Ben:
Benjamin McGuire wrote: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.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.