Unveiling the Criticism and Accusation of Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon

INTRODUCTION

The notion and argument that Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Version has been long standing and a subject of debate among scholars and religious experts. Critics have pointed out several similarities between the language and phrasing used in the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon, which was translated and published by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Some have accused Smith of taking passages directly from the King James Version and incorporating them into the Book of Mormon without proper attribution or acknowledgement.

However, defenders of Joseph Smith argue that the similarities between the King James Version and the Book of Mormon can be attributed to Smith's familiarity with the language and style of the Bible. They contend that Smith drew inspiration from the King James Version while working on the translation of the Book of Mormon and that the similarities are not indicative of plagiarism. Additionally, they argue that Smith's translation process involved divine inspiration and therefore cannot be equated with traditional plagiarism.

Despite the ongoing debate, the question of whether Joseph Smith plagiarized the King James Version remains a contentious issue. While some view the similarities as evidence of plagiarism, others interpret them as a reflection of Smith's religious and cultural background. The debate continues to spark discussions about the translation process and originality of the Book of Mormon, as well as the role of divine inspiration in its composition.

The first problem is understanding the terminology of Plagiarism as a modern construct and idea that has legal connotations: Second, it is how this term appears to be redefined outside of the legal context. Third, the accusation itself stands without merit because the same argument may be applied to many of the Old and New Testament authors who have engaged in what we may define as plagiarism today. For instance, many of the Pauline epistles quote extensively from the Old Testament without attributing the actual author or passage. The Gospel of Matthew also quotes from various Old Testament passages to reflect the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. To go a step further, some of the Old Testament stories appear to be borrowed from much older cultural stories. Take for instance the story of Adam and Even or Noah and the Flood. Scholars have identified the correlation between the much older Sumerian flood story within the Epic of Gilgamesh (which predates the account narrative of the Flood story in Genesis):

Many scholars recognise that the parallels between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the book of Genesis are so obvious that the authors of the Bible must have used them. The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from Mesopotamia and is one of the earliest known works of literature. It dates to the 18th century BC. The first parallel is between the story of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve. In both stories, a man is created from the soil by a god and lives among the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him – he accepts her offering of food, decides to cover his nakedness, leaves paradise, and is not allowed to return. (Sam Woolfe - How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories)

Woolfe continues with the following observation: 

Andrew R. George, a translator of the epic argues that the flood story in Genesis 6-8 closely matches the Gilgamesh flood myth in such a way that Genesis must have been derived from it. As Andrew notes, the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood story “point by point and in the same order”. In the epic, the god Ea warns Utnapishtim of a great flood and told Utnapishtim to build a boat in order to save all the living things. Just like Noah, he builds the boat, puts all the living things and his family on it, experiences a storm, and after it was all over, he offers a sacrifice to God. Flood stories have been found in many texts which predate the Bible. It’s found in the epic of Ziusudra and the epic of Atrahasis (which is nearly identical to the epic of Gilgamesh). In Hindu mythology, texts like the Satapatha Brahmana mentions a great flood, in which Vishnu advises Manu to build a giant boat.

Atheists actually use the same argument against the Bible in relation to how it appears to have accounts written that were plagiarized from other cultures and religious mythos and motifs. And one of the biggest accusations atheists claim is how the story of Jesus Christ appears to be borrowed from other Ancient Cultures and Civilizations: 

The conspiracy documentary Zeitgeist outlines some striking similarities between the life and death of Jesus and previous gods from other religions, such as Horus, Mithras, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, as well as many others. The creator of the movie, Peter Joseph, does, however, overstate these similarities in order to support his conspiracy theory that the myths of Jesus and other gods relate to astrological and astronomical events. He claims, for example, that gods like Horus were born on the same day as Jesus (the 25th of December) and that Horus’ mother, Isis, was a virgin. By comparing the Bible to ancient Egyptian texts, we know this is not true – Horus’ birthday was most likely between August 24th and 28th and he was not born of a virgin; his father was Osiris.

However, there are still similarities between Jesus and other gods, suggesting that the authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other religions. For example, the story of the “dying-and-returning-god” is considered a pattern or archetype by many, particularly by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. The gods Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris and Dionysus died and were then resurrected. It seems likely that the story of Jesus was following a pattern found in other myths, which in turn were following a common ‘dying-and returning-god’ pattern. This suggests that there never was a real, historical Jesus.

Thus, we see that the same criticism against Joseph Smith is very well the same, if not parallels the same, connotation and argument atheists use against the many Bible Stories. Accusing the writers of Plagiarism. 

So, how come critics of the Latter-day Saint faith, who profess to be Evangelical Christians, continue to rely on same argument? An argument that appears to have received sufficient attention. Good question. 

Counter-Cult Ministry Claims of Plagiarism

Jerald and Sandra Tanner established Utah Lighthouse Ministries in 1983 and published so-called "critical" books on the topic of Mormonism. The Tanners' interest in Mormonism stemmed from their personal history - both Jerald and Sandra came from Mormon families, and their research and publications aimed to educate individuals about the history and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Through Utah Lighthouse Ministries, the Tanners sought to provide resources and support for those interested in learning more about Mormonism and for individuals who had questions or concerns about the faith. 

Utah Lighthouse Ministries became well-known as a counter-cult organization dedicated to providing so-called in-depth analysis and critique of Mormonism. The Tanners' work included supposedly exposing inconsistencies in Mormon teachings, history, and practices, which gained them recognition in the field of counter-cult ministries. Their publications and research facilitated discussions and dialogues about the complexities of Mormonism, and many believe it provided valuable insights for individuals navigating their relationship with the faith.

The Tanners' efforts through Utah Lighthouse Ministries have had a lasting impact on the understanding of Mormonism and its portrayal in counter-cult ministries. Their dedication to so-called and questionable scholarly research and the dissemination of information has caused individuals to question and make decisions about their spiritual beliefs and deepened the discussion around Mormonism. Utah Lighthouse Ministries no longer continues to be a valuable resource for individuals seeking a critical examination of Mormonism. It appears that only Evangelical Christians still believe they serve as a platform for open dialogue and understanding within the broader context of counter-cult ministries.

One of their works appears to be the first established criticism and argument for plagiarism. This work appears to have been updated in 2010 and is titled: Joseph Smith's Plagiarism of the Bible in the Book of Mormon. 

LDS leaders claim that Lehi’s group brought to the New World all of the Old Testament books which were written prior to the time they left Jerusalem. Even so, one would not expect an independent translation to use the same words. Besides the many phrases from the Old Testament there are more than twenty-one chapters of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. 

 The Tanners further claim: 

From letters and comments we have received, it is obvious that many believers in the Book of Mormon do not have a correct understanding of the plagiarism issue. They often point out that some portions of the Bible are similar or even identical to other portions and feel that this demonstrates there is no problem with the Book of Mormon using parts of the Bible. It is true that such similarities do occur. 

The Tanners are not alone in their claim and assertion. From a website MormonThink there is a section under Book of Mormon Problems where the writer references the book The Bible in the Book of Mormon by Curt van den Heuvel (1999):

It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '…now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (2 Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version.

What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Thus, we see that such criticism and claim regarding plagiarism against Joseph Smith has had a long-standing tradition and belief within the Evangelical Christian Community since the rise of the counter-cult ministry groups of the late 1970's. 

Paul Gee's Pedestrian Dilemmas

The focus of this post is not so much addressing the criticisms of the Tanners, or other counter-cult ministry groups for that matter: it is to focus on the more recent publication of a book by an Evangelical Christian. This book is titled - Book of Mormon Plagiarism - written and published by Paul Gee. It appears it is only available on Kindle through Amazon. He appears to ask three questions:

• Why are KJV verses found in this book?
• Why are entire KJV Bible chapters copied in this book?
• Why is this book translated in Old English KJV?

And when we come to the introduction of Gee's book - we see the first question being asked: 

Why are so many verses in the Book of Mormon taken from the King James Bible? For example, verses taken from the Book of Isaiah are found all throughout this book. One argument for this, is that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem 100 years after Isaiah had died, so they could have his writings. 

Kindle Edition Only at Amazon.Com

On the surface, this appears to be a valid question based on observation. One that the reader may hopefully find this, and all forthcoming posts, informative as we delve into and answer this question. Suffice it to say - there is actually an answer to this. However, may the reader entertain a different set of questions pertinent to this discussion: 

...because the Book of Mormon was originally written in King James language, we are confronted with the fact that the KJV, regardless of what Bible translation one reads, influences every member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by virtue of its cadence, language, and terminology appearing in the original English Book of Mormon. In light of this fact, two questions arise concerning the presence of the King James English and text in the Book of Mormon: (1) Why does the Book of Mormon incorporate King James English? and (2) How did such English get into the Book of Mormon text? (Daniel L. Belnap, “The Kind James Bible and the Book of Mormon,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 162–81.). 

Belnap appears to answer the first question:

Of the two questions, the first is easier to answer, at least from a cultural perspective: the presence of King James English, or early modern English, in the Book of Mormon is most likely the result of the KJV's influence on religious discourse in the early nineteenth century. Such language, though no longer the spoken English, was used in sermons and discourses to impose a sense of tradition to what was being spoken and written. In fact, as late as the early twentieth century, King James language was still used in certain translation mediums. For instance, Charles's translation of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, Loeb's series of translations for ancient Latin and Greek texts, and other translations of Classical and Near Eastern texts were written in the King James English to instill an air of antiquity to the nonbiblical texts. That such language would be utilized for the Book of Mormon, a text that purported to be not only ancient but directly related to the Bible, is not a surprise. 

As pertaining to the more difficult question as to how did such English get into the Book of Mormon text? Benlap provides this observation:

• The Book of Mormon contains large blocks of biblical text identical to the King James version.
• However, most changes in the text are superficial and modernize archaic renditions.
• Changes in the text do not affect the underlying biblical concept.
• For example, the Book of Mormon often replaces "which" with "who" and removes plurals from terms.
• These changes do not appear to be based on an original text but on the KJV's translation.
• It may be assumed that Joseph Smith used the pertinent passages of the King James Bible when translating the Book of Mormon.
• However, there are no accounts describing him using a Bible during the translation process.
• Joseph did not elaborate on the translating process when asked, and the details are unclear.
• Recollections of the translating process from others are not consistent and have questionable provenance.
• None of the recollections provide a clear account of the translating process.
• It is agreed that Joseph did not use another record during the translation process.
• Despite this, the influence of the KJV is extensive throughout the Book of Mormon.
• There are more than fifty thousand phrases common to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
• There are many differences in recollections of the translating process.
• The truth about the translating process remains unknown.

Benlap also observes, and summarizes, the issue: 

The familiarity of Joseph's contemporaries with King James English would have made their reading of the Book of Mormon an easier experience and one in which they could more readily accept the claims made by the book as both scripture and as an ancient record that was tied to biblical history. The use of King James English in the Book of Mormon would itself be part of the Lord's promise that he would reveal his truth to humankind "after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24). The specific phrase "manner of language" suggests that such transmission would occur not only in terms of the actual language but even in specific mannerisms that would be recognized by the audience in question. That this "manner of language" worked, at least in part, can be evidenced by how quickly the Book of Mormon became known as the "Golden Bible" or "Mormon Bible" by believers and critics alike, demonstrating a tacit understanding that, at the very least, the Book of Mormon sounded biblical. Thus the presence of King James English and even KJV passages in the Book of Mormon functioned to establish the book's validity to people already familiar with the words of God via King James English while making it easier to recognize the truths found therein because of the text's familiar cadence and sound.

He further enlightens the reader with the following: 

As for the second observation, how Joseph Smith placed King James English and text in the Book of Mormon, we begin by summarizing that in terms of the translation process. Whether Joseph used an actual KJV text is unknown, though all of the witnesses state that he did not. If one assumes that he did not, whether he used loose or tight control of the translating process is unknown because evidence can be provided either way. As vague and ultimately inconclusive as these answers are, they may in fact reveal an important facet of the Book of Mormon and its relationship with its readers. Like other claims the book makes that can neither be confirmed nor denied through solely academic means, one is left to rely on the Lord to know whether or not the book is true. Though Moroni's promise concerning "these things" is specifically about the gospel message found within the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:4; see v. 5), it also applies to the manner in which the book came forth. In other words, the promise has as much to do with the revelation that Joseph Smith was a true prophet as it does with the revelation that the events described in the Book of Mormon really happened. The lack of any firm answers about the translation process requires that one take Moroni's promise seriously, as only the Holy Ghost can resolve the uncertainty by helping us find peace in Joseph's declaration that the Book of Mormon, and thus its King James English, came about through "the gift and power of God," however it was done.

What the reader ought to take into consideration is this: The burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim and assertion. Meaning, they bear the responsibility to sufficiently provide sound and reasonable evidence supportive of their claim. 

As to Paul Gee's pedestrian dilemma - he appears to make a claim (Facebook Commentary) that his two eBooks published on Amazon Kindle are original and inspired by God: 

Paul Gee Lacks Understanding

Since we understand the cultural reasoning behind the inclusion of King James English within the Book of Mormon. Understand that this criticism of plagiarism is nothing new. There appears to be a lack of understanding on Paul Gee's part. And it is the reason I posted a review on his book:

The third sentence in the introduction to Gee's book reads as follows: 

This would make sense if the writings were on scrolls, but instead they are on plates of brass. The Isaiah scrolls were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to the findings, people were writing on scrolls and not brass plates. So to say that the Book of Isaiah was written down on plates makes you wonder if Mormons ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have evidence that this book and other old writings were written on ancient scrolls and stored in various types of jars. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have the Book of Isaiah written on brass plates. And what of the Golden Plates for the Book of Mormon? If Bible authors wrote on plates, then where is the evidence? Have golden plates ever been found with writings from people of old? The answer is no. 

The reader may notice several things. Paul appears to focus solely on the Dead Sea Scrolls. And yes, they were discovered near the Dead Sea by a Boudin who was looking for a lost sheep. Their discovery launched renewed vigor associated with the Ancient Near East and the Old Testament text. And yes, if one were to single out and focus mainly on the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Isaiah scrolls within the collection of the discovery - one will agree. However, archaeologists have actually uncovered a variety of records where they were written on stone and on metal plates. 

For instance, in 1964 three gold leaf metal plates were discovered and dated to about 500 BCE. These plates are known as the Pyrgi Tablets and appear to be written in Etruscan and Phoenician:

In 1964 during an excavation of ancient Pyrgi, the port of the southern Etruscan town of Caere on the Tyrrhenian coast of Italy (now Santa Severa), archaeologist Massimo Pallottino discovered three golden leaves bearing writing in Etruscan and Phoenician. Known as the Pyrgi Tablets, the leaves record a dedication made around 500 BCE by Thefarie Velianas, king of Caere, to the Phoenician goddess ʻAshtaret. Two of the tablets are inscribed in the Etruscan language, the third in Phoenician.

This establishes two things. First, it established that metal plates were used for writing. Second, it establishes the existence of gold tablets or gold like leaflets and plates. Granted, these appear to be dated after Lehi and his family had obtained the plates of brass and left Jerusalem, it does present compelling sound and reasonable evidence as previously mentioned. 

However, there is quite possibly the oldest known book written on golden plates, ring bound, and was discovered over 70 years ago. This book is known as the Golden Etruscan Orphic Book. Quite possibly around 3,000 years old and appears to date to about 660 B.C. 

What is quite interesting is that this discovery of an Ancient Record reflects the ancient cult of Orpheus. One that Pythagoras belonged. Regardless, what we have here are two significant pieces of evidence of not only writing on metal plates in the Ancient Near East - but these are also two significant evidence to show that record keeping on gold metal plates is quite evident of that time period. 

Therefore, Paul Gee's claim that: 

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have the Book of Isaiah written on brass plates. And what of the Golden Plates for the Book of Mormon? If Bible authors wrote on plates, then where is the evidence? Have golden plates ever been found with writings from people of old? The answer is no. 

Is unfounded, quite lacking, and intellectual dishonest. Either because he appears lazy to do any actual research into the subject matter that he is writing about, or he is quite illiterate regarding metal plates being used for writing. 

There is one interesting observation though - critics of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Restored Gospel shift their accusations and criticisms. Notice what the writer at FAIR LDS (Faithful Answers, Informed Responses) says: 

Today, however, there are numerous examples of ancient writing on metal plates. Ironically, some now claim instead that knowledge of such plates was readily available in Joseph Smith's day. Hugh Nibley's 1952 observation seems quite prescient: "it will not be long before men forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else."

However, let's put the final nail in the coffin of Paul Gee's argument. He mentions the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He claims that these scrolls were found in clay jars. All of this is true. What he failed to present is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they also discovered what is now known as the Copper Scroll. It is believed that this scroll appears to be a map with Mishnaic Hebrew and Greek Loan words. It supposedly references potential locations of Temple Treasures. 

The second dilemma is that Gee appears to make a claim without any effort put forward to cite any academic or scholarly source related to his claim.  On the contrary (as previously established), metal plates with writings have been discovered throughout various cultures and civilizations. One of the more specific aspects of discovery revolves around copper or copper alloy type metal plates with writing. Noel B. Reynolds explores this in his paper An Everlasting Witness: Ancient Writings on Metal published in 2021. 

Therefore, since there is precedence of seeing that Ancient Cultures and civilizations utilized metal to record histories, stories, and the like - it sufficiently proves that during the time of Lehi dwelling in Jerusalem, the plates of Brass actually did exist and fit within the cultural milieu of what is recorded in the Book of Mormon. 

Conclusion

The problem critics of the prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing new or original. Nothing inspiring about those claims and assertions. As the reader may notice - these criticisms disintegrate when investigating them and determining whether they hold any credibility or validity. 

Latter-day Saint Christians are aware of the so-called plagiarisms. However, the burden of proof rests upon critics like Paul Gee to present sound and cohesive reasonable objections for proper consideration. Merely making claims and assertions (as seen) is mere opinion. Whether it is conflated ego-opine driven content or mere lacking any form of intellectual integrity. It presents a compelling understanding of our critic's attitude and behavior. 

As for the remainder of Paul Gee's introduction, yes - Latter-day Saints are aware of the amount of so-called plagiarism found within the Book of Mormon. Yes, we are aware of how this may appear to individuals. Hence, it behooves the reader to investigate such claims from a variety of sources and determine which presents the more reasonable and sounder understanding.