Hot Off the Press(es): The True Source of the Book of Mormon Revealed!



Objective, skeptical scientists hard at work in their Book of Mormon research lab


It was obviously plagiarized from Solomon Spalding’s Manuscript Found.


No.  Forget Manuscript Found.  It was obviously plagiarized from Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews.


Well, forget that.  Its obvious true origin was revealed on 30 October.  Yesterday.  Yes indeed.  The facts have finally come out:


“‘Hiding in Plain Sight: The Origins of the Book of Mormon’ . . .  Who wrote the Book of Mormon? . . .  For much of his language and narrative structure, Smith turned to the most read and memorized author of the late seventeenth century, John Bunyan [author of Pilgrim's Progress].”


No.  Wait a minute.  Forget Pilgrim’s Progress.


Its true origin was revealed today.  31 October.  Halloween.  The truth is now definitively known:


“The Book of Mormon is nothing more than a cleverly disguised plagiarism of The Travels of Marco Polo, the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World as recorded by his son, histories of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, and travel journals.”


(My thanks to Tracy Hall Jr. for the second reference.)



"Is this the worst academic journal ever?"
"This song was originally going to be the 'Jaws' theme until John Williams changed his mind at the last minute"
"Greeks apologize with huge horse"
New Testament 197
  • FrancisE

    wow…! I love the sound of the second article, critics are gradually becoming like a person who is drowning – he/she would hold onto anything & everything that comes, just to survive.
    Which is next? Plagiarized from the “African book of origins”?!
    Indeed, Joseph Smith was the greatest researcher…

  • Stephen Smoot

    I’m pretty sure Joseph Smith plagiarized The Lord of the Rings.
    The similarities are uncanny!

    • FrancisE

      there you go… letting the cat out of the bag!

  • Wendell

    In these attempts to explain the origin’s of the Book of Mormon we are actually expected to accept that Joseph Smith ever even saw the works being mentioned, while the writers of these alternative theories take absolutely no pains to show he ever did.

  • Gerald Smith

    In the next month, Peter Jackson’s the Hobbit part one will come out, and we’ll see that not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize Tolkien, but JRR Tolkien also plagiarized Peter Jackson!

    • danpeterson


  • I am the Malevolent Stalker

    Did anyone who has commented actually read the first article?

    It is self-evident the 2nd article is pure nonsense so I think we can safely ignore that one.

  • Jason Covell

    Ah, don’t these people know that any industrious fool could have produced the Book of Mormon by having an open Bible at his elbow?

    After all, there were a flood of imitators all throughout the 19th century, producing long, grandiose, fake scriptures, weren’t there? I said, weren’t there? It was so easy, after all! I mean, what was stopping them?

    This is what I’ve heard referred to as the “dog that did not bark” thesis: recognising the thing that DID NOT happen but which should have happened if any of the alternative theories were true. I mean, I’ve read the “inspired” works of various later visionaries, cranks and oddballs from Mary Baker Eddy through Aleister Crowley to L. Ron Hubbard. None of them come even close to matching even the scale and conception of the Book of Mormon – let alone its extraordinary realisation.

    And Tolkien? Many readers and admirers agree that where he is most effective (and head and shoulders above his later fantasy imitators) is where he draws deeply from his decades-long academic study of Anglo Saxon, Norse and Celtic legends. A more stark comparison with Joseph Smith could not be imagined.

    Oh, and one more dog that didn’t bark: Joseph Smith, who achieved such fame and renown for his first masterpiece, somehow never even attempted to repeat the accomplishment. It’s the rule of sequels – when you’ve shown yourself able to pull off such a thing once, why not keep going and do even more?

    What about the Doctrine and Covenants, I hear you ask? And to say nothing of the Pearl of Great Price? I’m sure that any serious student of LDS scripture could not fail to notice that nothing could be more different than the Book of Mormon and ANYTHING that Joseph set to paper thereafter. The D&C are a heterogenous gathering of very different revelations, gathered over a much longer time period, and in all respects different in scale and sweep from the first tome. And the Pearl of Great Price scriptures are collectively less than 1/13 the length of the Book of Mormon, and arguably, far less ambitious in their range of subject matter.

    Is that a dog barking? No, no it is not. Why is that so, Watson?

    • danpeterson

      Superb observations.

  • William

    I just stumbled across your comments on my article, Mr. Peterson, along with the posts of some other folks here. I had to chuckle at the Lord of the Rings references. As I assemble my research, I would be interested in seeing what other types of concerns/issues people have with the article from October last year.
    This is what I gather, apart from humorous speculations:
    Concern 1 (Wendell’s comment): Do we have evidence Joseph Smith was familiar with John Bunyan’s works, or that he read them?
    Other, more broad comments, that don’t address the issues I raised in my article – but ones that might be worth addressing at a future point:
    Concern 2 (Jason’s comment): the assumption that Joseph Smith was the only one who produced a new set of scriptures on par with the Book of Mormon.
    Concern 3 (Jason again): if Joseph did it once, why didn’t he do it again?
    Concern 4 (Jason): why is Joseph’s prose in personal letters, etc., different from the prose in the Book of Mormon?
    I’d be curious to see what other issues people might have with respect to my article of last year.
    William Davis