Difference between revisions of "Understanding accusations of plagiarism"

Revision as of 16:07, 25 August 2021

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Question: How can one address accusations of plagiarism made about the scriptures?

Introduction to Question

One of the primary tactics of critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the years has been to accuse Joseph Smith of plagiarizing different parts of his translations/revelations that have become part of the scriptural canon of the Church. There are different kinds of influence that critics allege outside sources had on Joseph Smith’s scriptural productions. Some point out mere conceptual resemblance. Others claim direct borrowing (like copy/pasting from other sources). Some believe that certain characters in the Bible provide a narrative structure for those in the Book of Mormon. This article seeks to identify principles and procedures that Latter-day Saint defenders can keep in mind in order to address each of these accusations.

Response to Question

Two Ways We Can Address Accusations Like this

There are two general ways that one can address accusations like this. The first of these is to have a superior option for where something come from and the other is to have an equally plausible option for where something came from. We explain more below.

Have the Superior Option for Where Something Came From

Everyone recognizes that the words and ideas in the scriptures had to come from somewhere. Latter-day Saints believe that they came mostly from ancient prophets. Critics believe it came from the mind of Joseph Smith and/or one or more of his associates. The first way to address accusations from a faithful perspective is to show that the Latter-day Saint perspective is the superior one given the historical data we currently possess. For instance, one can:

1. Check the respective source’s publication date. Latter-day Saint apologist Jeff Lindsay has shown that even if one source and the Book of Mormon have a lot in common, it doesn’t prove that that work had anything to do with the origins of the Book of Mormon. He does this by comparing Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass (hereafter “LoG”) to the Book of Mormon (hereafter “BoM”). LoG has seven-word phrase commonalities with the BoM. The BoM, however, was published in 1830 and LoG was published in 1855. Thus, there’s no way it could have influenced the Book of Mormon’s production.^[1]
2. Check historical sources and see how close a source was to Joseph Smith. There should be some source that puts Joseph Smith in contact with the alleged source sometime before the production of the book of scripture in question. In the case of the Book of Mormon specfically, the difficulty is that we don’t have a lot of data on the early life of Joseph. The earliest document we have of Joseph Smith’s is dated to 1828. Accounts of Joseph Smith's life before this time are all reminiscent except for a few contemporary government records.^[2] Libraries local to Joseph Smith don't seem to have much material to plagiarize from.^[3] Those closest to Joseph Smith all affirmed that he did not have manuscript notes or other materials from which to read for his production of the Book of Mormon. In the cases of the Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith Translation, be sure to review what historical sources exist around the production of the passages in question and see how close the alleged source of plagiarism is. Many of those historical sources can be found on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
3. Check to see what actual parallels exist between the two works. When comparing the parallels directly and seeing what the two sources actually say, many dissimilarities might become readily apparent. Place the claimed parallels into a table on a word document and point out dissimilarities in language and concepts. Also, it is often the case that a critic has misinterpreted his/her sources and made one source say something that it isn't actually saying in order to construct a parallel. It will be important to point this out if this is the case.

Have An Equally Plausible Manner in Which Something Can Emerge

The other way to address a criticism is to have an equally plausible way for something to emerge. There are a couple of ways that we can accomplish this.

1. Have the alleged influence make sense within the historical setting in which the passages of scripture emerged: For instance, take FAIR's rebuttal to the claim that the Book of Mormon's anti-universalism comes merely from Joseph Smith's religious environment. A big part of FAIR's rebuttal was to show that there are many scriptures that would have been on the brass plates that Lehi and co brought from Jerusalem to the New World. Therefore, the surge of universalism in the Book of Mormon and Alma's rebuttals to that universalism make sense within the Book of Mormon's claimed historical narrative and thus, we have two equally plausible ways in which the Book of Mormon could reflect anti-universalist thought and the claim of plagiarism is neutralized rather than refuted. Neutralization is still an acceptable result of our apologetic investigation.
2. Consider the possibility that scriptural authors used the type-scene as a rhetorical device:
3. Remember that Joseph Smith's Model of revelation is one in which god speaks "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24):

Notes

1. ↑ Jeff Lindsay, "Was the Book of Mormon Plagiarized from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass?," JeffLindsay.com, May 20, 2002, https://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml.
2. ↑ Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents Volume 1: July 1828 – June 1831 (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian's Press, 2013), xxv.
3. ↑ See Kenneth W. Godfrey, "A Note on the Nauvoo Library and Literary Institute," BYU Studies 14, no. 3 (Spring 1974): 386–89 for a list of books actually possessed by Joseph Smith. See also Robert Paul, "Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," BYU Studies 22, no. 3 (1982): 333.