Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Roger]

Hi Brad:

You know your evidence better than I do, so I'm not in a position to argue. The thought process you've outlined raises an additional red flag for me. Deciding there are a finite number of alternatives and then trying to figure out a best fit can be problematic unless you have very good reason to believe you've really got all the possible explanations. Are what you've outlined really all the possible explanations? Because if they aren't, then you may in fact be overlooking the best fit explanation.

I'm pretty confident there is a finite amount of explanations. There are likely to be additional possibilities I haven't heard or considered, but until I hear some better explanation, these three and their variations are the top contenders. If you have a better theory, I'm all ears.

I think you stand a better chance of reaching justified conclusions when you take each explanation somebody proposes, but the burden of proof on them, and evaluate their proposed explanation in light of the evidence you have.

Which is pretty much what I've done. I did not start out an S/R proponent. I arrived at the position I am currently at after evaluating the evidence. To me, S/R explains it better. I've been studying Mormonism off and on since 2001 and S/R since about 2009. When I say "studying" I mean as a hobby, not as a scholar.

What that means is you are going to run into many questions where the answer you reach is: "the evidence is not sufficient to support any of the proposed explanations." But that's one of the consequences of trying to be a rational skeptic.

Well that may be true, but, again, I tend to view it from the perspective of: it had to come from somewhere.

Although I view "how was the Book of Mormon actually written?" as an interesting puzzle, I feel no compulsion to reach any sort of decision. The answer may very well be: There's not sufficient evidence and there will likely never be sufficient evidence to reach a well-supported conclusion."

What started me on the process was a visit from LDS missionaries who wanted to convert me. Once I came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then it simply became a matter of answering my own curiosity: how did he pull this off? For a number of years I was a proponent of S/A.

That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The question of whether he did it alone or with help doesn't bother me either, and I don't lose sleep at night over it. But it is something of a riddle or a puzzle and I generally like the attempt to come to some sort of conclusion.

[_Roger]

ludwigm wrote:

Italics.
Italics.

The main problem is, that You (plural) are thinking in English.
Unfortunately - for You (plural) and for all stupid word-by-word-translation-is-the-best-translation---ers the world is not English. The world is multilingual.

Whoever authored the Book of Mormon did not understand this.

[_Roger]

Brad wrote:

I've agreed that one discrete section of the Book of Mormon was created by copying or memorizing text from Isaiah. I'd lean toward outright copying, especially if the study of italics you cited is credible. Do you know if it's been critically examined anywhere? The other part of the Book of Mormon I'd flag as a likely candidate for outright copying would be the words of Jesus in 3 Nephi, but I haven't focussed on it.

I don't know whether David's article has been critically examined. It was published in Vogel's American Apocrypha.

Once you agree that Smith or Cowdery or someone copied directly from the Bible (as opposed to memory) any portion of the Book of Mormon text, you've ruled out the exclusive method that was claimed: dictation while Joseph's head was in the hat - at least for those sections. You're postulating something from the text without the support of any of the witnesses. And again, at least to my mind, something they are denying by omission.

I can't tell you the number of times I had a file where the adjuster believed that the only reasonable conclusion was that the insured had submitted a fraudulent claim, only to find with additional investigation that there were in fact several reasonable conclusions. That's my long-winded way of saying I think we're moving onto shaky ground.

Fair enough. Give me a more reasonable conclusion. Why do none of the Book of Mormon witnesses ever mention that a Bible was used?

I think we have to be extremely careful to parse through what the witnesses actually witnessed -- separate what they actually saw and heard from what someone told them. That's very difficult because we have only brief snippets of description, some made decades after the fact, with no indication that anyone asked detailed questions about the process.

Agreed.

You probably know this material better than I -- do we have record of anyone asking these witnesses about a Bible?

To my knowledge, no. I suspect that is the case since Dan Vogel and I and marg were debating a couple years ago and Dan never produced a witness who was asked directly about the use of a Bible. The witnesses do, however, respond to the charge that a Spalding manuscript was used and, not surprisingly, they deny it.

Did anyone ask them specifically how much time they spent actually observing the translation process?

I wish.

There is a world of difference between being around when the process was occurring and actually paying attention.

Correct. Secrecy of how this all went down seems to be a key component, especially by Smith himself. Call me cynical, but that very fact alone raises red flags for me.

One thing I think we can be sure of: the descriptions of what Smith saw in the hat are not eyewitness testimony. None of these witnesses say they put their heads in the hat and saw something, let alone looked at the same time as Smith.

Nor do they deny it. And we are indeed told that Oliver attempted to translate. How that allegedly went down, we are not told. It seems to me, if you're going to trust these witnesses, there is about as much reason to reject the idea that they ever peeked in the hat or saw the stone's LED screen while peeking over Joseph's shoulder, as there is that they weren't alarmed by the use of a Bible. The fact is, they give pretty darn certain testimony about words appearing in the stone. It's not like Whitmer hesitates or qualifies his statement by saying this is all just his speculation.

They say Smith saw something.

No. They are specific about what he saw.

That means they are repeating what somebody else told them.

How do you know this? They never tell you this.

And it's not clear to me from the snippets how some of the witnesses concluded that the words would not go away if there was an error in what the scribe wrote. Was that also something somebody told them? Or did they witness Smith saying "Oliver, you misspelled Zarahemla. You have to correct it before we can go on." I can't tell from the snippets.

Correct. So if we are going to believe portions of their testimony, how do we filter out truth from fiction?

All the best.

[_Res Ipsa]

marg, would you mind reading this article http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/ ... re-effect/ and telling me what you think about the backfire effect, especially as it applies to the scenario you proposed about Cowdery? We see the backfire effect here on this message board every single day. What is it that you know about Cowdery that leads you to conclude he wouldn't react to any information that would undermine his belief that Smith was a prophet in accordance with the backfire effect?

Thanks.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Brad:

I'm pretty confident there is a finite amount of explanations. There are likely to be additional possibilities I haven't heard or considered, but until I hear some better explanation, these three and their variations are the top contenders. If you have a better theory, I'm all ears.

Hi Roger. I don't have any theory that I'm comfortable advocating at this point. Let me unpack a little the concern I expressed over approach. When beginning an evaluation of facts by saying that there are X different explanations and our job is to choose the most reasonable one, there is a real risk of committing something like the fallacy of the excluded middle. You run the risk of overlooking the possibility that the actual explanation is something you haven't thought of. It's something like a common creationist argument: either creation is true or evolution is true. The evolution argument is so weak that creation must be true. I'm not saying you're doing that, but if you don't pass each alternative through some kind of filter to test the sufficiency of the evidence, you may be forcing yourself to choose among incomplete alternatives.

Of course, we haven't gotten to even talking about evidence that supports the S/R theory. But what I'm saying is that to persuade me, you're going to have to persuade me that the state of the evidence is sufficient to draw any conclusion before I will start comparing different explanations. If you advocate a theory of authorship, you have the burden of proving your theory -- not proving that some other theory is weak. I think critical thinking requires us to acknowledge that one of the acceptable outcomes of an inquiry is "the evidence is insufficient." So, no, I don't have any burden to prove I have a better theory than yours. You have a burden to prove your theory.

Which is pretty much what I've done. I did not start out an S/R proponent. I arrived at the position I am currently at after evaluating the evidence. To me, S/R explains it better. I've been studying Mormonism off and on since 2001 and S/R since about 2009. When I say "studying" I mean as a hobby, not as a scholar.

From our conversation so far, I'm pretty sure what you've done is what most of us do: try to figure things out the best we can. I was raised Mormon until I realized that the LDS church wasn't what it claimed to be, when I was serving a mission. Bad timing. Messy. But I am someone who was a true believer, so I have some anecdotal experience with being confronted with information that threatens belief.

Well that may be true, but, again, I tend to view it from the perspective of: it had to come from somewhere.

That's my perspective as well. The book didn't write itself.

What started me on the process was a visit from LDS missionaries who wanted to convert me. Once I came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then it simply became a matter of answering my own curiosity: how did he pull this off? For a number of years I was a proponent of S/A.

Good on you for trying to figure it out. For whatever reason, I haven't invested much time or effort in the debate. I've never been a strong proponent of any theory, although I've criticized pieces of different ones. Maybe somebody will persuade me some day.

The question of whether he did it alone or with help doesn't bother me either, and I don't lose sleep at night over it. But it is something of a riddle or a puzzle and I generally like the attempt to come to some sort of conclusion.

Makes perfect sense to me. I enjoy the puzzling.

[_Res Ipsa]

ludwigm wrote:

Italics.
Italics.

The main problem is, that You (plural) are thinking in English.
Unfortunately - for You (plural) and for all stupid word-by-word-translation-is-the-best-translation---ers the world is not English. The world is multilingual.

Whoever authored the Book of Mormon did not understand this.

Word.

[_Ceeboo]

I apologize for this off topic post!

The last several pages of this thread has been a profoundly beautiful example of kind and courteous discussion!

It was a sincere pleasure to have read it!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_marg]

marg, would you mind reading this article http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/ ... re-effect/ and telling me what you think about the backfire effect, especially as it applies to the scenario you proposed about Cowdery? We see the backfire effect here on this message board every single day. What is it that you know about Cowdery that leads you to conclude he wouldn't react to any information that would undermine his belief that Smith was a prophet in accordance with the backfire effect?

Thanks.

The first time I considered Cowdery and how he'd react to a Bible present was this morning, pretty much just before I wrote you. It was Roger's post that got me thinking about it. I agreed as you may have noticed in a previous post that I could see the possibility of witnesses if they happened to view a Bible present with Smith and Cowdery in the translation process, not necessarily thinking it important to mention in interviews. So I could accept that possibility even though I think it's very weak that the witnesses said nothing about a Bible present. But then I started thinking about Oliver and his involvement..and how much of Isaiah was present in the Book of Mormon. He would have known when he was writing the parts which were Isaiah...it wasn't just a few lines. Roger pointed out that many of the KJB italicized words were changed. That takes effort..so that even if someone had good memory to be able to quote Isaiah..doing so while changing many of the italized words would be extremely difficult without the material present. So I do not believe that Smith dictated Isaiah from memory. So if Oliver is sitting there day after day, with smith dictating..it would be impossible in my opinion for Smith to hide the Bible or sheets of paper and read from it..without Cowdery being aware. And if Cowdery is aware and he's bought into this whole business which Smith claims....that Smith is dictating ancient writings..then copying from the modern Bible...would show Smith's not being guided by a God as is claimed.

You see Brad I don't come from a religious background. I can appreciate people buy into religious extraordinary claims especially when they've been indoctrinated or had that sort of influence from a young age. But Oliver while he may have been religious was new to this venture...and he had a vested interest. Even though it's a religious venture doesn't mean he wouldn't have been skeptical about..if he truly believed Smith a prophet. And if truly believed Smith a prophet and bought into it all, then why not accept polygamy.

And of course then there is the ridiculous testimony in the Book of Mormon which is just too absurd to have ever happened.

So when I evaluate the evidence that I know and ask what is more likely...that Cowdery was a dupe, either never saw the Bible or thought nothing of the Bible present, and I'm aware that Oliver was suspiciously silent about the whole process..I ask myself what is most likely to have happened. The options are he truly believes it all, and he's telling the truth in the Book of Mormon witness statement or he's in on it with Smith and the 2 of them are putting together this Book of Mormon with material present..and most likely explanation given the evidence ...is he's in on it.

And as far my bias, I couldn't care less whether Smith acted alone or Smith and Co along with prepared material concocted the Book of Mormon. I have no vested interest in this other than a hobby interest of sorts..which at this point is not much of a hobby even.


by the way..there have been bits of information that I've picked up over the years from which with time I came to the conclusion he had to be have been in on it with Smith. I haven't really given Mormonism much thought for the last year. It's just bits and pieces that have accumulated over the time I have taken an interest. For example I believe I read he had a business partner when he was long out of Mormonism and he confided it was a scam. It's obvious to me the whole thing was a scam anyhow. As to why he wouldn't have been vocal about that publicly - he had lots to lose and nothing to gain doing so. The negative repercussion to admit publicly he was in on the scam would have been enormous and may have subjected himself and family harm.

As far as the backfire affect and the position I hold I don't think that's what's going on with me. This is not the sort of belief they are talking about. It's not important to me personally what actually happened..it is a mystery I find interesting.

[_Roger]

Brad:

Who witnessed the copying? If they did witness the copying, would that have been so important to them that they would volunteer it? In my opinion, concluding that these individuals intentionally lied by omission based on the what you've presented is unjustified.

Perhaps. But there's more to consider. In previous discussions, marg and Uncle Dale presented good reasons to suspect Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery of lying. I also pointed to David Whitmer's changing stories. I think witness credibility is an issue here.

A problem that I see as unavoidable is that you want to consider all this in the absence of God being a part of the process, but virtually every early Mormon witness claims that God was indeed a crucial part of the process. How do we deal with that? Since you want to exclude the God factor, I think it is up to you to explain how you are going to get around that? When virtually every early Mormon witness tells us that God did this, or God did that, on what basis are you going to reject that, and, more importantly, on what basis are you going to accept anything else they claim?

Based on what we've discussed, I think intentional lying by omission is less plausible than other possible explanations.

Fair enough. Tell me why.

Some of these witnesses turned hostile toward Smith, yet none accused him of copying from the Bible.

So because they never publicly went back on their Book of Mormon testimony I should believe their testimony?

What good would ratting out Smith have served them? Would it have been in their interest, after their deep involvement in Mormonism to have come clean in front of the world because they have disagreements with Joseph Smith? And if they did, would they have reason to fear for their lives?

In general, the more people that have to be complicit in intentional lying, the harder it is to keep the lie secret.

Are Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers willing to lie for them? Or are they simply deluded enough to convince themselves they're not lying? I believe that a cult-like devotion and peer pressure was operating among early Mormons.

At this point, I find several potential explanations more plausible:

1. No one said anything about the Bible because no one asked the witnesses. (I haven't independently investigated whether that is the case.)

This is Dan Vogel's position. I think it's weak. So let's assume you're right. How would they have responded if someone had asked them about a Bible?

2. No one volunteered information about use of the Bible because they didn't feel it was important. (What you describe as Vogel's theory)

Apparently smart people are willing to accept this. I find it much weaker than to believe they did not mention a Bible because they knew it would have conflicted with their testimony that God was providing the Book of Mormon word for word and even checking for errors.

3. No one witnessed the copying of Isaiah other than Smith and the scribe at the time of the copying.

Smith hardly gave any details. This makes him suspect in my mind. The scribe was likely Cowdery. So at the very least, you have some Book of Mormon material that is not being produced in the way the witnesses unanimously claimed it was being produced. It comes down to how do we explain that? You and Vogel think we explain that by saying it was not a big deal to the otherwise credible witnesses and no one ever asked. I explain it by saying they were devoted to Smith and highly invested in the cause of Mormonism. Maybe they convinced themselves the whole thing was of God, maybe not. Either way, they lied by omission.

How do we decide which version is best supported by the evidence? If marg and I can provide rational reasons why it sure looks like Emma and Oliver and David lied in other situations would that make any difference?

But if all we care about is whether they likely had the KJB on hand and we've already said they likely did for the Isaiah..then there is little reason to assume it wasn't on hand for other passages as well.

Agreed. This logically follows. And in light of this, it is much more likely that the rest of vessr's parallels also represent borrowing, whether direct or indirect. Once we've established that a Bible was used for at least some of the text, then the burden shifts to one of demonstrating why these other parallels are not examples of what we've already established.

Not agreed. There is no justification for a shift in the burden of proof. First, there is a substantial difference between copying, as was done with Isaiah, and duplication of word order in the two books. The former requires at least one witness other than Smith (unless the Original Manuscript of the relevant sections of 2 Nephi are in Smith's handwriting). The latter could be done entirely by Smith without any witnesses.

I disagree with your "not agreed." ; ) There is justification for the shift in burden. We've just established (by agreement) that some of the Book of Mormon was produced in a manner not supported by any witness from which we are getting this whole story. I would argue that it's not only not supported, but that it contradicts the strong implications of their testimony. I realize you and Dan disagree, but you're wrong. : ) So the question is, who is right? We can't proceed happily from this point unless one of us caves. We can agree to disagree, but the entire outcome is going to depend on how we view the motivation and credibility of these witnesses.

marg and I agree. Once we've established that a method was used that is not supported by the witnesses, then items which otherwise could be viewed as either a product of chance or borrowing must be viewed in light of the fact that we've already established that borrowing took place.

Vessr's parallels could easily be the product of Smith attempting to recite or summarize passages he'd studied on his own.

So what? Either way, Smith is borrowing material.

Second, even if Smith copied a certain percentage of text from the Bible, there is still a baseline of duplicate word order that we would expect to see in the absence of copying. You haven't attempted to estimate or eliminate chance.

We eliminated chance when we agreed that definite borrowing took place in some instances. Whether other instances are chance or not is somewhat irrelevant.

The best example of this so far is Vessr's "puffed up" parallel. The person proposing borrowing as a hypothesis retains the burden of proof that the duplication is due to "borrowing" as opposed to chance.

We'll sacrifice vessr's "puffed up" parallel to make you happy. : )

All the best.

[_Roger]

Ceeboo:

I apologize for this off topic post!

The last several pages of this thread has been a profoundly beautiful example of kind and courteous discussion!

It was a sincere pleasure to have read it!

It is refreshing to simply discuss the issues without egos and emotions stealing the show. It may result from the fact that none of us has a horse in the race.