What is the unoriginal Mark 16 doing in the Book of Mormon?

I wrote a long piece about this a while back. The PDF with a detailed comparison is here.

The Book of Mormon (BoM) is a great book. I enjoy reading it. I know that applying the positive principles leads me to be a better person. The Alma 32 test shows the fruit is good.

Is that because it draws heavily from the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)?

Everyone knows that 2 Nephi is full of the Old Testament's Isaiah, it's supposed to given they quote from the same source.

But what is the KJV New Testament doing in an ancient Mesoamerican text?

Mark 16:15-18 has the final words of Jesus before his ascendancy. Mormon 9:22 then tells us that Jesus had told his disciples in the New World, in the hearing of the multitude, the same thing. Mormon‘s account has Jesus using identical wording to Mark 16:15-18. This isn't a problem per se. The 3 Nephi account of Christ‘s visit to the New World has multiple occasions of him using the very same wording to the Old World – the Sermon on the Mount is one such example. I see no problem in Jesus having a consistent message on both sides of the world.

It would also be reasonable to find a parallel in his last words to disciples on both sides of the world. There is however a challenge to this parallel.

There is compelling evidence (including an article from BYU) that Mark 16:9-20 was added much later (up to 200 years later) and is not Marcan. A detailed article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

There are several reasons it might have been added later. As a foreshadow of what happens in Acts, a way of making Mark have a better ending. There's more info in my linked PDF. BYU's Lincoln H. Blumell concludes that Mark 16:9–20 is 'Likely Added (Unoriginal)' (p. 24 and p. 60).

Here are some of the Mark 16 verses that have been added around 200AD (and are not thought to be the actual, original words of Christ):

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

And here are the words that Moroni writes in around 400AD. He is adding what he thinks is a final chapter to his father's writings as a last message and quotes what Jesus said as a parting message to the Nephite disciples (he mentions the disciples who should tarry):

22 For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;
23 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;
24 And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover

Some questions:

• If Mark 16 isn‘t an accurate record is it reasonable for Mormon to use an identical phrase?
• Why does the phrase "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" appear in Mark only (possibly interpolated in 2nd C or later) but no-where else in the Bible and then only in latter-day publications: Book of Mormon and multiple D&C references? (112:28-29, 68:8-10, 84:62-74)
• Why do we have no record of this promise anywhere else? Why is there no reference to this promise in the actual account in 3 Nephi?
• Where did the notion of the signs that follow believers come from? Are these signs and promises still valid today? There are some strong parallels to Acts with the speaking in tongues and particularly Acts 28, when Paul is bitten by a snake. This could be either seen as fulfillment of prophesy, or a source of inspiration for an interpolator's addition to Mark 16. What are these doing in the BoM?
• Supposing Jesus really did say both, what is the likelihood that: (a) He said it in the Old World, someone heard it and noted it down, Mark (or someone else) later added it at the back of Mark 16, it was copied and handed down through the ages before being translated from Greek/Latin/Hebrew into Jacobean English in 1611 and then (b) Jesus also said it in the New World, someone noted it down, Moroni later found it or knew about it and added it at the end of the BoM in Hebrew using Egyptian characters on gold plates which he later gave to Joseph Smith who translated them (without looking at them) in 1829 and dictated the exact same words as the KJV translators.

When I first wrote the PDF I was still trying to find a more balanced view. I'm struggling with that. I currently have the view that Mark 16 is not original and is not anything Jesus ever said. As such, it has no reasonable place in the Book of Mormon either.

Some might argue that Joseph was inspired to copy/parrot the words in the KJV. But why inspire someone to parrot words that would later be shown to be unoriginal? Seems like a pretty unhelpful stumbling block.

Mark 16/Mormon 9 is just one in many examples of the KJV New Testament being used, word-for-word in the BoM. There are some problems with that already, the last bullet in the list above shows how odd it is to have an identical rendition when both went through many human hands. Our canon states that the KJV Bible is not translated correctly due to the human involvement in it. If that's the case, why does the BoM rely so heavily on it? Often word-for-word?

What I find worse about the Mark/Mormon issue is the BoM is quoting a bible passage that many who have studied it (including LDS) do not even consider to be original. Is this simply more evidence for the BoM being modern, not ancient, scripture?