Joseph Copied Parts Of The Book Of Mormon From The Kjv Bible (Church Source)

[cdowis]

Ok, I will throw out the terms of mystical, magical or any similar terms. In my life experiences, since leaving the church, I take the skeptics position. Anyone who claims to see through a crystal ball or through tarot cards or seances or divination or astrology or any of the following:

Do we throw away astronomy because of astrology? In your system of thinking, is it possible that the "magic" that we reject also has a twin brother which is real.

or ouija boards (and I probably missed an equal number of similar practices) or as in Joseph Smith's case "seer stones" or "Urim and Thummin"

I view with deep distrust.

And you view astronomy with deep distrust, and how about quantum physics? We can see their "evil twins", do we not. TV is merely viewing things in the distance, was that not also based on magic visions?

It is a matter of discernment. Just some advice ==>> you learn to reject the false, but don't reject it because you simply give it a label called "magic".

I spent a number of years translating business documents from English into Swedish and back again. I have taught in two different languages for more than 30 years. I am fluent enough in a number of languages to stumble through written work in those languages and am currently learning Egyptian hieroglyphs and Spanish.

Translation of any document is not easy. It is time consuming and full of pitfalls. Try putting a phrase or paragraph or whole document into Google Translate, translate it into another language then take the same phrase and put it into reverse, going from the newly translated document back into English (or whatever language you are most fluent with). You will find the outcome hilarious (if you have a somewhat twisted and boring sense of humour)

Would you use the same process to translate Shakespeare as to translate a business document? Would not the former seem rather strange if one were to look at the literal translation literally.

Merely having a thought does not necessarily put that thought into languages known or unknown. So in other words, I don't believe in speaking in tongues. Joseph Smith wrote a document now known as "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar".

And you are asserting that JS himself wrote that document, is that correct?

Not a single symbol or word matches any known work of actual Egyptian translation. These documents can now be found on church sites listed as "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers".

No matter which method used, or tool used, for that matter, a translation must coincide with the document being translated. Anything else is not a translation, but merely a work of independent imagination.

You demonstrate absolute certitude about these things, which is indicative of shallow analysis. Have you encountered the mneumonic theory of translation? Nothing magical, very straightfoward.

Edited May 30, 2013 by cdowis

[Hamba Tuhan]

A few years ago, one of my Young Men was preparing to receive his patriarchal blessing. He'd made an appointment with the patriarch for a particular evening and had invited me to join him and his parents for the event. During the day, though, he had a meltdown. He'd been trying to fast, but he came down with the flu and felt miserable. To make matters worse, he was doing a work experience for school that day, so he was engaged in manual labour. At lunchtime, he sent me a text message expressing his frustration that nothing was going to plan and that he hardly felt like actually following through with receiving his blessing that night. I had no idea what to say in response, but I bowed my head, said a prayer, and did my best to write something encouraging and comforting. It was a long text message, about 500 characters, but I had no idea if I'd written what I should have, and the whole experience left me coveting a bit of wisdom.

Later that night at the home of the patriarch, I sat and listened to the blessing pronounced upon this boy. Then some of the words startled me. They were, I felt certain, my words composed on a mobile phone earlier that day -- word for word. I didn't say anything to the boy, and he didn't say anything to me. I decided he hadn't noticed the similarity, so I let the matter go. When he got a copy of his blessing, though, I did ask if I could have a look. He said that was fine, and I then got to compare what was on the printed page with the text message still saved on my phone. The words were indeed identical, with only a single word changed, and that word was a synonym for what I had written.

To this day, I can't really explain why an Oxford-educated patriarch used my exact words in the giving of a blessing (or did the Lord somehow give us both the same words?). I hadn't felt particularly inspired when I wrote out the text message, but I felt comforted afterward, with a sense that even in my weakness the Lord can use me. I've also had a very hard time getting fussed about supposed 'plagiarisms' in the Book of Mormon since then.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kevin Christensen]

When Joseph Smith composed his 1832 history, with all the meaningful allusions that Matthew Brown has discussed here:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

I find it helpful to consider that this was done in Kirtland in 1832 after an intense period of concentrated study, with Sidney Ridgon, that amounted to the majority of the work done on the inspired translation of the Bible. I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate the effect of that well documented focus and study back to Joseph's earlier years. According to Mother Smith, Joseph was the least inclined to read books of all her children, more inclined to mediation and deep study, as she put it. The opportunity for such focus wasn't there earlier. Think about chopping down 5,000 trees during the days of just getting ready for farming for instance, plus, all the nights supposedly spent digging. And of course, though Wilfred Poulson managed to reconstruct the Manchester lending library, there is still the problem of the Smith's not being members of that library, nor, living in Manchester, and the distance between Harmony, PA and Manchester NY, and the fact that Harmony did not have a library. And of course, the problem that even that library would not have been of much use. When the neighbors told stories about Joseph, we get characterizations as "the ignoramus", rather than, "always reading books... borrowing and never returning... you could tell that young know-it-all was up to something." Bookish kids are known and characterized as such by their peers. I've got personal experience on that score. They are not characterized as Joseph was by those who knew him. When the mob searched the house, they never reported, "No plates... just all these books, notes, and papers." And of course, Hamblin has pointed out just how much books could cost, something that the debt and mortgage situation makes rather urgent, in considering how much extra cash and time the young Joseph had.

It is clear, as Nibley and others have pointed out, the use of King James language makes it the identification of Biblical quotations both easy and obvious, just as the quotations of the Septuagint in the New Testament has that specific purpose. One of the promises of the Holy Spirit in John's gospel is that it would bring "all things to your remembrance," and D&C 1 declares that the revelations is to be in their own language and according to their understanding. Welch likes to point out that Emma, for instance, insisted that Joseph had no manuscript to read from, and that for the incident when the translation described a wall around Jerusalem, they had to go get a Bible to confirm it, all suggest that they didn't have a Bible around. I agree with Brant Gardner and other's that a physical text was not necessary to explain the quotations. Inspiration working upon memory is sufficient.

Trying to explain away the Book of Mormon as a whole by looking exclusively at the quotations (and ignoring significant variations, such as those observed by Welch and Tvedtnes) no more explains the Book of Mormon than the quotations in the New Testament explains those texts as plagiarism. The Melchizidek text from Qumran is largely composed of quotations. That does not mean it is not important, or that is is nothing but quotations.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Questing Beast]

... Looking over the few handwritten documents which Joseph produced from his early years leaves one with the definite impression that he couldn't spell or write coherently, and he used no punctuation.

Does 1832 count as "his early years?" Because there is nothing "incoherent" about his hand-written account of the first vision....

[Nevo]

I find it helpful to consider that this was done in Kirtland in 1832 after an intense period of concentrated study, with Sidney Ridgon, that amounted to the majority of the work done on the inspired translation of the Bible. I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate the effect of that well documented focus and study back to Joseph's earlier years.

It would be reasonable to ascribe the pervasive KJV language in Joseph's 1832 history to his intensive study of the Bible during the previous two years if we did not also find the same thing in the Book of Mormon and his earliest (pre-1830) revelations.

Now I don't disagree with the explanation that we are dealing with "inspiration working upon memory." I don't think anyone has suggested that the KJV quotations, allusions, and echoes that permeate Joseph's religious writings were the result of him sitting down with a Bible and laboriously composing a pastiche of biblical phrases. The "words of life" were already present in his mind when he began dictating. The question is, how did they get there?

You suggest that the opportunity for focused study of the Bible was not there in Joseph's early youth. But Joseph himself says that his spiritual awakening at the age of twelve led him "to searching the scriptures." He continues: "thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that <they did not adorn> instead of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. . . . by searching the scriptures I found that mand <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever . . ."

Maybe Joseph is embellishing here, but I don't find it that difficult to believe that he found time to search and ponder the scriptures in spite of all the work and chores. (Shakespeare, by the way, did most of his reading and writing "late at night or early in the morning," often by candlelight—his mornings being occupied with rehearsals, his afternoons with performances, and many of his evenings with company business; see James Shapiro, A Year in the Life of WIlliam Shakespeare: 1599, p. xviii). No, Joseph wasn't living the life of a medieval monk, poring over the text in a scriptorium all day surrounded by "books, notes, and papers." But he grew to maturity in a culture immersed in the KJV Bible. Apart from his own reading of the Bible, the Smith family held regular prayers and sang hymns, and, living in the "Burned-Over District," Joseph had occasion to hear countless sermons. By his own account, he paid close attention to revivalist preaching, "attend[ing] their several meetings as often as occasion would permit" (JS-H 1:8 ). According to Orsamus Turner, Joseph became a "very passable exhorter" at evening meetings.

So color me skeptical of the claim that Joseph was essentially biblically illiterate when he dictated the Book of Mormon.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Nevo

[bcuzbcuz]

Again, you are making a statement as fact that can NOT be known, (by your own admission).

I'm having difficulty following your line of reasoning. I'm saying that the earliest scriptures we have say nothing about the doxology, you're equating this with not knowing anything. Instead of taking what text we have, that have been changed, you would rather hold out for the maybe of some undiscovered text that hopefully will show up, some time. That seems to be one, two, three times too many Ifs in the guesswork of interpreting scripture.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think that the Church "must face" any such thing! Nor does there "have to be a more solid answer for these questions"!

While these are interesting distractions, they only become problematic for those who feel that The Lord has to reveal all things now before they can accept what has already been revealed! If we are faithful to what we already know, the Lord will reveal,"in His own due time" how all things were done.

In the mean time, as I said these things might be interesting distractions and speculations, and yes they may be problematic, for those with weak faith, but that is why we're told time and again, how to stay strong in the faith; through prayer,scripture study, and keeping the commandments! I suppose that that's just to simple for some.

Mike

I respectfully disagree. I'm also not asking for everything to be revealed today. The LDS church is far from ready for any deeper or greater knowledge that God may have to offer. The church may never be ready in this temporal existence. I'm only saying that I am open to better answers we have been given.

[Damien the Leper]

The real question here is, If there were a reasonable response, would you accept it? Do you in fact point to an authentic disjuncture between "exactly" what Church history and reports (whatever they are) say and the actual translation & transmission process? You demand "solid" and exact answers in an inexact world, and thus display the fallacious approach to what you term "a serious issue." Why don't you treat it with seriousness then, instead of taking the by-gosh-and-by-golly approach?

I would accept it. The problem I have is the fact that we have no original manuscript or historical evidence to suggest that portions of the Book of Mormon were in circulation nor do we have evidence that the persons mentioned in the book existed. Belief in the Book of Mormon, for me, is limited to the inconclusive notion that it is a 19th century work. I accept it as scripture and inspirational. However, its history is still open to debate. Copy and paste translation and transmission are deterrents to actual authenticity. I treat certain portions of the Bible just the same.

[Vance]

I'm having difficulty following your line of reasoning. I'm saying that the earliest scriptures we have say nothing about the doxology, you're equating this with not knowing anything.

You really don't want to admit what you have already admitted. You admit that the autographs don't exist and yet you claim to KNOW as fact what they did not contain simply because it was not in some of the early copies. But, hey, keep claiming to know what was not in the autographs while admitting that no one can know what was not in the autographs, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Instead of taking what text we have, that have been changed, you would rather hold out for the maybe of some undiscovered text that hopefully will show up, some time.

So, now you have advanced from knowing the unknowable to knowing what I am hoping for?

That seems to be one, two, three times too many Ifs in the guesswork of interpreting scripture.

Says he who claims to know what he admits is unknowable. Edited May 30, 2013 by Vance

[cdowis]

I'm saying that the earliest scriptures we have say nothing about the doxology, you're equating this with not knowing anything. Instead of taking what text we have, that have been changed, you would rather hold out for the maybe of some undiscovered text that hopefully will show up, some time.

While I would agree that the "earliest manuscript" standard is probably valid in general, one cannot apply it to validate authenticity in a specific case. As you say, perhaps something will eventually show up and I suggest that this has already happened with the BOM.

Edited May 30, 2013 by cdowis

[Damien the Leper]

Vance, you're going to have to come down to the telestial kingdom so we can play a game of raquet ball. I think it would be fun.

[Ahab]

Vance, you're going to have to come down to the telestial kingdom so we can play a game of raquet ball. I think it would be fun.

If only they allowed raquet ball in the telestial kingdom. You may have to settle for badminton.

[Johnnie Cake]

If that is what you think I said then I have not explained my thoughts very clearly.

Let me list the assumptions as I see them and hopefully I will communicate more clearly this time.

1) Jesus lived near Jerusalem and sometime around the year 30 CE (approximate) he instructed people how to pray (probably multiple times).

2) Sometime later the teachings of Jesus were written, eventually being written by a person named Matthew (Presumably).

3) The writings of Matthew were circulated, and copied multiple times.

4) At some point between 325-350 CE (estimate) what is now known as Codex Vaticanus was written. Codex Vaticanus contains the earliest extant copy of Matthew containing the Saviors instructions on how to pray. It does not contain the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen"

5) At some point near 400 CE (estimate, probably completed earlier) what is now known as Codex Washingtonensis (Washingtonianus) was written. The copy of Matthew's writings in this codex do contain the phrase above known as the doxology.

6) The doxology was in use among Christians from an early period, most likely predating the Codex Vaticanus, we simply do not have any extant copies of Matthew's writing from this period. The didache which is estimated to have been originally written between 40-60 CE contains a nearly identical form of the doxology.

7) John Chrysostom (347-407 CE) goes to great lengths to explain the writings of Matthew (as transmitted to him) in his Homily 19 on Matthew. He spends several paragraphs explaining the doxology. Whatever copy of Matthew he had in his possession, it was not Codex Vaticanus, nor was it Codex Washingtonensis. It could have been a contemporary of theirs or it could have been something older. Whatever it was, it did contain the Doxology

So let's recap what we know.

Codex Vaticanus does not contain the doxology. Does this imply that Jesus never taught the doxology? No. Does this imply that no copies of Matthew ever contained the doxology? No. What does it imply then? All we can say definitively is that this particular copy of Matthew does not contain the doxology.

Was the doxology in use by Christians before the Codex Vaticanus was written? The evidence suggests yes, but we cannot say this definitively. What can we say then? We can say that the copy of Matthew contained in Codex Washingtonensis included the doxology. We can also say that the copy of Matthew used by John Chrysostom contained the doxology and that it probably predated the Codex Washingtonensis.

The claim by Johnnie Cake that the doxology was never a part of the writings of Matthew until the King James Version in the 1700s is false (as acknowledged by Johnnie Cake). It is included in some of the earliest extant copies of Christian writing. The fact that it is not included in Codex Vaticanus (or Codex Sinaiticus) does not imply that is was not taught by Jesus while in Jerusalem or while in the Americas. All that it implies is that these particular copies did not contain the phrase.

Again, I see no problem here. I understand why people choose to believe that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James version, but this is not the only plausible explanation.

-guerreiro9

Excellent recap guerreiro9...thanks for posting that...and for the record, I again acknowledge my error in my earlier post…I have egg on my face and I’m appreciative that you caught my error...however (you knew there was going to be a however right?) I think it is important to point out that guerreiro9’s list is, as guerreiro9 points out, is a list of “Assumptions” with several “qualifiers”

In item 5) guerreiro9 is assuming that Codex Washingtonensis was “Probably” written before 400 BCE…this is an unsupported assumption.

In item 6) guerreiro9 uses another unsupported assumptive qualifier “Most Likely” to suggest that the doxology was in use among Christians from an early period and that it predated the Codex Vaticanus. While he demonstrates that the doxology was in use in other places…using this to assume that it was in use with the Lord’s Prayer…is just that, a leap of assumption.

In his recap he states that: “Codex Vaticanus does not contain the doxology. Does this imply that Jesus never taught the doxology?” Well it’s impossible to know exactly what Jesus taught but because the doxology was not found in the earliest copies of the Lord’s Prayer it becomes less likely that Jesus used the doxology in His original sermon. One claim we can state as fact is that the Matthew version of the sermon on the mount is a second hand account written decades after the event supposedly took place. While I’m willing to give allowance that some of the words of Jesus possibly made it through the decade long process that gave us Matthew…it is reasonable to conclude that we do not have the sermon on the mount that Jesus delivered.

Guerreiro9, stats that he sees no problem and I agree with him that this argument is not iron clad and leaves a lot of wiggle room for both teams to maneuver in. I had hoped for more surety…but it is what it is…we’re probably left where we were in the beginning…each team will see what they want to see and ignore what they want to ignore.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

No worries, my message was garbled. You'd been talking about the large plates being prepared to 'fix' the 116 pages issue. I'm fairly sure it was the other way round.

Joseph translated from Mormon's account on the large plates up to Mosiah (including, according to Skousen, the first 2 chapters of Mosiah). He then lost the 116 pages and the plates went AWOL for a year.

He's then believed to have picked up with Oliver from Mosiah and translated through Moroni and only then translated the small plates which contain Nephi-Omni, finishing with the Words of Mormon. I'm still looking for a good reference for this but am confident I've read it few times in 'supportive' books/websites.

It doesn't quite fit with the words of Mormon though as he says on the one hand he has finished and is about to give the plates to his son Moroni (so the large plates have been finished). Having explained this he then says he will 'proceed to finish' the plates and goes into an explanation about Amaleki and King Benjamin. So he got to the end of the Large plates compilation and then just before calling it a wrap he added in the small plates (uncondensed) -inserted after Amaleki or at the back of the plates??

It's impressive that the translation had stopped and Martin's wife asked and Joseph repeatedly prayed until persuading God to let the 116 pages be shown at the very moment in the plates where the large plates were about to transition into the second half of the large plates and where Mormon had decided to insert the small plates. Small plates which 1000 years before Mormon's abridgement had been started by Nephi as a 'second journal' but still right from the beginning of their exit from Jerusalem and continued to be maintained right through a whole group of 'non-writer' generations and was finally wrapped up as a document and handed not to the next Lehite generation but to King Benjamin who tucked away for about 600 years or so for Mormon to discover in the archives and add in.

If your head hurt before, mine does now.

Ummmm...and one wonders why I find the Book of Mormon to be a man-made "production"...all of this just seems so convenient and improbable to have actually happened in real life...but I could be wrong...and I guess that is why there are still those who remain believers

[canard78]

Was it for a whole year!? Sheesh, I really need to pay more attention to dates in my reading, I am always thinking things took less or more time than they did.

Good catch, I should learn to check my references. 9 months, not 1 year for the stop in translation - June '28 pages lost. Apr '29 Joseph & Oliver start work. Also the plates are only actually taken from Jul-Sep 28.

Edited May 30, 2013 by canard78

[Johnnie Cake]

Help me. Your question is based on assumptions. Where is JS using this passage? Provide proof that "it was not in the original." I assume you have access to Mark's original manuscript.

I apologize if you have already provided those answers.

I know that with believers anything and everything is possible when God is involved...but we're talking of a passage that was added long after the oldest available manuscripts were written which incidentally didn't include the passage...written and added by man and not by God...written by some anonymous person who felt that he/she was improving the words of what he/she believed to be the words of God. This is only a problem because these man-made words added supposedly by some random scribe somehow found their way into the Book of Mormon...it’s as if God was taking His inspiration from some unknown man/scribe...and God thought..."Hmmm, wow that really improves what I wanted to say...I'm going to inspire Joseph to write and translate that into the Book of Mormon...even though my Son, Jesus Christ couldn't have said those words to the Nephites becasue they were added by that brilliant scribe some 200 years after my Son Jesus, visited the Nephites..." ...and there in lays the problem.

[canard78]

I assume that this issue is not that Nephi chose to begin at the beginning when describing the spiritual highlights of his and his people's lives, but rather where it ended as well as the bit from Mormon?

Mainly the ending dovetailing perfectly with the point where the 116 pages end. A bit also on the fact that he gives a fairly substantial intro and story given the other record is already covering it. Given it's a standalone document it's reasonable to have context.

I should know this, but are the small plates a recollection? I'm trying to remember if he makes the plates in the new world and then writes them. I think so, just can't remember where it says so.

[Johnnie Cake]

A few years ago, one of my Young Men was preparing to receive his patriarchal blessing. He'd made an appointment with the patriarch for a particular evening and had invited me to join him and his parents for the event. During the day, though, he had a meltdown. He'd been trying to fast, but he came down with the flu and felt miserable. To make matters worse, he was doing a work experience for school that day, so he was engaged in manual labour. At lunchtime, he sent me a text message expressing his frustration that nothing was going to plan and that he hardly felt like actually following through with receiving his blessing that night. I had no idea what to say in response, but I bowed my head, said a prayer, and did my best to write something encouraging and comforting. It was a long text message, about 500 characters, but I had no idea if I'd written what I should have, and the whole experience left me coveting a bit of wisdom.

Later that night at the home of the patriarch, I sat and listened to the blessing pronounced upon this boy. Then some of the words startled me. They were, I felt certain, my words composed on a mobile phone earlier that day -- word for word. I didn't say anything to the boy, and he didn't say anything to me. I decided he hadn't noticed the similarity, so I let the matter go. When he got a copy of his blessing, though, I did ask if I could have a look. He said that was fine, and I then got to compare what was on the printed page with the text message still saved on my phone. The words were indeed identical, with only a single word changed, and that word was a synonym for what I had written.

To this day, I can't really explain why an Oxford-educated patriarch used my exact words in the giving of a blessing (or did the Lord somehow give us both the same words?). I hadn't felt particularly inspired when I wrote out the text message, but I felt comforted afterward, with a sense that even in my weakness the Lord can use me. I've also had a very hard time getting fussed about supposed 'plagiarisms' in the Book of Mormon since then.

So all 500 charactors...which I'm assuming was about 100 words...with the exception of that synonym were identical? It would be interesting to know what those 100 words were...if they were common Mormon speak, scripture or merely random wordsof advice...but in either case I'm sure that it was a faith confirming experience for you.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Damien the Leper]

If only they allowed raquet ball in the telestial kingdom. You may have to settle for badminton.

I hate you. lol. I refuse to settle. Just as I refuse to settle for the Celestial kingdom. Ministering Angel with a fiery sword is the way to go.

[canard78]

Help me. Your question is based on assumptions. Where is JS using this passage? Provide proof that "it was not in the original." I assume you have access to Mark's original manuscript.

I apologize if you have already provided those answers.

Thanks for asking. I treat this in as much detail as possible in this thread:

I'd welcome your response to this specific issue either here or as a reply in the other thread.

[mrmcplad]

In Understanding the Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy wrote about the possibility that Moroni had been given a copy of the New Testament by an angel or the three Nephites or the Savior himself (Hardy points out that Moroni is particularly fond of allusions, not as fond of direct quotations as Mormon and Nephi were). Given that Moroni lived in the 4th century, that could explain some of these parallels.

[canard78]

I know that with believers anything and everything is possible when God is involved...but we're talking of a passage that was added long after the oldest available manuscripts were written which incidentally didn't include the passage...written and added by man and not by God...written by some anonymous person who felt that he/she was improving the words of what he/she believed to be the words of God. This is only a problem because these man-made words added supposedly by some random scribe somehow found their way into the Book of Mormon...it’s as if God was taking His inspiration from some unknown man/scribe...and God thought..."Hmmm, wow that really improves what I wanted to say...I'm going to inspire Joseph to write and translate that into the Book of Mormon...even though my Son, Jesus Christ couldn't have said those words to the Nephites becasue they were added by that brilliant scribe some 200 years after my Son Jesus, visited the Nephites..." ...and there in lays the problem.

Indeed. (Scratches head). I might bump up the old thread as that treats the whole thing in far more detail.

[canard78]

In Understanding the Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy wrote about the possibility that Moroni had been given a copy of the New Testament by an angel or the three Nephites or the Savior himself (Hardy points out that Moroni is particularly fond of allusions, not as fond of direct quotations as Mormon and Nephi were). Given that Moroni lived in the 4th century, that could explain some of these parallels.

Ok, that's possible, but a bit of a stretch. So did Mormon get one too? So we're ok with the idea that a NT is given to Mormon. He reads mark 16 (with the 2nd C addition of vv. 9-20) and thinks, I'm going to have Jesus say this too. Even though he didn't?

[tagriffy]

In Understanding the Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy wrote about the possibility that Moroni had been given a copy of the New Testament by an angel or the three Nephites or the Savior himself (Hardy points out that Moroni is particularly fond of allusions, not as fond of direct quotations as Mormon and Nephi were). Given that Moroni lived in the 4th century, that could explain some of these parallels.

Well, there is that canard (sorry canard78) that what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.

[Johnnie Cake]

In Understanding the Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy wrote about the possibility that Moroni had been given a copy of the New Testament by an angel or the three Nephites or the Savior himself (Hardy points out that Moroni is particularly fond of allusions, not as fond of direct quotations as Mormon and Nephi were). Given that Moroni lived in the 4th century, that could explain some of these parallels.

As Elder Cunningham would say....Gee...that makes perfect sense...

Steps for this to happen:

01. God/angel grabs a Bible from some 4th century monastery and sends it Fed X to the Americas Att: Moroni

02. Moroni translates Greek New Testament into Reformed Egyptian and scratches it into the Golden Plates

03. Moroni delivers Golden Plates to Joseph who then stickes them in a hollow log in the woods

04. Moroni's translation is so perfect that Joseph can translate it (with the Golden Plates still in that hollow log out in the woods) from Reformed Egyptian into a completely different language English...but in such a manner that it translates in perfect sync with how the King James tranlators translated the New Testiment from the original Greek...

Yup, I'm with Elder Cunningham...

Edited May 30, 2013 by Johnnie Cake