Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[Bedlamite]

...
I think the presumption is that the Book of Mormon is a modern work. If it's ancient then who found it,
where, what is the physical evidence that shows it to be ancient, what language is used
which shows it to be ancient.
...

Marg -- let's say that tomorrow you publish a new book. Except for a few biblical quotations,
its contents are something previously unseen. A few people say that some of the contents
look familiar -- they believe you have plagiarized another author who died a few years ago.

Your explanation of your book is that the contents have been translated into English from
an ancient dead language. You further claim that your translation came to you by supernatural
means, as you consulted the preserved text of an ancient document you yourself discovered.

When we ask you to show us that ancient document, you refuse. When we ask you to show
us the means by which you carried out your supernatural translation, you refuse. When we
ask you for some proof that you really had this ancient document you refuse us again --
consenting only to hand over a copy of a statement signed by some of your neighbors and
family members, that they saw this alleged ancient document. None of them have any
credentials as experts in the field of ancient documents. Their statement is not witnessed
nor otherwise confirmed by any experts in ancient documents.

When we do consult experts in ancient documents and other historical experts, they are
unable to place your alleged ancient document into any known civilization, culture, language
family or system of writing.

Given all of these facts, what should our presumption be? Should we give equal weight to the
possibility that your alleged document was either ancient or a modern hoax? Should we give
equal weight to the possibility that your "translation" is that of an ancient, or a modern work?

Finally -- when we ask you these same questions, you tell us that we should give 100% of
the weight of possibility to its being truly ancient. When we ask you why that is so, you tell
us that we ourselves must make use of supernatural means to confirm your allegations. You
tells is that by "the eyes of faith" we shall all come to understand you are telling the truth.

Shall we try the experiment?

Write up a text entitled "The True Records of Mogo King of Bogo" and see how many of us
accept it as the true ancient history of Podunk, Iowa.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Since the Book of Mormon isn't exclusively about warfare, those kinds of parallels will naturally be
bunched up in the chapters of the Book of Mormon which are primarily about warfare.

I agree -- which is why (once we have documented that "bunched up" stuff) we need to apply
some more reliable method of word-printing than just counting up shared word-strings and
similar phraseology.

Mormons have published word-print studies in the past, asserting that the Book of Mormon is a composite
text, attributable to more than a single writer.

Is there some fundamental reason why we cannot re-apply those same LDS-approved methods,
to determine if the "bunched up stuff" comes from a different writer than the rest of the Book of Mormon text?

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

But if you're going to argue that 19th century idioms and phrases worked their way into the Book of Mormon to the extent that it becomes noticeable then you also need to recognize that they came from God. When you start allowing for Smith's language to enter the mix, then who is responsible for the final product? God or Smith? It can only be God according to the witnesses. When you inspect the 1830 text it becomes very difficult to see it as coming from God and having been checked for errors by God.

This is an interesting question, which I don't think you have thought through very well.

When you write, most often the language you use is determined by three major factors - 1) the language you know and are familiar with, 2) the intended audience for the text (their language and understanding) and 3) what it is you want to say. Under the various models of authorship, who do you think the intended audience was? I think its a relevant question. If we were to suppose for example that God is responsible for the translation, and that Joseph is the intended audience, then Joseph is almost certainly responsible on some level for the final product - even if he had no role in producing it. This particular discussion is quite fascinating to me. Personally, I enjoy the way that Paul Grice looks at the different roles in producing texts (even if I don't always agree with his conclusions).

I think in the end, I am not willing to grant plagiarism. I don't believe that anyone has produced the kind of evidence that even begins to qualify for such a charge (apart, of course, from the obvious quoting of the Bible).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

But more importantly, the above scenario IS NOT an equivalent to what we are discussing here.... in order for the above to actually become the equivalent, we'd have to have something like the following....

It is the same thing Roger. It is equivalent. Plagiarism comes from texts. You actually have to look at the texts.

One of the challenges of the Book of Mormon and the way you use the witnesses comes shows up in other critics with other theories. Many who were Spalding theory fans believed, of course, that it was an anti-masonic book. Those who accused the Book of Mormon of this did so very early (although that too had died down by the mid 1840s). Like you, Vogel identifies parallels between the Book of Mormon and Masonic literature. And of course, as it turns out, once we expand the scope of the search beyond anti-masonic literature, we discover that the these parallels occured outside of anti-masonic literature in ways that were quite compatible with the Book of Mormon use.

I don't believe that there was an independant and spontaneous belief that Joseph Smith plagiarized Spalding on the part of several individuals. I don't think this can be demonstrated, and certainly not even speculated to with any degree of certainty. And if this theory wasn't right to begin with - but was instead an attempt to discredit Joseph Smith and his golden Bible, then there isn't this basis which you keep putting forward that should automatically lead us to believe that plagiarism exists. Once we combine that with the fact that there doesn't seem to actually be evidence of plagiairism in the text (at best we have the hypothetical borrowing from a non-existent manuscript about which there isn't much that can be said, and some of what is said seems to be problematic), there isn't a need at all to assume plagiarism at all.

And this, of course, has been the position of nearly all of the detractors to the Spalding theory since they first showed up in the 19th century.

At this point, Roger, I think the discussion has probably run its course. I will try to answer a couple of Dale's questions, but I think this discussion is probably done.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

Is there some fundamental reason why we cannot re-apply those same LDS-approved methods, to determine if the "bunched up stuff" comes from a different writer than the rest of the Book of Mormon text?

No, there shouldn't be any reason why this couldn't be done - word prints usually work with the most common words not the speciality words - and would tend to ignore much of what you might find as significant parallels.

In other words, using a method of gathering parallels, you would be dividing the text up in specific sections based on your own criteria, to be tested as unknown authors in a word print study. I am sure there would be some way to determine whether or not these artificially constructed texts have different authors than the rest of the Book of Mormon (although we might try several scenarios in which we compared these artifical authors to the composite Book of Mormon, and so on).

Ben M

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale writes:

Is there some fundamental reason why we cannot re-apply those same LDS-approved methods, to determine if the "bunched up stuff" comes from a different writer than the rest of the Book of Mormon text?

No, there shouldn't be any reason why this couldn't be done - word prints usually work with the most common words not the speciality words - and would tend to ignore much of what you might find as significant parallels.

In other words, using a method of gathering parallels, you would be dividing the text up in specific sections based on your own criteria, to be tested as unknown authors in a word print study. I am sure there would be some way to determine whether or not these artificially constructed texts have different authors than the rest of the Book of Mormon (although we might try several scenarios in which we compared these artifical authors to the composite Book of Mormon, and so on).

Ben M

I believe we shall be seeing some examples of this sort of stuff in the scholarly literature soon.

While I'm curious to see where all of that will lead us, in terms of possible Book of Mormon authorship ideas,
I am more interested in seeing what effect such publications will have upon the few historical
researchers who are in a position to search out and make available to us any hitherto unseen
documents, records, etc., that might contribute to our knowledge of Mormon origins.

I still await the day when some junk dealer, in cleaning out an attic in Palmyra, happens upon
116 pages of old manuscript -- or some cataloger of the contents of the LDS First Presidency's
vault notices a handwriting sample from 1834 not previously publicized.

Do I hope for too much?

UD

[_marg]

Whats fun about this, is that it comes from a supporter of the Spalding theory. How many hypotheticals and assumptions and such go into that theory?

Actually, if it was in fact an actual translation, I can think of a number of logical reasons why that language would be used ... and so apparently can a number of traslators of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ben once again... that the Book of Mormon is in Elizabethan english is only one bit of evidence to consider within the bigger picture of evidentiary data.

I believe years ago when I first started to look into Mormonism and Elizabethan english was discussed somewhere, it was pointed out that the Book of Mormon writer made some errors in its use and based on that showed they were not entirely familiar with using it. It was something like... sometimes the plural pronoun incorrectly was used when the singular should have been. I could search but I don't really want to spend too much time on this.

As far as advantages to use Elizabethan middle english instead of 1830 modern english..sure it can be used as a literary device..to make the texts sound ancient, or to make it sound biblical since the KJV was common, or to make it sound to those who are religious that it is in someway connected to the divine. As far as for religous purposes...in and of itself there is nothing special or connected to any divine entity about middle english. Until you can objectively establish God ..claiming God is connected to any book can not be established either. Any divine claims amount to no more than mere assertions. And since you are familiar with the concept of circular reasoning, you can appreciate that conclusion based upon premises which are mere assertions are not reliable and should be rejected as established.

We can see the evidence of the evolution of english as well as other languages. We can see the evidence of the evolution of the handwriting and later printing of translated ancient texts we know as the Bible into the various languages at the time they were written or printed. And sure we still print out the Bible in KJV english because readers associate middle english with it being authoritative, and it was a good translation from the original Greek and ancient Hebrew. However middle english with its different pronouns to modern english does not yield a better translation of any ancient text into english. And there is no evidence that at any particular time a translated edition of the Bible was more God approved than any other. Claims to God, claims to the Book of Mormon, or Bible being sacred are not supported with objective evidence. Those are simply assertions and the evidence indicates that there is nothing sacred about Elizabethan english, it simply is the english at a particular time in its evolution.

When KJ english is used whether it be intended for religious purposes such as in 1830 in the Book of Mormon, or even today, it is used as a literary device. Some may think there is something sacred about it but there is no objective evidence for that.

So when looking at the Book of Mormon the writer may have deliberately employed Elizabethan english as a literary device, whether it be for religious purposes or not. But when we look at J.Smith's explanation of how he translated the plates and that a God was involved, it's a little odd to use a literary device to make it sound religious in some way. The impression then is that it is being used manipulatively and deviously...with the intent that the audience would be impressed and consequently influenced to accept it as authoritative or connected to the God of the Bible, the most commonly available one in J.Smith's day..the KJV. And that is the conclusion I assume based on the evidence.

[_Roger]

UD wrote:

Write up a text entitled "The True Records of Mogo King of Bogo" and see how many of us
accept it as the true ancient history of Podunk, Iowa.

Now juxtapose that against the little scenario I put forth in my last post and what do you have.... you have the faithful Mogo Kingians criticizing MacDonald's tangible evidence as allegedly being weak while ignoring the supporting testimony that came prior to still more supporting evidence, and wanting the rest of the world to ignore the fact that their history of Podunk has virtually no supporting evidence at all.

I can understand all that, but what I don't get is those who accept the idea that marg produced the history of Podunk using contemporary sources--except for the one that the earliest witnesses claimed she used.

[_marg]

Write up a text entitled "The True Records of Mogo King of Bogo" and see how many of us
accept it as the true ancient history of Podunk, Iowa.

UD

Of course based on your scenario were I to write such a text I would not give anyone adequate justification to believe me, that my book is translated from an ancient test, in fact the opposite. An objective individual should reject my claim, given the facts you present. (And in fact that is the case with myself and the reason I reject the claim the Book of Mormon is of ancient origin.)

But the reason people have accepted the Book of Mormon is ancient and still do, stems from religious indoctrination and willingness to accept claims absent evidence and even contrary to known physical laws. In Smith's day a hook was used...the Bible. There was a ready made pre-programmed audience who already accepted Christian extraordinary claims and the Bible as authoritative and divinely connected. So by capturing the imagination of that preprogrammed audience who accepted the Bible was divinely inspired it was a simple matter of shifting their beliefs to an extended version of Christianity. Since no evidence is required when it comes to faith based beliefs, simply asserting it is ancient is all that's necessary to those willing to accept. And so Ben argues that KJV english in Book of Mormon does not mean it is not an ancient text but at the same time does not argues what evidence there is that it is ancient. He wishes to keep his faith based beliefs out of the discussion, yet seems to be oblivious that an unbiased unindoctrinated individual looking at the evidence the Book of Mormon is not ancient, and the lack of evidence by those claiming it is, is justified in concluding the Book of Mormon is not ancient, and is a 19th century invention.

[_Roger]

Ben:

Roger writes:

But more importantly, the above scenario IS NOT an equivalent to what we are discussing here.... in order for the above to actually become the equivalent, we'd have to have something like the following....

It is the same thing Roger. It is equivalent. Plagiarism comes from texts. You actually have to look at the texts.

And I've never denied that we "have to look at the texts." And when we look at the discovery narratives we do see parallels. Even you admit that. You say that what we see is not evidence of borrowing and you base that on the alleged notion that you can pull up "thousands" of similar cases of parallels. (For the record you pulled up one). But each cited case of a "parallel" is subjective--regardless of what methodology one prefers to adopt. So this argument is inconclusive for both sides.

However, when one considers more than just the parallels... when one also considers the context in which they originated, that context can shed additional light on whether they actually are related or are merely an illusion. When one considers that context, it changes everything. You don't want the context to be a part of the equation, because when that happens, your position becomes indefensible.

One of the challenges of the Book of Mormon and the way you use the witnesses comes shows up in other critics with other theories. Many who were Spalding theory fans believed, of course, that it was an anti-masonic book. Those who accused the Book of Mormon of this did so very early (although that too had died down by the mid 1840s). Like you, Vogel identifies parallels between the Book of Mormon and Masonic literature.

The beauty of the S/R position is that it is the only Book of Mormon production theory that can accomodate all the data. I'm sure there are indeed anti-masonic themes present in the Book of Mormon. Those themes may not have originated with Spalding but probably did originate long after he died during the William Morgan affair. The S/R model accomodates that evidence. I think Vogel is right to point to that and Smith and/or Cowdery may indeed be responsible for those sections.

One of the problems with S/R critics is that they argue against their own erroneous preconceptions of what the S/R theory entails. They seem to think S/R theorists limit themselves to thinking only Splading or only Rigdon had any input on the Book of Mormon text. That is just nonsense. The S/R theory is extremely broad and best explains the data--mainly the notion that you, no doubt, agree with, that the Book of Mormon is complex. It is not simply explained by "Smith did it" or "Splading did it" rather it is a compilation featuring multiple authors and multiple levels of plagiarism.

And of course, as it turns out, once we expand the scope of the search beyond anti-masonic literature, we discover that the these parallels occured outside of anti-masonic literature in ways that were quite compatible with the Book of Mormon use.

Again, evaluating parallels is a subjective endeavor. In general, though, the more parallels one sees and the closer the examples, the more reasonable it is to conclude dependence. And when testimony has been given that borrowing has indeed occured, then one is even more justified in reaching that conclusion.

I don't believe that there was an independant and spontaneous belief that Joseph Smith plagiarized Spalding on the part of several individuals.

Okay now we're finally getting down to where the rubber meets the road. You don't believe....

In short you don't believe the Spalding witnesses and, in short, I see no good reason to think they are lying. If you can show that they are indeed lying or if you can provide good reasons to suspect that they are lying, then your case might be stronger.

I don't think this can be demonstrated, and certainly not even speculated to with any degree of certainty.

Quite frankly, I've already demonstrated that the witness testimony is credible.

1. Witnesses give their statements before 1834 that there is a connection between Spalding and Smith

2. Smith produces a disc. nar. in 1838 that parallels Spalding. You admit the parallels exist, you just want me to conclude they are coincidental. I don't accept that because the witnesses had already established that a connection exists long before Smith wrote his narrative.

3. You have no counter to this except to argue that the parallels are typical and that we should just ignore everything else. But the fact is... and please try to get this.... unless Joseph Smith is telling the truth in 1838, then his made-up disc. nar. does not have to parallel Spalding. The fact that it does--and you admit that--is indeed quite extraordinary.

And if this theory wasn't right to begin with - but was instead an attempt to discredit Joseph Smith and his golden Bible, then there isn't this basis which you keep putting forward that should automatically lead us to believe that plagiarism exists.

I agree with that. So then attack it from that perspective. Show me why I should think that there was no claim of a connection between Spalding and Smith before Hurlbut came on the scene. Give me some good reasons why I should conclude that, because I think if you look at what actually happened that we can and should conclude that Hurlbut did not create the connection between Spalding and Smith but that it in fact originated before Hurlbut got invovled.

Now if it can be shown that Hurlbut did not create that idea, are you then willing to concede that your case in general against an S/R framework is signficantly weaker? Or are you only willing to acknowledge the positive benefits of winning that argument?

Once we combine that

Again, I strongly dispute "that" and I don't think you can show it to be reasonable.

with the fact that there doesn't seem to actually be evidence of plagiairism in the text (at best we have the hypothetical borrowing from a non-existent manuscript about which there isn't much that can be said, and some of what is said seems to be problematic), there isn't a need at all to assume plagiarism at all.

Well I will comment more on this in a moment when you bring up plagiarism again....

And this, of course, has been the position of nearly all of the detractors to the Spalding theory since they first showed up in the 19th century.

At this point, Roger, I think the discussion has probably run its course. I will try to answer a couple of Dale's questions, but I think this discussion is probably done.

You're free to come and go as you please.

This is an interesting question, which I don't think you have thought through very well.

When you write, most often the language you use is determined by three major factors - 1) the language you know and are familiar with, 2) the intended audience for the text (their language and understanding) and 3) what it is you want to say. Under the various models of authorship, who do you think the intended audience was? I think its a relevant question.

Here's God's answer: (with bolding mine)

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.
First English edition published in 1830

One thing is clear.... Joseph Smith is not the intended audience.

If we were to suppose for example that God is responsible for the translation,

...we only suppose that because that's exactly what the witnesses (you know the ones you want to believe) unanimously claim, and that's what the official version that I just quoted says.... so it appears that "supposing" anything else is contrary to the official version.

and that Joseph is the intended audience, then Joseph is almost certainly responsible on some level for the final product - even if he had no role in producing it.

But Joseph is not the intended audience. Where do you get that notion? Certainly not from the Book of Mormon itself or from the testimony of the witnesses you want to believe otherwise.

This particular discussion is quite fascinating to me. Personally, I enjoy the way that Paul Grice looks at the different roles in producing texts (even if I don't always agree with his conclusions).

I think in the end, I am not willing to grant plagiarism. I don't believe that anyone has produced the kind of evidence that even begins to qualify for such a charge (apart, of course, from the obvious quoting of the Bible).

That last little disclaimer reminds me a lot of Jacob chapter 2.... polygamy is a rotten thing, (unless I command my people)

This is why you should not attempt to argue from Vogel's position when you don't really share Vogel's position. This is why you should stick to defending the Book of Mormon from the position you truly accept which is the official version.

If you allow even for the "obvious quoting of the Bible" then you are going against eyewitness testimony that the entire thing came from God word for word and was dictated by Joseph Smith. The eyewitnesses do not give you that freedom. Show me where their testimony allows for "obvious quoting of the Bible"? The eyewitnesses do not give Dan Vogel that freedom. They do not give Royal Skousen that freedom. There can be no King James mistakes in the Book of Mormon because God has no need to plagiarize mistakes made by an apostate King's translators when he's got the correct translation right there in front of him in perfect reformed Egyptian.

The fact of the matter is plagiarism of any kind is a problem for every Book of Mormon production theory except S/R.