Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr Moore wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:17 pm
Hauglid, in his RFM interview, mentions almost in passing that Matthew Grey’s paper in Producing Ancient Scripture “smacks up against the whole missing papyrus theory”, aka the long scroll theory.

I believe he has a very good point here. Boy, Gee must be fuming mad at this point.

What I’m wondering is whether this new scholarship means the church will redact the missing scroll theory from the Book of Abraham essay? I mean here we have new scholarship from a current BYU scholar, that really blows the old speculative theory apart, and Gee has offered no response to it. Does Gee concede the point and have the long scroll and pre 1836 Book of Abraham completion theories both died officially? A death certificate would be nice, after all the misdirection efforts by Gee and pals holding out hope.
I keep going back to what my former Stake President brother says about all the issues. He simply disregards them and concentrates on the here and now. For him, the fact of a likely fraud or invention with good intentions doesn't bother him. He is good. His flock is good. The church is doing good in his mind and so there it ends. Perhaps the Brethren are pushing this kind of closed off mind? And in that case, what does it matter if the missing scroll theory is jettisoned? It never held much water anyway and tithing receipts don't depend on it, so who cares?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9798
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Gadianton »

Aren't all of these theories also against the grain of the Ghost Committee theory?

"This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith's translation projects, particularly his Bible revision, and how he used a scholarly source while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text."

That seems to cover the attitude of all the new stuff coming out. Totally different than producing the Book of Mormon by reading words off a stone.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6449
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Philo Sofee »

They appear to be modernizing all right. But the church today has nothing to do with Joseph Smith's vision of what the church is or was to be.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
DonBradley
God
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 12:58 am

Re: Wayment, the JST and AOF8

Post by DonBradley »

I just saw this genius post from several months ago from kishkumen. I especially love the following. Bravo!
Kishkumen wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:23 am
Plagiarism is what a person with no ideas does. Art is skillful theft sanctified by genius. Individual parts of Joseph Smith’s career may look like plagiarism, but step back and examine the whole, and the art becomes visible.
DISCLAIMER: Life is short. So I'm here to discuss scholarship, not apologetic-critical debate.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Wayment, the JST and AOF8

Post by Dr Exiled »

DonBradley wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:28 pm
I just saw this genius post from several months ago from kishkumen. I especially love the following. Bravo!
Kishkumen wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:23 am
Plagiarism is what a person with no ideas does. Art is skillful theft sanctified by genius. Individual parts of Joseph Smith’s career may look like plagiarism, but step back and examine the whole, and the art becomes visible.
Fraud genius? Maybe. A beautiful crime I guess can be admired, if your parents, friends and other family don't have to suffer because their retirement was taken away due to it. Joseph Smith ____ on a lot of people with his polygamy scheme. I guess we can admire how he used his "genius" to ____ many of our ancestors' young daughters and wives? I for one am pleased as punch that Brgham Young ____ my ancestors' daughters, when he wasn't busy murdering native americans and those poor people from Arkansas, of course. Real continued genius.

Maybe Joseph should have told everyone what he was doing instead of pretending that God was involved demanding the huge sacrifices they made going to Missouri and Illinois in the middle of the night to be met by sickness upon arrival or to be tricked into crossing the plains, etc., etc.? Perhaps then we could have gloried in that ____'s supposed genius had he been a little less fraudulent and a little more open?
Last edited by Dr Exiled on Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

Nevo
God
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Wayment, the JST and AOF8

Post by Nevo »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:22 pm
So, Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon found hundreds of instances of borrowing, yet have only shared 15 with the public as of this printing? It's been what, a year since the abstract? How many hundreds are we talking about here? Is it 800 or 200? Assuming plural hundreds means at least 200, then the 15 examples shared here constitute less than 7.5% of the total number discovered. Is Wayment really not going to share ANYTHING more about the remainder?
Wayment shares some more examples in his July 2020 JMH article:

2 Chronicles 22:2
Exodus 22:28
Psalm 33:2
1 Corinthians 11:10
1 John 5:13
Matthew 6:13
Matthew 19:19
Romans 9:25
1 Corinthians 15:52
1 Corinthians 15:26
James 1:2
1 John 3:16
Revelation 12:9
1 John 2:7
Revelation 19:15
Revelation 19:21

He writes: "Although an exact percentage of how often Smith drew upon Clarke is difficult to generate, my own research has demonstrated that in the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Smith engaged Clarke for 36 verses of approximately 639 verses that he altered in his revision. If that percentage holds throughout the process, then it is possible to suggest that Smith relied on Clarke about 5 percent of the time" (Thomas A. Wayment, "Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision," Journal of Mormon History 46, no. 3 [July 2020]: 13).

Wayment also notes that "the changes made as a result of Clarke’s commentary . . . are not slavish reproductions, but deliberative changes that were made randomly with the appearance that each change was determined on its own merits after having consulted what Clarke wrote. Smith certainly borrowed wording from Clarke, but he simultaneously rejected the vast majority of Clarke’s suggestions for textual emendation" (14).

He describes the JST as "a hybrid endeavor combining Joseph Smith's prophetic interests with openly academic interests." "Ultimately, Smith acted as a seer in parts of the revision and as an academic in others, perhaps even deliberately academic. Smith openly and directly used Adam Clarke's scholarship to his own benefit, and he seemed to characterize that effort positively in a revelation received at Kirtland, Ohio, March 8, 1833, that commanded the saints to 'become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people' (D&C 90:15)" (22).

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Physics Guy »

It would be convenient for a faithful Mormon scholar to be able to exonerate Smith of the kind of wholesale plagiarism that the most foolish undergraduates perpetrate. That's kind of like exonerating a suspected Mafia don of murder. In fact nobody really thought that the guy was going to get his own hands that dirty; the crimes of which he's seriously suspected are more subtle.

In this case Smith might never have thought in terms of modern academic codes of conduct, but if he were surreptitiously larding his supposedly inspired translation with scholarly insights from Clarke, in order to score impressive hits of seemingly prophetic insight, then he would have been deliberately deceiving people by any standards.

It seems to me that this is how a lot of Mormon apologetic scholarship thrives, in fact. It takes advantage of the fact that academic disciplines like history and religious studies do not normally focus on fraud. So the kinds of question that are established as academically appropriate, and their corresponding kinds of answer, simply don't address issues like whether Smith was pulling a con. Smith is always getting tried on the wrong charge. He gets off comfortably, with no more than a warning, and everybody's faith is supported.

It's a form of straw man fallacy in which the straw man is dignified by an academic gown. If instead of thinking like a scholar you think like a used car buyer, Smith doesn't look innocent at all, but careful scholarly inquiry into all the things that Smith didn't do is a great distraction from that uncomfortable common-sense fact.

The espectably diligent kind of apologetic scholarship not only pays no attention to the man behind the curtain. It reminds everyone, with a patience-tried scholarly cough, that poking around behind dubious curtains like that one is not scholarly practice.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Moore »

Physics Guy wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:13 am
careful scholarly inquiry into all the things that Smith didn't do is a great distraction
QFT

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment, the JST and AOF8

Post by Dr Moore »

Nevo wrote: Wayment shares some more examples in his July 2020 JMH article:
Thank you, I'll go look for it.
Nevo wrote: He writes: "Although an exact percentage of how often Smith drew upon Clarke is difficult to generate, my own research has demonstrated that in the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Smith engaged Clarke for 36 verses of approximately 639 verses that he altered in his revision. If that percentage holds throughout the process, then it is possible to suggest that Smith relied on Clarke about 5 percent of the time"
5% is considered "material" by modern accounting standards. So Wayment has, at minimum, established that Smith borrowed a "material" amount from Clarke and took the credit for himself.
Nevo wrote: Wayment also notes that "the changes made as a result of Clarke’s commentary . . . are not slavish reproductions, but deliberative changes that were made randomly with the appearance that each change was determined on its own merits after having consulted what Clarke wrote. Smith certainly borrowed wording from Clarke, but he simultaneously rejected the vast majority of Clarke’s suggestions for textual emendation"
Why does it matter if the borrowing was a slavish reproduction, or that he rejected most of Clarke? The latter is tautologically obvious unless Smith literally copied half of Clarke's commentary, a fraud too easily detected. The former is an irrelevant technical delineation between two types of plagiarism.
Nevo wrote: He describes the JST as "a hybrid endeavor combining Joseph Smith's prophetic interests with openly academic interests." "Ultimately, Smith acted as a seer in parts of the revision and as an academic in others, perhaps even deliberately academic. Smith openly and directly used Adam Clarke's scholarship to his own benefit, and he seemed to characterize that effort positively in a revelation received at Kirtland, Ohio, March 8, 1833, that commanded the saints to 'become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people' (D&C 90:15)" (22).
Smith did not "openly" use Clarke and Wayment is lying here, unless you have seen Wayment provide a reference in which Smith "openly" credits Clarke for his inspired translation of the Bible.

Does Wayment really intend to twist D&C 90:15 to allow Joseph free reign to plagiarize any material from any book when the material gets the point across? Or in other words, God uses other authors as a Ouija board for Joseph Smith?

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Exiled »

Wayment claiming there was "prophetic" whatever mixed with plagiarism is cute. Apologists and faithful "academics" must continue to defend and cannot even consider fraud and/or invention, even when pretty obvious. He was a fraud. End of story. TBM's are still good people but their founder duped our ancestors. Of course then try and tell this to an apologist and be sure and get ready to be accused of bias because all who see what Joseph Smith really was must be biased.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

kairos
God
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by kairos »

In an email i asked Dr Wayment if he had any instances of Joseph Smith using Buck's theological dictionary in the JST effort- Wayment said he had none but would be interested if anyone had discovered any. He further commented in his reply that Buck's work finds its most use by Joseph Smith in the D&C. Buck's is a tome of definitions of biblical words if any one is interested in going from it to te D&C. it would be grueling work!

Wayment seems in his latest trying to spin the rationale so he will not lose his job imho- no way he can see Joseph Smith as the PSR the church idolizes-time for
him and Gee and even DCP to get out of Dodge!

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Wayment, the JST and AOF8

Post by mentalgymnast »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:56 pm

Now i realize that most members don't bother to read the church essays and even fewer will follow the links, but they do not have to layout $45 for a PB or $70 for a HB (by the way that price is probably that high because it is being printed at a University press) to find out Joseph Smith was using Clarke to revise the Bible. This new info may take a while to seep in but eventually we will be hearing from members trying to gaslight us who will say the church has always known that Joseph Smith took from sources around him, so what's the big deal?

The days where members can take comfort in thinking Joseph Smith was an ordinary man who solely through divine assistance produced scripture, are numbered.
So what IS the big deal? Were you one of those who believed Joseph or any of the other modern prophets did their work “solely through divine assistance”? Admittedly, I can see how this would have been difficult for you to wrap your mind around to find out that he didn’t. The question is whether your expectations were flawed and/or unrealistic.

A common thread here seems to be a certain sense of rigidity in viewing, well, just about everything. Expectations not met can be a real downer.

On another thread I stated that my belief is that experimentation plays a part in the restoration just as it does in many other areas of the operations of this world. I mean, what was the KEP all about? Examples are all over the place. Cannot God be directing His work without being involved at the micro level at/in every instance? I’m much more comfortable with a God that operates at the macro level than the micro. The BofM uses the language “to act” and not be acted upon.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Moore »

MG you keep returning to this ephemeral space in which everything Joseph claimed as revelation or history can be both literally that but also can be something he came up with through study and observation. This makes everything indistinguishable from fraud, and therefore you at minimum have to acknowledge that reasonably honest people can conclude he was a fraud.

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6144
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by consiglieri »

If Joseph Smith had been "openly "using Adam Clark as a source, we would not be finding out about it only now.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:02 pm
MG you keep returning to this ephemeral space in which everything Joseph claimed as revelation or history can be both literally that but also can be something he came up with through study and observation. This makes everything indistinguishable from fraud, and therefore you at minimum have to acknowledge that reasonably honest people can conclude he was a fraud.
Sure. That goes without saying, yet you do. 😉

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Moore »

I can’t tell if you’re acknowledging it or just avoiding. Do you admit that honest people can look at the exact same evidence, spiritual and all, and conclude Joseph Smith was a fraud? Because if so, why do most of your comments appear to call into question whether individuals on this board have actually done their diligence?

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:32 pm
I can’t tell if you’re acknowledging it or just avoiding. Do you admit that honest people can look at the exact same evidence, spiritual and all, and conclude Joseph Smith was a fraud? Because if so, why do most of your comments appear to call into question whether individuals on this board have actually done their diligence?
Acknowledging it.

There is no way of knowing for a fact on a board like this who has or hasn’t done due diligence.

Meaning time and effort. Emphasis on time. And effort. 🙂 Both are integral, at least in my experience.

That which is of great worth doesn’t always come easily and/or quickly. Although there seem to be exceptions.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Moore »

Having met a number of folks here in real life, and knowing my own journey, I’m willing to start by assuming everyone here has done their due diligence. I hope you would do the same. This isn’t reddit, or anything close to it.

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:58 pm
Having met a number of folks here in real life, and knowing my own journey, I’m willing to start by assuming everyone here has done their due diligence. I hope you would do the same.
I try to although at times I read something someone says and can’t help but think otherwise. But I’m sure there are those that question whether or not I’ve done due diligence. To them I would say, “I’m a work in progress”. I don’t claim to have all the answers. I would hope that’s the case with most of the folks here although there are always going to be some ‘know it alls’, right? 🙂

By the way, that’s where faith comes in, when one doesn’t know it all.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Moore »

I haven’t met any know it alls here.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

Post by Dr Moore »

Wayment’s co author and former student researcher, Haley Wilson Lemmon, appeared on Mormon Stories yesterday. I am just opening the podcast. It’s close to 3 hours.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/m ... 0485451070

Post Reply