Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the KJV in the Book of Mormon?

[_EAllusion]

In a significant number of instances, where there are differences, the differences in the Book of Mormon agree with these ancient texts. Was Joseph just guessing right?

Let's suppose for a second that the reality was the exact opposite of this. Let's just suppose that John Tvedtnes's arguments for agreement with ancient texts are exceptionally weak and are better explained in terms of KJV modification. Let's further suppose that in at least the vast majority of cases, the modifications to the KJV text have no discernable relationship to the underlying manuscripts and further that the Book of Mormon preserves KJV translation errors from underlying texts in instances in which it is in agreement with the KJV text.

Let's just pretend - for a second - that this is true.

What do you think it would mean? Obviously, you assert the opposite, but if this were true, what would it mean?

[_why me]

To listen to the critics on this thread, it is quite amazing that the book wasn't laughed at from the very beginning and received so many converts. My gosh, just how stupid were people at that time that they didn't see the similiarities? I mean, to read this thread, I suddenly get the impression that the whole Book of Mormon is a plagary. And yet, at the time of Joseph Smith, more and more converts were baptized.

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!

Or they received a satisfactory answer from Joseph Smith or from Emma and whomever was around at that time. To assume that such questions didn't come up and were answered would be a stretch.

[_the road to hana]

To listen to the critics on this thread, it is quite amazing that the book wasn't laughed at from the very beginning and received so many converts. My gosh, just how stupid were people at that time that they didn't see the similiarities? I mean, to read this thread, I suddenly get the impression that the whole Book of Mormon is a plagary. And yet, at the time of Joseph Smith, more and more converts were baptized.

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!

Or they received a satisfactory answer from Joseph Smith or from Emma and whomever was around at that time. To assume that such questions didn't come up and were answered would be a stretch.

Stupid then, stupid now. According to Charity, the intellect has nothing to do with conversion.

[_Pokatator]

To listen to the critics on this thread, it is quite amazing that the book wasn't laughed at from the very beginning and received so many converts. My gosh, just how stupid were people at that time that they didn't see the similiarities? I mean, to read this thread, I suddenly get the impression that the whole Book of Mormon is a plagary. And yet, at the time of Joseph Smith, more and more converts were baptized.

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!

Or they received a satisfactory answer from Joseph Smith or from Emma and whomever was around at that time. To assume that such questions didn't come up and were answered would be a stretch.

I can whole heartily agree with one statement you made above.

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time.

[_why me]

To listen to the critics on this thread, it is quite amazing that the book wasn't laughed at from the very beginning and received so many converts. My gosh, just how stupid were people at that time that they didn't see the similiarities? I mean, to read this thread, I suddenly get the impression that the whole Book of Mormon is a plagary. And yet, at the time of Joseph Smith, more and more converts were baptized.

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!

Or they received a satisfactory answer from Joseph Smith or from Emma and whomever was around at that time. To assume that such questions didn't come up and were answered would be a stretch.

Stupid then, stupid now. According to Charity, the intellect has nothing to do with conversion.

But this is the problem the critic has today. Of course very few use their imagination and journey back to the time period. Most look at that time from the vantage point of their armchair. But to be involved at that time and to be with the early saints, a person would get a different perspective. To assume that no one would ever ask Joseph Smith such a question of similarity would be a stretch. Of course some had to ask and I am sure that it was discussed. But the answers given were most likely satisfactory. We all need to remember that not every word Joseph Smith muttered was recorded. He spoke millions of words that were never recorded.

The book worked for the early saints and I haven't seen a direct criticism of plagarism from early critics of the king james Bible and if it does exist, you can bet that it was discussed among the early saints.

[Guest]

Since Isaiah 40 and on (second Isaiah) was written after Lehi left for the new world then how did it get copied on the plates.

edit in: if you belive in a single author theory for Isaiah it's like believing in the a flat earth: you can find someone who really believes but most don't take you seriously.

[_the road to hana]

To listen to the critics on this thread, it is quite amazing that the book wasn't laughed at from the very beginning and received so many converts. My gosh, just how stupid were people at that time that they didn't see the similiarities? I mean, to read this thread, I suddenly get the impression that the whole Book of Mormon is a plagary. And yet, at the time of Joseph Smith, more and more converts were baptized.

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!

Or they received a satisfactory answer from Joseph Smith or from Emma and whomever was around at that time. To assume that such questions didn't come up and were answered would be a stretch.

Stupid then, stupid now. According to Charity, the intellect has nothing to do with conversion.

But this is the problem the critic has today. Of course very few use their imagination and journey back to the time period. Most look at that time from the vantage point of their armchair. But to be involved at that time and to be with the early saints, a person would get a different perspective. To assume that no one would ever ask Joseph Smith such a question of similarity would be a stretch. Of course some had to ask and I am sure that it was discussed. But the answers given were most likely satisfactory. We all need to remember that not every word Joseph Smith muttered was recorded. He spoke millions of words that were never recorded.

The book worked for the early saints and I haven't seen a direct criticism of plagarism from early critics of the king james Bible and if it does exist, you can bet that it was discussed among the early saints.

No doubt the force of Joseph Smith's personality was a compelling factor in the conversion of the early Saints. It's doubtful all of them even read the Book of Mormon. They were happy to hitch their wagon to a star that seemed brighter than any others in their particular horizon.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I haven't seen a direct criticism of plagarism from early critics of the king james Bible and if it does exist, you can bet that it was discussed among the early saints.

Mark Twain has already been quoted:

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the
Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New
Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint,
old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the
Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel--half modern glibness, and half
ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained;
the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his
speech growing too modern--which was about every sentence or two--he
ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came
to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to
pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been
only a pamphlet.

However, I doubt that the average Mormon in the 19th c. was any more aware of or concerned about this question than they are today. Back then they didn't even have the Internet.

-Chris

[_solomarineris]

But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!

That is why you are in it, because you cannot figure it out the whole scam.
Believe it or not; there are alot more smart people out there than "stupid" ones.
Otherwise a missionary would come back with record of hundreds of converts.
The world is by no means awash with Mormonism, far from it; as information technology develops converts will be extinct species.
You can already observe this fact looking at Europe, N.America, Far East, Russia.
Just because the leaders say Church grows by leaps and bounds, it doesn't make it so.
Actually the growth facts are so scary that no leader wants to face it for now.

[_Pokatator]

You gotta love Mark Twain. Chloroform in print.