DonBradley wrote:
By comparing the Nephi-Joseph Smith parallels to the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels, you seem to be implying that they're on the same footing--that the Nephi-JS parallels aren't meaningful because we find similarly strong, but meaningless, parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy. This strikes me as quite odd.
Whether such parallels are meaningful depends in part on whether there is a plausible causal connection between them. Outside of very arcane conjectures, there is no causal pathway from the details of Lincoln's life to the details of Kennedy's. Is the case the same with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Smith is the one who dictated the book, which would have allowed him to consciously or unconsciously place himself within its narrative. The baseline probability of an author (or even unconventional translator) sneaking bits of himself into a text is quite high, while the baseline probability of one person's life being magically duplicated in another's much later life seems quite low. You're comparing very different things.
Don,
I don't believe they are on the same footing, but I don't believe an example in "parallelomania" is unwarranted, even a rough one. I agree there is no causal connection between Kennedy/Lincoln. It's pure coincidence. There
could be a causal connection in the Book of Mormon narrative, I agree, but how can anyone definitely establish this? What about the numerous parts of the Book of Mormon that don't appear to have a causal connection? It's like people who roughly compare the Book of Mormon to an "imitation" of the Bible because it has many biblical references, and in the KJV style, yet ignore glaring differences in content, and originality. As a serious student of the Book of Mormon, I presume you agree that the Book of Mormon does have a lot of originality? So how do we connect all of this originality to Joseph Smith's life and experiences? Here is a point to consider:
Little evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had the imagination and intelligence to write the Book of Mormon. B. H. Roberts cited a passage from Lucy Smith's history, which he thought testified to Joseph's powers of imagination. Lucy said that following Moroni's first visit, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, which Joseph related to his family in the evenings: "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them" (Lucy Smith 1880, 87). However, no one has ever pointed out that Lucy's account does not describe the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon tells us that the Lamanites went almost naked, except for skins girded around their loins, and that the Nephites wore armor into battle, but it says nothing about the everyday dress of the various groups of people who inhabited the Americas. The Book of Mormon refers several times to horses and chariots, but most of the people seem to travel on foot; no one is ever described as riding upon any animal. The Book of Mormon does not discuss the layout of cities, the types of buildings that people lived in, or their manner of construction. It does say that people who migrated into northern territories constructed their buildings of cement, because of a scarcity of timber, and one passage says that Nephi, the son of Helaman, had a tower in his garden. These unusual features would certainly have deserved further elaboration. The Book of Mormon gives us a few details about the temple in Lehi-Nephi and a Zoramite synagogue, but otherwise provides no information about the design of religious buildings. Aside from a few references to burnt offerings, the Book of Mormon does not describe religious ceremonies in temples and churches; baptisms sometimes occur outdoors. If the passage from Lucy's history is proof that Joseph's imagination was so highly developed that he could have written the Book of Mormon, why did he not include the information which he had related to his family?
Then we have the spectacle of Martin Harris (or David Whitmer?) accusing Joseph Smith of "not understanding the Book of Mormon". Did Joseph understand the geography of the Book of Mormon? It appears not. We know now that the scale is much smaller than he thought, presumably because he didn't take careful note of distances and travel times. So if a case is to be made that there is a causal connection, it has to be examined holistically, not just in parts. If connections went clearly
beyond coincidence, then perhaps a good case can be established. A good forensic officer doesn't gather evidence by examining only one or two parts of a crime scene.
(edit for an error)