DiscussMormonism.com

Has anyone read this? By a patent lawyer and his chemical engineer father who claim they spent 25 years gathering evidence of the sources for the Book of Mormon. The basic claim is that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from "The Travels of Marco Polo, the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World as recorded by his son, histories of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, and travel journals . . . all readily available to Smith."

Anyone familiar with the theory? It strengths/weaknesses?

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Lies- ... 1939179009

(Forgive me if this has been discussed...a link to the thread would be great.)

I've been curious about this book:

An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism

566 pages must be some case!

cinepro wrote:I've been curious about this book:

An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism

566 pages must be some case!

Critics love it. Faithful Mormons hate it. Blah blah blah.

A substantial chunk of the book describes the author's background in and journey out of Mormonism.

mms wrote:Has anyone read this? By a patent lawyer and his chemical engineer father who claim they spent 25 years gathering evidence of the sources for the Book of Mormon. The basic claim is that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from "The Travels of Marco Polo, the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World as recorded by his son, histories of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, and travel journals . . . all readily available to Smith."

Anyone familiar with the theory? It strengths/weaknesses?

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Lies- ... 1939179009

(Forgive me if this has been discussed...a link to the thread would be great.)

I've heard this theory before but I think it violates the basic premise of Occam's Razor.

What is the most simple explanation for the Book of Mormon? I think Grant Palmer makes the best case in about 30 pages.

The Spaulding theory and others (including this one) either 1) require a conspiracy or 2) fall victim to parralelomania

claim they spent 25 years gathering evidence of the sources for the Book of Mormon.

I don't like their methodology. They went full-bore ahead and did their own search. The Marco Polo theory requires having the text open before them, and the parallels seem thin.

I generally searched the literature for others' perceptions, and then checked out whether I saw the same parallels. There were very few sets of parallels that were unique to me. A wide reader can copy plots and events on almost an instinctual basis. Do a Google search on Helen Keller and the "Frost King."

Those who advocate a Joseph Smith alone theory miss the simplicity of a Smith family effort. And, of course, my work is broader in scope, to accommodate people like Shiloh.

parralelomania

typo. parallelomania.

I took a quick look. It looks like another episode of Parallels Gone Wild!

cinepro wrote:I've been curious about this book:

An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism

566 pages must be some case!

Read it & like it. Brad is correct, about half the book is her journey out of Mormonism which is interesting. The legal half of the book deals with the definition of Fraud as outlined by the Utah Supreme Court. She argues that, based on the definition given by the supreme court, the church is guilty of fraud.

I had trouble with reading the EXTENSIVE autobiographical portion. It seemed self-centered, and much like the testimonies of so many others*. I gave up on it.








*I OD'd on drunkalogues as an AA.

Willy Law wrote:

cinepro wrote:I've been curious about this book:

An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism

566 pages must be some case!

Read it & like it. Brad is correct, about half the book is her journey out of Mormonism which is interesting. The legal half of the book deals with the definition of Fraud as outlined by the Utah Supreme Court. She argues that, based on the definition given by the supreme court, the church is guilty of fraud.

I should really read it. I've argued many times that the LDS church would be protected from such a suit by the First Amendment. There might be something in the book that would change my mind.

mms wrote:Has anyone read this? By a patent lawyer and his chemical engineer father who claim they spent 25 years gathering evidence of the sources for the Book of Mormon. The basic claim is that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from "The Travels of Marco Polo, the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World as recorded by his son, histories of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, and travel journals . . . all readily available to Smith."

Anyone familiar with the theory? It strengths/weaknesses?

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Lies- ... 1939179009

(Forgive me if this has been discussed...a link to the thread would be great.)

I do not understand why these publishers tend to use such inflammatory language in their titles?

Using the words "Lies" or "Fraud" in your title is going to do nothing but scare away a potential audience for your book.

Signature and Grant Palmer did a much better job with An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. Catchy yet not offensive. If I recall correctly it was even benign enough to make it on the shelves of Deseret Book until someone actually read it.