charity wrote:Borrowed story lines and concepts do not constitute plagiarism! noun 1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work
Close imitation! Representing as one's own. Using a story line is not close imitation of langauge. And Joseph NEVER represented the Book of Mormon as his own work. TRANSLATED!
So you're saying that Mormon et al. were the plagiarizers? By your definition above, the Book of Mormon is a plagiarism of the Bible. It does contain uncredited (read "unauthorized") quotations and close imitation of the language of the KJV Bible. Whoever wrote it, it's plagiarized.
"Hey, look people, I have my face in a hat!" And they don't see him running off to read to Oliver out of his Bible. That was some heck of a magic trick. And what was impossible? What do you base you claim of that on?
Not really an impressive magic trick. All he had to do was demonstrate the hat method to a few people during small periods of time and then say that's how he translated the whole thing.
As for impossible, you are the one who said he couldn't have memorized the entire text and dictated it out of a hat. I'm agreeing with you.
It's plagiarism of the New Testament, not of Isaiah.
I have never heard of this before. So tell me please some examples.[/quote]
I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just copy and paste from Michael Marquardt:
The Use of the Bible in the Book of Mormon
Phrases from the New Testament appear in sections of the Book of Mormon ostensibly dating to hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. This suggests that those Book of Mormon sections are in reality of much later composition. Consider a few of these New Testament phrases (written after 30 C.E.)2 which appear in 1 Nephi-Helaman (ostensibly recorded 600 B.C.E.-1 C.E.): "ye must pray always, and not faint" (2 Ne. 32:9/Luke 18:1); some will go "into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mosiah 26:27/Matt. 25:41); but "then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God" (Alma 40:25/Matt. 13:43). Believers should be "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works" (Mosiah 5:15/1 Cor. 15:58); ultimately this "mortal shall put on immortality" (Enos 27/1 Cor. 15:53), but until that day they need to grow "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Enos 1/Eph. 6:4). Notice also that "Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female" (2 Ne. 10:16/Gal. 3:28), who fight against Zion shall perish. God is "the same, yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Ne. 2:4/Heb. 13 8); while believers "endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame" (2 Ne. 9:18/Heb. 12:2). Finally, "if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy" (1 Ne. 15:33/Rev. 22:11).
New Testament Interpretations
The Book of Mormon asserts that ancient New World peoples possessed most of the Old Testament. However, Book of Mormon peoples would not have had access to the New Testament. Those who believe in the book's antiquity try to reconcile the presence of New Testament phrases by suggesting that in translating the book Joseph Smith was given an understanding of ideas on the golden plates but had to choose the words to express them. Consequently, where a thought was sufficiently close to biblical wording he adopted or adapted the biblical phrase. This does not sufficiently explain why he implemented the King James style throughout and not a "more original" style. It also ignores the fact that the adaptation of biblical texts is deeper than mere use of phrases from the New Testament in the Old Testament time period. The Book of Mormon does not simply introduce random New Testament phrases. It reflects on and expands New Testament meanings in an Old Testament context and creates Old Testament events that flow from these New Testament interpretations.
Alma 12 and 13 provide a good example of this in their use of the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews employs Genesis 14:18-20 together with Psalm 2:7 and 110:4 to establish that the Messiah holds a priesthood higher than that of the Levitical priesthood, and that this priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" superseded and abolished the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:1-12). ("Melchizedek" is the spelling in Old Testament and contemporary LDS usage.) The Book of Mormon builds on this New Testament interpretation and adds its own misinterpretation to create an entire order of priests "after the order of the Son" (Alma 13:9), "being a type of his order" (v. 16), of whom Melchisedec is but the leading example (v. 19). Furthermore, Hebrews's interpretation of Melchisedec's name and title ("King of righteousness ... King of peace") is expanded into an imaginary historical situation in which Melchisedec successfully calls his people to repentance and thus to righteousness and peace. This material is then worked together into a systematic doctrinal exposition that utilizes other New Testament phrases from such sources as the Gospels, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation. (Compare Alma 13:9, 13, 22 with parallel phrases in John 1:14; Matt. 3:8; Luke 2:10; and Alma 12:20; 13:28 with 1 Cor. 15:51-53;10:13; also Alma 12:14, 16, 17, and 13:11 with Rev. 6:16; 20:5-6, 14-15; 19:20; 14:10-11; 20:10, and 7:14.)
The Book of Mormon's own theological statements, therefore, are drawn from, depend on, expand, and explain interpretations already present in the New Testament. In using New Testament interpretations and material as a basis for building such theological statements and exposition throughout the book, New Testament quotations become a part of the fabric of the Book of Mormon text and cannot be regarded as mere figures of speech Joseph Smith employed in translating.
Frankly, it's the latter point that is more significant: Joseph Smith essentially takes New Testament concepts from the KJV and then expands on them, allegedly by earlier, pre-Christian prophets. The example of Alma and Hebrews is a good one, as it uses a Pauline concept of priesthood and then expands on it. Shouldn't happen if it's really an earlier text. Blake Ostler has argued that the most reasonable explanation for this is that Joseph Smith inserted a modern expansion into the ancient text. Of course, this is just a hop skip and jump away from saying he made it all up.