Dedicated to a dear friend.
I told a dear friend of mine that the combination of (a) similar background, (b) similar current situation, and (c) similar objective would yield (d) a similar result.
So what prompted such a discussion with my friend? It seems that those of my brethren who choose to discount the hand of God and His inspiring of Scripture in general but The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ specifically, focus their attention on any similarity between The Book of Mormon and The Bible or any other known text and, having established parallels, raise the charge of plagiarism: "Aha! You see! The Book of Mormon has X,Y and Z and this other text has X and Z or X and Y or X,Y, and Z, and therefore Joseph Smith lifted X,Y and Z out of this known text and used those themes to create this portion of The Book of Mormon. And if Joseph Smith has now been proven a fraud in this portion, he was a fraud with the rest of The Book of Mormon. And if a fraud with The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was a fraud with all of the Restoration. Case closed!"
Really? Does a similarity really prove plagiarism? Is the establishment of a parallel truly proof conclusive of fraud?
I tell my dear friend that two of the most valuable lessons I came across through research in graduate school were these insights:
- The obvious answer is usually the wrong one. If one applies himself to doing research, one will often discover that what initially appeared to be the obviously correct solution was naively incorrect, and what initially appeared to be the absurd option proves to be the correct one.
- That if you actually research a problem, if you painstakingly carefully investigate its factors (antecedents, current points, likely and known possible explanations, the strengths and weakness of these posited explanations) and follow the path of reason and cautious inquiry, you will often discover that the combination of (a) similar antecedents, (b) similar current circumstances, and (c) similar objectives leads to (d) a similar result.
SIMILARITY NUMBER 1
So what if similarities in such factors lead to similar results? Well, once you have established that the similarity between two texts (to use only one example) may not be a case of plagiarism, you are prepared to further your investigation and determine the real cause.
I will cite two such examples.
Years ago, during my Michigan days, my Sunday School teacher came to me with a grave concern. Though he did not tell me where the concern came from, and at the time I took it to mean that the concern simply arose within him, he had actually been fishing around anti-Mormon websites and thus came upon this concern that was jolting his testimony or deep conviction of the Restored Gospel. As a side note, I am not opposed to fishing around anti-Mormon websites as long as one takes his concerns to The Lord and receives the witness of The Holy Ghost as his answer.
Anyway, my Sunday School teacher's concern. It was this, "Why does Lehi in The Book of Mormon quote Shakespeare if Shakespeare came over two thousand years later? This has me really scared."
In addressing death in Hamlet Shakespeare wrote: "...from whence no traveler returns." The Prophet Lehi, in The Book of Mormon, on the subject of his own impending death (from old age) said to his children, "...from whence no traveler can return."
I told my Sunday School teacher that as a linguist this parallel between Lehi and Shakespeare did not concern me. Why? Because, again, the combination of (a) similar backgrounds, (b) similar current circumstances, and (c) similar objectives can naturally lead to (d) similar results.
But as quotes are by nature misleading, no matter how good the intentions (let alone when nefarious intentions are at play), let us see the wider passages.
Shakespeare (Hamlet Act 3, Scene 1, Page 4)
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
no traveler returns puzzles the will
and makes us rather bear those ills we have
than fly to others that we know not of?
Then conscience does make cowards of us all.
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, 2 Nephi 1:14
Awake! And arise from the dust,
and hear the words of a trembling parent,
whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave
from whence no traveler can return;
a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.
The two striking similarities of "traveler" and "cannot return" are, one must confess, far less potent when their actual contexts are provided. Notice also how skeptics always say that both Lehi and Shakespeare state "from whence", though it was only Lehi who did (Shakespeare wrote "from whose bourn" 'from whose boundary/limit'). But as the argument still is made, "But the choice of word of traveler and return is too strong, I feel, to be mere coincidence", I shall say a bit more on the subject.
First, notice that in both Shakespeare and The Book of Mormon the speakers were (a) Christian, (b) facing near certain or suspected death, (c) had deep misgivings about the state of those loved ones who would survive them and (d) felt impelled to accomplish something before death because they would not be able to return from death to further their work on earth. In texts as they stand, if we assume nothing more, both go on to make the statement about the inability of the traveler to return. The concern for some is the combination of these two terms.
Second, if we agree with the first point I made, that the similar circumstances and background as well as similar objectives could naturally be reflected in a similar choice of expression, then we can conclude that the case for plagiarism is far from being established: Similar backgrounds and circumstances can account for the choice of these two words. If we wish to satisfy our concerns over possible plagiarism, we will have to study the matter out beyond the scope of Shakespeare and Lehi because at the level of Shakespeare and Lehi we may just be dealing with a universal, that is, something that would naturally occur anywhere given the confluence of points (a) through (d) as noted above. And just what might be a superior alternative explanation for the similar expressions of Lehi and Hamlet? How about the Prophet Job?
The Holy Bible, Job 10:21-22
Are not my days few?
cease then, and let me alone,
that I may take comfort a little.
Before I go whence I shall not return,
even to the land of darkness,
and the shadow of death.
The Holy Bible, Job 16:22
When a few years are come,
then I shall go the way
from whence I shall not return.
Well, well, well, what do we have here? It now appears that both Shakespeare and Lehi may have been drawing inspiration from the Biblical Prophet Job. The parallel of traveler and return (which is two words, in all honesty, hardly a point that could withstand litigation in court) has just collapsed because Lehi used both "whence" and "not return", apparently drawing influence from Job, and Shakespeare (who often cites The Bible) may have drawn his use of "not return" from the same source. Thus the real case for plagiarism that remains is that both Lehi and Shakespeare used a single word traveler. Do we say that every time an airline uses the word "traveler" the airline has plagiarized Hamlet? No. I put it to the reader that since The Book of Mormon and Hamlet are in English, there are thousands of similar word choices between the two texts. The case for plagiarism based on "whence/traveler/returns" has collapsed. For further reading on this topic (and there is much more that is astonishing to be said here), see http://actuallytextual.blogspot.com/2014/09/from-whence-no-traveler-can-return.html, if I do say so myself.
SECOND SIMILARITY
This second case is now ready for presentation. I would like to reiterate the two points I made earlier about dealing with similarities between texts, to use one example, but add a third:
- The obvious answer is usually the wrong one. If one applies himself to doing research, one will often discover that what initially appeared to be the obviously correct solution was naively incorrect, and what initially appeared to be the absurd option proves to be the correct one.
- That if you actually research a problem, if you painstakingly carefully investigate its factors (antecedents, current points, likely and known possible explanations, the strengths and weakness of these posited explanations) and follow the path of reason and cautious scrutiny, you will often discover that the combination of (a) similar antecedents, (b) similar current circumstances, and (c) similar objectives leads to (d) a similar result.
- A situation where two separate events across cultures and time spans yielded similar outcomes is supporting evidence that the first situation described may have happened. Obviously. If one text posits (proposes) that given certain circumstances X was the result, and if elsewhere in time and place similar circumstances and factors came together and X was the result there too, then the situation described in the first text can be seen as realistic. Mind you, the situation described in the first text is not "proven" by the fact that the same situation played out elsewhere, but the situation of the first text can now and should now be seen as plausible or reasonably possible.
To be more brief I will outline what the circumstances of this next case were:
- (a) A Christian missionary has set out to convert a hostile people.
- (b) The hostile audience consists of American Indians who have their own set of beliefs.
- (c) The Christian missionary wants to understand those beliefs so that he can draw parallels to his own beliefs and persuade his audience, in a one-on-one personal encounter, to believe in his Christian faith.
- (d) The result is a conversation that includes the discussion of who God is, the nature of heaven, the Creation of the earth and man, and other topics from the Scriptures.
From The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Alma 18:22-36:
- 22: Now Ammon being wise, yet harmless, he said unto Lamoni: Wilt thou hearken unto my words if I tell thee by what power I do these things? And this is the thing that I desire of thee.
- 23: And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I will believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.
- 24: And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and he said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?
- 25: And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.
- 26: And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
- 27: And he said, Yea.
- 28: And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?
- 29: And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.
- 30: And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.
- 31: And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?
- 32: And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning.
- 33: And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God?
- 34: Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by His Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;
- 35: And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge, and also power according to my faith and desires which are in God.
- 36: Now when Ammon had said these words, he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam, and told him all the things concerning the fall of man, and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem.
Here are some of the more salient (potent, stand-out) points from this encounter between Ammon, a Christian missionary, and King Lamoni, both of whom were Native Americans but from opposing nations, circa 90 B.C.:
- God
- Unfamiliarity with the term for "God" that Ammon used.
- The missionary goes on to use the native expression for God of the target audience, here translated as "Great Spirit".
- The Creation of the earth.
- Uncertainty about the nature or location of Heaven.
- The Creation of man.
- Introduction to other basic teachings and doctrines from Scripture.
Now, flash forward to the Americas at the time of the Spanish Conquest. In 1528, a Spanish priest by the name of Fray Francisco Bobadilla visted Nicaragua. Fray Bobadilla wanted to assess the extent of the influence of the Catholic faith on the native population of Nicaragua. Fray Bobadilla understood that many Indians converted only nominally, so in assessing the extent of the influence of Catholicism on the Indians Fray Bobadilla desired to further their understanding or outright convert them. To accomplish his objectives Fray Bobadilla interviewed Indian chiefs, royalty, one by one, in personal interviews. A record was prepared of this encounter, which is how I am able to report on it now, on February 26, 2017, nearly 500 years later:
- Friar: Do you know who made heaven and earth?
- Indian: My parents told me, when I was a child, that it was Famagostad and Zipaltonal, the first male and the second female.
- Friar: What are they, men or animals?
- Indian: I do not know; my parents never saw them; nor do I know whether they dwell in the air or elsewhere.
- Friar: Who created man, and all things?
- Indian: As I have already said, Famagostad and Zipaltonal, a younger named Ecalchot, a Guegue ("Elder", very old personage), and the little Ciagot.
- Friar: Where are they?
- Indian: I do not know, except that they are our great gods, whom we call Teotes.
- Friar: Have they parents or ancestors?
- Indian: No; for they are gods.
- Friar: Do the Teotes eat?
- Indian: I do not know; but when we make war, we do so that they may eat the blood of our enemies whom we have slain or taken prisoners. We scatter the blood on all sides, in order that the Teotes may make sure of it; for we know not on which side they dwell, nor even that they do really consume it.
- Friar: Do you know, or have you even heard, that the world has been destroyed since the creation?
- Indian: I have heard our fathers say that it was destroyed by water, a very long time ago.
- Friar: Were all men drowned?
- Indian: I do not know; but the Teotes rebuilt the world, and placed upon it men and animals again.
- Friar: How did the Teotes escape? upon a mountain or a canoe?
- Indian: They are gods, how could they drown?
- Friar: Were all animals and the birds drowned?
- Indian: Those now existing were created anew by the Teotes, as well as men and all things.
- Friar: Are all the Indians acquainted with what you have just told me?
- Indian: The priests of the temples and the caziques (chiefs, princes) know it.
- Friar: By whom are the Teotes served?
- Indian: The old men say that those who are slain in battle serve the Teotes, and that those who die in the natural way, go under the earth.
- Friar: Which is most honorable, to go under the earth, or to serve the Teotes?
- Indian: By far to serve the Teotes, because we shall then meet with our fathers.
- Friar: But if your fathers have died in their beds, how can you meet them?
- Indian: Our fathers are themselves Teotes.
- Friar: Can the Teotes bring the dead to life, and if so, where are the reawakened dead?
- Indian: All that I know is that infants who die before they are weaned, and before they have tasted maize, will be raised again, and return to their fathers' houses, where their fathers will recognize and provide for them; whilst, on the other hand, those who die at a more advanced age will never come to life again.
- Friar: But if the father should die before his children come to life again, how can he recognize or provide for them?
- Indian: If the fathers die, I know not what becomes of the children.
- Friar: Finally what is their destiny?
- Indian: I know only what I have told you; and it must be true, because our fathers have told us so.
This encounter is fascinating for a good many reasons. First of all, the opportunity to listen in as it were on a conversation between a European priest and an American Indian on the topic of religion, in the contact region of Catholicism and an ancient Native American belief system, is singular. The concepts that are addressed are also fascinating, both the questions and the answers. And notice some of the topics addressed:
- God
- Greater facility with the native term for "God", "Teote".
- On occasion the Friar himself uses the native term for God, "Teote".
- The Creation of the earth.
- Uncertainty about the nature or location of Heaven.
- The Creation of man.
- Introduction to other basic teachings and doctrines from Scripture, namely, the Great Flood and the Resurrection.
Clearly the case of Ammon, the Priest and missionary after the Holy Order of God and of the House of Israel, is different from the case of Friar Bobadilla, Roman Catholic Priest, but notice how (a) their similar backgrounds as Christians, (b) the similar circumstance, namely, of encountering royalty of the hostile opposing nation, and (c) that the encounter taking place in the context of evangelization, yielded (d) the addressing of similar concepts, through similar questions and even some degree of similar wording.
The record of Friar Bobadilla dates to the 1500s, though portions were only translated to English and published in English in 1852 by the famed American archaeologist Ephraim G. Squier, whose research and expeditions took him from upstate New York through Mexico down to South America. He visited and wrote extensively on Nicaragua, and it is from volume II, "Nicaragua; its People, Scenery, Monuments, and the Proposed Interoceanic Canal with Numerous Original Maps and Illustrations:, pages 349-350 that I extracted the above passage.
So what is the great point I wish to make here today? It is simply this: When scrutinizing an issue regarding Scripture in general (or any topic really) but The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in particular, do not fall prey to "easy" or "obvious" allegations or attacks; the obvious answers are often untrue. Instead prayerfully analyze the issue studying the source texts for yourself (quotes are by nature misleading even when the intentions are good let alone when the intentions are nefarious). Remember that similarities do not prove plagiarism or fraud, that similar outcomes can result from the confluence (coming together) of similar backgrounds, similar current circumstances and similar objectives.
But also remember that if the formula (a) + (b) + (c) may equal or lead to (d) plays out in two or more instances which are separated both by time and location, then the event described in the text under scrutiny (which invariably is The Book of Mormon), though not proven by the parallel example, should be viewed as realistic, as plausible (it could have actually happened). If you ask me, Ammon really did address King Lamoni much as Friar Bobadilla really addressed Nicaraguan Chieftains. Both encounters were priceless, the difference being that Ammon had the gift of the Holy Ghost within him such that his encounter with Lamoni was not only a priceless window into ancient native beliefs but a window into the priceless eternal truths that lead to salvation.
Sure, the reader is at liberty to draw any conclusions or simply to discard what I have laid out as irrelevant. I ask only that you all remember that what I have shared here is actually textual.
