I was in Arkansas yesterday and the only place for smoothies was a place called "Tree of Life." We couldn't go on Saturday because it was closed. In waiting for our smoothies I saw a lot of Ellen G. White writings. So I googled her. She was accused by a bunch of people of plagiarism in her writings. Naturally, organically, I went to Joseph Smith.

Crazy, I thought, peas in a pod in stealing other's writing.

Would God sanction that for the sake of "truth?"

Many creative writing experts claim there are only seven basic plots and it does seem that no matter how much details are changed up, that does seem to be the case.



Original thought and original sin are nearly in the same boat with each other. Although at least thousands of years ago someone did have an original thought. Ever since then though, it just boils down to just "making something your own".

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever since then though, it just
> boils down to just "making something your own".

Then people selling their religion are making someone's efforts their own "god's" instead of their own. And if a god owns everyone I guess that god can be lazy and inspire one person to write for another unwittingly. What a capricious god.

God got his book published, still the best seller of all time, and he's still riding the wave of that. No reason to do much when you are so popular you just can't lose. Doesn't even have to go on talk shows to promote.

D&D (he's told me I can just call him "D" but I don't feel right doing it in public), you made me wonder where the Koran stands in terms of yearly sales/dispersals when compared to the Bible and then asking of Google took me to https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2007/12/19/the-battle-of-the-books

It's a 2005 article. And apparently the Bible is still in first place, but the Koran, if it hasn't already, has a good chance of catching up.

It's a sign-up-with-an-email-to-read-an-article, but most of us can tolerate one more daily email, and I think it's worth it. C'mon, who doesn't want to say, "Well, as a subscriber to The Economist, I can tell you that ..."? The article is loaded with apparent facts that I found fascinating!

I kid you not when I say that reading the article is one heck of a jolt; I will be shocked if one of you who does read it tells me, "Oh, yeah, I knew all that!" Okay, maybe Gladys Lot, but given that I suspect she wears 'falsies', I will look at any such claim a bit askance. ...Or she could send me proof they aren't 'falsies'...

Here are some tidbits:

"The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas has even created a masters degree to train missionaries in the art of converting Muslims."

"Some Evangelicals produce counterfeit Korans that are designed to plant doubt in Muslim minds."

"Many Christian scholars predict that Islam will overtake Christianity as the world's largest religion by 2050."

"The Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowment, Call, and Guidance employs 120,000 people, including 72,000 imams. Saudi Arabia bans non-Islamic worship and regards attempts to convert Muslims to another faith as a criminal offense."

There are data that indicate that zealotry is in operation, based on the virtually unassailable fact that the vast majority of both Christianity and Islam DO NOT know, much less comprehend, the basic tenets of their respective religions. 12% of Christians surveyed circa 2005 believed that Noah was married to Joan of Arc.

As of the publication of the article, in 2007, Christians had one important leg up on Islam: The Bible had been translated into Klingon, the Koran had not. (I double-checked: erase that leg up. The Koran was translated into Klingon in 2014.)

Also, the potential for deadly conflict exists because the "anything" in "I would do 'anything' for ghawd" absolutely includes 'kill'. Think that one through...

Will there come a time when adherents to any other but one of these two religions will be told to chose one or the other?

Will there come a time when non-religionists have to be part of a three-way division of the world, its populations, and its resources?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will there come a time when adherents to any other
> but one of these two religions will be told to
> chose one or the other?

There is historic precedent.

> Will there come a time when non-religionists have
> to be part of a three-way division of the world,
> its populations, and its resources?

Perhaps they will get to be the referees instead of the common enemies?

Can't speak for Islam but it depends on who was questioned in the poll of Christians. Many people would identify as Christian, claim they are part of a Christian nation, but demonstrate no evidence to support their claim, including little knowledge of doctrine or scriptural narrative.

"...writing experts claim there are only seven basic plots..."

So, with Joseph Smith it was "Boy meets girl, boy meets girl, boy meets girl, boy meets girl...."

Why use seven stories when you can just repeat one or two infinitely? Like a beloved RfM poster, JS opted for the economical approach!

Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...writing experts claim there are only seven
> basic plots..."
>
> So, with Joseph Smith it was "Boy meets girl, boy
> meets girl, boy meets girl, boy meets girl...."


I DON'T THINK he was "meeting" them [where they were at].

Surely it was somewhere sacred, I mean secret, like in the Lord's house, in the barn, or out in the field/ streets.

Is more like Man Lies To The Saints, Man Lusts After Women, Man Says One Thing And Does Another...

Religion *has* to be based on plagiarism to be successful.

Religion is ultimately culture. If it is totally new, it's alien and won't appeal to people. It will be like a an animal grafted onto a plant and will not thrive.

What people want when a new religion takes off is a system of thought that resonates deeply with existing ideas and myths but brings new interpretations. It's an organic improvement, a "restoration" of original and deeper truths, a better "fit" than the existing stories and doctrines.

Think about it historically. Hebrew religion was a reinterpretation of existing myths. There are elements of earlier Egyptian, Babylonian (universal flood) and Canaanite (Garden of Eden, god, goddess, tree of life, snake) stories in it. Judaism was Hebrew faith reinterpreted with a dash of Zoroastrianism. Christianity was reinterpreted Judaism. Islam is reinterpreted Judaism and Christianity; the Koran is full of OT stories and values. Mormonism and other 19th century sects were likewise a combination of existing Christian myths, some mainstream and some occult, in new packages.

And what are Easter and Christmas if not a new religion grafted onto local mythologies? Why did early Christians build their churches and cathedrals on local holy spots? This "geographic plagiarism" was intended to make the new religion appeal to previously non-Christian people. You can do the same familial and geographic tracing with Indian religions, Chinese ones, etc.

Bottom line: if you want your new religion to gain a large popular following, you *must* base it on plagiarism. Otherwise it is inorganic and will not put down roots in an existing culture.

I suspect that Marshall Applewhite had difficulty understanding this.

Or maybe he was just insane.

Also, I've always wondered how scientology has achieved moderate success. It certainly seems novel compared to existing religions.

It seems like it should have never ripened on the vine.

In both cases it could be that the new religions were too radical to appeal to anything more than fringe groups. I doubt scientology will be around in a century.

The Atlantic wrote in 1864 that Mormonism would fall apart soon after Brigham Young died.

Scientology self-describes as a religion for tax purposes only. It's certainly a cult, but it bears little resemblance to any established religious movement.

Syncretics aside, I'm curious about those who write to persuade and bolster religious beliefs of others. Is it just a shiz shoot of plagiarism? There was so much writing back in Joe's day that seems to smack of so much plagiarism. How about now?

I think there is a good deal of chance in all of this. JS didn't start out wanting to start a church: he wanted to sell a book and get rich. But people were ready for a new religion and he stumbled into it, as did other visionaries/charlatans in his region and at his time.

Think also of Jesus (assuming he existed as an individual). Did he start out intending to create a worldwide religion? I don't think so. I think he began as a typical rabbi and was probably surprised to see people follow him, then came to envision a Jewish reform movement. After his death came Paul and others who were the true founders of universal Christianity. There were many reformist rabbis in Jesus's time, by contrast, who for whatever reason failed to ignite a new movement.

In today's context, there are all sorts of prophets-cum-businessmen who start little churches teaching older traditions with a dash of charisma. Most don't get anywhere but some end up with megachurches and what are effectively purifying or restorationist strains of Christianity that may be comparable to early Mormonism. Could some move far enough from tradition to comprise a new religion? I think that happens occasionally, including in Jonestown or, in the Buddhist context, Aum Shinrikyo; or in China, Falungong.

In all these cases the creators are really just syncretists, as you note, and there are no clear lines between enthusiastic religious writing, reformist movements, new sects, and new religions. In short, I think they are all building on pre-existing ideas and tradition in a way that can certainly be called plagiarism. By contrast, the French Revolutionaries tried to design a brand new religion with little deference to tradition, and they got nowhere. The break with tradition was too stark.

Seems like having visions and ripping off the Bible and other publications while running a new church was a favorite 19th century past time.

It was a great way to enrich yourself if you had a flair for it from other family endeavors.

It sure beat farming. Joseph played it for all it was worth. He dressed up in a uniform and played military commander. He got lot’s of young women. He had people kiss his ass because they though he was special. Joe enjoyed all the spoils and then he flew too close to the sun and fell to the ground.

Yep. Icarus.

So who was Daedalus?

Psst. I'm told it's more polite to say "passed-away-alus."

No worries. Enough time has passed. ;-)

Biblical scholars believe Matthew and Luke were more or less copied from Mark.

From Mark and "Q," yes.

All of them?

A clear majority of scholars believe Matthew and Luke were based on two sources: Mark and "Q," which was probably a collection of Jesus's purported sayings recorded in Koine Greek. John was of course an outlier, more Gnostic than the others and presumably included because it is the only gospel that definitively describes Jesus as the son of God--an important clarification for the nascent religion.

But you know all this, don't you Kentish?

So not "Biblical scholars" but "some Biblical scholars". My only point.

religious plagiarism is pretty common.

The first three gospels are copying from the same primary source.

I've got a book by her
I'll have to look at it
And see if it's real

I don't read anything copied
I have an aversion to it

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw a lot of Ellen G. White writings. So I googled her. She was accused by a bunch of people of plagiarism in her
> writings. Naturally, I fancied her as a version of Joseph
> Smith.
>
> Peas in a pod in the art of pilfering the writings of others.

Of course, Joe had his pals around to perform the heavy copywork.


For further enlightenmment on such business, get hands on a book called THE WHITE LIE.


The entire scam is there laid bare.

The Tom Sawyer prophet.

Most succesful copying in modern times must be of the writing by E. W. Kenyon. The Prosperity churches have made billions out of his ideas.

No one, but no one, plagiarizes like the Mormon church. Even their doctrines are knocked off the doctrines of other beliefs. The current temple endowment is just the latest iteration of their original use of the Blue Lodge Masonry induction, once so obvious, but now a lot more difficult to see until it comes to the signs and tokens. The BoM is the all-time worst, though, so poorly written, and with such obvious borrowed stories bitten off from other texts.

I was the disciplinary hearing officer at a university...usually (99%) dealing with plagiarism.

In most cases, it was (strangely), "I walked away from the computer to go to Taco Bell and my roommate jumped on and tried to help me. He/She added that content."

No joke. That was the excuse. Almost every time. No review, just got submitted as their paper.

The ONLY time we sided with the student: They were accused of sending out a racist diatribe to the entire university community via email.

Turned out the student was president of the student diversity committee, president of the international student association, etc. His resume was impeccable.

He logged on to a public computer and apparently didn't logoff. Someone must have jumped on and sent out the message. It was clear this student wouldn't have done anything like this and was absolved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2021 09:18PM by txrancher.

Interesting story but not plagiarism per say.

it's the one genre exempt from plagiarism laws.

I sincerely believe that plagiarism is the practical basis for religious writing.
Add you thoughts to those of somebody else and then claim that "God" inspired you to write them

Yes, you'll find this in Islam also. Many of the stories having to do with Christians and Jesus in the Koran are borrowed from Christian preachers, and also Jewish ideas. However, the Prophet misremembered many of the stories, resulting in a version in the Koran that's rather screwed up.

Also, when the Prophet tried to get the Jewish tribes around him to accept him as a Prophet and they refused, he then did a 180 on a lot of the theology he had previously been teaching. For example, he told people to stop praying facing toward Jerusalem, and instead to face toward the home of his tribe - Mecca. He also started the ideology that all Jews should be put to death.

Copying and plagiarism of the work of others turns out very well for most "Prophets," especially if they can hope to convert entire ethnic groups via the plagiarism. And it saves them a lot of time.

ByeByeChurch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, you'll find this in Islam also. Many of the
> stories having to do with Christians and Jesus in
> the Koran are borrowed from Christian preachers,
> and also Jewish ideas. However, the Prophet
> misremembered many of the stories, resulting in a
> version in the Koran that's rather screwed up.

That presumes the Biblical stories are authoritative. But remember where they came from. In the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE, Canaan was swimming with its own myths, those of Egypt, stories from Babylon and Assyria. Those stories were the heritage of all the Canaanites before, during, and after the formulation of the "authoritative" narrative during the reign of Josiah around 600 BCE.

And most of the peoples of Canaan were not Jews even after Jesus's time. Who were the Samaritans? Canaanites who hadn't embraced Judaism. They knew the Biblical stories but they still worshiped pagan gods. When Mohammed lived, most of the peoples in Palestine/Canaan/Lebanon were still pagans, so he launched a religious revolution in the name of Abraham and he wove his narrative from the stories that he and his followers had inherited from pre-Jewish Canaan. Did his interpretations differ from the Biblical ones? Yes. But was his version fraudulent? Not at all. His was every bit as genuine as the Jewish version and in fact was closer to the demotic religions of the peoples of Palestine than was the relatively elite Jewish religion.


---------------------
> He also started the
> ideology that all Jews should be put to death.

I'm not sure that's correct. For most of Islam's history Jews and Christians (and in Iran, Zoroastrians) were treated quite well. Were there periods of intense persecution? Yes, particularly in the last two centuries.

I can, however, accept that his teachings were at times interpreted as meaning that everyone who is not Muslim should be killed, but you can say the same thing about Judaism and even certain passages in the New Testament. European colonialism doesn't have a significantly better record than did Islamic colonialism.


---------------------
> Copying and plagiarism of the work of others turns
> out very well for most "Prophets," especially if
> they can hope to convert entire ethnic groups via
> the plagiarism. And it saves them a lot of time.

Any religion (or political ideology) must resonate with the people to whom it is offered. If it differs too much; if it is about aliens or in other ways too alien, its appeal will be strictly limited. So I would say, as I've tried to say above, that successful religions are almost always derivative.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in Arkansas yesterday ... waiting for smoothies... >

Yum...

Ellen G. White wrote the book on Mormons. Joesph Smith just copied it and called it the Book OF Mormons..

> ... stealing other's writing.
>
> Would God sanction that for the sake of "truth?"

Truth? Leading people on with lies and apostasy and filling them with propaganda and b.s. has truth in it?

I never saw it anywhere.