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

[_Pokatator]

I hope that you are not suggesting that Mark Twain actually read the Book of Mormon, are you? Because to my understanding he didn't. He just made a comment that he supposed were true. I don't think that he ever read the book, nor opened the book.

I am supposing that he read it:

“ALL men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the ‘elect’ have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so ’slow,’ so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.”

[_charity]

I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just copy and paste from Michael Marquardt:

"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.[/quote]

Oh, my goodness! This is it?

Guess what here. The Bible, the Old and New Tesaments, the Book of Mormon, all came from the same source! The Book of Mormon wasn't introducing a new gospel. It was the same old one, restored. No new ideas. The gospel was first taught to Adam. And because mankind kept falling away, it was restored several times. Of course, there were the same ideas.

[cacheman]

Oh, my goodness! This is it?

Guess what here. The Bible, the Old and New Tesaments, the Book of Mormon, all came from the same source! The Book of Mormon wasn't introducing a new gospel. It was the same old one, restored. No new ideas. The gospel was first taught to Adam. And because mankind kept falling away, it was restored several times. Of course, there were the same ideas.

I had a feeling you would say that. What I am talking about (and Blake Ostler and Michael Marquardt) is the introduction of a concept in the New Testament in English and then that English term being expanded in the Book of Mormon. Even my good friend David Bokovoy understands that this is a problem, and he agrees with Ostler that it's a modern insertion.

For what it's worth, if you do a search for my "johnny_cat" posts over on the other board, you'll see that I made the same argument you did above. I was wrong. :)

One more thing: if they're all from the same source, why are Christian concepts not mentioned in the Old Testament (Satan as adversary and tempter, baptism, faith, repentance, the Holy Ghost)? Do you think someone removed these things? If so, what would have been the point?

Pre-Christian Judaism follows a traceable evolution, and then New Testament Christianity introduces a whole new vocabulary and worldview. In the Book of Mormon, the pre-Christian worldview is identical to the post-Christian worldview, and unsurprisingly it borrows from the New Testament.

[_charity]

Oh Charity, I wish you could see how hypocritical this is. How many times have mopologists said "could have been," or "maybe it was" in reference to the lack of scientific archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Consistency please!

Evidence should not be "could have's". If its there, its there. "I have a piece of pottery here, and it is Mayan origin." Until that statement can be made, it isn't reallly evidence.

Lack of evidence is a different matter. You cannot give a specific about a lack. "We don't have a piece of pottery." Why don't you? Well, it could be this or it could be that.

All you have are suppositions for a lack. Use logic. That is consistent.

[_the road to hana]

And because mankind kept falling away, it was restored several times. Of course, there were the same ideas.

We'll look forward to the next one. When can we expect it?

[_Sethbag]

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!

Never, ever, ever underestimate the desire of people to believe something, and the willingness to be fooled by stupid arguments. Have you seen nothing of Scientology?

Who on planet Earth still doesn't know about the Emperor Xenu and the Galactic Space Empire 75 million years ago, transporting billions of people to Teegeeack (Earth) and killing them all by exploding hydrogen bombs over two volcanoes, with those people on the volcanoes? This is some whacky shyte, my friend, and yet Scientology has got Tom Cruise and a handful of other celebrities, and many other commoners who have signed up and actually believe this stuff. It's mind-boggling to contemplate.

And yet it happens. And it happens all the time with other cults too. Look how many people followed David Koresh, and other cultists. You ask questions like "my, how stupid the early Mormons must have been" as if to disprove the hypotheses of the critics, and yet you ignore just how many people have willingly attached themselves to bizarre and even outrageous cults throughout time, and including right now in this modern day.

Moreover, you seem to be forgetting that a lot of people didn't fall for the claims of Mormonism back then, and there were people who did in fact see through the BS and call Joseph Smith out on it. These are the people folks like you revile as servants of Satan, but in reality they were just people who saw through the illusions and called Joseph Smith out on it. So why do you keep asking how it is that people back in Joseph Smith's day were so fooled by his claims if they were fraudulent, and yet you overlook that in fact tons and tons of people heard the message, saw through it, and rejected it.

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.

There are frauds going on all the time, Why Me. Often people will see that there are problems with it, and ask questions, and the fraudsters will feed them answers designed to placate their concerns. Sometimes it works and people continue investing in the fraud, and sometimes they realize what's going on and back out. Looking back on the early days of the church, you can see both kinds.

I've got a brother in law who in the last year or so tried to talk various family members into joining him in a scheme he'd found out about to sell these pills one is supposed to put into one's car gas tank to improve the gas mileage of the car. I think he got mad at me because not only did I decline to participate, but helped convince some others in the family that it was a fraud and to save their money. Well, some weeks into it, after he'd already spent a few hundred dollars buying into it and ordering a stock of "product", it was proven by some Southern state to have been a fraud, labratory tests had confirmed the product didn't work, and the company was shut down by the government.

But my brother in law was undaunted. A few weeks after this I found out that he'd found another company selling some kind of mileage extender product that he was going to buy into and try to get family members to join him. He'd just lost a few hundred dollars to a similar scheme that had been proven fraudulent, and he jumped right at the very next chance to be defrauded again by almost the exact same kind of scheme. I asked him about this and you know what he said? Ok, he admits he was wrong about the previous company, but this new one is different. This new one really works. Uhuh. Well guess what's come of this new scheme? If you guessed "f*ckall" you'd be right. Of course.

Some people never learn. And with some people I'm convinced they don't want to learn. They get excited by the idea of some miracle product, or some foolproof scheme, or whatever, and so they willingly buy into it, even though as rational people they should approach every such scheme with a dose of skepticism so healthy it must border on stubborn contrariness.

What makes you think Joseph Smith's converts are any different? What makes you think that in this one particular case, of all of the religious movements founded by charismatic leaders and joined by thousands of people, it must have been "different" because "this one really is true"? And why do you imagine that just demonstrating that there were willing converts says anything whatsoever about the actual truth of the movement?

There's nothing new under the sun, Why Me. People have been getting sucked into false religious movements probably since the dawn of time, and probably always will be until someday one of them gets a hold of nuclear weapons and blows us all to hell.

[_charity]

And because mankind kept falling away, it was restored several times. Of course, there were the same ideas.

We'll look forward to the next one. When can we expect it?

This is the last dispensation before the Second Coming. There isn't going to be a falling away this time.

[_karl61]

Charity: I'm still waiting: what is Isaiah 48 doing in first nephi when it was written after Cryus sent the hebrews back to Judah: it was written after Lehi sailed for the new world.

[_charity]

Charity: I'm still waiting: what is Isaiah 48 doing in first nephi when it was written after Cryus sent the hebrews back to Judah: it was written after Lehi sailed for the new world.

That is a question to ask Nephi about any of his writings. Did God give it to him in vision, inspiration, revelation. It was what it was when it got to Joseph Smith. AFter Mormon had put it together.

[_the road to hana]

And because mankind kept falling away, it was restored several times. Of course, there were the same ideas.

We'll look forward to the next one. When can we expect it?

This is the last dispensation before the Second Coming. There isn't going to be a falling away this time.

Yeah. According to whom?