Blixa wrote:My caveat about analysis of its possible relation to the BoM--in any scenario or on any level--is that the term 'plagiarism' can and has been thrown about too loosely.
I agree. I have recently used the word only because this word seems to set the terms of discussion for computer scientists who are working on algorithms for attributing authorship and specifically, who use "n-gram" models -- the most popular -- for doing so. These models are also linked to "artificial intelligence" which better reflects the breadth of n-gram research and the word "plagiarism" no doubt reflects marketing opportunities as well as the narrow thinking of technical people. However, if that's the convention, then it's the convention, so when speaking specifically about the word models in the context of computer programs, that's what I go with.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
robuchan wrote:If all we got for Late War was a straight up trade: Late War for Margaret Barker/temple in the Book of Mormon b***s***, then it would be successful. Let's say Nahom/Comoro-Moroni is a trade and both sides stop talking about it. And Late War/Margaret Barker temple rites is a trade and Kevin Christensen has to retire from posting.
You speak much truth here my friend. If the Late War should be dismissed as coincident, then decades of Mopologetics, including temple parallels, is out the window without a second thought.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
robuchan wrote:If all we got for Late War was a straight up trade: Late War for Margaret Barker/temple in the Book of Mormon BS, then it would be successful. Let's say Nahom/Comoro-Moroni is a trade and both sides stop talking about it. And Late War/Margaret Barker temple rites is a trade and Kevin Christensen has to retire from posting.
I actually like some of the Barker stuff, as methodologically problematic as it can be. I also like its application to Mormonism. Hey, it's interesting, in my view, and I wish those who pursue it the best. I don't see that it is necessary to toss out either Mormon Barkerism or the LW hypothesis. I say let's keep them both.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Darth J wrote:The parallels to other ancient writings that have nothing to do with pre-Columbian Hebrews are intriguing hits that Joseph Smith could not possibly have known about. The parallels to literature from his exact time and place are unimpressive random coincidences. Evidences of the Book of Mormon narrative occurring in Mesoamerica are clear, as long as you change what the Book of Mormon says and start asserting random parallels with no discernible methodology.
I wanted to quote this because this is the main take away in my book. I don't know enough about literary analysis to know to say whether The Book of Mormon borrows from The Late War. But this double standard is simply ridiculous. Show me a Book of Mormon Parallel or evidence more compelling than the Late War.
Blixa wrote:My caveat about analysis of its possible relation to the BoM--in any scenario or on any level--is that the term 'plagiarism' can and has been thrown about too loosely.
I agree. I have recently used the word only because this word seems to set the terms of discussion for computer scientists who are working on algorithms for attributing authorship and specifically, who use "n-gram" models -- the most popular -- for doing so. These models are also linked to "artificial intelligence" which better reflects the breadth of n-gram research and the word "plagiarism" no doubt reflects marketing opportunities as well as the narrow thinking of technical people. However, if that's the convention, then it's the convention, so when speaking specifically about the word models in the context of computer programs, that's what I go with.
Thanks for explaining this, Gad. As I've said, I'm unfamiliar with this kind of work and so would not know if the term had some specific provenance to it. And you may be right about the parts I've bolded, too.
Anyway, I wasn't thinking of your remarks, I was speaking more to initial discussions of the Late War as well as mopologetics which assume that everyone remotely interested in the text is making some claim of plagiarism.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Kishkumen wrote: It was certainly marketed for school children, so at least we have been able to get you to stop pretending it wasn't, contrary to the evidence that it was.
I don't see why it would be unlikely that he read it. I think chances are much better that he read this than The First Book of Napoleon. They are better than the chances he read Spalding's work. Given his penchant for reading adventure stories about historical persons, I would say that the chances, when you really think about it, get better and better.
FYI..just so you know, the Spalding theory is that Rigdon found and used Spalding's manuscript to compose Book of Mormon material which was given over to Smith and Cowdery to use in constructing the Book of Mormon. The theory does not require that Smith knew of Spalding and/or his manuscript, while the Book of Mormon was being constructed.
The Spalding theory does not start off with certain assumptions, such as an assumption of who wrote the Book of Mormon... and then gather evidence to fit those assumptions...instead all gathered current data and evidence is examined and the best fit seems to be what is known as the Spalding theory.
I've been keeping up, off and on, with this thread...so forgive me if this concern of mine has already been addressed adequately on pages I may not have read. How does all this stuff with The Late War and Joseph's purported plagiarism of word groups from that book, in detail and with a significant (purported) degree of reliance, dovetail with the translation accounts we have of Joseph having his head in a hat reading off of a seer stone? And the short translation time window?