. that many were only one word...seems too deliberately biased for my liking.

I agree with you that to argue there is lack of evidence Smith had access to such books, is a counter argument to the Smith alone theory, however it is strong support for the S/R theory.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

I would lose interest too if I were attempting to defend your position. It's really quite remarkable. When the rubber meets the road you can't decide whether Alma actually wrote "cherubims" (in whatever language you want to speculate) or whether God mistranslated it for Smith's alleged benefit. Either option is pretty ridiculous.

This isn't the reason Roger. In fact, I think that I do a fairly decent job of defending my position. The problem that I am encountering is that these discussions are wandering far too much. And I simply not interested in continuing the pattern I have observed.

I thought that I gave a reasonable response to your issue here. You didn't answer any of my related questions to you. And I note that your suggestions of "ridiculous" seems largely based on your personal opinions. And from my observations, you pretty much think that everything is ridiculous or inconsequential if it doesn't come from or support you position.

As Marg notes, I really don't like being called dishonest. I am not making these arguments (as has been suggested) simply because I need to bolster my faith somehow. I don't have much of a history posting with you or Marg, but with some of the posters here, I have had discussions going back well over a decade. And I think I have a track record that supports me. In fact, I think if you review the comments about me in this forum (and there are a few) you will find that my approach is generally appreciated and well thought out - even if you don't agree with my conclusions or my assumptions.

The reason why I got involved at all in this discussion is over the notion of plagiarism and borrowing at a textual level. I have noted repeatedly that there is a body of scholarly literature devoted to answering these kinds of questions. But, repeatedly, all I have gotten here in this forum is that such issues are irrelevant because this textual issue is somehow special and the normal rules need not apply. But I am not interested in that discussion because I think that it is essentially fruitless. What I came looking for was someone who would go do a bit of reading and research, come up with some recognized method and a set of criteria for selecting parallels, and so reorganize this argument in a more coherent way that isn't essentially saying what I have repeatedly got - either "my parallels are better than yours" or "I know it when I see it".

Further, once we got sidetracked to this discussion, I simply stopped being interested due to the heavy degree of mocking content and a turn from issues to avoidance. This thread was feeling like a dance. And I am not terribly interested in dancing. I am not interested in why you think the Book of Mormon isn't based on some ancient text - because, of course, I don't think your arguments are that persuasive or even really that reasonable. If you want to approach the Book of Mormon as a text and look at internal evidences for ancient or modern authorship, I am happy to get involved in that kind of discussion. But again, there are scholarly approaches to dealing with texts that allege to be translations of ancient documents that deal with the text and don't bother with all of the other claims made external to the text about its origins.

And since it seems that I am not going to get the discussion I am interested in, I certainly am not interested in having such a hostile discussion with you about these tangential issues.

[_Roger]

Ben:

And since it seems that I am not going to get the discussion I am interested in, I certainly am not interested in having such a hostile discussion with you about these tangential issues.

If you think I am taking a hostile tone with you then perhaps a discussion with me is not a good fit for you. We simply disagree. I am trying to articulate why I believe as I do and I have tried to do so with no "hostility" but on the other hand I am not going to tone down my beliefs or my articulation of them because my expression of them somehow offends you. I can appreciate that you might not like being called a liar, but that is marg's expressed opinion, not mine, and you will need to take that up with her.

I would lose interest too if I were attempting to defend your position. It's really quite remarkable. When the rubber meets the road you can't decide whether Alma actually wrote "cherubims" (in whatever language you want to speculate) or whether God mistranslated it for Smith's alleged benefit. Either option is pretty ridiculous.

This isn't the reason Roger. In fact, I think that I do a fairly decent job of defending my position.

I agree. So then what is the reason for the unnecessary "s"? If I remember correctly you are "fine" with attributing that repeated error to God?

The problem that I am encountering is that these discussions are wandering far too much. And I simply not interested in continuing the pattern I have observed.

This is a discussion board. Discussions wander.

I thought that I gave a reasonable response to your issue here. You didn't answer any of my related questions to you. And I note that your suggestions of "ridiculous" seems largely based on your personal opinions. And from my observations, you pretty much think that everything is ridiculous or inconsequential if it doesn't come from or support you position.

And from my observations, you pretty much think that everything is ridiculous or inconsequential if it doesn't come from or support your position. So what? Isn't that what makes discussion interesting?

I am not making these arguments (as has been suggested) simply because I need to bolster my faith somehow.

Perhaps not, but here's what I observe:

1. Coincidentally, the arguments you are making DO support your faith
2. Inexplicably you do not want your faith to be a part of the discussion
3. To avoid #2 you are willing to allegedly argue as though you do not hold the faith you do; however
4. as I have already illustrated, you can not do so without allowing your faith to color your responses

therefore,

you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. That just won't work. You are a Mormon, Ben, you should own up to it.

I don't have much of a history posting with you or Marg, but with some of the posters here, I have had discussions going back well over a decade.

Wonderful. I applaud you.

And I think I have a track record that supports me.

Fine. I have plenty of track records discussing things with LDS on other boards going back years as well. Even made some LDS friends that way. So what? All that is irrelevant to this discussion.

In fact, I think if you review the comments about me in this forum (and there are a few) you will find that my approach is generally appreciated and well thought out - even if you don't agree with my conclusions or my assumptions.

If I did not think your posts were worthy of response, I would ignore you. I am not afraid to disagree with anyone. But I do not respond to everyone.

The reason why I got involved at all in this discussion is over the notion of plagiarism and borrowing at a textual level. I have noted repeatedly that there is a body of scholarly literature devoted to answering these kinds of questions.

Yes you have. And I have repeatedly stated that I am not a scholar. Futhermore, you have made no attempt to cogently and concisely explain in layman's terms these scholarly methods you constantly describe. Obviously, simply mentioning that they exist does nothing.

But, repeatedly, all I have gotten here in this forum is that such issues are irrelevant because this textual issue is somehow special and the normal rules need not apply.

Wrong. I have stated that even IF the normal rules apply, this case is indeed special. You can deny it 'til the sun goes down, but I did not create the circumstances.

But I am not interested in that discussion because I think that it is essentially fruitless.

I agree. From your perspective it is fruitless because any rational person can see that there are indeed parallels and any rational person can understand that there was indeed an alleged pre-1838 connection between Spalding & Smith. It is indeed fruitless for you to deny that, and difficult to downplay it--especially when I won't allow you to get away with it.

What I came looking for was someone who would go do a bit of reading and research,

Not really... what you want is to set the rules and for me to follow your instructions and methodology when I can already think and observe for myself. I have done plenty of reading and research and I still think Spalding wrote a manuscript that was the basis for the Book of Mormon.

This, therefore, is not about either me or you assigning homework to the other party, it is, rather, about discussing our differences in a civilized manner.

come up with some recognized method and a set of criteria for selecting parallels, and so reorganize this argument in a more coherent way that isn't essentially saying what I have repeatedly got - either "my parallels are better than yours" or "I know it when I see it".

I challenged you to duplicate the converging coincidences of 1838 and when you finally understood the challenge you called it ridiculous. I agree, it is ridiculous to ask you to duplicate what occured precisely because what did occur is HIGHLY unduplicatable. That is the point you want to deny and ridicule, because otherwise you're stuck with admitting it is indeed a really, really bizarre coincidence.

Then I challenged you to at least come up with an account that parallels Smith's DN closer than that of Spaldings. Despite the fact that you allege that thousands of such narratives exist, you also refused to take up that challenge on the basis that you do not participate in "parallelomania."

What you want is for us to play by your rules. Rules which deny the credibility of the witnesses and downplay the significance of the parallels and, furthermore, do so without questioning your motives for doing either. Forgive us for not playing along.

Further, once we got sidetracked to this discussion, I simply stopped being interested due to the heavy degree of mocking content and a turn from issues to avoidance. This thread was feeling like a dance. And I am not terribly interested in dancing. I am not interested in why you think the Book of Mormon isn't based on some ancient text - because, of course, I don't think your arguments are that persuasive or even really that reasonable.

Neither do most other LDS I discuss things with, but at least they are willing to acknowledge the role their own faith and testimonies play in formulating their opinions.

Needless to say, I don't think your arguments are that persuasive or even really that reasonable, either.

If you want to approach the Book of Mormon as a text and look at internal evidences for ancient or modern authorship, I am happy to get involved in that kind of discussion. But again, there are scholarly approaches to dealing with texts that allege to be translations of ancient documents that deal with the text and don't bother with all of the other claims made external to the text about its origins.

Since my chosen field of post-high school study was neither the Book of Mormon nor textual analysis, I am not qualified to enter into a scholarly discussion about ancient texts, nor do I care to devote the rest of my life to such endeavors. But I do have a brain and it works most of the time. If you can translate the scholarly lingo into something practical for a discussion board, be my guest.

Maybe we should try a different approach. Earlier we had this exchange:

Seems to me that is a judgment call. Are you saying you can merely examine two texts and determine whether one comes from the other or not?

This is normally how the process works, yes.

Here are two texts written by two different authors that contain parallels.... A. was written before B; all of A's quotes come from the same source and all of B's quotes come from the same source....

A. “…the address signed by General Washington was
published, and every assurance given to the people,
that they came to protect, and not to plunder them.”

B. “A manifesto subscribed by general Washington, which
had been sent from Cambridge with this detachment, was
circulated among the inhabitants of Canada.
In this they were invited to arrange
themselves under the standard of general liberty;
and they were informed that the American army
was sent into the province not to
plunder but to protect them.”


A. “ ‘…of this the officers are to
be particularly careful.’ ”

B. “ ‘…of this the officers are to
be particularly careful.’ ”

A. “He then gave the most explicit
orders that any soldier who
should attempt to conceal
himself, or retreat without
orders, should be instantly
shot down, as an example
of the punishment of cowardice,
and desired every officer
to be particularly attentive
to the conduct of his men,
and report those who
should distinguish
themselves by brave
and noble actions…”


B. “He directed explicitly that
any soldier who should
attempt to conceal
himself, or retreat
without orders, should
instantly be shot down;
and solemnly promised
to notice and reward
those who should
distinguish themselves.”



Using only your prefered standard of methodology for textual comparison (in other words, no looking for additional information about these quotes, that would be cheating), please tell us if:

B is borrowed from A. (yes or no)

and what leads you to your conclusion?

Please describe your conclusions in layman's terms and please provide a layman's explanation of the methodology you employ while evaluating these texts so that we might also apply the same methodology elsewhere.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger,

Ramsay and Marshall I assume? Or did you manage to get some of the Marshall material from the 1903 work by Schroeder, Lossing, and Towne? The 1903 text contains this for example:

He directed explicitly that any soldier who should attempt to conceal himself, or retreat without orders, should instantly be shot down; and solemnly promised to notice and reward those who should distinguish themselves. Thus did he, by infusing those sentiments, which would stimulate to the greatest individual exertion, into every bosom, endeavor to compensate for the want of arms, of discipline, and of numbers.

First of all, you actually have to look at the texts (and not excerpts). Second, some searching is necessary. After all, there are lots of reasons why two texts can say essentially the same thing and not have it be plagiarism. In other words, just looking at those excerpts, even knowing that one was published before the other, you cannot establish plagiarism. You can only establish that the texts have a relationship. But, that relationship is rather unclear. Does one borrow from the other? Do they both indpendantly borrow from a third source? Also, particularly in the rather short pieces, you have to actually look at how common the phrase is - both in the related works you are looking at, and in contemporary literature.

It's awfully hard, for example, to take this set of parallels all that seriously -

A. “…the address signed by General Washington was published, and every assurance given to the people, that they came to protect, and not to plunder them.”

B. “A manifesto subscribed by general Washington, which had been sent from Cambridge with this detachment, was circulated among the inhabitants of Canada. In this they were invited to arrange themselves under the standard of general liberty; and they were informed that the American army was sent into the province not to plunder but to protect them.”

Why is it hard to take it seriously? Well, these aren't fictional accounts. Between 1775 and 1778, there were a number of invasions into Canada on the part of the Continental army. And, along with these was a set of propaganda designed to encourage the Canadian's to side with the Americans. In this regard, for example, we have a letter from George Washington to Colonel Benedict Arnold, dated September 14, 1775 which reads in part:

I charge you, therefore, and the officers and soldiers under your command, as you value your own safety and honor, and the favor and esteem of your country, that you consider yourselves, as marching not through the country of an enemy, but of our friends and brethren, for such the inhabitants of Canada, and the Indian nations, have approved themselves in this unhappy contest between Great Britain and America; and that you check, by every motive of duty and fear of punishment, every attempt to plunder or insult the inhabitants of Canada. Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his person or property, I do most ernestly enjoin you to bring him in such severe and exemplary punishment, as the enormity of the crime may require.

The actual adress the two citations you mention refer to, was one written by Washington to the people in Quebec. It is undated, and the relevant part of it reads:

Come, then, my brethren, unite with us in an indissoluble union; let us run together to the same goal. We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them or die. We look forward with pleasure to that day, not far remote, we hope, when the inhabitants of America shall have one sentiment, and the full enjoymnet of the blessings of a free Government. Incited by these motives, and encouraged by the advice of many friends of liberty among you, the grand American congress have sent an army into your province, under the command of General Schuyler, not to plunder, but to protect you; to animate and bring forth into action those sentiments of freedom you have disclosed, and which the tools of despotism would extinguish through the whole creation.
...
Come, then, ye generous citizens, range yourselves under the standard of general liberty, against which all the force and artifice of tyranny will bever be able to prevail.

Clearly, all of the relevant language in both accounts is taken from this text - and not one from the other.

The next one, of course, is even more a problem - since "of this the officers are to be particularly careful" seems to be a phrase that George Washington used quite regularly in his correspondence. I am not sure there is any mileage to be gotten in an argument for plagiarism there.

For your last set of parallels, there was a message sent by General George Washington dated September 6, 1777, which read:

The General has no doubt that every man who has a due sense of the importance of the cause he has undertaken to defend, and who has any regard to his own honor and the repuation of a soldier, will, if called to action, behave like one contending for everything valuable. But if, contrary to his expectation, there shall be found any officers or soldiers so far lost to all shame as basely to quit their posts without orders, or shall skulk from danger, or offer to retreat before order is given for so doing from proper authority from a superior officer, they are to be instantly shot down as just punishment to themselves, and for example to others. This order, those in the rear and those in the corps of reserve are to see duly executed, to prevent the cowardly from making a sacrifice of the brave, and by their ill example and groundless tales calculated to cover their own shameful conduct, prevent them from spreading terror as they go. That the order may be well known and strongly impressed on the army, the General positively orders the commanding officer of every regiment to assemble his men and have it read to them, to prevent the plea of ignorance.

The General begs the officers to be attentive to all strange faces and suspicious characters who many be discovered in camp; and if, upon examination of them, no goof account can be given why they are there, to carry them to the Major-general for further examination. This is only a necessary precaution, to be done in a manner the least offensive.

The general officers are to meet at fice o'clock this afternoon at the brick house by White Clay Creek.

This of course comes after the account which you use which is dated near August 22, 1776, but suggests quite clearly that some of the unique features of the language may well be attributed to a shared source - and ultimately to Washington himself.

So, using just these three examples, there is no evidence for plagiarism.

On the other hand, there clearly is reliance when we look at the complete texts. It has been discussed for decades in literature devoted looking at the histories of the revolutionary war. Of course, some of the apparent plagiarism really isn't (at least not from Source A to Source B - or the other way around), since they (and several authors with them) were all plagiairizing the same sources. While the language is similar in places (even exact), there are some other issues.

The reason this is interesting is in part because while you have clearly read some things (most likely from Donofrio), you probably haven't read a lot about the the historical narratives of the revoluationary war, and how they relate to one another. So, for instance, we have a great deal of plagiarism in all of the books from the Annual Register, and the earliest accounts are often used by the later ones (Marshall freely admits that he used a variety of sources). The early influential works included Stedman's The History of the Origin, Progress and Termination of the American War (1794), and William Gordon's History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America (1788).

Of course, the interesting thing is that these texts all use some very unique and specific phrasing to deal with the same topics in an identical context. Which is to say, in the last of your examples, when we have George Washington ordering cowards to be shot, the context occurs at Long Island just before a specific battle occurs (it is the same in all of the texts which use this similar language to describe the event), and the language itself is rather unique within these texts.

Of course, it isn't possible to find an early narrative about the revolutionary war which doesn't have may of these same shared features. Which is to say all of the accounts rely on some sources, and as they get published, later sources all rely on earlier sources. ANd this is why Donofrio's comments aren't very valid - not only can you not distinguish an alleged claim of Joseph borrowing from one of these sources or another of these sources - it is quite simple to see that there was a language which was in use to describe warfare in general. And this creates a cultural pool of language which get used over and over again to describe certain kinds of activities without even necessitating plagiarism.

And then, finally, this is very, very different from the kinds of parallels being discussed between the 1838 discovery narrative and Spalding's so-called Roman story.

At any rate, perhaps you should look at the following books:

Arthur H. Shaffer's: The Politics of History: Writing the History of the American Revolution, 1783–1815

William Raymond Smith's: History as Argument: Three Patriot Histories of the American Revolution

or Lester H. Cohen's The Revolutionary Histories: Contemporary Narratives of the American Revolution

In particular, the second title details the relationship between Warren, Marshall, and Ramsay.

My point here (just so that it doesn't get missed) is that you chose some particularly bad examples. Which doesn't mean that you couldn't do a better job with a different set of examples. But, if I were you, and wanted to make such an argument, I would stay away from Donofrio.

[_Roger]

Ben:

I will have to look at your response in detail when I have more time... but just to be clear:

B is borrowed from A. (yes or no)

So was that a yes or a no?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Based exclusively on the three short excerpts you provided, that was a definite NO.

[_Roger]

Ben:

Roger,

Ramsay and Marshall I assume?

Correct.

Or did you manage to get some of the Marshall material from the 1903 work by Schroeder, Lossing, and Towne? The 1903 text contains this for example:

No.

After all, there are lots of reasons why two texts can say essentially the same thing and not have it be plagiarism. In other words, just looking at those excerpts, even knowing that one was published before the other, you cannot establish plagiarism.

And this has been my point all along with the discovery narratives. I have conceded that the parallels are not in and of themselves conclusive. What gives them weight, however--in my opinon a lot of weight--is the body of previously given testimony asserting a connection betwen the authors prior to one of the authors writing one of the works in question. So while it is true that "even knowing that one was published before the other, you cannot establish plagiarism" when considering the larger context including relevant testimony, one can indeed get closer to establishing borrowing of some sort.

You can only establish that the texts have a relationship. But, that relationship is rather unclear. Does one borrow from the other?

In the case of Spalding-Smith, Spalding could not borrow from Smith.

Do they both indpendantly borrow from a third source?

Possibly but then that sort of demolishes the authenticity of Smith's account, which is the question in first place.

Also, particularly in the rather short pieces, you have to actually look at how common the phrase is - both in the related works you are looking at, and in contemporary literature.

It's awfully hard, for example, to take this set of parallels all that seriously -

A. “…the address signed by General Washington was published, and every assurance given to the people, that they came to protect, and not to plunder them.”

B. “A manifesto subscribed by general Washington, which had been sent from Cambridge with this detachment, was circulated among the inhabitants of Canada. In this they were invited to arrange themselves under the standard of general liberty; and they were informed that the American army was sent into the province not to plunder but to protect them.”

Why is it hard to take it seriously? Well, these aren't fictional accounts.

In the first place, you are considering additional outside infomation which is not what you asserted:

Seems to me that is a judgment call.

Are you saying you can merely examine two texts and determine whether one comes from the other or not?

This is normally how the process works, yes.

You have already moved away from what you had previously asserted was "normally how the process works."

In the second place,

Well, these aren't fictional accounts.

Neither is Smith's, allegedly.

Clearly, all of the relevant language in both accounts is taken from this text - and not one from the other.

No. It is not clear. It is, rather, your assumption (and in this case probably a wrong assumption) based on what it looks like to you.

The next one, of course, is even more a problem - since "of this the officers are to be particularly careful" seems to be a phrase that George Washington used quite regularly in his correspondence. I am not sure there is any mileage to be gotten in an argument for plagiarism there.

Duly noted.

This of course comes after the account which you use which is dated near August 22, 1776, but suggests quite clearly that some of the unique features of the language may well be attributed to a shared source - and ultimately to Washington himself.

So, using just these three examples, there is no evidence for plagiarism.

Wrong again. There is indeed "evidence for plagiarism" it's just that your bias and flawed methodology--whatever it is--is coloring the conclusions you draw from the evidence. I note the use of such terminology as "clearly" and "there is no" rather than the more conservative "it appears as though" or "likely"...

On the other hand, there clearly is reliance when we look at the complete texts. It has been discussed for decades in literature devoted looking at the histories of the revolutionary war.

Again, you are considering additional context. This is exactly what I say we need to do when considering the parallels between the Spalding-Smith DN's and yet in that case you are not willing to do so. Double standard.

Of course, some of the apparent plagiarism really isn't (at least not from Source A to Source B - or the other way around),

Actually it is.

since they (and several authors with them) were all plagiairizing the same sources. While the language is similar in places (even exact), there are some other issues.

This argument does not work. You cannot cite specifically which phrases were directly plagiarised and which were not, just as with the Smith-Spalding parallels you are similarly limited.

The reason this is interesting is in part because while you have clearly read some things (most likely from Donofrio), you probably haven't read a lot about the the historical narratives of the revoluationary war, and how they relate to one another.

Again the desire to introduce additional context about the parallels in question. This is not what you wanted to do when considering the Smith-Spalding parallels. And why not? Because you've already predetermined that the testimony is not credible! Even in the face of tangible evidence that makes it credible!

Let me again remind you of how you said it normally works:

Seems to me that is a judgment call.

Are you saying you can merely examine two texts and determine whether one comes from the other or not?

This is normally how the process works, yes.

Double standard.

(emphasis mine)

So, for instance, we have a great deal of plagiarism in all of the books from the Annual Register, and the earliest accounts are often used by the later ones (Marshall freely admits that he used a variety of sources). The early influential works included Stedman's The History of the Origin, Progress and Termination of the American War (1794), and William Gordon's History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America (1788).

Which is what makes your conclusion....

B is borrowed from A. (yes or no)

Based exclusively on the three short excerpts you provided, that was a definite NO.

....wrong.

As you state, Marshall freely admits he plagiarised:

“Doddesly’s Annual Register, Belsham, Gordon, Ramsay,
and Stedham have, for this purpose, been occasionally
resorted to, and are quoted for all those facts which are
detailed in part on their authority. Their very language has
sometimes been employed without distinguishing the
passages, especially when intermingled with others, by
marks of quotation, and the author [ Marshall ] persuades
himself that this public declaration will rescue him from
the imputation of receiving aids he is unwilling to
acknowledge, or of wishing, by a concealed plagiarism,
to usher to the world, as his own, the labors of others.”
- Life of George Washington Vol. I pg.xv

Note that Marshall does not admit to copying directly from the Washington letter or from merely picking up the terminology floating around him. He specifically admits to plagiarism from Belsham, Gordon, Ramsay, and Stedham.

Your only recourse to this is... as I'm confident it will surely be.... to argue that because Marshall admits to plagiarizing from more than just Ramsay, we don't know for sure whether the specific parallels I cited come from Ramsay or some other author. That point is MOOT as it applies to Smith-Spalding. The fact is you dismiss the very evidence of plagiarism within the text of Marshall that he admits to! It's quite remarkable, that you would do this.

This (the fact that Marshall cites several authors from which he plagiarised) has no bearing whatsoever to Spalding-Smith for the simple reason that Smith's narrative is allegedly supposed to be a true account happening to him so that he did not plagiarize from anyone!

Note again your desire to bring more context into your evaluation:

Of course, the interesting thing is that these texts all use some very unique and specific phrasing to deal with the same topics in an identical context. Which is to say, in the last of your examples, when we have George Washington ordering cowards to be shot, the context occurs at Long Island just before a specific battle occurs (it is the same in all of the texts which use this similar language to describe the event), and the language itself is rather unique within these texts.

I want to consider additional context too when it comes to Spalding-Smith. You call that ridiculous.

Of course, it isn't possible to find an early narrative about the revolutionary war which doesn't have may of these same shared features. Which is to say all of the accounts rely on some sources, and as they get published, later sources all rely on earlier sources. ANd this is why Donofrio's comments aren't very valid - not only can you not distinguish an alleged claim of Joseph borrowing from one of these sources or another of these sources - it is quite simple to see that there was a language which was in use to describe warfare in general. And this creates a cultural pool of language which get used over and over again to describe certain kinds of activities without even necessitating plagiarism.

No. Wrong. Sorry. Joseph Smith allegedly had his own personal discovery experience. That personal experience should not be bound by anything but the truth of the experience. It in no way had to mirror an account written by an author that people had been associating with him since at least 1833... but it did. That is significant.

And then, finally, this is very, very different from the kinds of parallels being discussed between the 1838 discovery narrative and Spalding's so-called Roman story.

No it isn't. You simply want it to be different.

In particular, the second title details the relationship between Warren, Marshall, and Ramsay.

My point here (just so that it doesn't get missed) is that you chose some particularly bad examples. Which doesn't mean that you couldn't do a better job with a different set of examples. But, if I were you, and wanted to make such an argument, I would stay away from Donofrio.

In the final analysis...

First I do not see you outlining some sort of carefully laid out strategy or methodology for evaluating parallels... some standard that I could then logically apply to other parallels which is part of what I asked you to do:

Please describe your conclusions in layman's terms and please provide a layman's explanation of the methodology you employ while evaluating these texts so that we might also apply the same methodology elsewhere.

What I do see, instead of that, is you applying simple logic to your own observations and then wanting to consider all sorts of additional context--the very thing you want to eliminate from thorough Spalding-Smith evaluation, and, on top of that, still coming to the wrong conclusion.

The fact of the matter is, Marshall admits to borrowing from Ramsay. True he lists other sources as well, but in the first place that is irrelevant to Spalding-Smith because Smith is not supposed to have borrowed from anyone, and in the second place I note that even you identified Marshall and Ramsay at the beginning of your post.

In the end, the parallels anyone can observe between Marshall and Ramsay are evidence in and of themselves that plagiarism likely occured, but when we consider the additional testimony of Marshall who freely admits to plagiarism, all doubt is removed. There is no question that Marshall borrowed and there is no question that he borrowed from Ramsay because he admits to it.

Similarly with Spalding-Smith the parallels are evidence that plagiarism likely occured, but when we consider the additional testimony of witnesses who stated that there is a connection between the two authors well before the second account came into existence, then it is rational to conclude the parallels are very likely not there by coincidence.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

What gives them weight, however--in my opinon a lot of weight--is the body of previously given testimony asserting a connection betwen the authors prior to one of the authors writing one of the works in question.

And, if that testimony is questionable (which in this case it clearly is), then it doesn't really give that much weight, does it. The fact that there is a "body" of testimony is rather pointless, since it all comes from the statements collected in 1833. So by all means, it would be useful to assert this as evidence if it was actually useful as evidence. But it isn't. Particularly in the issue of the alleged borrowing between the 1838 discovery narrative and the so-called Roman story - a connection which wasn't alleged early on. Although to be fair, you aren't really asserting that the 1838 discovery narrative borrowed from the Roman story, but that it borrowed from some unknown manuscript which you believe happened to be similar to the Roman story. Am I getting this right?

In the case of Spalding-Smith, Spalding could not borrow from Smith.

Yes, publication dates can provide certain endpoints.

Possibly but then that sort of demolishes the authenticity of Smith's account, which is the question in first place.

No, its not the question in the first place. See, now you are starting to sound like what you claim apologists sound like. Your argument isn't really that Smith borrowed from Spalding but rather that the Book of Mormon is a modern fabrication. And if the Spalding theory doesn't work, then some other theory must be just as good. Am I getting this right? I think the issue is still the question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to claim that the discovery narrative in 1838 was taken from something which resembled the so-called Roman story. Let's not start dancing.

In the first place, you are considering additional outside infomation which is not what you asserted:

Actually, I merely added some texts. Notice that I didn't add any assumptions about when the authors might have met, or how the Author B might have had access to Author A's text. Or even that there was some kind of conspiracy covering up the process. See, those issues are irrelevant to the question of whether or not borrowing can be demonstrated from the text.

You have already moved away from what you had previously asserted was "normally how the process works."

Well, hopefully, I clarified it for you.

Neither is Smith's, allegedly.

Ahhh good. Now that we have established this ... really though, let's not get sidetracked. In theory we could use this same process to deal with Smith's text - look at contemporary documents and see how they get used. Give it 2 months and read my article in the JOBMSARS.

No. It is not clear. It is, rather, your assumption (and in this case probably a wrong assumption) based on what it looks like to you.

No. The parallels seem quite clear actually. I think though, that you might have a better understanding of the process of writing these texts were you to read some of the books I listed. The point remains - how would you determined that it came from the one source and not the other?

Wrong again. There is indeed "evidence for plagiarism" it's just that your bias and flawed methodology--whatever it is--is coloring the conclusions you draw from the evidence. I note the use of such terminology as "clearly" and "there is no" rather than the more conservative "it appears as though" or "likely"...

What evidence? To put it bluntly, what evidence is there? Parallels don't of themselves count as evidence. Hapex Logomena - as a parallel, that's usually considered pretty good evidence. But you haven't given us one of those ... similar language? Not evidence by itself. Now, identical rhetorical use of a figure or unusual turn of phrase? That's considered evidence. Errors in the text that get used? Evidence. For example, when Edward Abdy writes his expose of Mormonism, he plagiarizes Whitman. How do we know this - apart from the same charges and the same kinds of language? He takes a piece of Whitman commentary, mistakes it for a quote from the Book of Mormon, and presents it as such a quote (that and some identical mispellings of names and so on). That's evidence for plagiarism.

Parallels between the Roman story and the 1838 discovery narrative? Not evidence for plagiarism.

Again, you are considering additional context. This is exactly what I say we need to do when considering the parallels between the Spalding-Smith DN's and yet in that case you are not willing to do so. Double standard.

But I am considering textual evidence. Not assumptions and blind unproven assertions. No imaginary texts. No coached witnesses. Just looking at the textual evidence.

Actually it is.

Prove it. For those three sections you provided - prove that the one used the other. I am truly interested in how you intend to do that. I would like to see you do that. And I certainly want something more than your mere suggestion that it is plagiarism.

This argument does not work. You cannot cite specifically which phrases were directly plagiarised and which were not, just as with the Smith-Spalding parallels you are similarly limited.

No necessarily true. In fact, the moment we find the same notion in multiple contemporary sources is the moment we have to realize that plagiarism is no longer a real option. Which is why we have notions like intertextuality. That is, a connection between texts with no real expectation of the direction in which it moves.

Again the desire to introduce additional context about the parallels in question. This is not what you wanted to do when considering the Smith-Spalding parallels. And why not? Because you've already predetermined that the testimony is not credible! Even in the face of tangible evidence that makes it credible!

Actually, it was just exactly what I was doing with the Spalding parallels. Perhaps you didn't notice. I was introducing other texts which also had the same kinds of parallels. And there is no tangible evidence. And of course, I consider the witnesses to be unreliable. What do you expect when you are talking about a non-existent manuscript, and no witnesses that can actually tell us anything unique about it.

Note that Marshall does not admit to copying directly from the Washington letter or from merely picking up the terminology floating around him. He specifically admits to plagiarism from Belsham, Gordon, Ramsay, and Stedham.

You know, you are going to run into a very serious problem here. You are aware of who Marshall is, right? That he was a First Lieutenant under George Washington at Valley Forge? That he became a Captain in the Continental army in 1878 and later became a justice of the Supreme Court? He was a personal friend of George Washington's. I think that you will start running into some major problems if you want to start making claims of this nature ...

I want to consider additional context too when it comes to Spalding-Smith. You call that ridiculous.

Ummmm what context? The hill now called Cumorah, and the location where Spalding places the discovery of his Roman Manuscript are not the same place, not claiming to be the same historical event. There isn't the same context.

No. Wrong. Sorry. Joseph Smith allegedly had his own personal discovery experience. That personal experience should not be bound by anything but the truth of the experience. It in no way had to mirror an account written by an author that people had been associating with him since at least 1833... but it did. That is significant.

It doesn't mirror it. It's that simple. They aren't even that similar. Where is the rock covered with inscriptions in Joseph's account? Or the door at the bottom of a cave? Or an earthen box filled with writings? And where the metal plates in Spalding? Or the Angel? Oh that's right, they both use a lever to lift a rock ... well I guess that's something ....

No it isn't. You simply want it to be different.

It is different.

First I do not see you outlining some sort of carefully laid out strategy or methodology for evaluating parallels... some standard that I could then logically apply to other parallels which is part of what I asked you to do:

I haven't yet. I am not sure its worth the time. I don't think you will address it. You certainly haven't given me any indication that you really care. And I am certainly not going to present something particularly unique to myself, so I doubt it would be entirely in layman's terms.

There is no question that Marshall borrowed and there is no question that he borrowed from Ramsay because he admits to it.

But, it has to be determined on a case-by-case discussion. Not all parallels in the text come from Ramsay. And Ramsay uses some of the same sources that Marshall claims to use. And hence, it becomes a more complex issue than I think you are willing to recognize. And for this reason, using just those three examples, you cannot claim that Marshall was plaigirizing Ramsay in those three places.

Similarly with Spalding-Smith the parallels are evidence that plagiarism likely occured, but when we consider the additional testimony of witnesses who stated that there is a connection between the two authors well before the second account came into existence, then it is rational to conclude the parallels are very likely not there by coincidence.

First, the parallels are rather generic and unspecific. Second, your witnesses aren't credible. Third, your witnesses aren't actually talking about (according to you) either the 1838 discovery narrative, or the Roman Story. So, its hard to imagine how their testimony actually applies in this case. For that matter, you haven't really established how similar your non-existent manuscript is to the 1838 discovery narrative other than a foundationless assertion that the Roman Story must be similar to it. What it the basis for such a claim?