Brant Gardner Metaphorically Craps On An Interpreter Article

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

A few days ago, SeN posted an article on Kent Jackson’s forthcoming Interpreter article that will allegedly show Joseph Smith actually didn’t borrow from Adam Clarke and that Professor Wayment’s research is flawed:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ys-no.html

Brant Gardner posted an interesting comment at MAD today stating that he has just previewed Kent Jackson’s article and finds Kent’s paper unpersuasive, ineffective and unsound.

While it’s not surprising that an Interpreter article is being described as unsound, unpersuasive and ineffective, but it is surprising to hear it from Brant Gardner, an Interpreter board member.

There are two important aspects to this discussion, and to this point, both seem to be ignored.

First, what is the nature of the evidence that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon found? In the article in Producing Ancient Scripture they necessarily provide a few examples (16?). Wayment indicates that there are over 100. So we have a sample, not the full extend of the influence of Clarke. Second, the types of changes really aren't momentous, but the very nature strongly suggests that it cannot be coincidental.

Second, we have to wonder what Jackson's arguments are, since the article hasn't been published. I saw an early draft and can only give opinions on that. It is possible that important things have changed, but from the way it has been advertised, I doubt it. I found the arguments unsound and while dismissive of the idea, really didn't deal well with the nature of the evidence.

Until Jackson's article is published, little can be said about it. However, just as the advertisement suggests that it is a rebuttal, I will suggest that it is an ineffective one.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209989913

[_Philo Sofee]

Coming from Jackson, Gardiner's response is no surprise at all. Jackson has always been a brethren butt kisser, never been impressed with much of his pap and pablum.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gardner is somebody who I regard as actually having some integrity. It's really hard to view him as a full-blown (or even half-blown) Mopologist. It's like he's an interloper from some far more reasonable and more decent world. He actually acts like a Christian, is what I think I'm trying to say.

[_Gadianton]

There is a continuation of an apologetic theme here. It's said that Wayment is wrong, but even if he were right, it wouldn't matter to the Book of Mormon's truthfulness. For some reason, they are compelled to crank out a response ASAP to respond to a position that doesn't matter anyway.

Likewise, the brethren have said that it's wonderful there is evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. But even if there were no evidence, it would still be true.