3 Ne. 12:22

[_ClarkGoble]

I believe I actually may have been right it is the "Creating Scripture" book from University of Utah. Regardless of which volume in which it will appear, the paper will be the actual paper and not the abstract published on the BYU website.

Haley explained that the only reason the abstract was published on the BYU website was that this was a requirement for the "ORCA" federal funding of around $1,600.00.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was saying I assumed it was the paper with the abstract at BYU. I just couldn't see it having all the data if it's just a variant of that paper. i.e. this is apt to have their conclusions but won't have their data, which some might wish. Probably it'll have a few exemplar examples to demonstrate the various claims. I thought you were saying it was a whole book just dealing with this question of the JST and its dependencies. My apologies. Of course a whole book would be nice dealing with those various likely dependencies. Hopefully someone does such a book before long, perhaps also including masonic texts and things like Thomas Taylor's platonic translations and other works.

In these days of computer assisted textual analysis projects like these are much easier. (I only had time to listen to about 15 minutes of that podcast on the woman who did the research on the JST but it sounds like it was surprisingly done manually rather than in a computer assisted fashion)

[_ClarkGoble]

Joseph was claiming that the entire work was a "translation" that he got from God. So he was claiming it all as his own work. His reliance on Clarke for a lot of it shows that he perpetuated a fraud.

Again given his comments in D&C 9 I'm not sure I buy that he was making the claim you present him as making. Further I'm sure his scribes were aware of when he was using Clarke in the New Testament phase.

Do you have evidence for Joseph presenting it as pure revelation with no research?

[_grindael]

Doctrine and Covenants 73:3-4

“... publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.”

That was the whole point of it, to put back to the ORIGINAL, that which was corrupted, or changed by scribes, etc. THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING IT. He had God to go to for the changes and you are claiming that instead he took Clarke's opinion and pawned it off as the original Bible?

That's why it's called an "inspired" version. Duh.

[_Philo Sofee]

Doctrine and Covenants 73:3-4

“... publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.”

That was the whole point of it, to put back to the ORIGINAL, that which was corrupted, or changed by scribes, etc. THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING IT. He had God to go to for the changes and you are claiming that instead he took Clarke's opinion and pawned it off as the original Bible?

That's why it's called an "inspired" version. Duh.

Grindael, your knowledge and research and capability is absolutely so wonderful and interesting, informative, and also entertaining.....just wow. Thank you for all your hard work, you never cease to amaze me.

[_Fence Sitter]

Joseph was claiming that the entire work was a "translation" that he got from God. So he was claiming it all as his own work. His reliance on Clarke for a lot of it shows that he perpetuated a fraud.

Again given his comments in D&C 9 I'm not sure I buy that he was making the claim you present him as making. Further I'm sure his scribes were aware of when he was using Clarke in the New Testament phase.

Do you have evidence for Joseph presenting it as pure revelation with no research?

It is a common defense within Mormonism to assert that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon without the use of Bible because none of his scribes mentioned the use of a Bible and therefore what is in the Book of Mormon is pure translation (revelation).

Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply here?

[_grindael]

Yeah, and D&C 9, hmmmm. Here is what it says,

2 And then, behold, other records have I, that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate.

So... all that crap about "the gift and power of God" is simply Smith plagiarizing Clarke and others? God was just jerking himself off here and saying I will GIVE UNTO YOU POWER" to "translate" by way of Adam Clarke?

It is simply ridiculous to put this kind of crap forward, especially when we have statement after statement from 'prophets' through almost two centuries claiming the Book of Mormon and his Bible "translation" were given to him from God.

This kind of redefinition of Mormon history is simply an apologist ploy. What Mormonism's leaders past and present define a prophet as, is simply thrown out the window for anonymous and nobody apologists claiming they got it all wrong.

It's stupid, and self serving because they can't explain how the OFFICIAL narrative is just plain screwed by all these discoveries, so they have to invent a new one that makes no sense at all in comparison with the actual history of Mormonsim.

[_ClarkGoble]

It is a common defense within Mormonism to assert that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon without the use of Bible because none of his scribes mentioned the use of a Bible and therefore what is in the Book of Mormon is pure translation (revelation).

Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply here?

It seems that people are divided on this point. You see believers taking both positions. I don't think there's consensus here.

Of course from a fraudulent model it's moot too since many (most?) fraudulent models need Joseph sneaking prewritten notes in and hiding them in his hat so the scribe doesn't know he's dictating previously written material.

The problem with the idea of a KJV Bible is why the variations from it when say extended Isaiah passages are quoted. If he's simply reading it we'd expect different errors I think.

The biggest problem I'd think here is for the unconscious model - say like Taves variation on that. If it's unconscious would he refer to a Bible?

[_ClarkGoble]

Doctrine and Covenants 73:3-4

“... publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.”

That was the whole point of it, to put back to the ORIGINAL, that which was corrupted, or changed by scribes, etc. THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING IT. He had God to go to for the changes and you are claiming that instead he took Clarke's opinion and pawned it off as the original Bible?

That's why it's called an "inspired" version. Duh.

Again, the central question is whether we're talking texts or meanings. If the idea is to restore "the plain and precious" then conceptual revision would be more important than textual revision. Further in practice the key events aren't even textual emendations but revelations like D&C 76 in response to the work.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doctrine and Covenants 73:3-4

“... publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.”

That was the whole point of it, to put back to the ORIGINAL, that which was corrupted, or changed by scribes, etc. THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING IT. He had God to go to for the changes and you are claiming that instead he took Clarke's opinion and pawned it off as the original Bible?

That's why it's called an "inspired" version. Duh.

Again, the central question is whether we're talking texts or meanings. If the idea is to restore "the plain and precious" then conceptual revision would be more important than textual revision. Further in practice the key events aren't even textual emendations but revelations like D&C 76 in response to the work.

What in the ever living “F” does any of this mean???

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

Now that you are aware that Joseph Smith left out that part NOT due to inspiration but because he was plagiarizing another commentator, how does your conclusion change?

I don't have much to say about "Peacemaker" or his views. I would again object to the term "plagiarism" in this context.

...However clearly Joseph Smith sometimes follows changes to the KJV text by Clarke but frequently does not. In many key and important places he goes against Clarke. To a naturalist sceptic this means Joseph's decisions can't be seen as merely copying Clarke's conclusions.

Are you arguing that because he sometimes uses Clarke's words, and other times doesn't, it can't be seen as plagiarism? That is not a reasonable or logical position to take. There is no definition of plagiarism that requires a person to always plagiarize, or where partial plagiarism is not defined as plagiarism. Plagiarizing in some places and not others is still plagiarism, and partial copying of conclusions can still definitely be seen as "copying Clark's conclusions."

To a believer it's quite reasonable to assume that some of these are due to inspiration.

Are you arguing that god inspired Joseph Smith to write what Clarke wrote? So god plagiarized Clarke? This is not a logical argument.