Did Joseph Smith borrow the Moroni story from The Golden Pot?

Both stories have supernatural encounters, gold, and unfamiliar writing. Anselmus copies manuscripts onto parchment for Lindhorst. Joseph says the gold plates themselves held the record he was to translate.

You give the parallels their due and check the role of each object before calling it a match.

The plots are essentially identical: an angel gives a man golden plates to translate.

That description does not match Hoffmann’s story. State the real plot before drawing a source conclusion.

No. Palmer cites an ad promoting a literary magazine’s critique of Hoffmann. It shows local notice of the author, not that the specific story appeared there or that Joseph or Walters read it.

You keep evidence of an advertisement distinct from evidence of access to the story.

Yes. The ad proves Joseph had a copy of The Golden Pot.

The ad Palmer describes is not evidence of Joseph owning or reading this particular story.

Palmer suggests Luman Walters might have encountered the story during travel in Europe and passed ideas to Joseph orally. That is an indirect route based on later reports, not evidence that Joseph read Carlyle’s translation.

You state Palmer’s hypothesis and identify what kind of evidence supports it.

Palmer found a record that Joseph read the 1827 translation.

Palmer’s argument is for possible oral transmission through Walters, not documented direct reading by Joseph.

Joseph’s 1832 history describes an unnamed angel and plates engraved by Maroni and his fathers. Joseph’s published answers in 1838 name Moroni as the visitor. Those records tell us how Joseph described the experience at different times.

You distinguish the dates of the surviving records from the reported visit and compare what each actually says.

Joseph’s first written account already uses every detail in the later Moroni story.

The earliest surviving account differs in detail; compare the text instead of treating later wording as present from the start.

The broad motifs invite comparison, but the plot differs and Palmer’s proposed transmission route is uncertain. Influence is possible, but the evidence here does not demonstrate borrowing.

You give a measured conclusion and keep similarity, access, and dependence distinct.

The similarities prove borrowing, even without evidence anyone encountered the story.

A similarity alone does not establish transmission or dependence.