Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[maupayman]

He left Missouri as a fugitive.

Didn't you know? Liberty jail: he was "released" while being transfered from Liberty elsewhere on a venue transfer. Missouri's later, delayed attempts to reacquire him from Illinois to be tried for very strange charges were the impetus for the habeas corpus fights in Nauvoo, leading ultimately to the disincorporation of Nauvoo, his arrest and assassination in Carthage.

The Rocky Mountains represented freedom from US oppression in 1844.

I was not aware of that, thanks for the info. That would have made the rockies more tempting.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't see anything above about Oliver Cowdery. What are you referring to?

Here's what I said: "It's pretty simple, really: They never denied their testimonies. As a matter of fact, they continued to affirm them long after their separation from the Church, in the face of derision and, sometimes, despite serious physical danger, until their deaths. And several of them joyfully declared their testimonies on their deathbeds."

I'll now translate it for you: "It's pretty simple, really: He never denied his testimony. As a matter of fact, he continued to affirm it long after his separation from the Church, in the face of derision and, sometimes, despite serious physical danger, until his death. And he joyfully declared his testimony on his deathbed."

This doesn't sound much like the behavior of a con-artist.

And I'll add to it the fact that he came back to the Church after the death of Joseph Smith, at a low point in its fortunes, when the Saints were headed west, with no prospect and (he said) no expectation of high status (which, given their condition, wasn't something the Saints could have given him anyway).

I referred to his claims about the Shaker movement. I don't know how discussing his Strangite mission is relevant.

My mistake. It was relatively late, I was tired, and I was in a hurry.

Again, you just kind of brush me off and tell me to read a book.

I recommended some reading for you. I told you how you could best inform yourself.

In my trade, recommending readings isn't typically considered a "brush off."

I have to admit that there is one thing that really irritates me, and that is the tendency of some people to opine and editorialize while (sometimes rather proudly) declining to do the relevant homework. It irritates me when people ignorantly pontificate about Islam and the Middle East -- everybody seems to have an opinion on the subject these days, but few have paid even the minimal price to justify their opinions -- and it irritates me when they do it on Mormon topics, as well.

I asked for how Anderson and others deal with Harris' conflicting visionary experiences? You could just tell me, instead of just listing a bunch of books I should read.

Sure. I could write a little research paper or executive summary for you. But I owe "Mormon Times" a column this morning, and I have an Education Week lecture this afternoon -- the first of four, for none of which I'm adequately prepared at the moment. So I think I'll decline your offer.

And here's a link to a column that I wrote a few months back about yet another really fine book that you should read:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1571/Oliver-Cowdery-co-founder-of-the-church

.

[maupayman]

Here's what I said: "It's pretty simple, really: They never denied their testimonies. As a matter of fact, they continued to affirm them long after their separation from the Church, in the face of derision and, sometimes, despite serious physical danger, until their deaths. And several of them joyfully declared their testimonies on their deathbeds."

My bad, i thought you were referring the Strange quotes. Thanks for clarifying.

And I'll add to it the fact that he came back to the Church after the death of Joseph Smith, at a low point in its fortunes, when the Saints were headed west, with no prospect and (he said) no expectation of high status (which, given their condition, wasn't something the Saints could have given him anyway).

You have outlined evidence that they did not deny their testimony, not that they were not part of a fraud. Anyhow, we are playing with semantics here on this point and I never meant to make much of it.

I recommended some reading for you. I told you how you could best inform yourself.

Fair enough Daniel, my point is that I asked about a very specific point and you gave me a bunch of books to read. As mentioned, I have read some of the sources you listed and did not find answers regarding these specific points: Whitmer claiming to be a prophet and Harris witnessing that the Scroll and Book were delivered by an angel. So, to tell me to go read books that don't answer the specific point I am discussing is not entirely helpful.

In my trade, recommending readings isn't typically considered a "brush off."

This is not an academic setting, its a discussion board. I asked about specific points, I shouldn't need to do hours of research to find an answer to a simple question.

I have to admit that there is one thing that really irritates me, and that is the tendency of some people to opine and editorialize while (sometimes rather proudly) declining to do the relevant homework. It irritates me when people ignorantly pontificate about Islam and the Middle East -- everybody seems to have an opinion on the subject these days, but few have paid even the minimal price to justify their opinions -- and it irritates me when they do it on Mormon topics, as well.

I have studied a lot about mormon history, maybe not as much as you, but a lot. I don't feel that i'm just some ignoramous editorializing something I know nothing about. What irritates me, is when you ask a simple question of someone, who is arguing a point against you, and in response they just throw a bunch of articles at you that don't answer your question.

Sure. I could write a little research paper or executive summary for you. But I owe "Mormon Times" a column this morning, and I have an Education Week lecture this afternoon -- the first of four, for none of which I'm adequately prepared at the moment. So I think I'll decline your offer.

I wasn't expecting this Daniel, I simply asked about how the author dealt with the two claims I noted earlier. From my reading of his book, he didn't deal with it. Instead of a research paper, you could have answered my question in the time it took you to write this post. Its a simple question.

And here's a link to a column that I wrote a few months back about yet another really fine book that you should read:

That's great, again, it doesn't deal with my question but thanks.

[mormonseo]

I'm currently reading Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to know some of the details of the Prophet's life. It's a positive perspective from a legitimate historian. There are some things about Joseph Smith's life that I don't quite understand. He was a mortal like the rest of us. However, the evidence is clear enough for me that he was an inspired prophet, so I'll sing on: Praise to the Man!

[Ahab]

What irritates me, is when you ask a simple question of someone, who is arguing a point against you, and in response they just throw a bunch of articles at you that don't answer your question.

What makes you think those articles don't answer the question? Have you read them, yet?

I think what you'd like is a very short and concise answer to your question, without a lot of detail, but the fact that Daniel threw out a slew of references for you to read doesn't mean he didn't answer your question. If you want him to dumb it all down for you, I'm sure he could do that, if he wanted to, but don't make the mistake of thinking the answer to your question isn't in the information Daniel referenced without even reading all of it yet.

[selek]

Fair enough Daniel, my point is that I asked about a very specific point and you gave me a bunch of books to read.

tell me to go read books that don't answer the specific point I am discussing is not entirely helpful.

not an academic setting, its a discussion board. I asked about specific points, I shouldn't need to do hours of research to find an answer to a simple question.

What irritates me, is when you ask a simple question of someone, who is arguing a point against you, and in response they just throw a bunch of articles at you that don't answer your question.

Instead of a research paper, you could have answered my question in the time it took you to write this post. Its a simple question.

This translates to: Maupayman- who has an extended history of dismissing arguments and primary sources he doesn't like out of hand- expects the Mormon faithful to line up and bark at his command.

He expects us to vomit up (upon his demand) things that he's too lazy to look up himself, and which he will likely dismiss anyway....

In short, Maupay demands that we teach him all the world's knowledge while standing on one foot, and faults us when we won't play his game.

That's great, again, it doesn't deal with my question but thanks.

Case in point about Maupayman's treatment of arguments that don't advance his agenda.

What makes you think those articles don't answer the question? Have you read them, yet?

Arrogant presumption and a reflexive need to dismiss anything that might set back his cause.

As has been amply demonstrated, Maupayman is not interested in serious answers to serious questions, only in flogging his particular agenda.

I think what you'd like is a very short and concise answer to your question, without a lot of detail, but the fact that Daniel threw out a slew of references for you to read doesn't mean he didn't answer your question. If you want him to dumb it all down for you, I'm sure he could do that, if he wanted to, but don't make the mistake of thinking the answer to your question isn't in the information Daniel referenced without even reading all of it yet.

Well put- but it doesn't advance Maupayman's agenda, and so will be either ignored out of hand or mischaracterized as "dodging the question".

[maupayman]

This translates to: Maupayman- who has an extended history of dismissing arguments and primary sources he doesn't like out of hand- expects the Mormon faithful to line up and bark at his command.

No it doesn't Selek. Daniel claimed that the "other issues" I brought up were dealt with in Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. I said that from what I have read of that book, those issues were not dealt with. I then asked him to explain how the author dealt with those issues, as Daniel claimed. He then continued to not answer my question but give me numerous other references to read. I am not dismissing arguments, I am claiming that I have not seen the issues I raised dealt with in the source he claimed deals with them.

He expects us to vomit up (upon his demand) things that he's too lazy to look up himself, and which he will likely dismiss anyway....

In short, Maupay demands that we teach him all the world's knowledge while standing on one foot, and faults us when we won't play his game.

No I don't, as I outlined above, my requests are reasonable, given Daniel's claim.

Case in point about Maupayman's treatment of arguments that don't advance his agenda.

Arrogant presumption and a reflexive need to dismiss anything that might set back his cause.

As has been amply demonstrated, Maupayman is not interested in serious answers to serious questions, only in flogging his particular agenda.

What's been demonstrated here is that you don't understand the dialogue between Daniel and myself. But thanks for attacking me and calling me lazy Selek. Maybe you should go back to your thread, about you needing to relax, and take a breather.

[hagoth7]

....That would have made the rockies more tempting.

Which begs the question...why, after he was on the west bank of the Mississippi, did he turn back, hug his wife and children goodbye, and surrender to the Carthage militia who had sworn to kill him...telling those he loved that he was going "like a lamb to the slaughter"?

Why?

Unless perhaps he actually was an honest, honorable, and sincere man?

[ttribe]

Which begs the question...why, after he was on the west bank of the Mississippi, did he turn back, hug his wife and children goodbye, and surrender to the Carthage militia who had sworn to kill him...telling those he loved that he was going "like a lamb to the slaughter"?

Why?

Unless perhaps he actually was an honest, honorable, and sincere man?

And which behavior, by the way, is atypical for fraudsters (speaking from professional expertise).

[Daniel Peterson]

You have outlined evidence that they did not deny their testimony, not that they were not part of a fraud.

I regard the fact that they didn't deny their testimonies, but, in fact, enthusiastically reaffirmed their testimonies when there was no discernible incentive to do so, and even when there were powerful disincentives to do so, and even on their deathbeds, and even on their tombstones, as powerfully suggesting that they were not con-men.

For what it's worth, compare David Whitmer's concern that his testimony be proclaimed on his grave marker even after his death -- I've seen it myself -- to Mao's shocking lack of concern for what would happen to China after his demise, as set forth in Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's massive Mao: The Unknown Story (Anchor, 2006). The obvious reason for the difference between the two is that David Whitmer was a genuine believer in the Book of Mormon, while Mao (much to my surprise) wasn't really a believer in anything at all, not even Communism.

my point is that I asked about a very specific point and you gave me a bunch of books to read.

With regard to that point, I mentioned a single book, a portion of which treats that point.

Professor Anderson's response is well-reasoned and heavily documented. I don't have the time or the interest to retype it for you.

As mentioned, I have read some of the sources you listed and did not find answers regarding these specific points: Whitmer claiming to be a prophet and Harris witnessing that the Scroll and Book were delivered by an angel. So, to tell me to go read books that don't answer the specific point I am discussing is not entirely helpful.

You say that you've read only portions of Professor Anderson's book. As I recall, he treats those issues.

This is not an academic setting, its a discussion board. I asked about specific points, I shouldn't need to do hours of research to find an answer to a simple question.

Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't. In any event, I'm not obliged to spend an hour or two of my time summarizing somebody else's book for you.

Or do you disagree? Am I obligated to be your research assistant and general go-fer? Particularly when I have other pressing obligations?

I have studied a lot about mormon history, maybe not as much as you, but a lot. I don't feel that i'm just some ignoramous editorializing something I know nothing about.

Those are your pejorative words, not mine.

What irritates me, is when you ask a simple question of someone, who is arguing a point against you, and in response they just throw a bunch of articles at you that don't answer your question.

I suggested a single book, which, it turns out, you are only partially familiar with.

Then I suggested an on-line article and another book that I thought would be helpful to you. If you don't want to read them, that's not my fault.

I simply asked about how the author dealt with the two claims I noted earlier. From my reading of his book, he didn't deal with it. Instead of a research paper, you could have answered my question in the time it took you to write this post. Its a simple question.

Okay. Here's the simple answer. He doesn't think that it signifies anything against the truth claims of Mormonism.

That's great, again, it doesn't deal with my question but thanks.

The book deals very extensively and directly with the question of Oliver Cowdery's credibility. If that's an issue that doesn't interest you, I apologize for disturbing you.

[maupayman]

Which begs the question...why, after he was on the west bank of the Mississippi, did he turn back, hug his wife and children goodbye, and surrender to the Carthage militia who had sworn to kill him...telling those he loved that he was going "like a lamb to the slaughter"?

Why?

Unless perhaps he actually was an honest, honorable, and sincere man?

Who knows, there are any number of reasons he may have made this choice. Maybe, he was tired of running and hoped the law would actually work in his favor. Maybe, he hoped he wouldn't be killed and that God would protect him. Maybe he wanted his name to live on in a daring show of bravery. I don't know... but neither do you. Is your option: that he was an honest, honorable, and sincere man the only possible reason you can speculate? We don't know and these "why would he have done this" questions seem self serving and completely speculative.

[maupayman]

I regard the fact that they didn't deny their testimonies, but, in fact, enthusiastically reaffirmed their testimonies when there was no discernible incentive to do so, and even when there were powerful disincentives to do so, and even on their deathbeds, and even on their tombstones, as powerfully suggesting that they were not con-men.

Fair enough, I find it less powerful when we consider other claims, which they never denied. Obviously, we view this evidence differently.

For what it's worth, compare David Whitmer's concern that his testimony be proclaimed on his grave marker even after his death -- I've seen it myself -- to Mao's shocking lack of concern for what would happen to China after his demise, as set forth in Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's massive Mao: The Unknown Story (Anchor, 2006). The obvious reason for the difference between the two is that David Whitmer was a genuine believer in the Book of Mormon, while Mao (much to my surprise) wasn't really a believer in anything at all, not even Communism.

I don't see the use in comparing a religious enthusiast to a man like Mao, who you mention wasn't really a believer in anything at all.

Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't. In any event, I'm not obliged to spend an hour or two of my time summarizing somebody else's book for you.

Or do you disagree? Am I obligated to be your research assistant and general go-fer? Particularly when I have other pressing obligations?

I wasn't expecting this Dan, I was hoping for a quick sentence, or paragraph outlining his approach to these issues. You have spent hours responding to me already, I was just hoping for a quick paragraph outling his answer.

Okay. Here's the simple answer. He doesn't think that it signifies anything against the truth claims of Mormonism.

There it is! Thank you. This was what I found when I looked for his answer on this specific issue. He simply seemed to brush it off as though it didn't signify anything problematic for their other claims, regarding mormonism. I found that to be a strange position at the time and I still do. I think these points speak directly to their credibility as religious witnesses, Anderson and others don't seem to think so. Agree to disagree, i guess. But thank you for answering the question.

[cdowis]

BTW, is is this the same David Whitmer that claimed that an Angel told him that Smith was a fallen prophet?

I would be interested in seeing that citation.

Simply put, unless and until the LDS Church openly acknowledges that Smith borrowed from KJV bible, the book is not what it purports to be. Its something less.

OK, during the process of translating the BOM into English, JS borrowed words and phrases from the KJV.

Now what?

[Jaybear]

OK, JS borrowed words and phrases from the KJV during the translation process.

Now what?

Your honesty is refreshing.* Knowing that Smith "borrowed" (some would call it plagiarized) from KJV, and yet still believing that he dictated the remainder of the BOM while his head was buried in his hat is testament to the strength of your faith.

But I am not disputing your claims regarding the book, or your faith.

I am disputing the claim made by Smith and the LDS Church about what the book purports to be. The claim that its an original translation is not entirely truthful. By withholding the full truth to investigators and members others are denied the opportunity to freely decide for themselves the relevancy of Smith's borrowing from KJV.

*Others here are not as candid.

[USU78]

(some would call it plagiarized)

Be careful with your rules on attribution. Are you quite sure you would be comfortable if the standard you're grafting on a pre-Victorian milieu were to be applied to your hero (assuming you have one)?

Presentism is a fun sport, ain't it?

[Daniel Peterson]

Fair enough, I find it less powerful when we consider other claims, which they never denied. Obviously, we view this evidence differently.

We do. I don't, for example, find their opinions, even if persisted in to the end of their days, as significant for the truth-claims of Mormonism as I find their claims as purported eyewitnesses.

Suppose an eyewitness to a car accident is testifying in court. A Ford and a Chevy collided. Let's say that he knows the drivers of both cars. The judge won't be interested in the witness's opinions about the merits of Ford versus Chevrolet, nor in his feelings about the personalities of the two drivers ("Franky was always nice to me -- a class act -- but Johnny can be a real pill"), let alone in his speculations about the 2012 presidential race, his preferences among NFL teams, or his dislike of grand opera. The judge will only care about what he saw just before and during the accident.

I don't see the use in comparing a religious enthusiast to a man like Mao, who you mention wasn't really a believer in anything at all.

That was precisely the point -- which, I have to admit, I thought was a pretty good and obvious one.

Mao -- and this surprised even me -- wasn't a Communist zealot. He was, according to Chang and Halliday, only interested in benefits to himself. Communism was merely a vehicle to self-aggrandizement. So, when asked what he saw as the future of China after his death, he candidly said that he didn't care. When he was dead, he explained, it wouldn't matter. Because, plainly, it was only about him. But David Whitmer, pretty obviously, did believe in the Book of Mormon. And he instructed that his testimony be memorialized on his grave monument. (The monument is a pillar, surmounted by the sculptured representation of two books, and bears the inscription "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one.") He still wanted his testimony to be proclaimed after he had died, when it could no longer aggrandize him in any mortal way.

I wasn't expecting this Dan, I was hoping for a quick sentence, or paragraph outlining his approach to these issues. You have spent hours responding to me already, I was just hoping for a quick paragraph outling his answer.

I haven't spent "hours" responding to you.

There it is! Thank you. This was what I found when I looked for his answer on this specific issue. He simply seemed to brush it off as though it didn't signify anything problematic for their other claims, regarding mormonism. I found that to be a strange position at the time and I still do. I think these points speak directly to their credibility as religious witnesses, Anderson and others don't seem to think so. Agree to disagree, i guess. But thank you for answering the question.

But that wasn't a serious answer at all.

This is one of the things that I really hate about many Internet discussions: Years of research, pages of argumentation, scores of items of evidence, cumulative cases that took many hours to formulate and put on paper, are reduced to a line or two of summary and then, very typically, airily dismissed without serious engagement -- and, worse, with the complacent thought that they've now been adequately dealt with.

There is no substitute for doing the homework.

[Deborah]

I am disputing the claim made by Smith and the LDS Church about what the book purports to be. The claim that its an original translation is not entirely truthful. By withholding the full truth to investigators and members others are denied the opportunity to freely decide for themselves the relevancy of Smith's borrowing from KJV.

My, we are really grasping at straws here. Since the writers of the Book of Mormon acknowledge the source how is it plagiarism? Furthermore, there are changes in the BOM version and some scholars don't believe that Joseph referred to the KJV to make his translation but rather this is the translation he received. If it's the same then it's because it's from the same source.

In any case it's a moot point and a really, really picayune one at that.

[Daniel Peterson]

Here are my less than candid, indeed dishonest, responses to Jaybear's latest:

Your honesty is refreshing.*

*Others here are not as candid.

That, I think, would include me.

Knowing that Smith "borrowed" (some would call it plagiarized) from KJV, and yet still believing that he dictated the remainder of the BOM while his head was buried in his hat is testament to the strength of your faith.

The situation doesn't seem to uncandid, dishonest me quite as neat as this.

First, the standards of plagiarism in antiquity and among authors of scriptural texts don't seem to be the same as they are for the contemporary college-freshman term paper. Did Isaiah 2:2-4 plagiarize Micah 4:1-4, for example, or did Micah 4:1-4 plagiarize Isaiah 2:2-4, or did they both plagiarize from some other, unidentified, pre-existing text? Was "originality" as highly prized in the ancient world -- indeed, as much of a fetish -- as it is in the contemporary United States? ("Change!")

Second, it would have been a somewhat foolhardy attempt at plagiarism, on Joseph Smith's part, for him to crib directly from a text that was easily found (indeed, the Book of Mormon says that it's quoting from Isaiah) in the most-widely circulated and familiar book in the English-speaking world at that very biblically-literate time. ("Heh heh heh," says the fiendishly clever con-man Joe Smith, "they'll never figger this one out!")

Third, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had a Bible with him during the translation process. In fact, at least one or two witnesses stress that he did not have a book with him.

Fourth, you bring up the always-good-for-a-laugh head-in-the-hat bit. But it cuts against your position. With his head in the hat, where it was presumably rather dark, it would have been essentially impossible for Joseph Smith to have read from a Bible or from any other text. And it seems unlikely that he memorized multiple chapters of (the notoriously difficult) Isaiah each evening for regurgitation the following day. (I discuss this and some related matters at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=582 .)

Fifth, in fact, the Book of Mormon doesn't reproduce the King James text with complete faithfulness. Rather, it changes KJV Isaiah at numerous points, virtually continually and, I would argue, in a somewhat systematic, not merely random, way.

I am disputing the claim made by Smith and the LDS Church about what the book purports to be. The claim that its an original translation is not entirely truthful. By withholding the full truth to investigators and members others are denied the opportunity to freely decide for themselves the relevancy of Smith's borrowing from KJV.

Who is "withholding the full truth"? The Isaiah question in the Book of Mormon has been discussed many times, in many places, by both believers and unbelievers. And, more fundamentally, we openly distribute the Book of Mormon to people who very probably own copies of the Bible themselves -- if not, there are still a few bookstores and Bible distributors that we haven't managed to shut down -- and who are entirely capable of comparing the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon (which are plainly identified as such) with the text of Isaiah in the Bible.

These vapid allusions to the Church's alleged conspiracy to hide facts are very, very wearisome. At least, they are to dishonest people like me, who lack candor.

[cdowis]

Your honesty is refreshing.* Knowing that Smith "borrowed" (some would call it plagiarized) from KJV, and yet still believing that he dictated the remainder of the BOM while his head was buried in his hat is testament to the strength of your faith.

It is a testimony of my understanding of the translation process. If there is a very large overlap between the KJV text and the BOM text, it is reasonable that JS wuuld take a shortcut and use that as a reference point for his tranalation. He made corrections as needed, because it is not an exact transference of text.

But I am not disputing your claims regarding the book, or your faith.

Really? You have done that consistently and constantly. You have now changed your opinion? Very unlikely.

[Jaybear]

My, we are really grasping at straws here.

I understand. In your subjective opinion, its not a big deal.

Personally, in my subjective opinion, I see the inclusion of KJV translation errors as compelling evidence of fraud.

We are all free to draw our own conclusion from the facts, provided of course, we are apprised of the facts.

Since the writers of the Book of Mormon acknowledge the source how is it plagiarism?

??? When does Smith or for that matter the present LDS Church acknowledge that Smith borrowed text from KJV bible? I believe the source for BOM was purportedly the golden plates.

Furthermore, there are changes in the BOM version and some scholars don't believe that Joseph referred to the KJV to make his translation but rather this is the translation he received. If it's the same then it's because it's from the same source.

Sure. That is one explanation as to how KJV errors found their way into the BOM. Which I am sure is satisfactory to some people. I am also sure that it strikes others as contrived.

In any case it's a moot point and a really, really picayune one at that.

I am not sure how its moot. It only becomes moot when you show that Smith or the LDS Church acknowledge that Smith used the KJV bible during the translation?

As for really, really picayune, that is your opinion.

CDOWIS: It is a testimony of my understanding of the translation process. If there is a very large overlap between the KJV text and the BOM text, it is reasonable that JS wuuld take a shortcut and use that as a reference point for his tranalation. He made corrections as needed, because it is not an exact transference of text.

What a shame. Here he is given an opportunity to provide a pristine translation of the Prophet Isiah, free of the human translation error replete throughout the bible, but he decides instead to take a shortcut. Tsk.

Really? You have done that consistently and constantly. You have now changed your opinion? Very unlikely.

On this point, my criticism is that the BOM is not what Smith/LDS Church purports it to be. I don't know if anybody cares whether the BOM is what CDowis purports it to be. When you found you own church, perhaps then we can discuss your claims.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

??? When does Smith or for that matter the present LDS Church acknowledge that Smith borrowed text from KJV bible? I believe the source for BOM was purportedly the golden plates.

I don't think Jaybear knows what plagairism is. You said that some would call it plagairism. If you did not agree that it is plagairism why would you presume to speak for these "some"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't. In any event, I'm not obliged to spend an hour or two of my time summarizing somebody else's book for you.

Or do you disagree? Am I obligated to be your research assistant and general go-fer? Particularly when I have other pressing obligations?

I notice that maupayman has not mentioned any monetary remuneration. I hereby offer my services in summarizing Prof. Anderson's book for him. My rates start at $250 an hour plus expenses, with a cash deposit, payable in advance, based upon an estimated four hours of work reading and writing. Maupayman can contact me via this board's pm function.

Meanwhile, I don't think we are obliged to view as valid argument his expressions of doubt from a standpoint of self-imposed ignorance occasioned by refusal to read a portion of a recommended book or on-line article.

[Daniel Peterson]

??? When does Smith or for that matter the present LDS Church acknowledge that Smith borrowed text from KJV bible?

The similarity between Book of Mormon Isaiah and KJV Isaiah is so very difficult to discern! I understand that the Huntington Library in California has a copy of the KJV that one could use to make the comparison, but, unfortunately, access to it is restricted. And the Beinecke Library at Yale may have one, but nobody has been able to confirm that so far.

It only becomes moot when you show that Smith or the LDS Church acknowledge that Smith used the KJV bible during the translation?

So you want us to acknowledge that Joseph used a KJV Bible during the translation process even though there is no direct evidence for that proposition and at least some witness testimony to the contrary?

I'm not sure that I understand exactly on what basis we're obliged to affirm your claim. Can you elucidate your position a bit?

[Deborah]

As for really, really picayune, that is your opinion.

The question really is why does someone with so much animosity spend so much time trying to pick apart every little issue about something they don't believe anyway. And yes the point is that it is my opinion and the fact that such things bother you doesn't concern me at all except to point out that you are getting desperate.

Christ himself in the NT quoted OT prophets. I suppose he and the NT writers are guilty of plagiarism as well according to your definition.

[Scott Lloyd]

The question really is why does someone with so much animosity spend so much time trying to pick apart every little issue about something they don't believe anyway.

I've noticed that often there is something that, if known, would make the motivation more obvious. Perhaps the antagonist is (or was) married to a Church member whose activity in the Church is (or was) a source of irritation to the spouse.

I'm not saying this is the case with Jaybear, whose identity and personal circumstances are altogether unknown to me. I'm just observing that, often as not, there's something under the surface.