Possible 19th Century influences on Book of Mormon

Revision as of 17:42, 1 August 2019 by SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs)


19th century influences alleged to have been a factor in the production of the Book of Mormon


Jump to details:


Question: Was Bishop M'Kendree, a Methodist revivalist preacher, the model for King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon?

The parallels between the Methodist camp meeting at which M'Kendree appeared and King Benjamin's speech are general, sometimes manufactured, and likely coincidental

It is claimed by some who believe that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon on his own, that Bishop M'Kendree—a Methodist revivalist preacher in Joseph Smith's era—was the model for "King Benjamin" in the Book of Mormon. An account by from Benjamin Paddock is usually cited in support of this claim. M'Kendree appeared at a Methodist camp meeting that was held one mile from Palmyra, New York, on 7 June 1826.

The parallels between the Methodist camp meeting and King Benjamin's speech are general, sometimes manufactured, and likely coincidental.

  • There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was even in the area in which the conference occurred.
  • The critics confuse and combine different events and do not accurately report those events.
  • The critics misreport the events in ways that seem calculated to make them seem more like the Book of Mormon than they were.
  • The matter for which the conference was talked about had nothing to do with the matter which the critics try to make the source for the Book of Mormon.

As with many of Grant Palmer's comparisons, once one takes the time to look at the comparison that he makes, and the actual sources he uses, one finds that the argument is not as compelling as Palmer believes it to be. This is not to say that there aren't some parallels, but let us first look at matters which Palmer must address before we can give much weight to his claim.

Historical background of the Methodist Camp meeting and M'Kendree's participation in it

Here is the historical background from Palmer:

Protestant concepts appear to abound in his discourses and experiences. For example, a Methodist camp meeting was held one mile from Palmyra, New York, on 7 June 1826 - a pivotal time in Joseph's life. Preparations for a camp meeting included leasing and consecrating the ground. Thus the "ground within the circle of the tents is considered sacred to the worship of God, and is our chapel." The Methodists referred to these "consecrated grounds" as their "House of God" or temple. The Palmyra camp meeting reportedly attracted over 10,000 people. Families came from all parts of the 100-mile conference district and pitched their tents facing the raised "stand" where the preachers were seated, including one named Benjamin G. Paddock (fig. 20). This large crowd heard the "valedictory" or farewell speech of their beloved "Bishop M'Kendree [who] made his appearance among us for the last time." He was the Methodist leader who "had presided" over the area for many years. The people had such reverence for this "sainted" man "that all were melted, and ... awed in his presence." In his emaciated and "feeble" condition, he spoke of his love for the people and then delivered a powerful message that covered "the whole process of personal salvation." Tremendous unity prevailed among the crowd, and "nearly every unconverted person on the ground" committed oneself to Christ. At the close of the meeting, the blessings and newly appointed "Stations of the Preachers" were made for the Ontario district.[1]

We can see where he wants to put emphasis for our easy comparison. Palmer's primary source is the memoir of this Benjamin G. Paddock. This book is available on-line.

It is unlikely that Joseph would have made the trip back to Palmyra to attend this event

The material cited by Palmer is on pages 177–181. A complete copy of this text is available in the wiki here (so that readers can examine it easily in its original context). Palmer actually seems far more concerned about making his parallels than he is about accuracy. Perhaps he believed that using an obscure source would allow him to be a little loose with the details. Here are three major problems with this particular little bit of text written by Palmer:

  1. While Joseph Smith's home is in Palmyra in June of 1826, Joseph himself is boarding with his future Father-in-law Isaac Hales, in Harmony Pennsylvania in 1826. It seems unlikely that Joseph would have made the trip back to Palmyra to attend this event.
  2. Can be seen from reading the full text, there are two concurrent events: The first is a Conference (an annual Conference for this religious group, much like LDS General Conference). For that event, there is a stage set up, the leading preachers are up on the stage, and some of them speak. The second is the camp meeting, which is associated with this first event. The camp meeting was held at the same time as the Conference, but it wasn't the same thing—and as Benjamin Paddock's memoir relates, "A great camp-meeting was held in connection with it. The ground was only about a mile from the village, so that members of the Conference not immediately and specially employed could take part in its services. At that early day, and previously, meetings of the kind were not unfrequently held in the neighborhood of our Annual Conferences; but the present one was exceptionally large." In other words, there was a camp that was often set up near the conference, and those who weren't tied up with the conference itself would go and preach to the crowd at the camp-meeting. The reason why this is interesting is that the camp meeting wasn't the reason why Bishop M'Kendree was there. And there isn't any indication that Bishop M'Kendree attended the camp meeting.
  3. Palmer says that Bishop M'Kendree gives a farewell speech. The reports are conflicted. Paddock tells us (referring to the Conference) that: "He was too feeble to preside, and occupied the chair only once or twice, and then only for a few minutes at a time. Still, however, at the urgent request of Bishop Hedding and leading members of the Conference, he signed the Journals at the close of the session as one of its presiding officers. Brethren were anxious to secure at least his signature as a memorial of his visit." So, here, it isn't mentioned as a farewell speech, although he does get up once or twice it notes.

The other account comes from George Peck's 1860 book Early Methodism within the bounds of the old Genesee Conference from 1788 to 1828: or the first forty years of Wesleyan evangelism in northern Pennsylvania, central and western New York, and Canada on pages 509-510:

1826. The conference met at Palmyra, 7th of June. Bishops M'Kendree and Hedding were present.

This session of the conference is noticeable as the one in which Bishop M'Kendree made his appearance among us for the last time. He was at the first session and signed the journal. He had presided at the sessions up to the year 1816, inclusive, since which he had not paid us a visit. He came to take leave. He opened the first session, made an instructive address in the the form of an exposition upon the lesson read from the Scriptures, and finally gave us his valedictory. In the journal for Monday it is recorded that

Bishop M'Kendree delivered a very appropriate address to the members of this conference, which he supposed to be his valedictory." It did not prove to be, as he supposed, his valedictory! He appeared in the conference on the last day of the session, as the following record shows:

Bishop M'Kendree having addressed the conference on the importance of missionary exertions and Sunday schools, therefore,

Resolved, That this conference heartily concur in the sentiments expressed by the bishops, and pledge themselves to use their influence to promote the cause of missions and of Sunday schools throughout their respective circuits and stations."

So where does all of the stuff in Palmer's book come from about this farewell speech about "the whole process of personal salvation"?

So where does all of the stuff in Palmer come from about this farewell speech about "the whole process of personal salvation"? Well, that comes from Paddock's description of the camp meeting (not the conference) when on the Sabbath, five of the participants at the conference gave sermons at the camp meeting:

But the Sabbath was the great day of the feast. Beginning in the morning at eight o'clock, five sermons were preached before the services closed in the evning. Bishop Hedding and Dr. Bangs took the two appointments nearest the meridian of the day, and preached with even more than their ordinary freedom and power. At about five in the afternoon the stand was assigned to the Rev. Glezen Fillmore, then in the vigor of mature manhood, now - for he still lives, a blessing to the Church and the world - trembling on the extreme verge of time. The sermon was in his best stule - more carefully prepared and more effectively delivered than were his discourses generally. The latter part of it contemplated the whole process of personal salvation, from its incipiency to its consummation in the world of light."

So, according to the sources, it's not this Bishop M'Kendree who speaks on personal salvation, It is a Reverend Glezen Fillmore

So, it's not this Bishop M'Kendree who speaks on personal salvation, it's not even Benjamin Paddock (who it seems never addressed either the conference or the camp meeting - having only been in the ministry for two years at this point). It is a Reverend Glezen Fillmore, who wasn't feeble or old, but rather was in the prime of his life according to Paddock (he was actually 37 years old at the time), and he was preaching in Rochester in 1826 when he came to the conference.

Nowhere in either account is this man (Bishop M'Kendree) delivering a sermon on personal salvation

On top of all of this, Paddock describes an event at the conference which he calls remarkable:

The sermon was in his best style - more carefully prepared and more effectively delivered than were his discourses generally. The latter part of it contemplated the whole process of personal salvation, from its incipiency to its consummation in the world of light. Having traced the track of the believer, all along from the dawn of spiritual life till he had entered the land of Beulah, and was about to plume himself for his flight to the celestial city, the speaker paused as if struggling with irrepressible emotion, and, looking upward, exclaimed, "O God, hold thy servant together while for a moment he looks through the gates ajar into the New Jerusalem!"

To describe the effect would be quite impossible. A tide of emotion swept over the congregation that seemed to carry all before it. I was seated near Bishop Hedding, who, from fatigue, was reclining upon a bed under and a little to the rear of the stand. It had been noticed before that he was much affected by the sermon; but when the sentence given above was uttered, the tears almost literally spurted from his eyes, and his noble form shook as if under the resistless control of a galvanic battery. The Rev. Goodwin Stoddard exhorted, and invited seekers within the circle of prayer in front of the stand. Hundreds came forward; some said nearly every unconverted person on the ground. In the spring of 1828, when I was pastor in Rochester, the delegates from New England, on their way to the General Conference in Pittsburgh, called and spent the Sabbath with me. Almost the first thing they said after we met was, "Where is that brother that wanted God to hold him together while he looked into heaven a moment?" It seems that the good Bishop had reported the sermon in more circles than one, for others from the east made a similar inquiry.

This is the event for which this Conference with its camp-meeting was best remembered. So, nowhere in either account is this man (Bishop M'Kendree) delivering a sermon on personal salvation. His role in the community has been overstated by Palmer (he hasn't attended the previous seven conference between 1816 and 1826). Yes there are some similarities that can be drawn—but these are nothing but coincidental. Palmer is misrepresenting his sources to make the parallels seem much stronger (trying to make the platform stage of the conference resemble King Benjamin's tower, for example).

And, finally, this would have been more interesting if Joseph Smith had likely been present. But he probably wasn't, and what he would have heard about the conference might have been the remarkable event that Paddock refers to that was talked about for quite some time.


Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the History of Mexico to produce the Book of Ether?

The timing of its publication makes it impossible for Joseph Smith to have seen even the first volume prior to the submission of the Book of Mormon manuscript to publishers

It is claimed that a 16th century work by Fernando de Alva Ixtilxochitl, History of Mexico, provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.

The History of Mexico theory is yet another attempt to fit a secular origin to the Book of Mormon. The timing of its publication makes it impossible for Joseph Smith to have seen even the first volume prior to the submission of the Book of Mormon manuscript to publishers. Moreover, the relevant volume is volume nine, which was published many years after the Book of Mormon. The parallel between History of Mexico and The Book of Mormon, if anything, supports the claim that The Book of Mormon is a genuine historical record, although of course it would be overreaching to conclude that it proves the truth of The Book of Mormon.

Writing of History of Mexico

Fernando de Alva Ixtilxochitl was a Catholic priest of mixed Spanish and Native American ancestry. He lived from approximately 1568 to 1647. He wrote several works of history, and is recognized by some historians as being particularly astute, partly because of his mixed ancestry that allowed him access to more knowledgeable people than he otherwise would have been able to learn from.[2] Ixtilxochitl's works are often known under the Spanish titles Obras Historicas or Historica Chichimeca

Parallels between History of Mexico and the Book of Ether

Ixtilxochitl's history includes an account of the origin of the first settlers of Mexico. In the original Spanish, it reads: "Y como despues multiplicandose los hombres hicieron un zacualli muy alto y fuerte, que quiere decir la torre altisima, para guarecerse en el cuando se tornase a destruir el segundo mundo. Al mejor tiempo se les mudaron las lenguas, y no entendiendose unos a otros, se fueron a diversas partes del mundo; y los tultecas, que fueron hasta siete companeros con sus mujeres, que se entendian la lengua, se vinieron a estas partes, habiendo primero pasado grandes tierras y mares, viviendo en las cuevas y pasando grandes trabajos, hasta venir a esta tierra, que la hallaron buena y fertil para su habitacion."[3]

In his 1989 book, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Allen translated the above passage to read as follows: "[After the flood, the people] built a Zacualli very high and strong, which means 'The Very High Tower,' to protect themselves against a second destruction of the world. As time elapsed, their language became confounded, such that they did not understand one another; and they were scattered to all parts of the earth. The Tultecas, consisting of seven men and their wives, were able to understand each other; and they came to this land, having first crossed many lands and waters, living in caves and passing through great trials and tribulations. Upon their arrival here, they discovered that it was a very good and fertile land."[4]

This obviously parallels Ether 1 and LDS teaching, which recount how the Jaredite colony migrated from Babel, at the time of the Tower of Babel as also recorded in Genesis 11:1-9, to a "Promised Land" in the western hemisphere.

Translation of History of Mexico

The first known translation of Ixtilxochitl's history into English was in Edward King, Lord Kingsborough's book Antiquities of Mexico. This was a nine-volume work; the first volume was published in 1830 or 1831 and the ninth was not published until after Lord Kingsborough's death in 1837. Lord Kingsborough put his personal fortune on the line for the publication, which featured luxurious materials and hand-painted illustrations. He over-extended himself and was sent to debtors' prison.[5] The extremely high quality of the printing, and the therefore extremely high price of the volumes, make it incredibly unlikely that Joseph Smith ever saw a copy of this work.

Impossibility of Joseph having used Ixtilxochitl as a source

Critics may give just enough information about History of Mexico--it was published in English in 1830, the same year as the Book of Mormon--to make it seem plausible that Joseph Smith used it as a source text for the Book of Mormon. However, this claim is completely demolished under closer scrutiny.

First, Joseph Smith did not know Spanish, and none of his close associates prior to 1830 were known to know Spanish. So Joseph's access to an English translation is crucial to the critic's argument.

Second, the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, but the handwritten manuscript was finished and submitted to printers the year before, in July 1829. Even if Joseph had somehow obtained a copy of Antiquities of Mexico, hot off the presses in England early in 1830, it would have already been far too late to work any of the knowledge gleaned into the Book of Mormon manuscript in time for printing. First edition Book of Mormons do contain the entire Book of Ether.

Third, Antiquities of Mexico was published in nine volumes, and Ixtilxochitl's writings comprise volume nine,[2] which was not published until 1837 or later.[5]


Question: Did Joseph Smith incorporate his father's dream of the tree of life into the Book of Mormon?

The details of Joseph's father's dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published

Critics point to similarities between a dream Joseph Smith's father had and Lehi's dream of the tree of life as evidence that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon based on his own experiences. Significantly, none of Joseph's family regarded the similarities as evidence that Joseph Jr. was engaging in a forgery.

The details of the dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published. Lucy's account is (at the very least) influenced in its verbiage by the Book of Mormon. Either Joseph Sr. had a remarkably similar dream, or Lucy used the material in the Book of Mormon to either bolster her memory, or it unwittingly influenced her memory.

Load video
YouTube

There are three potential explanations for the similarities

  1. Joseph Smith plagiarized Joseph Sr.'s dream when he wrote the Book of Mormon. This is the stance adopted by the critics.
  2. Joseph Sr. had a dream that was similar to the dream experienced by Lehi, and this was a sign to the Prophet's family that he was translating a real record that came from God. This is certainly possible, though it is impossible to prove or disprove by historical techniques, and so will not be elaborated on. It remains, however, a viable option.
  3. Lucy Mack Smith's account of the dream (which she recorded many years after the fact, when the Book of Mormon account was well-known and published) may have influenced how she remembered and/or recorded her account of Joseph Sr's dream.

Details of Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream of the tree of life

According to Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, Senior, the father of the Prophet, had the following dream in 1811 when the family was living in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Joseph Smith, Junior, would have been 5 years old at the time.

I thought...I was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, "What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?" My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, "This is the desolate world; but travel on." The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, "Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in there at."

Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream I could see neither the source nor yet the termination; but as far as my eyes could extend I could see a rope running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration. Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter. I gazed upon the same with considerable interest, and as I was doing so the burs or shells commenced opening and shedding their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, "I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me." Accordingly, I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating, and praising God for this blessing. We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed.

While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded.

I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children. I told him that we were all there. "No," he replied, "look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also." Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together. The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls.

After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, "It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility."

I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy.[6]

There are many obvious connections between this dream and Lehi's vision of the tree of life

There are many obvious connections between this dream and Lehi's vision of the tree of life recorded in 1 Nephi 8:

  • A desolate field representing the world (8:4).
  • A narrow path (8:20).
  • A river of water (8:13).
  • A rope running along the bank of the river (similar in function to the rod of iron in 8:19, 24).
  • A tree with dazzling white fruit (8:10–11).
  • Joseph, Sr. desires that his family should partake of the fruit also (8:12).
  • A spacious building filled with people who are mocking those who eat the fruit (8:26–27).
  • Joseph, Sr. and his family ignore the mocking (8:33).
  • The fruit represents the love of God (11:22).
  • The building represents the world (11:36; 12:18).

The source of the dream is Lucy's manuscript for which she dictated in the winter of 1844–45, 15 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon

The source of the dream is Lucy's manuscript for Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, which she dictated to Martha Jane Coray in the winter of 1844–45. Note the date of Lucy's dictation: more than 15 years after Joseph Smith, Junior, dictated the Book of Mormon.

Dreams are notoriously ephemeral. It is difficult for most people to remember the details of a dream, and those details quickly fade in the first few minutes after awaking.

The amount of detail Lucy records and the second-hand nature and late date of her testimony have led many to the conclusion that Lucy's recollection was strongly influenced by what she read in the Book of Mormon. That is, it is difficult to establish how much Joseph Sr.'s original dream had in common with the Book of Mormon, since the details which we have are only available after the fact, when Lucy's memory would have been affected by what she learned in the more detailed Book of Mormon account (even as it stands, the Book of Mormon account is far more detailed and lengthy than the material from 1844-45).

Thus, it seems plausible that there is a relationship between the Book of Mormon and Lucy's text--but, we cannot know in what direction(s) that influence moved.


Question: Was the content of Alma Chapter 40 derived from a Presbyterian document called The Westminster Confession?

If Joseph were attempting to plagiarize The Westminster Confession, he ought to have taken the easier route of duplicating entire sentences or even paragraphs in the manner that the critics accuse him of doing with passages from Isaiah

When one considers the short amount of time in which production of the Book of Mormon was completed, it is not reasonable to believe that such detailed and difficult method of generating text was a factor in the process even if one does not believe in the book's divine origin. If Joseph were attempting to plagiarize The Westminster Confession, he ought to have taken the easier route of duplicating entire sentences or even paragraphs in the manner that the critics accuse him of doing with passages from Isaiah. Why would Joseph “plagiarize” a well known source such as the Bible so precisely, yet go through a potentially slow and difficult process of extracting phrases and ideas from a lesser known source in order to produce a few verses in a single book in the Book of Mormon?

Critics can always find “source material” for the Book of Mormon if they extract small enough phrases from their alleged source documents. Since both the Book of Mormon and The Westminster Confessional are religious documents, it is not unreasonable to expect similar words and phrases.

The critics would have us believe that Joseph Smith read the first two verses in Chapter 32 of The Westminster Confession, and then produced Alma 40:11, 13, 14 and 20

The critics would have us believe that Joseph Smith read the first two verses in Chapter 32 of The Westminster Confession, and then produced Alma 40:11, 13, 14 and 20. In addition to the verses shown, it is indicated by the critics that there is much additional material that shows a relationship between the two texts. The following is a comparison of the verses shown in Alma 40 and The Westminster Confession, Chapter 32:1-2 as they are presented and arranged by the critics:

Alma 40:11, 12, 13, 14 and 20 The Westminster Confession Chapter 32 Verses 1-2
"... the state of the soul between death and the resurrection..." (Book of Mormon, Alma 40:11) "... the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection..." (The Westminster Confession, chap. 32, Title)
"... the spirits ... are taken home to that God who gave them life" (Alma 40:11) "... their souls ...return to God who gave them" (Westminster Confession 32:1)
"... the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness,..." (Alma 40:12) "... The souls of the righteous, ...are received into the highest heavens, ..." (Westminster Confession 32:1)
"... the spirits of the wicked, ... shall be cast out into outer darkness;..." (Alma 40:13) "... the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, ...and utter darkness,..." (Westminster Confession 32:1)
"... the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, remain in this state, ...until the time of their resurrection" (Alma 40:14) "... the souls of the wicked.... remain in.... darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day" (Westminster Confession 32:2)
"... the souls and the bodies are re-united,..." (Alma 40:20) "... bodies ...shall be united again to their souls..." (Westminster Confessions 32:2)

Notice the careful and extensive use of ellipses in order to string together various short phrases from the two sources in order to force a similarity. When arranged in this manner, the "similarities" look obvious. However, by examining the full text of the verses from both Alma 40 and The Westminster Confession Chapter 32, we see a much more convoluted comparison (Phrases which are claimed to be similar between the two texts are highlighted in bold).


Alma 40:11, 12, 13, 14 and 20 The Westminster Confession Chapter 32 Verses 1-2
11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. (Alma 40:11)

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

15-19...

20 Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven.

CHAPTER XXXII. Of the State of Man After Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead.

I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.


II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever. "

This tortured comparison represents only five verses across a span of ten verses in a single chapter in Alma against two verses in The Westminster Confession

It is difficult to believe or accept the convoluted process that Joseph Smith would have had to go through in order to produce completely coherent text in Alma 40 verses 11-20 while selectively stealing ideas and phrases from the verses highlighted in The Westminster Confession. Furthermore, one should not be surprised to see words such as "soul," "spirit," "wicked," "resurrection," and "mortal" used in two different religious texts.

One short phrase which could be claimed to have been copied verbatim into the Book of Mormon from the Westminster Confession in the verses shown above: "God who gave." However, the same claim could be made that this phrase was copied from Ecclesiastes 12:7:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) (emphasis added)

To make a comparison at this level of sentence breakdown becomes an exercise in absurdity.

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed?

<onlyinclude>

<onlyinclude>

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress?

At a very general level, many stories can look alike—but that does not mean they are the same

Did Joseph Smith rely on John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress for key ideas in the Book of Mormon, including Lehi's vision or the story of Abinadi? [7]

It is easy to simplify stories so much that they start to look alike. When we reduce them to basic outlines, we can compare them and claim they are the same. At that level, there is not much difference between Pilgrim’s Progress and stories of martyrs in the New Testament or early Christianity. Even the story of Jesus could be summarized in a similar way: he enters a city, causes a disturbance, is arrested, questioned several times, put on trial, accused of wrongdoing, punished, and killed. He dies for his beliefs, and his followers continue his work.

But this kind of summary removes too much detail. When we describe stories this way, we lose what makes them unique.

Because of this, the claim that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Pilgrim’s Progress is not very strong. It relies on what critics call “parallel hunting”—looking for similarities while ignoring differences. When we read both texts carefully, we see that their moral teachings and messages are very different. Both works focus on Christ and salvation, but those themes disappear when the stories are reduced to short summaries. This can mislead readers into thinking they understand the texts when they do not.

The problem with parallels

Using similarities between books as proof of plagiarism is often unreliable. If we compared all books this way, we would find similarities everywhere. This is one reason why most plagiarism lawsuits fail. It is easy to see connections that are not really there.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, accusations of plagiarism were very common. Many successful plays were sued over supposed similarities. Some lawyers even searched for possible sources in older works and encouraged lawsuits. Because of these problems, literary scholars began to reject this method of comparison, although it is still used today.

In 1952, lawyer Alexander Lindey wrote an important study on plagiarism. He listed nine common problems, or “vices,” in using parallels to argue that one work copied another:

  1. Methods that highlight similarities but ignore differences are misleading.
  2. Parallels can be easily manipulated to seem more important than they are.
  3. Those searching for parallels often try to prove a point rather than seek truth.
  4. Any story can be reduced to simple elements, making all works seem unoriginal.
  5. Parallels take ideas out of context, which distorts their meaning.
  6. They do not show how much of a work is actually similar.
  7. They may use unclear or misleading language to make things seem alike.
  8. Breaking a work into parts ignores its overall meaning and impact.
  9. They assume that similarity means copying, ignoring other explanations.

These issues show why we must be careful when comparing texts in this way.

Examining the claimed parallels

William Davis presents a list of 14 similarities between Pilgrim’s Progress and the story of Abinadi. However, to understand these claims, we must look at the full context of each story.

For example, Davis writes:

“In Pilgrim’s Progress, Faithful and Christian journey to the wicked city of Vanity Fair on their way to the Celestial Kingdom.”

This description is already inaccurate. Pilgrim’s Progress refers to the “Celestial City,” not the “Celestial Kingdom.” The phrase “Celestial City” was common in many earlier religious writings, not unique to Bunyan. Using different wording here may make the two texts seem more closely connected than they really are.

Also, Pilgrim’s Progress is clearly written as a symbolic story or parable. Its characters and places have names like Christian, Faithful, Evangelist, and Vanity Fair. These names are meant to teach moral lessons. This is very different from the narrative style of the Book of Mormon.

Parallel 1

  • Bunyan: The pilgrims enter the city, cause a disturbance, and are imprisoned.
  • Abinadi: Abinadi enters the city, causes a disturbance, and is imprisoned.

At first, these seem similar. But the details are very different.

In Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian and Faithful are strangers passing through the city. They attract attention because of their clothing, language, and behavior. They refuse to participate in the marketplace, which upsets the people.

Abinadi, however, is not a stranger. He is part of his community. He causes a disturbance because he preaches that the people must repent or be destroyed. His message, not his appearance, leads to his arrest.

Even the imprisonment is different. In Bunyan’s story, the pilgrims are placed in a cage and displayed as a public spectacle. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi is held in prison as part of a legal process.

These differences show that the similarity is only superficial.

Parallel 2

  • Bunyan: A leader gathers people to examine the pilgrims.
  • Abinadi: King Noah gathers priests to examine Abinadi.

This similarity is expected in any story involving a trial. If someone is accused of wrongdoing, there will be questioning. This is a common feature in many narratives, including the trial of Jesus.

Parallel 3

  • Bunyan: The prisoners are brought before leaders and put on trial.
  • Abinadi: Abinadi is brought before leaders and put on trial.

Here, the comparison removes important context. In Bunyan’s story, this happens after a public conflict among spectators. The pilgrims are blamed for causing trouble, even though they did not start it.

In Abinadi’s story, the trial focuses on his teachings and prophecies. The reasons for the trial are very different.

Parallel 4

  • Bunyan: Faithful is called a “madman.”
  • Abinadi: Abinadi is called “mad.”

Both are accused of madness, but for different reasons. In Bunyan’s story, the accusation comes from how the pilgrims appear and behave as outsiders. In the Book of Mormon, the accusation comes after Abinadi strongly challenges the king and priests.

Parallel 11

  • Bunyan: Faithful “seals” his testimony with his blood.
  • Abinadi: Abinadi “seals” his testimony with his blood.

Looking at the full text shows that these phrases are used differently. In Bunyan’s work, the idea is introduced earlier as a warning that the pilgrims may die for their beliefs. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi declares that his death will stand as a testimony against his accusers.

Even though both involve martyrdom, the meaning and context are not the same.

Conclusion

When we look closely at the details, the claimed parallels between Pilgrim’s Progress and the Book of Mormon are weak. They depend on simplifying the stories and ignoring their differences.

Both works include themes like persecution, testimony, and faith. But these themes are common in many religious texts, especially the Bible. Similarities alone are not enough to prove plagiarism.

To understand these works properly, we must read them in full context. Only then can we see their true meaning and differences.

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 96-97. ( Index of claims )
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Mexico, Volume IX. (San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft and Company, 1883), 139-140.
  3. ↑ Fernando Alva de Ixtilxochit,Obras historicas, 12.
  4. ↑ Joseph L. Allen, and Blake J. Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, (Orem, UT: S.A. Publishers, 1989), 62.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Edward King, Viscount Kingsborough, wikipedia retrieved March 30, 2011
  6. ↑ Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, chapter 14
  7. ↑ William L. Davis, "Who really wrote the Book of Mormon?,Salon (31 October 2012). http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/who_really_wrote_the_book_of_mormon/

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize John Walker's "Key Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names"?

Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize a book by Charles Anthon to provide names for the Book of Mormon?

There are a number of methodological problems to this that make the probability miniscule

A critic of the Church posted the following claim on his Facebook timeline:

PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ - AS SUCH IS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF JOSEPH SMITH'S PLAGARISM OF CONTEMPORARY SOURCESin 1827 Charles Anthon (yes the guy Martin Harris takes the

'caractors' to for authentication) published a dictionary about ancient names in the old world. strangely many of these names are duplicate or extremely similar to proper names in the Book of Mormon.

#1 what is the chance that a contemporary book published three years before the Book of Mormon would share such duplication/close proximities?

#2 What is the chance such a book of duplication/close proximities being published in 1827 and only a small distance away?

#3 What is the chance that the author of that book would be the very guy that Joseph would have Martin Harris return from visiting?

#4 What are the chance that this very guy (Anthon) is the guy who fulfills Isaiah's prophecy in the the Bible and Book of Mormon?

LIST OF SIMILARITIES Take a look:

(Most of these are not found in the Bible)

Mormon Memnon (p.454)—A war hero who lead 10,000 men to battle in the Trojan war and won. He later died in a subsequent war. He was known as a writer and inventor of the alphabet.

Cumorah Cremera (p.214)—300 people died there in a battle, only one remained alive

Helorum Helorum (p.334) Zenos Zeno (p.335,884-887)

Sidon Sidon (p.763)

Alma Alma- / Almamon (p.n17)

Melek Melek (p.668)

Teancum Teanum (p.763)

Pachus Paphus(p.578)

Antion Antion (p.106)

Antionum Antium (p.106)

Coriantum Corinthum(p.208)

Coriantumr Corinthium-br (p.208)

Chemish Chemmis (p.577)

Mosiah Mosa (p.504)

Omni omnis (p.557)

Pahoran Pavorane (p.220)

Helaman Haliacmon (p.325) Zarahemla Zamora (p.883) Egyptus (PoGP) Egyptus (p.105)

Curelom Curium (p.219)

Irreantum Erythraeum (p.284) —Both terms are referring to the Arabian Sea

Nephites Nepherites (p.520)

Antiparah Antiparos (p.63)

Lachoneus Laconia (p.377)

Enos Ænos (p.19) Ether Æther (p.282)

Neas Nea (p.516) Morianton Marmarion (p.460)

Gadianton Gaditanum (p.305)

Corom Coron (p.210,378)

Moroni Morini(p.313,503)

https://archive.org/stream/1827classicaldic00lempuoft#page/n3/mode/2up There is also a lot of sections on Egyptian culture and Egyptian theology. Joseph Smith would by this book alone knew that the word Nephi was of Egyptian origin (page 520). This Charade is coming to an end with anyone who in the least degree wants to know the truth rather than hold comfortable beliefs.

Parralellomania? I dont think so.


First, it is important to look at historical sources that show that Joseph had access to this book. There is no evidence that Joseph ever saw this work. An accusation of plagiarism is only as good as the historical documentation that can be produced to move the character (Joseph) towards the objectives (Anthon's book)

Second, it is important to examine the names as they are described in this book by Charles Anthon and how they are used under their headings (or in a few cases, in passing under other headings). The book is a 923 page (!) book with over 13,000 (!) entries and most of them are greek and roman names, not Egyptian nor Hebrew names.

Third, it is important to establish that the argument should not be distilled to simply what names exist in the Book of Mormon but how those names are used. The Book of Mormon offers us many ways in which the names above are used authentically that have been discovered and elaborated on with solid onomastic scholarship. So, the question is, could Joseph plagiarize something in an authentic way? See the Book of Mormon Onomasticon for the etymologies.

In answer to the critic's questions:

"1. what is the chance that a contemporary book published three years before the Book of Mormon would share such duplication/close proximities?"

We can’t answer that question, and we don’t think the critic has anyway to answer it either. He is only counting “hits,” and some of those hits (those in the “a stretch” column) are pretty questionable. But, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and ignore the fact that 30% aren’t even name entries, over 93% aren’t Egyptian or Hebrew, and some of the matches are extremely strained.

Let’s be very generous and count all these as hits: 30 of them.

Anthon’s book is over 900 pages long. On the first page of names, we count 15 entries. The second page has 28 entries. The third has 19. Some others have only a few due to long entries (page 507 has 9; 885 has 1, for example) So, again, to be conservative let’s say there are only 10 entries per page on average. 900 pages x 10 entries per page = 9,000 entries (the critics’ “hits” make up around 0.3%). If you think that’s too generous, drop it to what you think reasonable, but even at 10 names/page we’re probably underestimating the total.

So, what are the odds that someone just making up names might match 30 out of 9,000? I think they are probably pretty good. It would be a virtual certainty, I suspect—especially if the “hits” are allowed to be as broad as these names. If we restrict it to the examples that are more plausible (the first two tables) then that’s 16 out of 9,000 entries (around 0.18%) : one of which is found in the Bible, and one (Egyptus) that takes hardly any imagination at all and isn’t in the Book of Mormon anyway.

But, let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is a significant bit of agreement. That really doesn’t help the critic unless we assume at the outset that Joseph is not translating an ancient record. If he is translating a record, then we might well expect a match to some ancient names. So, the critic’s argument is circular.

How many names does the Book of Mormon contain? This might be a more convincing argument if the Book of Mormon consisted only or mainly of names found in Anthon’s book. But, it doesn’t—Joseph produced a book with 337 proper names. Of these names, 188 are unique to the Book of Mormon, they are not found in the Bible. Thus, the critics are offering us the supposed source for at most 28 names[1] (less than 15%). If we include only the more convincing matches (the first two table) that drops to 13 (less than 7%).[1]

If Joseph can come up with dozens of names without the help of Anthon’s book (as the critics must argue that he does for those that he did not plagiarize) why do we posit that he required Anthon’s help to come up with the few that remain? We’re expected to believe that Joseph pored over this book of over 9,000 names, needed a bunch of names for his forgery project, and stole a few—almost all in the wrong languages. But, he didn’t steal 80–90% of them from it. Some he was smart enough to change around a bit, but others he was dumb enough to copy directly.

This is simply not a plausible reconstruction.

"#2 What is the chance such a book of duplication/close proximities being published in 1827 and only a small distance away?"

It's doubtful the author can answer this question. There were many books published in New York. But, the critic needs to demonstrate that Joseph had access to the book. We have absolutely no evidence of that.

"#3 What is the chance that the author of that book would be the very guy that Joseph would have Martin Harris return from visiting?"

Probably very good. (The critic assumes that Martin was sent by Joseph to Anthon—there is no evidence of this. Martin was trying to test Joseph; he would hardly pick people that Joseph had insisted he visit.)

Martin Harris wanted to verify the Book of Mormon’s authenticity, and so he chose people who were experts in that field of study. Anthon was one such expert. One does not expect a non-expert to write a book about ancient names. So, given that there were relatively few experts in New York in the late 1820s about ancient languages and cultures, the odds are excellent that we would have such an overlap.

But this raises another issue—Charles Anthon was not happy with his link to early Mormon history, and did everything he could to disassociate himself from it.

What are the odds (we might ask) that Anthon would not realize that the embarrassing Mormons and their fraudulent Book of Mormon was plagiarized from one of his works? If he didn’t complain, why is the critic so confident with two centuries’ hindsight that he’s found the smoking gun?


"#4 What are the chance that this very guy (Anthon) is the guy who fulfills Isaiah's prophecy in the the Bible and Book of Mormon?"

See above. The pool from which Martin Harris could draw was small. The pool of those who would write a book such as this was also small. A limited number of options means that the chance of a match when we select from that group at random would be high.

A comparison of the "matches".

Below we provide commentary for each of the supposed matches: Exact

Name in Anthon Book Name in Book of Mormon Page number Commentary
Helorum Helorum 334 Town in Sicily—not Egyptian or Hebrew
Sidon Sidon 763 Also in the bible, so no need for Anthon’s book even if Joseph is creating the BoM himself.
Alma/Al-mamom Alma ? A Hebrew name. Wasn't known in Joseph Smith's day as a female Hebrew name.
Antion Antion 106 (and There is no entry for the name “Antion.” Instead, it is buried in another name’s definition (Astyäge)—so we’re to believe Joseph read the entire book and plucked this name out another name’s definition, rather? Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew.

From the first entry: “Astyiage, a daughter of Hypseus, who married Periphas, by whom, was Antion, the father of Ixion.” So a Greek name to describe a semitic unit of counting money?

Aegyptus Egyptus 15 Not Book of Mormon. Anthon’s book attributes the name to “Aegyptus brother to Danaus.” The Pearl of Great Price says it means “that which is forbidden.” Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew. Neither of the two mentions of Egyptus even comes close to what is described in the Book of Abraham. On page 387 we get ”/Egyptus Apollod” and for the other we get “—Apollod. 1, c, 2, &e.----A town of Greece, whose inhabitants went to the Trojan war. Homer. H. 2, v. 782----One of the daughters of Dannus, who married Ceotus, son of Egyptus.” See here for more information on Egyptus (or Zeptah. As an aside, the name Zeptah does not appear in this book).

Close….

Name in Anthon Book Name in Book of Mormon Page number Commentary
Zeno Zenos 335, 884-887 Another Greek name: if Joseph is trying to forge a Hebrew or Egyptian document, why resort to Greek when he has so many other options?
Teanum Teancum 763 Latin town on Appian road, not Hebrew or Egyptian.
Corianthum Coriantum 208 Again, this entry is not found as a name. It is a Latin form of the city name Corinthus. To find this version of the name, Joseph would have to read the entry, including a passage in Latin. No Hebrew or Egyptian link here.
Omnis Omni 557 Not a name at all. It is an italicized Latin term meaning “all.” It seems unlikely Joseph would make the same mistake as the critic—mistaking a lower-case word for a name. Is also an English root from Latin, so hardly requires a book to “make up.”
Nepherites Nephites 520 This isn’t really a match. Joseph’s word is clearly from Nephi, plus “ites” – meaning “belonging to the party of.” This name in Anthon’s book is a king of Egypt. So, we’re to believe that Joseph saw this name, picked it out, decided to keep the Nephi part so he could tack on “-ites” to it later? Parallelomania at its best.
Antiparos Antiparah 63 Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew.
Aenos Enos 19 Greek/Latin, not Egyptian or Hebrew
Aether Ether 282 Not an individual name entry, but buried in another name’s entry. Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew.
Nea Neas 516 Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew
Coron Corom 210, 378 The entry name is “Corone,” the rendering “Coron” is again only in the body of two different entries. Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew.
Morini Moroni 313, 503 On p. 313, not an entry, but a name given a people in another name’s entry. On p. 503, identified as Celtic, not Egyptian or Hebrew.

A stretch….

Name in Anthon Book Name in Book of Mormon Page number Commentary
Memnon Mormon 477 [the critic says 454] and 848 Greek, not Hebrew or Egyptian.

Of the 10 or so citations that come up for this, none seem to mention that Memnon was a writer. The 10,000 claim is a lie. From pg. 848: “The king of Troy received assistance from the neighbouring princes in Asia Minor, and reckoned among his most active generals, Rhesus, king of Thrace, and Memnon, who entered the field with 20,000 Assyrians and Ethiopians.”

Cremera Cumorah 214 Latin, not Hebrew or Egyptian
Paphus Pachus 578 Latin, not Hebrew or Egyptian
Antium Antionum 106 Not listed as a name, is found in the body of another entry. Latin, not Hebrew or Egyptian.
Corinthium-br Coriantumr 208 Not listed as a name, is in the middle of a Latin quotation. Latin, not Egyptian or Hebrew.
Chemmis Chemish 577 Island in Egypt
Mosa Mosiah 504 River in Gaul (Roman France). Not Egyptian or Hebrew
Pavorane Pahoran 220 Not listed as a name; this name is in the body of another entry. Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew.
Haliacmon Helaman 325 Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew
Zamora Zarahemla 883 Not an entry, is in the body of another entry. City from Roman history; not Hebrew or Egyptian
Curium Curelom 219 Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew
Erythraeum [Mare] – the critic doesn’t include “Mare” [Latin for sea]. The Book of Mormon does not call its body of water “The Irreantum Sea” or anything like it, so this weakens the parallel further. Irreantum 284 Greek/Latin—not Egyptian or Hebrew as Joseph claims the Book of Mormon is. Anthon’s book describes how the name means “red” [erythro- is red in Greek; red blood cells are called erythrocytes, for example]. The BoM says that Irreantum means “many waters” (1 Ne 17:5). So Joseph wants to appear ancient, so he distorts the name almost beyond recognition, and then gives a different meaning than the ancient meaning the scholarly book he’s cribbing from? This doesn’t make sense. If he’s trying to fake authentically ancient, why introduce an error? Also, notice the difference between the two. In the first we have ANT and the second we have TREE. Here’s something cool about that ANT:

"The element -ān is a common affix (a particle appended to a word) used in all the Semitic languages, including ancient South Semitic. It occurs especially in abstracts,[6] meaning abstract nouns, similar to the use of the affix "-ship" in the English word "kingship." An abstraction from "watering" seems to fit the requirement here that IRREANTUM have something to do with "water."[1]

Marmarion Morianton 460 Greek, not Egyptian or Hebrew
Gaditanum Gadianton 305 Latin, not Egytpian or Hebrew

Parallelomania

The critic seems to think that he has an iron-clad case:

Parralellomania? I dont think so.

This is, however, almost a textbook example of parallelomania. The critic knows very little, it seems, about how the dependence of one text on another is determined. He and interested readers should consult:

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms Part One"

Benjamin L. McGuire,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2013)

Discovering parallels is inherently an act of comparison. Through comparison, parallels have been introduced frequently as proof (or evidence) of different issues within Mormon studies. Despite this frequency, very few investigations provide a theoretical or methodological framework by which the parallels themselves can be evaluated. This problem is not new to the field of Mormon studies but has in the past plagued literary studies more generally. In Part One, this review essay discusses present and past approaches dealing with the ways in which parallels have been used and valued in acts of literary comparison, uncovering the various difficulties associated with unsorted parallels as well as discussing the underlying motivations for these comparisons. In Part Two, a methodological framework is introduced and applied to examples from Grunder’s collection in Mormon Parallels. In using a consistent methodology to value these parallels, this essay suggests a way to address the historical concerns associated with using parallels to explain both texts and Mormonism as an historical religious movement.

Click here to view the complete article

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms Part Two"

Benjamin L. McGuire,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2013)

Discovering parallels is inherently an act of comparison. Through comparison, parallels have been introduced frequently as proof (or evidence) of different issues within Mormon studies. Despite this frequency, very few investigations provide a theoretical or methodological framework by which the parallels themselves can be evaluated. This problem is not new to the field of Mormon studies but has in the past plagued literary studies more generally. In Part One, this review essay discusses present and past approaches dealing with the ways in which parallels have been used and valued in acts of literary comparison, uncovering the various difficulties associated with unsorted parallels as well as discussing the underlying motivations for these comparisons. In Part Two, a methodological framework is introduced and applied to examples from Grunder’s collection in Mormon Parallels. In using a consistent methodology to value these parallels, this essay suggests a way to address the historical concerns associated with using parallels to explain both texts and Mormonism as an historical religious movement.

Click here to view the complete article


This kind of game is an old one for critics, but mainstream scholarship rejected its validity and reliability a long time ago. But, anti-Mormon “scholarship” is usually several decades behind the times, so this shouldn’t surprise us.

Plus, what’s the good of stealing ancient names if someone doesn’t find out about it? Why didn’t Joseph (or anyone else) point someone to the book on the sly, even years later, to prove that he got it “right”? What good does this subterfuge do Joseph otherwise—he clearly doesn’t need the help coming up with names, and he gets no benefit from his “genuine ancient names,” while also opening himself up accusations of plagiarism and fraud from a man who is keen to remove any link between his scholarship and Mormonism.

The other side of the question

If we’re to assume that these “matches” are evidence of Joseph’s clear dependence on Anthon’s book, then why doesn’t Joseph get credit for all his other matches to ancient names? If these “matches” are evidence of the 19th century, why aren’t the many other names evidence of the ancient world, the only place they were recorded? There is a long list here, much longer (at least double, even if all the critics’ examples are included) than the ones our critics offer us from Anthon:

The critics can’t have it both ways. If Joseph “guessed right” and “got lucky” in matching all the ancient names, then the same argument holds for matching Anthon’s book.

Conclusion

This is another in a series of similar attacks on the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. Critics try to produce a huge list that seems very impressive and overwhelming at first glance. They count on readers not checking their examples, and not questioning their reasoning. As one textual critic cautioned:

The great feat of the amateur literary detective is to run up parallel columns, and this he can accomplish with the agility of an acrobat. When first invented, the setting of parallel passages side by side was a most ingenious device, deadly to an imposter or to a thief caught in the very act of literary larceny. But these parallel passages must be prepared with exceeding care, and with the utmost certainty. Unless the matter on the one side exactly balance the matter on the other side, like the packs on a donkey’s back, the burden is likely [Page 30]to fall about the donkey’s feet, and he may chance to break his neck. Parallel columns should be most sparingly used, and only in cases of absolute necessity. As they are employed now only too often, they are quite inconclusive; and it has been neatly remarked that they are perhaps like parallel lines, in that they would never meet, however far produced.[2]

As so often happens, when we actually check the references and probe the parallels, the “amazing” matches elude the critics’ grasp, and fade into the mist.


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ [2] [Data from Largey, Book of Mormon Reference Companion, 580–81]
  2. ↑ (James) Brander Mathews, “The Ethics of Plagiarism,” in Pen and Ink (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 29–30; cited in McGuire, http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/finding-parallels-some-cautions-and-criticisms-part-one/#fn36-2771
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Possible_19th_Century_influences_on_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=209984"