Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_AlmaBound]

No one disputes the fact that the Book of Mormon is a product fo the 19th century. The question is whether or not it is a translation of an ancient text.

To split it even further, there is even the question of what it means to be "translated," be it a text or otherwise, as in the example of, say, Enoch.

I've heard that the plates needed not even be in the same room for the "translation" to occur.

[_marg]

No one disputes the fact that the Book of Mormon is a product fo the 19th century. The question is whether or not it is a translation of an ancient text.

That's not a question for me, because I don't assume supernatural, I prefer building a case/theory using evidence and reasoning. In order to assume the Book of Mormon is truly a translation of an ancient text..the supernatural must be assumed. Or do you have some other theory in which the supernatural is not assumed but none the less Smith revealed by divine help an actual history of ancient times in America?

If I'm not mistaken, you have now brought your religious views into the discussion and presented them as a theory counter to the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

Of course, and I mean it's extremely obvious....if Spalding's Roman story has many many parallels to other historical texts available and written in his day or previous generation, addressing an American war theme, it indicates he plagiarized from them and if those parallels are found in Book of Mormon it indicates they are simply plagiarism parallels carried over ..unless perchance both Spalding and the writer of the Book of Mormon both plagiarized from contemporary texts. Since Smith wasn't a reader it wouldn't have been him, but possibly Rigdon. However it is just as likely the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Spalding's work and Spalding alone. Apparent parallels indicating plagiarism carried over are evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production and not a translation of some ancient language into english.

by the way..in a previous reply you quote me but address it as if Roger wrote it..perhaps you could correct that to avoid confusion.

[_marg]

In looking at Dale's list of parallels, I chose a set of works comparable in length to the Book of Mormon. The specific text I will be using is Mercy Warren's The Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution. In this work, which she completed in 1801, and published in 1805, she details a great deal of what happened during the revolutionary war.

And you got this from Tom Donofrio's work. http://www.mormonthink.com/influences.htm

It indicates Spalding plagiarized from her contemporary text. According to T Donofrio is was "an acceptable practice of the day".

Spalding a veteran of the Revolution borrows, borrows from Warren as he relates his view on the war, using fictional Indians as the vehicle. Spalding is not so much interested in giving an accurate account of Indian history as he is in emulating Warren. Spalding imputes into his Indians motives and creates situations similar to the motives and Revolutionary War scenes described in Warren's history. Spalding, not content with borrowing her concepts, lifts her prose as well. As a result, his own moral melodrama emerges as a poor copy.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

If I'm not mistaken, you have now brought your religious views into the discussion and presented them as a theory counter to the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

Nope.

In order to assume the Book of Mormon is truly a translation of an ancient text..the supernatural must be assumed.

Who said anything about assuming? The book claims to be an ancient text, right?

Of course, and I mean it's extremely obvious....if Spalding's Roman story has many many parallels to other historical texts available and written in his day or previous generation, addressing an American war theme, it indicates he plagiarized from them and if those parallels are found in Book of Mormon it indicates they are simply plagiarism parallels carried over ..unless perchance both Spalding and the writer of the Book of Mormon both plagiarized from contemporary texts.

I think that you should refresh yourself with the meaning of the word plagiarism. A more appropriate description would be "intertextuality".

However it is just as likely the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Spalding's work and Spalding alone.

I don't think its very likely at all. In fact, I find (when looking at the text) that Smith plagiarizing Spalding is in fact highly improbable.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

And you got this from Tom Donofrio's work. http://www.mormonthink.com/influences.htm

No, not what I posted today, although I did use that text because of Donofrio's work. You can find my published response to Donofrio at (Dale is hosting it):

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

You might notice that I deal with a much larger number of sources there (chosen essentially at random).

It indicates Spalding plagiarized from her contemporary text. According to T Donofrio is was "an acceptable practice of the day".

Actually it doesn't indicate this at all. Donofrio has no idea what he is talking about.

You can also look here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=21077

Ben M.

[_marg]

In order to assume the Book of Mormon is truly a translation of an ancient text..the supernatural must be assumed

Who said anything about assuming? The book claims to be an ancient text, right?

And what evidence do you have it is ancient other than what the book claims, other than what Smith and Co claimed. It was published in 1830. So what do you have that would leave out the supernatural and warrant accepting it as an actual ancient text?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

marg writes:

And what evidence do you have it is ancient other than what the book claims, other than what Smith and Co claimed. It was published in 1830. So what do you have that would leave out the supernatural and warrant accepting it as an actual ancient text?

What an interesting comment. What evidence do you have that it was plagiarized from Spalding?

Of course, that's not really the point of your question, so let me try a different tack. Do you believe that the question of whether or not the text is a translation of an ancient text is one that can be determined independant of claims made about the translation process?

[_marg]

marg writes:

And what evidence do you have it is ancient other than what the book claims, other than what Smith and Co claimed. It was published in 1830. So what do you have that would leave out the supernatural and warrant accepting it as an actual ancient text?

What an interesting comment. What evidence do you have that it was plagiarized from Spalding?

Of course, that's not really the point of your question, so let me try a different tack. Do you believe that the question of whether or not the text is a translation of an ancient text is one that can be determined independant of claims made about the translation process?

Why shouldn't there be evidence of it being ancient if it truly were ancient and the text was physically discovered?

Those who assert it is ancient surely should have the burden to prove it as such. I see no reason why an text truly ancient would be difficult to establish.

The evidence that it a 19th century production is far greater than it is ancient. What on earth is text from the KJV of Bible doing in an ancient text historical text allegedly written pre KJ times...that is one piece of data supporting a counter argument it is not ancient. And what data is there that it is ancient.

This gets back to circular reasoning I was talking about to you in a previous post. Where circular reasoning is problematic is when the premises are unjustified with evidence and reasoning, in particular when the premises are mere assertions unsupported with evidence. So if one concludes the Book of Mormon is ancient because on relies upon the premise that the Book of Mormon claims it is ancient or the writers of the Book of Mormon claim it is ancient..the circular reasoning leads to an unreliable conclusion. The conclusion is simply a reflection of an assertion. And assertions can be made willy nilly.

So I ask you again what evidence do you have other than the assertions of what the Book of Mormon claims and what J. Smith & co. claim, that provides warrants for serious consideration that the Book of Mormon is ancient?

I just read T. Donofrio's response to you in your criticism of his work..and he notes that you have no evidence for your accepted theory and apply a different criterial standard to his. It simply is intellectual dishonesty Ben. He points out "the borrowings in the Book of Mormon are obvious and inescapable." And that's very true Ben, no amount of word game playing by you can change that. Call it what you will "intertextual" rather than plagiarism..it still points to the obvious, that Spalding borrowed from other authors. And given the evidence of witnesses statements that names were the same and they recognized Spalding's work in the Book of Mormon it points to Spalding's work plagiarized and Spalding's own borrowings from other others carried over into the Book of Mormon as well.
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallel2.htm

Mr. McGuire asked, what does it mean?

I'll tell you. It is highly problematic for the LDS defender to criticize my methods, when there are no gold plates nor "reformed Egyptian" texts from the Book of Mormon available, with which we can conduct objective analysis. Unreasonable standards are frequently set for unbelieving Book of Mormon critics, while the defenders (speaking almost exclusively to members of their own religion) give the Book of Mormon an easy pass. This inconsistency is one reason non-Mormon scholars cannot take the defenders' work seriously -- nor agree to be governed by what they say is "significant" or not "significant."

There are no plates; there are no characters (save for a couple of meaningless scribbles). Until the LDS Church and its apologists can come up with real ancient documents, they have little grounds to condemn any methodology exployed by non-members to explain Book of Mormon origins to other non-members. If the evidence I have presented falls short of conclusive proof, that fact should not trouble serious scholars -- it is superior to no evidence at all.

Despite Mr. McGuire's ordered discussion of "random chance... data... methodology... availability..." etc., I see no reason to grant such defenders an exemption and meet them on their home ground. If they can present no compelling evidence of their own, then critics such as myself have every reason (and right) to cite anything factual in presenting differing conclusions. I do not quibble over Mr. McGuire's notions and examples -- were we discussing a truly ancient text, they might be worthy of consideration. But we are not. In the end, textual analysis boils down to what most informed people see as being "significant."

Perhaps no observant Mormon will ever see my textual parallels as significant evidence for borrowing in the Book of Mormon -- or even borrowing in Solomon Spalding's preserved writings. Justice Potter Stewart, when asked to define pornography said, "...I know it when I see it..." And, although the Mormon volume is literature at the other end of the scale, the borrowings in the Book of Mormon are obvious and inescapable. I know them when I see them -- the defenders see them too, and they avoid confronting that observation.

Tom Donofrio
November, 2006

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

And what evidence do you have it is ancient other than what the book claims, other than what Smith and Co claimed. It was published in 1830. So what do you have that would leave out the supernatural and warrant accepting it as an actual ancient text?

This is the problem. Ben wants to leave his faith out of discussion as though it plays no part in his selection of Book of Mormon production theories, but the fact of the matter is that the official theory relies exclusively on faith. There are no plates. That's where the angel necessarily must come into the picture. And Ben, I'm sure, understands that that is an inherently weak position from which to argue--especially when he starts criticizing tangible evidence. He can downplay the significance of the evidence all day, but at least the S/R theory has evidence that can be examined.

So instead, he prefers to argue as though he were Dan Vogel which eliminates the "angel" question and eliminates simply accepting that the work is ancient on the basis of an internal good feeling.

Certainly Vogel's position is more rational. I came from a Smith-alone position before I had taken a good look at the evidence for Spalding. But a Smith alone position does not adequately answer some of the questions such as where & when does Joseph get a hold of all the material that is apparently plagiarized? And if we allow for plagiarism then we're rejecting eyewitness testimony--which, I believe Vogel and Metcalfe don't want to do--unless we are going to give Joseph a remarkable ability to memorize very large chunks of text.

I don't see much else that one can go with when it comes to attempting to explain the Book of Mormon. Ben wants to exclusively look at parallels and pick them apart without considering the larger context and the larger question--which is what this is all about--where did the Book of Mormon come from?

And let's face it Ben, you're not simply out to disprove parallels because you like disproving parallels. You have a vested interest in whether the parallels are significant since--if our argument is correct--then your faith is misplaced. I don't see any problem with that. I don't blame you for having faith in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, but what does seem odd is that you are willing to completely ignore that element in order to attack the S/R claims from a more rational point of view.

Be that as it may.....

I don't see where you're going (Ben) with your above list of parallels, unless you want to claim that Mercy Otis Warren or David Ramsey were also authors who were associated with the Book of Mormon prior to 1838.

If that is where you're going with this I think you are setting yourself up for a backfire.

In the first place, prior to Tom Donofrio, can you cite anyone who testified prior to 1834 (MU) that Smith copied the Book of Mormon from Mercy Otis Warren or David Ramsey because Rigdon had borrowed a ms from either of those authors?

In the second place, Donofrio's argument--which I find compelling--is that Spalding copied from Warren and Ramsey. You seem to think that is bunk... well can you concisely state your reasoning in simple laymen's terms for so rejecting Donofrio's arguments? Because again, his logic seems to make sense.

So it seems you want me to believe that the similarities I think I see between Warren and Spalding aren't examples of plagiarism but simply the result of a common subject among contemporary writers and the similarities I think I see between Spalding and Smith aren't examples of plagiarism but simply the result of a common subject among contemporary writers. In short, you don't want me to follow what my own common sense is telling me.

Why is that?

[_mikwut]

Roger and Marg,

I find it fascinating that both of you really believe that your making some kind of evidential, rational or logical sense when you are attempting the ridiculous argument that somehow or someway Ben's (or mine, as I am a believer as well) faith has anything whatsoever to do with his arguments that quite readily show both of yours to be wanting. On the long Spalding thread marg kept attempting to bait me with the same absurd notions. It is embarassing really, that neither of you get how simply silly that is.

Hypothetical, Stephen King wrote the Stand. X believes Stephen King is author of the Stand. Y believes Dean Koontz really wrote the Stand after copying most of it from an obscure horror writer two decades prior. Z believes it was revelation from a great burrito in the sky, but that Stephen King wrote the Stand, pretty much in the historical way that is known about how when and where he wrote it but that it is revelation from the Great Burrito and the Stand is scripture.

Why on earth do either of you think that if Z demands from Y proof for the assertion that Dean Koontz is really the author and pretty much shows all the arguments for that assertion to be conjecture, weak evidentially or a host of other historically problematic claims; that Y saying to Z, "well you believe it was revelation from a great burrito in the sky and so all your arguments are tainted and not to believed AND Dean Koontz as the author wins by default". Because that is how you both sound. Why do either of you think that has any merit, warrant or even thoughtful reflection of any sense whatsoever?

my regards, mikwut