Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_AlmaBound]

Of course, if you mean who authored the account we currently have, the answer is Mormon.

I'd call Mormon an editor more so than an author, overall, for what it's worth.

Unless you are saying that Mormon was present during the conversations between Alma, Amulek, and Zeezrom, in which case I might say you are on to something...

In that instance, I'd call Mormon both a scribe and an editor.

So to speak.

[_William Schryver]

If your question concerns who wrote down the account of Alma and Amulek speaking to the people of Ammonihah, we have no way of knowing, do we?

We don't know, to be sure. However, I think making an assessment of who it may have been based on the text that we have available is certainly worthwhile, considering Benjamin's statement that we should consider the text.

What I find interesting are the words "this is all that I have written" at the conclusion of Alma 11:46.

An anonymous scribe would not be the determinate of what he would write. "This is all that I have written" would be by direction, as I understand it, and not as it appears here, in which the scribe seems to have stopped of his own accord.

It may very well be that the scribe was told to stop writing at that juncture, but sticking to an analysis of the text itself, the evidence seems to suggest that the scribe simply stopped writing, with no guidance.

From that point of view, it is the pronoun "I" that is most interesting to me.

I think it is obvious that Mormon wrote "This is all that I have written ..."

And, yes, it is clear that Mormon is, by turns, both an editor and an author. The way I interpret it is that Alma made a record of his doings, based on whatever records he had at his disposal. Then Mormon made another record based on the records of Alma and others. Thus you can see several layers of editorship throughout the Book of Mormon.

[_AlmaBound]

The way I interpret it is that Alma made a record of his doings, based on whatever records he had at his disposal. Then Mormon made another record based on the records of Alma and others.

The very next line describes Alma in third person, with what appears to be an observer recording the words:

Alma 12:1 Now Alma, seeing that the words of Amulek had silenced Zeezrom, for he beheld that Amulek had caught him in his lying and deceiving to destroy him, and seeing that he began to tremble under a consciousness of his guilt, he opened his mouth and began to speak unto him, and to establish the words of Amulek, and to explain things beyond, or to unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done.

Were Mormon to be editing a text that had been written by Alma, why would it be written in the third person and not first person by Alma himself?

[_marg]

These sorts of discussions are not conducive to flat view only format. A threaded view enables both viewer and participants to follow discussions between individuals who may evolve their discussion into sub topics. With flat view as more participants get involved it becomes very difficult following discussions between individuals and keeping track of the flow of thought.

This board is offered free to participants, it's not a criticism of the owners of the board simply an acknowledgment of its deficiency as far as these sorts of conversations.

[_William Schryver]

The way I interpret it is that Alma made a record of his doings, based on whatever records he had at his disposal. Then Mormon made another record based on the records of Alma and others.

The very next line describes Alma in third person, with what appears to be an observer recording the words:

Alma 12:1 Now Alma, seeing that the words of Amulek had silenced Zeezrom, for he beheld that Amulek had caught him in his lying and deceiving to destroy him, and seeing that he began to tremble under a consciousness of his guilt, he opened his mouth and began to speak unto him, and to establish the words of Amulek, and to explain things beyond, or to unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done.

Were Mormon to be editing a text that had been written by Alma, why would it be written in the third person and not first person by Alma himself?

Quite simply because he switches back and forth from editor to commentator, more often than not without giving any indication of it. You can see it throughout the entire book, not just here. You have to draw logical inferences in order to keep it all straight. That said, I don't think it's that hard to do. Once you recognize it as a modus operandi, it becomes much easier to determine where Mormon's words begin and end in reference to the text that is the primary source for his record.

[Guest]

A threaded view enables both viewer and participants to follow discussions between individuals who may evolve their discussion into sub topics.

Given a little patience, I believe it can be shown that a study of the text reveals the initial dependence on Spalding's work within the Book of Mormon - in an intertextual sense, as Benjamin requires (and as Dale has long maintained).

As such, I see this evolution as pertinent to the original concept of the thread.

Arguably, anyway.

[_AlmaBound]

Quite simply because he switches back and forth from editor to commentator, more often than not without giving any indication of it. You can see it throughout the entire book, not just here. You have to draw logical inferences in order to keep it all straight. That said, I don't think it's that hard to do. Once you recognize it as a modus operandi, it becomes much easier to determine where Mormon's words begin and end in reference to the text that is the primary source for his record.

Exactly.

It's simply a matter of determining who Mormon is, along with his original source, and why he amended it the way he did.

[_Roger]

Ben:

You're posting a lot of rhetoric and very little substance. I have listed paralles which you agree are parallels and I have brought up authentic testimony. You respond with rhetoric. For example you write:

And no, I don't admit that it is all that extraordinary. I don't think it would be some kind of special coincidence. And I think you are making a lot out of a very little - that once we start looking at the parallels, the argument really loses most of its oomph.

...and...

Most, if not all, of your "context" is speculative and hypothetical. And don't get me wrong, I have considered your context. And it didn't change anything.

Yet when I challenge you to duplicate that allegedly "typical" occurance you can't. You just brush it off as though it were no big deal that you can't--as if I made up the conditions you can't duplicate.

I did not create the circumstances were are discussing and you can't duplicate. Neither did Hurlbut.

That is siginificant and you can't just brush it off as though it's no big deal.

So I restate the problem using the logic given by an author that you cite in support of your arguments to Donofrio's work and I point out that:

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....


For the sake of discussion let's say Mark writes his Gospel in A.D. 50. But then in A.D. 52 a follower of Mark named Frank becomes disillusioned and heads out to find evidence against Mark's Gospel. In the process he learns that there are people living nearby who--upon hearing the Gospel of Mark read--immediately made a connection with a manuscript they had heard their deseased buddy Homer read from many times. (Homer having died about 20 years previous). So Frank sets out and gets a number of testimonies from these people who all unanimously claim that they heard Homer read his story years ago and it had "Christians" and dudes named "Luke" and "John" and they were all followers of "Jesus" who was a worker of miracles.

Trouble is, Homer's manuscript is nowhere to be found. But Frank manages to get his hands on another of Homer's manuscripts, but is dissapointed when he doesn't see the names in it. Instead he sees an incomplete story that talks about another miracle worker named Julius who starts a rebellion in Rome and gains some followers. He shows this manuscript to some of the people he had interviewed earlier and they claim that this is not the ms they were refering to, but that Homer wrote more than one ms.

Later on in 58 A.D., Mark is pressured to write an account of how he met Jesus and he tells about being a fisherman and casting his nets and Jesus comes up and says: Follow me and I will make you fishers of men."

When people start looking at Homer's existing ms they begin to notice something weird.... for in it Homer tells his readers of how he met Julius... he says he was a fisherman out fishing one day and this guy walks up and says: You can catch fish, but if you come with me we'll catch some men."

Now you add that to the parallel phenomenon that H.D. Hooker already admits are "intriguing" and do you think Hooker might then want to give MacDonald's conclusion another round of consideration?

I do.

My observation is factual. You are ignoring context. The fact is if you allow consideration of that type of context--and there is no reason not to--it changes everything about how we look at the parallels. The "oomph" of the parallels is turbo-charged. Downplay it 'til you're blue in the face if you want, but the fact that you cannot duplicate what actually happened says it all.

Then you ask things like:

Which witnesses do we have that we can date postiviely to before 1834?

You later answer your own question:

Roger -

1) All of the 1833 statements that you are using - including that of John Spalding were part of the group taken (as a group) by Hurlbut. They weren't published until Howe published them in 1834. But they are still a part of the Hurlbut collection.

So what? You're the one who seems to think Hurlbut tainted everything he touched, not me. But even so Hurlbut did not cause Smith to produce a discovery narrative in 1838 that parallels Spalding--the parallels of which you have already admitted are indeed parallels! You just want me to believe they are not significant. You can't pin that one on either Hurlbut or the alleged faulty memories of his witnesses. Therefore your ONLY recourse is to argue (unpersuasively) that the parallels we both see are really no big deal.

I'm going to repeat this because you simply want to ingore things like this and move on as though the problem doesn't exist:

Unless he was telling the truth, Joseph Smith's discovery narrative DID NOT HAVE TO parallel Spalding's.

Now you have stated several times on this thread that for the sake of discussion you are willing to eliminate the official version of how the Book of Mormon came to be. You are willing to argue as though you believe the Book of Mormon is not ancient, there were no plates and there was no angel. Now if you genuinely remove that option, Ben, then the 1838 discovery narrative does not reflect reality. It is, in that case, a manufactured story.

THEREFORE: Unless he was telling the truth, Joseph Smith's discovery narrative DID NOT HAVE TO parallel Spalding's. Let that sink in.

And yet it does. Significant? You bet.

Why does it parallel Spalding's account if there weren't any plates? Why doesn't it parallel Ralph Jones' account of digging up treasures along the Ohio river? Why are having this discussion about Solomon Spalding instead of Frank Smith or Tom Jones or whoever? Because witnesses told us prior to 1838 there is a connection between Spalding and Smith.

Yet you simply don't want to believe them. Why is that? Because you cannot objectively divorce yourself from your true beliefs even for the sake of mere discussion. Your true beliefs color your thinking to the point where you cannot discard the implications of your position even for the sake of discussion.

You should at least face reality. If you are going to attempt to argue this from the position of someone who does not believe the plates were real or that an angel ever appeared, then you have to acknowledge that Smith's discovery narrative is made up. That raises the question of: Where did it come from?

But that's not all of the picture... the fact is we had witnesses back before 1834 telling us where it comes from... they allege Smith borrowed from Spalding. And sure enough, Smith's discovery narrative parallels Spalding. Coincidence? You want the world to think so.

You've agreed (in theory) to eliminate real plates from the equation. So you're left with an argument that wants the rest of the world to accept that Smith came up with a fake discovery narrative that parallels Spalding by mere coincidence even in light of the fact that witnesses had already testified there is a connection between the two men years before. You base this on your opinion that the parallels really aren't that significant--to you. Sorry but that's just not very convincing.

Moving on....

I think that Hurlbut took someone elses comment and developed it.

Then Hurlbut did not create the idea of a connection between Smith and Spalding. That is a rather large concession on your part. It kills a lot of the usual criticism of S/R.

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

Then who is?

I already answered that question using official LDS sources. Don't you accept what is printed in the Book of Mormon introduction? There is no mention there about Joseph being the intended audience. See my previous post where I cite this.

It's an interesting notion. Much of the time, when we write, we are actually writing for an intended audience that very much resembles ourselves (which is why people are regularly misunderstood when other read what they have written). So we need to establish who you think the audience was, if Joseph Smith was not a member of that audience.

This is not about what I think or what you think, it's about what the official claim was. Have you read the Book of Mormon introduction?

God can quote the Bible. I have no problems with that.

Neither do I. The question is did Mormon or Nephi? I would imagine you would answer sure because they had taken scrolls from Jerusalem. But they sure wouldn't be quoting the mistakes of an apostate King's translators that hadn't even been born yet.

You're stuck on this because there is no rational answer other than plagiarism of King James. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about--seraphims and cherubims. There is no reason that God should take what is presumably the correct reformed Egyptian word for "seraphim" and "cherubim" and erroneously add an unnecessary "s." I just thank God that he allowed King James' boys to make the mistake so you would not have an out in this discussion.

The fact is the eyewitnesse have every word of the Book of Mormon appearing in the stone along with it's English translation with Joseph Smith simply reading it off to his scribes and then God correcting mistakes. That's the eyewitnesses telling you that, not me. Of course you know what I am refering to. There is no room for plagiarism of any kind when God is giving the translation word for word, character by character. Sure, Nephi could have quoted Isaiah, but Nephi can't quote King James and God has no need to.

Let me ask you the same questions I asked Marg:

What kind of translator is God (since you seem to be familiar with the topic)? Is he a word-for-word kind of guy?

Doesn't matter. See we don't have the source text so all you're doing is speculating what might have been on it if it ever actually existed. We don't even have any known samples of reformed Egyptian so that we might be able to work backwards and re-translate back into the original text. That's why you are left to speculate on God's vocabulary and translating style.

An idea-for-idea kind of guy? Would God look at the intentions of the author instead of at what the author wrote (since authors can and do make mistakes ....)? Would God stop in the middle of an allusion to another text to inform us what the text was and what the allusion was so that we would be sure to understand what its author intended by it (knowing of course that this would destroy the concept of an allusion in the process, and permanently alter the text)? Tell us exactly what you think a divine translation should look like.

No I think it would be better if you tell us since you're the one who believes God was actually involved in this process. I'm not even at that level. I can, however, read what the witnesses state. What part of "Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man" don't you agree with?

Perhaps you can simply explain why God had "seraphims" and "cherubims" appear in the stone instead of "seraphim" and "cherubim"? Since--whatever his "style"--I would guess it is safe to conclude that God is a pretty decent translator why would he not actually translate but instead he simply copies a mistake from an apostate King's translators?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Yet when I challenge you to duplicate that allegedly "typical" occurance you can't. You just brush it off as though it were no big deal that you can't--as if I made up the conditions you can't duplicate.

I am still waiting on the list of texts which you will agree meet your criteria. It seemed to me that your criteria excluded all other texts. I might have misread you though.

You're the one who seems to think Hurlbut tainted everything he touched, not me. But even so Hurlbut did not cause Smith to produce a discovery narrative in 1838 that parallels Spalding--the parallels of which you have already admitted are indeed parallels!

Yes, but as I keep insisting, those parallels are meaningless - there is no case for special significance. And I went through the first several one at a time, and explained why they weren't significant. For you to keep beating me on the head with the fact that I see the parallels too is inappropriate, since I certainly don't value you them the same way that you do.

Unless he was telling the truth, Joseph Smith's discovery narrative DID NOT HAVE TO parallel Spalding's.

I can use Caps too. EVEN IF THERE ARE PARALLELS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME FROM SPALDING.

Now if you genuinely remove that option, Ben, then the 1838 discovery narrative does not reflect reality. It is, in that case, a manufactured story.

Sure - but that doesn't mean that it has to automatically come from Spalding. As Dan Vogel pointed out, there are plenty of traditions of finding stone boxes in indian mounds. In fact, there is even a category of indian mounds referred to as "stone-box graves". You don't get a free pass on Spalding.

THEREFORE: Unless he was telling the truth, Joseph Smith's discovery narrative DID NOT HAVE TO parallel Spalding's. Let that sink in.

THE PARALLELS ARE SO GENERIC AND AMBIGUOUS AS TO BE ABLE TO SAY QUITE EASILY THAT THE ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO COME FROM THE OTHER.

And yet it does. Significant? You bet.

Not the slightest. If we were to apply this same logic here, then we could claim dependance between any two texts where we could put together a list of parallels.

Do you suppose that we could find parallels between The Diary of Anne Frank, and They Called Me Frau Anna? They are both published personal diaries of holocaust victims. And it seems quite impossible that they read each others books ....

Because witnesses told us prior to 1838 there is a connection between Spalding and Smith.

And if they were wrong? I think you put too much faith in these witnesses as opposed to acutally critically examining the evidence which is the texts. You want the witnesses to be right. You have every faith that they are. And so you think that really anything that you find in the texts must confirm those witnesses. Well, I happen to disagree. What's also fascinating to me is that wherever the idea came from (that there was plagiarism), it is clear that ever since people have been trying to come up with evidence to prove it. In other words, you are actively looking for this evidence. Why didn't anyone in 1838 point out that that there was this similarity between Joseph's discovery narrative and the Spalding manuscript? Surely that's not that much longer than 1833 to remember ....

My observation is factual. You are ignoring context.

Your context is a bunch of unverifiable (and certainly unverified) hypotheticals. Lets see ... Joseph Smith isn't actually plagiairizing a known existing work. He is plagiarizing an unknown but speculated manuscript. Now, the parallels themselves can be quite ambiguous and vague - because he isn't actually plagiarizing those details from the so-called Roman Story. No, he is plagiarizing this unknown manuscript, but this unknown manuscript must be similar enough in detail that the comparison is still valid. (Correct me where I am getting this wrong ok?). So, what context do you really have? Is there actually any conceivable way to falsify your claims? Is the only way to do it to actually find a second manuscript by Spalding and see that it is as poorly written as the first, does not contain the names Lehi or Nephi or Zarahemla, etc.?

But that's not all of the picture... the fact is we had witnesses back before 1834 telling us where it comes from... they allege Smith borrowed from Spalding. And sure enough, Smith's discovery narrative parallels Spalding. Coincidence? You want the world to think so.

The "before 1834" is meaningless - because the accounts which you can date before 1834 are all connected to Hurlbut. I am assuming that this 1834 date is significant because that is when Howe published them - but I fail to understand why having Hurlbut produce them in 1833 somehow helps your argument. Please inform.

You've agreed (in theory) to eliminate real plates from the equation. So you're left with an argument that wants the rest of the world to accept that Smith came up with a fake discovery narrative that parallels Spalding by mere coincidence even in light of the fact that witnesses had already testified there is a connection between the two men years before. You base this on your opinion that the parallels really aren't that significant--to you. Sorry but that's just not very convincing.

Who cares. This is a real issue here. You see, what you are trying to do now is not to actually answer to the evidentiary questions your theory begs, but to instead lower the evidetiary bar by saying that nothing else is remotely likely. You don't prove a theory by dismissing alternatives. Saying that these other scenarios are unlikely doesn't magically make your evidence somehow more reliable or better. This is the same thing that you were doing with the angel though and are now forced to do to everything else now that we have removed the angel. You need to show that the Spalding theory is actually a good argument - because saying that other theories are worse doesn't somehow make it a good argument.

I already answered that question using official LDS sources. Don't you accept what is printed in the Book of Mormon introduction? There is no mention there about Joseph being the intended audience. See my previous post where I cite this.

This is a literary fallacy. Fiction is always twice removed from its context. It confuses the locutionary act with its accompanying illocutionary act. Once we remove the orthodox version (which we did), we can of course speak of the text as fiction. And in doing so, just because the text makes a claim doesn't mean that the author is also making that claim. For example, in 1802 William Wordsworth wrote these lines:

MILTON! thou should'st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a Star, and dwelt apart:
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life's common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.

Now, is Wadsworth actually castigating England himself in calling her a "fen"? Or is Wordsworth representing a castigation of England and isn't actually doing it. And that isn't even fiction. Fiction further distances the meaning of the locutionary act from the illocutionary act. After all, is the author of the Book of Mormon actually making all of the statements made by each of the characters in his novel? Certainly that would be problematic because of course, they are often contradictory. So it is in this case. Just because the text says something - particularly in a piece of fiction as you suggest, doesn't imply or actually tell us anything about the person of the author or the author's motivations.

This is not about what I think or what you think, it's about what the official claim was. Have you read the Book of Mormon introduction?

As part of the fictional account, why do we privildege it (and not other parts) with the actual real views of the author?

Neither do I. The question is did Mormon or Nephi? I would imagine you would answer sure because they had taken scrolls from Jerusalem. But they sure wouldn't be quoting the mistakes of an apostate King's translators that hadn't even been born yet

And the point is? The translation was made in 1830 right? The KJV was widely available. In fact, as I pointed out to Marg, a translation of the biblical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the early 1990s used the KJV almost exclusively to translate them (varying in less than 5 percent of the text from the KJV). There were reasons this was done. It turned out to be quite useful for the purpose of that project and was apparently a measured decision - with those reasons in mind. The point is, though, that you are making some fundamental mistakes in trying to distinguish between the source text and the translation of that source text.

You're stuck on this because there is no rational answer other than plagiarism of King James.

I am perfectly happy to admit to the plagiarism. I don't find it that unreasonable. I suspect that with our different backgrounds, you might not fully appreciate my reasons also.

Doesn't matter. See we don't have the source text so all you're doing is speculating what might have been on it if it ever actually existed.

But you and Marg have been speculating - I am just responding. When you make assertions about what such a translation wouldn't look like, you need to be able to jsutify those assumptions you use. I just want you to list them. Otherwise all of your concerns are kind of hollow. You say "well it would look anything but something like that ...."

No I think it would be better if you tell us since you're the one who believes God was actually involved in this process.

I find this demand funny because I didn't bring up this issue - you and Marg did. Now, when I ask you to defend your assertions - you both have done exactly the same thing and tell me that it is my job, and not yours to define the process. Well, I didn't make the assertions - you defend yours - or withdraw the point.

I can, however, read what the witnesses state. What part of "Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man" don't you agree with?

I am comfortable with the idea that the text in its current condition could meet those requirements. Such a position is rationally based, and studied. So, what specifically about such a statement is it that you find incompatible with the text as it stands, and what assumptions are you making when you take such a position?

Perhaps you can simply explain why God had "seraphims" and "cherubims" appear in the stone instead of "seraphim" and "cherubim"? Since--whatever his "style"--I would guess it is safe to conclude that God is a pretty decent translator why would he not actually translate but instead he simply copies a mistake from an apostate King's translators?

Obviously, precisely because it was copying the King James text. When the scholars who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed CD, which includes the Isaiah text from Qumran (the great Isaiah scroll, not the smaller fragments), why do you think it is that they also followed the King James text instead of trying to correct every error they thought existed in the text?

It is a relevant question, don't you think?

[_marg]

EVEN IF THERE ARE PARALLELS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME FROM SPALDING.

In the 61 page print out from Tom Donofrio in which a good proportion of that print out lists parallels..he starts out listing parallels between Spalding's Roman Story and Mercy Otis Warren's work..and makes a strong case that Spalding borrowed from her work in which the theme was the American Revolutionary war. That goes on for 10 out of the 61 pages. He looks at a few other parallels with the Bible which Spalding was familiar with being a minister..and another writer Patrick Henry. Based on the parallels, which are extensive and include themes, string of words/phrases exactly the same it seems pretty obvious that Spalding did borrow from Warren, as well as the Bible and other authors for Roman Story. Then Tom lists parallels between Book of Mormon and Warren's work in my print out that starts at page 14 to 22 in which he lists over 130 parallels. And if one looks at them, they are significant. Strings of words exactly the same time and time again. Theme the same. So it's pretty obvious that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon borrowed from Mercy Otis Warren. Then Tom Donofrio points out that Warren likely borrowed from David Ramsay, because she often uses exact phrases of his. And in particular David Ramsay writes about George Washington and uses a letter by Washington..Tom show the parallels between Washington's letter and Book of Mormon...and continues with parallels between Ramsay's work and Book of Mormon where again he lists well over a 100 significant parallels with again exact strings of words used..that goes to page 34. For the rest of the essay Tom continues showing parallels with other authors who wrote on the same theme as Am. Revolutionary War and with the Book of Mormon.

So all the parallels don't have to come from Spalding. However witnesses say that the Book of Mormon contains a 2nd manuscript to Roman Story..called Manuscript Found. Evidence is Spalding borrowed from Warren, evidence is Book of Mormon writer borrowed heavily from Warren. Hence it is highly probable the second Spalding manuscript talked about by witnesses also borrowed from Warren. While it is not conclusive evidence, the parallels indicate that the witnesses are telling the truth, that Spalding's work was borrowed from and used to write the Book of Mormon.

For list of Tom's parallels see http://www.mormonthink.com/influences.htm