Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Mormons and Smith-aloners.
...

Of course even the Brodieites admit that the text was composed by
at least four authors: Smith, Isaiah, Malachi, and Matthew.

So, were we to rigorously compare the language of the Book of Mormon
to that of Cooper's Leather-stocking tales, we might expect that
Cooper's vocabulary and phraseology would match up most strongly
with at least one of those four authors.

It would hardly be worth the effort (I suppose), but even a careful
comparison of the Book of Mormon to Last of the Mohicans,
could probably inform us of something interesting about the internal
structure of the Nephite record.

I predict that even a cross-comparison of Book of Mormon
paragraphs, one against another, will enable us to discover some
important facts about that textual structure. I also predict that
such an examination will reveal two lengthy sets of phrases, the
contents of each of which cluster in clearly discernible constellations
of word-strings, when mapped across the Book of Mormon.

Say, Set One is comprised of 100 characteristic phrases, and
Set Two contains another 100, but rather different phrases.

We color the Set One word-strings blue, wherever they appear
throughout the book. And we color the Set Two word-strings red,
wherever we might find them in the same text.

We thus produce a digital copy of the Book of Mormon demonstrating
lengthy "patches" of red and blue text, which seldom intermingle.

Were this task accomplished (and I predict it will be done soon),
would the results help inform us about the book's literary structure?
Would the results help us determine if the book had a single author?

Isn't this one of the tools of "redaction criticism" taught in our
universities and seminaries, where critical analysis of biblical texts
is carried out?

Would Matthew, Malachi and Isaiah's portions of the book end up
being colored mostly red, or mostly blue?

Anybody interested?

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

The various sources and quotes I quickly put together were designed to show you that oral accounts of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the plates existed before Joseph Smith’s 1838 account. It was no secret that the plates were discovered in a stone box near the summit of a hill under a rock. However, you insist that Joseph Smith in dictating his 1838 account borrowed directly from Spalding’s MS, without showing any literary dependence. Your answer that that is Joseph Smith was smart enough to change the story. Yet, apparently, he was dumb enough to borrow directly (“verbatim” per Miller) for the contents of the Book of Mormon itself. The quote from the Geauga Gazette, ca. 23 Nov. 1830, reporting what the first missionaries taught in northern Ohio (“Smith repaired to the spot, and on opening the ground discovered an oblong stone box tightly closed with cement …”), shows that he didn’t change his story regarding the vault in 1838 to disguise his account in case Spalding’s witnesses were listening. Neither you nor Dale has demonstrated any dependence between the two accounts, literary or otherwise. Both the manner of deposit and discovery and sequence come from the demands of the story, and do not demonstrate dependence. Given the similarity in subject matter, the two authors had few choices.

First, this was published in 1835, a full year after the Hurlbut hoopla and the publication of Howe's book.

Second there are not sufficient details here from which to construct the parallels we are discussing.

I wasn’t referring to OC’s version as a possible source, but for evidence that Joseph Smith was giving out details of his discovery of the plates long before constructing the official account in 1838.

With all due respect, I'll go by the written accounts and take what Lucy says with a grain of salt.

Convenient for you.

This is a silly question. You know as well as I do the changing accounts of the first vision, which is what would have been emphasized (then as now). Missionaries (then as now) use whatever version of the First vision account is most current and/or best serves their purpose. Did God the father appear? or Jesus or both? Was the conversation about Joseph's sins being forgiven or which church to join?

The First Vision wasn’t taught by the missionaries at all. It wasn’t pertinent to the story of the restoration until it changed in 1838. The Book of Mormon is a different matter—it requires some explanation as to its origin.

You have no evidence to show what version was being used by the missionaries prior to 1833 and/or what details (if any beyond the generic "plates were discovered") of the discovery account was being incorporated into it, or for that matter what version (if any) the Conneaut witnesses were exposed to and what details that may or may not have included.

The Geauga Gazette gives us a glimpse of what the missionaries (that is, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, and Ziba Peterson) were telling prospective converts in northern Ohio, including Sidney Rigdon. I can’t say what the witnesses exactly heard, but you can’t limit what they heard either. I’m only making a reasonable and probable suggestion.

Aside from the stone box, none of this contains the details included in the parallels we're discussing. Hence, Spalding's discovery narrative was not retained in 1834 by either Hurlbut or Howe as evidence of a possible connection.

Are you arguing the witnesses had to know every detail of the 1838 account to make a connection between Joseph Smith’s discovery and Spalding’s?

The Chase statement comes from Howe's book and was obtained by Hurlbut! Obviously neither Howe nor Hurlbut could see enough points of similarity at that point to make a connection!

Chase describes the plates in a “stone box”—that, together with location on a hill’s summit and possibly the use of a lever, is enough. When you condense Dale’s parallels, that’s all you have anyway. You need to keep your argument about what the witnesses needed to know to make a connection separate from your charge that Joseph Smith borrowed his 1838 account directly from Spalding’s MS.

You'd love to make that stick, but it doesn't. The first time all the elements appear in print with all the similarities intact and in sequence is 1838, well after the Hurlbut hullabaloo in late 1833 and early 1834.

Your assumption that the witnesses needed to know all the elements in the 1838 account (as Dale arranges them) is wrong.

Whether Joseph Smith was aware of Spalding's discovery narrative prior to 1834 and made selective use of it in his oral accounts before 1838 is neither clear nor the important question. Your allegation is that the points of similarity caused the witnesses to (falsely) associate the writings of Spalding with the writings of Smith and that allegation simply does not work. If that allegation was true then MSCC could have easily been used to make that argument as early as 1834. It wasn't. Virtually none of the witnesses make an issue out of any similarity between the way in which both accounts were discovered. They claim that the content, style and the names--minus the religious material--in the Book of Mormon is what reminded them of Spalding's manuscript.

Nothing the Spalding advocates suggest is clear. It’s not clear that Spalding’s writings had anything to do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It’s certainly not clear that Hurlbut recovered two MSS from the truck, and sold one to the Mormons. It’s not clear that the conjectured text contained a discovery narrative. However, we do know Hurlbut and Howe had MSCC, which contained the discovery narrative under discussion. Yet, Howe for whatever reason didn’t mention it, probably because the rest of the MS didn’t match. The witnesses didn’t mention lots of things, and their comments were general and limited to what they found similar in the Book of Mormon.

So contrary to your assertion, you can't claim that the clear parallels we've been discussing were part of the reason they made the connection in the first place. On the contrary, they were completely unaware of those parallels--exactly as we would expect since they were not put in print until 1838.

Of course, I can’t claim similarities in discovery aided the witnesses in 1833 if the only source is an 1838 text. But that’s your construction, which as I said conflates two separate arguments.

The fact is you are stuck with coincidence and coincidence doesn't cut it.

No. This reminds me of an old debate between diffusion vs. independent invention. Diffusionists (like Berry Fell and Cyrus Gordon) argued that various elements in New World material culture and the Near East or some ancient culture proved origin and migration to America from those cultures, rather than from Asia via Bering Straits. In a day before DNA, scholars who proposed the latter explained the similarities as independent invention deriving from similarities of problems and limited range of solutions. Artistic configurations based on repeated patterns of lines, squares, dots, crosses, etc. are too simple to be meaningful. Nevertheless, these fringe scholars also argued “coincidence doesn’t cut it”. So I’m arguing that the stories were the result of independent invention and that the similarities are the result of the demands of the story and limited choice available to the authors.

I don't think you're the best person to be speaking to Dale's intent. Regardless, intent is not the issue. I am willing to exclude three of the seven you reject, which leaves us with 18.

Number of parallels doesn’t matter—its quality. The number here is artificial since it’s simply about ancient records concealed in some kind of vault designed to preserve them located on some kind of elevated ground. The only reason to divide the major elements into smaller unites would be to show the smaller parts are exactly the same or very similar—but Dale’s aren’t. You say there are 18 parallels. Let’s see what we really have. Since you are arguing Joseph Smith’s 1838 discovery narrative was plagiarized from Spalding’s MS, let’s exclude elements in Dale’s list that are not parallel or don’t have anything directly to do with the discovery narrative (meaning Dale had to go outside the 1838 account to get):

1. Date of the Finding of the Ancient Records Not the same.

12. Format and Language of the Records Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

14. A Personal History Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

15. Multiple Histories and Complex Compilations Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. The part Dale quotes from 1838 ("an account of the former inhabitants of this continent") doesn’t support the claim. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

16. The Records are an Abridgment Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

17. The Future Audience Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

18. A Carefully Hidden Record Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

19. A Word to the Reader Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

Seven parallels have nothing to do with the 1838 text; and one serves only to give different dating. Dale uses parts of the 1838 account for the remaining thirteen, but they are improperly split for effect or aren’t parallels:

IMPROPER SPLIT
2. Place of the Finding of the Ancient Records

"Near the west bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort."

"Convenient to the village of Manchester stands a hill of considerable size."

3. The Exact Location

"on the top of a small mound"

"on the west side of this hill not far from the top"

NOTE: The records are located at or near the top of an earthen mound of some kind. I should point out that this part of the 1838 account was added after James Mulholland “mentioned to President Smith that I considered it necessary that an explanation of the location of the place where the box was deposited would be required in order to that the history be satisfactory” (attached note in Book A-1).

(This element could have been known to witnesses. It was well known the plates came from a hill in Manchester. E.g., Willard Chase mentions the “singular looking hill” [Howe, 243]. Hurlbut’s trial included Joseph Smith telling his story in great detail.)
TRITE PARALLEL
4. The Finder of the Ancient Records

"As I was walking" / "I arrived there"

IMPROPER SPLIT
5. Discovery of the Stone

"I happened to tred on a flat stone... exactly horizontal"

"under a stone of considerable size"

8. The Cover Stone (second iteration)

"Here I noticed a big flat stone fixed in the form of a door"

"under a stone of considerable size"

NOTE: The element from 1838 account is made to do double-duty. Here a major difference instead of being a problem is used to create two parallels. The second time the stone is a door, not a cover stone.

(This element could have been known to witnesses. Willard Chase mentions the “a stone box” with a “top stone” [Howe, 242].)

TRITE PARALLEL
6. Lifting of the Stone

"With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone"

"I obtained a lever which I got fixed under... the stone and... raised it up"

NOTE: Use of lever similar, but story demands it.

IMPROPER SPLIT
7. Under the Stone

"its ends and sides rested on stones... an artificial cave... its sides were lined with stones"

"The box . . . was formed by laying stones together"

9. The Record Box

"I found an earthen box with a cover which shut it perfectly tight. The box was two feet in length"

"The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement"

NOTE: Some quote from 1838 account used twice to describe Spalding large vault and small clay box.

(This element could have been known to witnesses. Willard Chase mentions the “a stone box” with a “top stone” [Howe, 242]. Geauga Gazette, ca. 23 Nov. 1830. Reporting what the first missionaries taught in northern Ohio: “Smith repaired to the spot, and on opening the ground discovered an oblong stone box tightly closed with cement …”)


ANCIENT RECORDS
10. Inside the Box

"I found that it contained 28 (rolls) of parchment"

"I looked in and there indeed did I behold the plates"

(This element could have been known to witnesses. Book of Mormon itself mentions gold plates.)


NO PARALLEL
11. Removal of the Ancient Records

"My mind filled with awful sensations which crowded fast upon me (and) would hardly permit my hands to remove this venerable deposit"

"I made an attempt to take them out but was forbidden (by Nephi)

"immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me"

NOTE: A closer look reveals Spalding’s “awful sensations” are not from an attempt to remove the plates, but happen even before he opens the box to find the parchments. Joseph Smith’s 1838 history only mentions being forbidden—his being seized by unseen power is from the account of the First Vision.

TRANSLATION
13. A Translation Needed Not part of discovery in 1823, but 1827 removal of plates. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)

"To publish a translation... the translator who wishes..."

"Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God"

NOTE: Both stories demand a translation.

(This element was of course known to the witnesses.)

NO PARALLEL
20. A Bedroom Vision

"(Spalding?) dreamed that he himself... opened a great mound... found a written history... respecting the civilized people... This story suggested . . . (his) writing a novel" 1855 Josiah Spalding Letter

"I had retired... for the night...a personage appeared at my bedside standing in the air . . . He called me by name, and said ...there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants"

NOTE: Even if one assumes Spalding had a dream, no one knew until 1855. Joseph Smith could not have known this personal information about Spalding.

(This element could have been known to the witnesses.)

A SEALED BOOK
21. Part of the Record Kept Back

"should this attempt to throw off the veil... meet the approbation of the public, I shall then (issue)... a more minute publication"

"the volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed" (to come forth only at a future time when humankind is ready to read their content)

NOTE: A sealed portion of the plates was part of the story from the beginning.

(This element was of course known to the witnesses.)

Cutting out the unnecessary splitting, we have possibly ten parallels. Of these, we must exclude as irrelevant for your plagiarism thesis: 4. Finding the Record, since walking isn’t significant; 20. A Bedroom Vision, since Spalding’s account doesn’t include it; 11. Removal of the Record, since Spalding’s character wasn’t really prevented from taking the record. What remains is discovery (by different means) of ancient records (different in number, materials, and language), in a stone box (of different construction), located on or near the summit of a hill (one man made the other naturally formed). And you wonder why I don’t see the connection? In 1986, I quoted Spalding’s discovery narrative as an example of what one of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries (working independently) might imagine the discovery of an ancient America record might be like. And that’s all there is to it.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

To continue my response …

In reality, the similarities are quite impressive. Find another unrelated account written prior to 1830 with the same number, quality and sequence of parallels to Smith's account. When you can do that, then you can claim these are not that impressive.

We would have to find someone who tried to do what Smith and Spalding tried to do—that is, pretend to find an ancient document revealing the origin of the Mound Builders. I wish there were others.

The differences don't prove anything. Smith (or Cowdery) was the final redactor.

Cowdery wasn’t there. The differences matter if they were there long before the 1838 account was written.

It's like you can't see there's two sports cars in front of you because one is a '69 Corvette and the other is a '72 Porche. I say, look Dan, they are both sports cars built for speed and you say but you're wrong because one is a red convertible and the other is a blue hard-top.

The fact of the matter, as I already explained, is that a parallel is a parallel. You can't simply exclude it because it doesn't meet your ridiculous all-points-must-match-standard. The only way to meet that standard is a verbatim copy and I've already pointed out that Joseph Smith wasn't that stupid. He (or someone) even made a few changes to the Bible, but we still agree he (or someone) used it.

So, true, it may not be remarkable that a stone vault would have a covering stone. It may not be remarkable that two sports cars are parked in your driveway. But a covering stone is still a covering stone, a sports car is a sports car and a parallel is a parallel... whether Dan finds it remarkable or not.

Not all parallels have the same evidential force. Some are more salient than others. Both Spalding and Smith wrote in the same genre, so similarities should be expected. Similarities are what classify them as a genre, but differences are what an author brings to the story. Remember, too, we are not talking about an entire book, but one scene in it. If you saw two sports cars, how much similarity would you need to conclude one was used as a model for the other? That’s what we are talking about. If you and I were told to build a sports car independently, do you think there would be broad similarities? If there were no similarities, one could not classify them in the same genre. The task given us would natural limit our choices. Yet there would be room for personal expression. Would you then take the similarities to be evidence that I had somehow seen your car before I designed mine?

Oh, but there are, starting with a lever and followed by the very discovery of ancient, mysterious manuscripts written in an ancient language that needed to be translated followed by the tremendous fortune that the discoverer was not merely some kid playing but a man with the ability (whether learned or God-given) to do the translation himself, followed by the similar themes of what came forth from the translation.

To continue my previous analogy (which you started), that’s like accusing me of stealing ideas from you because both cars open with a key, have windows, exactly four wheels, and a trunk.

But Roger, this sports car has AC while the other one does not. This one has power brakes and the other one doesn't. This one has power windows and the other one doesn't. It's still a sports car, Dan.

Yes, and Smith and Spalding still wrote in the same genre.

The point I was making is that that is a reasonable position. It is unreasonable to look at the parallels and nit-pick at the differences in an effort to downplay or poopoo them away as though they really aren't impressive. They are impressive and, again, until you can provide us with an unrelated story from the same time frame with the same number and quality and sequence of parallels to Smith's account as Spalding's contains, I'm simply not buying your assessment that they aren't that compelling.

There is broad similarity between the two stories, but nothing warrants an accusation of plagiarism.

I never said I don't value logic. That's you, twisting again. What I don't value is your attempts at one-upsmanship by labelling everything I say as some violation of a logical fallacy while finding some convenient loophole for yourself.

It wasn’t my imagination that you responded to the first mention of logic—argument from silence, to be precise—by saying you didn’t care about formal ways of arguing and that you were going to violate logic anyway.

Nonsense. Spalding's account was fiction. He had multiple choices. He could have claimed some fictitious means of translating. He could have claimed to have taken it to the learned. He could have claimed to have figured out how to translate Egyptian. Heck, Spalding even mentions seer stones in MSCC so he could have claimed to know how to use them to translate just like Joseph Smith. But it's still more likely that Smith is the one who came up with reformed Egyptian. Smith is the final redactor.

You nearly had Spalding plagiarizing Smith. I don’t know anyone besides Smith who used a seer stone to translate. You can’t use that Spalding-was-writing-fiction-therefore-anything-I-imagine-to-be-the-case-is-therefore-the-case argument to get out of this problem, so you switched to the Smith can change anything he wants solution. At any rate, I guess you see my point about the problem Egyptian has for Spalding.

I noted the important part... that you now concede that a parallel (which you previously labelled "no parallel") is indeed a parallel. Now your argument is that its not a significant parallel. That's a matter of opinion. There are, in fact, a variety of things to choose from. Either ms could have been allegedly written in any number of Native American dialects, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and would have still needed translation. The finder in either case, would not have had to have been able to translate the language--unless he wants to pull off a fraud without assistance. But if others were involved having someone else do the translation would have lent more credibility to the fraud. Regardless, Spalding's account was produced well before Smith's. We both agree that Smith never actually translated anything. Therefore his account of the need for translation is a fabrication and that fabrication parallels Spalding's fiction.

The genre in which Spalding and Smith wrote demanded translation—that’s a parallel, but it’s not significant because it was unavoidable.

If there truly is no other choice, as you are claiming, then it should be a simple matter to find another account with the same parallels--since anyone writing on the subject would have had no other choice but to include the same parallels in his account. By that logic any discovery narrative of that time on the subject of finding a lost manuscript must read nearly identical to these two accounts, since there's no other choices.

Number does matter. And so does sequence. But I'm open-minded. Demonstrate that you are right by finding another story from the same time frame with the same number (and quality) of parallels to Smith's account that come in the same sequence. Good luck.[/quote]

It would have to be someone writing about the Mound Builders describing the intentional burial of records in a way believable to potential readers. I don’t think there are others. But I don’t think we need another account to know the choices are limited.

Wait a minute... I thought the choices were limited?! How can it be that the vault and manner of concealment is entirely different?

Why can’t the vaults be completely different and the choices limited? You don’t dispute that genre limits choice, do you? If you were instructed to build a sports car and I was instructed to build a car, who would have more options? So it seems that both Joseph Smith and Spalding needed a vault or cave or box in which to protect the plates or parchments from destruction.

So the differences are significant but the similarities can't be avoided! The scary thing is I'm beginning to see how Dan's mind works.

The fact of the matter is that there are at least 18 points of similarity between Spalding's discovery narrative and Smith's. Those 18 points come in the same logical, sequential order in both accounts and coincidence is a lousy way of explaining them. The one thing you've established with all of the above is that you don't like the resulting predicament.

It’s difficult to establish plagiarism without textual similarity. That’s one reason I don’t claim Joseph Smith read any of the books I cite, with the exception for the KJV.

[_MCB]

We have a book of the same genre. It is Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of England. I contend that many of Spalding's ideas came from it. There are many similarities, as well as his Merlin story. There dies not seem to be much shared phraseology, however. If yoy wanted to do such a comparison, it is waiting. My computer crashed, so I will be using my cell for the next few days. I probably need a break anyway.

If you want to use it as a high quality control, yiu need to use a post 1830 translation.

[_Roger]

Dan:

I don't have time to write a detailed response at the moment, but I have a question:

It’s difficult to establish plagiarism without textual similarity. That’s one reason I don’t claim Joseph Smith read any of the books I cite, with the exception for the KJV.

I agree. Establishing plagiarism is a very difficult thing to do. That's one of the reasons I wrote my silly little "how I became an S/R advocate" account. It should be obvious that I plagiarized, yet I wonder how easy it would be to prove. I suppose that because I cranked it out in roughly 25 minutes without much thought, there is probably sufficient evidence there (as in enough long direct quotes) to establish plagiarism even by some rigorous, formal baseline. But I have no doubt that if I were to put the time and effort into it I could create an account in which I actually DO use the assistance of multiple sources that cannot be detected using a formal baseline. Come to think of it, I wonder if someone has already attempted such a thing as an experiment. I think it is much easier to borrow and embellish material and get away with it than to come up with original material.

In any event, my question is, putting aside for the moment how difficult it is to prove plagiarism--and in light of that why you don't claim Smith read anything besides the Bible--isn't it at least logical to conclude he likely did use other sources, based on the complexity and diversity of the text and given his limited background, whether we can prove it or not? It seems unlikely to me, at least, that everything we find in the Book of Mormon came off the top of Smith's head, and I think we agree, at least, that the Bible did not.

[_marg]

The genre in which Spalding and Smith wrote demanded translation—that’s a parallel, but it’s not significant because it was unavoidable.

I don't think one can conclude Spalding's and Smith's were the same genre. Spalding was writing a historical account grounded in naturalism. Smith was writing a fantasy/religious account, in which in the storyline..angels and God intervene physically and according to Smith outside the storyline of the Book of Mormon they intervene physically in his life.

Smith did not need that discovery narrative, in fact it doesn't really mesh with the storyline capabilities of his characters. God helps him translate through miraculous means and the plates are not even necessary. Angels appear and physically take the plates away. If God and the angels have these powers there is absolutely no need to hide plates in the earth or to have Smith go dig them up. The plates were redundant to the storyline Smith presented to the world.

So when one critically evaluates what was claimed and the data ..it appears that Smith may have started out with a discovery narrative taken from Spalding but as time went on appreciated he had God, angels and magic on his side, so why bother with the plates ...what a nuisance they are, just say the angel took them away.

The fact that there are very close similarities between Spalding's discovery narrative in MSCC and Smith's 1838 version.. does not in an of itself mean one was used for the other. But when you consider that fact in relation to other data, such as the fact that the Conneaut witnesses did not suggest the discovery narrative as a factor in why they thought Smith employed Spalding's MF and they likely were completely unaware of Smith's discovery narrative .. then the data that there are lots of similarities between Spalding's MSCC & Smith's discovery narrative gives added weight to the claim the witnesses made of recognizing Spalding's manuscript in the Book of Mormon. It increases the likelihood of their credibility because if Smith did use Spalding's MF..then that would explain where the idea for his discovery narrative came from. And when we consider as additional data that Smith did not need that discovery narrative given that he had God and angels involved with supernatural abilities to help him read off of a stone the ancient stories..that continues to build a picture that Smith likely was aware and used that discovery narrative from Spalding..before realizing it really wasn't necessary to his claims.

Spalding's MSCC would probably have not been the one Smith would have likely seen, he would have likely seen the one connected to MF. However MF being of the same genre and author would likely have had a similar discovery narrative.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

In any event, my question is, putting aside for the moment how difficult it is to prove plagiarism--and in light of that why you don't claim Smith read anything besides the Bible--isn't it at least logical to conclude he likely did use other sources, based on the complexity and diversity of the text and given his limited background, whether we can prove it or not? It seems unlikely to me, at least, that everything we find in the Book of Mormon came off the top of Smith's head, and I think we agree, at least, that the Bible did not.

Joseph Smith probably read other sources besides the Bible that influenced his dictation of the Book of Mormon, but which books, newspapers, or pamphlets? It all comes down to what can be proved, or what the evidence supports—not necessarily what really happened. Besides, no one knows what really happened. We don’t have access to the actual historical event. We can only talk about it in terms of surviving texts. One should have good warrant for assigning a certain text as a source for the Book of Mormon, or else the discussion gets unnecessarily bogged down in concerns over plagiarism. I believe it’s better to see how the Book of Mormon fits into the full range of pre-1830 literature on the same topic—like Indian origins, Universalism, anti-Masonry, infant baptism, Unitarianism, etc. It’s tempting to want to nail the Book of Mormon to a specific text and prove its fraudulent nature in a coup de grace. That’s the appeal of the Spalding theory. Other critics push similarities between texts too far, not just in Mormon studies. The term “parallelomania” comes from scholars who made too much out of parallels between the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls. I remember trying to talk Grant Palmer out of claiming too much in his comparison between Joseph Smith’s discovery narrative and the Golden Pot. The more you try to make Joseph Smith into an avid reader of scholarly texts, the more you play into the hands of the apologists. They do a similar thing when they overstate the Book of Mormon’s similarity to ancient texts—always with the conclusion of how could Joseph Smith know whatever ancient attribute they think they find in the Book of Mormon. Apologists also try to counter parallels to the 19th century by challenging those who do it—like me--to prove Joseph Smith read all the books. My response to them is that I’m only using sources to prove the mindset or what was being discussed by his contemporaries—how the Book of Mormon fits into the cultural discourse. Like us, much of what Joseph Smith knew probably came through speech—not necessarily the printed word. That can’t be recovered. So we mine texts in an effort to understand his world. As I have repeatedly said in my publications, the purpose of comparing the Book of Mormon to pre-1830 texts is to better understand the Book of Mormon, not solely to disprove its ancient claims—that comes as a byproduct. To me, the Book of Mormon’s anachronistic use of the KJV is fatal, so there is no need to push parallels to other texts too hard.

[_MCB]

Very well said, Dan. Wi

Very well said, Dan. The text has time and time again, through many methods, been proven to not be of supernatural origin. Mormons, however, because of their beliefs, cannot compare it to parallel texts, through which they can come to a better understanding of its meaning. Therefore, it remains to us to patiently explain that a society, through its sins (injustices for you) brings about its own downfall. They are so obsessed with its literal truth that many refuse to understand what they are doing to themselves (and society around them). They honor and glorify the Nephite bad guys. Meaning matters more than authorship, in the end.

They get bogged down with historicity: we get bogged down with authorship.

What lessons can we learn from the book?

[_marg]

I never said I don't value logic. That's you, twisting again. What I don't value is your attempts at one-upsmanship by labelling everything I say as some violation of a logical fallacy while finding some convenient loophole for yourself.

It wasn’t my imagination that you responded to the first mention of logic—argument from silence, to be precise—by saying you didn’t care about formal ways of arguing and that you were going to violate logic anyway.

Dan it's rhetorical gamesmenship on your part with your frequent remarks how Roger or myself are not logical and you are..and as well Roger doesn't value logic..which by the way he didn't say and although he's corrected you..still persist. His objection is that you use obscure fallacies.. to display one-upmanship.

Look at this one:

Roger's writes: "While I agree that Joseph Smith is the most likely contributer for certain portions of the Book of Mormon text, he is not the most likely contributer for all of it. But Dan's assumption only allows for gaining insight into what Joseph Smith "thinks and feels about himself and the world" because his assumption is that only Joseph Smith contributed content to the text."

You write: "That’s only true if we assume you are right. If I’m right that Joseph Smith was sole author, then I’m on the right track. My method isn’t a way a determining authorship, except in rare instances. The only reason I can analyze the Book of Mormon the way I do is because Joseph Smith believed what he was writing, not just making stories up like a novelist. With Spalding’s authorship, you will run into the intentional fallacy, because a novel doesn’t necessarily tell you about what the author believes."


So you justify your interpretation of the Book of Mormon via Smith as author as being valid because according to you, you aren't violating the "intentional fallacy". I don't think intentional fallacy has anything to do with this. My best guess is the intentional fallacy is applied to one who evaluates literature using as the assumption that it will reflect an author's personal life..when they shouldn't because the literature may be a novel and completely unrelated to the author's life. But you don't think the Book of Mormon is a novel you think the writer Smith thought it was true or it was a true reflection of himself.

Let's look at the logic involved. You have no basis for your assumption Smith believed what he wrote. Smith did not claim he wrote the Book of Mormon, in fact he said it was written by ancient prophets. In addition there is no reason to assume the writer/writers actually believed the contents of the Book of Mormon were true. All they were interested in was a scriptural book to be used as the basis to a new religion, the contents did not need to be true, and obviously Smith knew they weren't.

So Roger was correct. And your use of throwing out "intentional fallacy" was a rhetorical game of one upmanship on your part. Intentional fallacy is irrelevant to this situation. With most novels it is assumed the author is the author. In this case, the claimed writer/translator J. smith does not claim to be the author, so it's not an automatic presumption that he is... especially given the manner in which it was claimed to have been written.

[_marg]

It’s tempting to want to nail the Book of Mormon to a specific text and prove its fraudulent nature in a coup de grace. That’s the appeal of the Spalding theory

No, the appeal to the S/R theory is it's the best fit explanation of the data. It's the most complex and extremely difficult to appreciate and perhaps will never be accepted or understood ..but the smith alone theory violates good reasoning. People are going to believe in the Book of Mormon as true based on faith no matter what. That's their business. But for those interested in true history, in intellectual honesty..the S/R theory is the most satisfying.