Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21366
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:21 pm
So the apologists are attacking Wayment’s scholarship in order to take away any potential for a slam dunk? This is an odd strategy indeed. If parallels don’t work then I’m afraid the entirety of the Interpreter’s corpus is null and void. I will have to go see how it is that Wayment’s 100s of instanced fail to “withstand scrutiny.”
Yes, parallels are only parallels when they help the cause.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Yahoo Bot
God
Posts: 3218
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Yahoo Bot »

As I posted on the other board, Jackson's piece is a piece of offal. I edited my post to take the "offal" comment out but others copied it.

It isn't really a comparison if all he does is paraphrase Clarke. Plus, Jackson just doesn't have the academic credentials. He taught in the Religion Department, with all that entails.

I have been roundly attacked for my comments on Jackson.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22504
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by moksha »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:36 am
As I posted on the other board, Jackson's piece is a piece of offal. I edited my post to take the "offal" comment out but others copied it.

It isn't really a comparison if all he does is paraphrase Clarke. Plus, Jackson just doesn't have the academic credentials. He taught in the Religion Department, with all that entails.

I have been roundly attacked for my comments on Jackson.
Many good people get attacked at the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board. Glad you try to keep them honest. Best wishes to you, Stem, Cinepro, Tacenda, and anyone else who aids in that effort. The Church benefits from honesty and wilts from LDS apologetics.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21366
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Kishkumen »

Stem wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:59 am
If Conference didn't do it for you, you might want to try https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... tnote60anc

Yeah...right! No way in hell did Joseph Smith consult Adam Clarke. That's all lies and foolish nonsense.

I may kid, but I admit, Jackson's little rebuttal turned out a little better than I thought. makes me feel like there is plenty more for folks to look into, if they are so inclined. My interest may be waning.
So, I read this, and it is as careful as one would expect of Kent P. Jackson, the guy who criticized Nibley for methodological fudging.

It looks to me like Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon may not have been as careful as they might have been, especially when one considers the predictable response from apologetic circles.

That said, I don't find a number of Jackson's quibbles all that persuasive. In a number of cases, Jackson rejects Clarke as an influence on Smith's translation decisions because Clarke did not explicitly recommend a change that Smith made. It is clear to me that Jackson has set the bar very high here, and he is not satisfied that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have surmounted it.

Fair enough. And, I am sure that more work will have to be done.

In my view, when we see a word Clarke uses in his commentary showing up in Smith's translation, Jackson has no good alternative explanation. Are we to imagine that this happens repeatedly by complete coincidence? Jackson is really saying that Smith did not consult Clarke?

No, I am sorry. This does not persuade. It does persuade that great care needs to be exercised in how this material is analyzed and described--there will be a Kent Jackson there to pick your account apart--but I am not persuaded that Smith did not look at Clarke. These cases, taken as a whole, seem too striking to be mere coincidences.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21366
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Kishkumen »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:36 am
As I posted on the other board, Jackson's piece is a piece of offal. I edited my post to take the "offal" comment out but others copied it.

It isn't really a comparison if all he does is paraphrase Clarke. Plus, Jackson just doesn't have the academic credentials. He taught in the Religion Department, with all that entails.

I have been roundly attacked for my comments on Jackson.
I would love to read more of what you have to say, Bot. Why offal?

Is the fact that Jackson is not credentialed a reason to dismiss him? What did you think of his criticisms of Nibley?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22504
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by moksha »

Even Dr. Peterson entered the fray in response to Crockett.
Dan Peterson wrote:I'm a believer, and a former Bishop. I think Jackson's article about Clarke is both excellent and devastating. He's superbly trained. It was peer reviewed.
If nothing else, Allan Wyatt gave it a thumbs up.


Why offal?
The other word would have been censored at Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Fence Sitter »

Dan Peterson wrote:I'm a believer, and a former Bishop. I think Jackson's article about Clarke is both excellent and devastating.


In other late breaking news, it has been discovered water is wet.
Dan Peterson wrote:It was peer reviewed.

I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had peer reviewed it.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

Yahoo Bot
God
Posts: 3218
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Yahoo Bot »

I don't believe the concept of peer review applies to a devotional publication. Peer review involves secular and critical review.

I like the Interpreter and appreciate its output, but let's not pretend that secular social scientists rely upon it.

Yahoo Bot
God
Posts: 3218
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Yahoo Bot »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:55 pm

Is the fact that Jackson is not credentialed a reason to dismiss him? What did you think of his criticisms of Nibley?
Nibley worked in academic departments. The Department of Religion is not an academic department. It uses as instructors people from the community with no credentials other than they are former mission presidents. There are other problems.

I don't criticize that fact. But If you're going to be considered a serious author of Coptic anthropology you ought not be working in a university's PR department.

User avatar
moinmoin
Apostle
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by moinmoin »

I intend on looking into the Wayment/Wilson-Lemmon study more thoroughly, but my initial thought beforehand is that it has to be along the lines of B.H. Roberts' orchard analogy: picking up a few worm-eaten, wind-blasted specimens off the ground and representing it as the fruit of the entire orchard. It seems to me that whatever parallels Wayment/Wilson-Lemmon compile, they would have to pale in comparison to the larger body of the JST that clearly has nothing to do with Adam Clarke. By a very wide margin. I'm thinking about the entire Book of Moses, the lengthy passages in the Bible appendix (city of Salem, etc.), the numerous edits reversing God hardening Pharaoh's heart, etc. And then the New Testament items that are uniquely Mormon (Mount of Transfiguration, Hebrews, etc.). Anyone can take all of the footnoted JST and appendix passages and the Book of Moses, and Clarke, and compare the two. I think at the outset that the Wayment/Wilson-Lemmon theory is going to be found to be very skimpy, and "orchard-like," when the entire body of work is considered.

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Fence Sitter »

moinmoin wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:48 pm
I intend on looking into the Wayment/Wilson-Lemmon study more thoroughly, but my initial thought beforehand is that it has to be along the lines of B.H. Roberts' orchard analogy: picking up a few worm-eaten, wind-blasted specimens off the ground and representing it as the fruit of the entire orchard. It seems to me that whatever parallels Wayment/Wilson-Lemmon compile, they would have to pale in comparison to the larger body of the JST that clearly has nothing to do with Adam Clarke. By a very wide margin. I'm thinking about the entire Book of Moses, the lengthy passages in the Bible appendix (city of Salem, etc.), the numerous edits reversing God hardening Pharaoh's heart, etc. And then the New Testament items that are uniquely Mormon (Mount of Transfiguration, Hebrews, etc.). Anyone can take all of the footnoted JST and appendix passages and the Book of Moses, and Clarke, and compare the two. I think at the outset that the Wayment/Wilson-Lemmon theory is going to be found to be very skimpy, and "orchard-like," when the entire body of work is considered.
Way to form an opinion and a conclusion without actually reading the article.

"Parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds..."

It's not just a "few".
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22504
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by moksha »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:26 pm
I don't believe the concept of peer review applies to a devotional publication. Peer review involves secular and critical review.

I like the Interpreter and appreciate its output, but let's not pretend that secular social scientists rely upon it.
The articles are not offered in a way that suggests fasting and praying, rather they are presented as evidence of proof. Could some amount of chicanery be involved in this method of presentation?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21366
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Kishkumen »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:26 pm
I don't believe the concept of peer review applies to a devotional publication. Peer review involves secular and critical review.

I like the Interpreter and appreciate its output, but let's not pretend that secular social scientists rely upon it.
True, but I think there is *some* value to Jackson’s critique. I think it goes too far, but it is worth a closer look.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Nevo
God
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Nevo »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:55 pm
Is the fact that Jackson is not credentialed a reason to dismiss him?
But Jackson is credentialed, as I explained to Yahoo Bot on the other board. Not sure why he keeps claiming that Jackson "doesn't have the academic credentials" to review Wayment's articles.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/303008738

User avatar
moinmoin
Apostle
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by moinmoin »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:54 pm

Way to form an opinion and a conclusion without actually reading the article.

"Parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds..."

It's not just a "few".
I've read several articles about this, and await the book for their full "case." So far, in my view, the crumbs they've let out are underwhelming.

It all depends on how compelling the parallels are, not whether or not they're "into the hundreds." The "hundreds" of Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham parallels proposed by Nibley and others don't move critics, despite their number.

It's like the Tanners' "3913 changes to the Book of Mormon." Fewer than 10 are significant at all, and how they ran up the score can get comical. My favorite is the 26 word section in Alma that the printer erroneously left out in the 1830 edition (but which is in the manuscripts). When this was corrected in the 1837 edition, the Tanners count this as 26 changes.

From what I've seen so far, Wilson-Lemmon is at minimum holding back the best stuff. I am curious to see if they address the uniquely "Joseph" items at all --- items that form a much higher percentage of the overall JST than their Clarke parallels (Book of Moses, lengthy JST excerpts in the appendix, etc., items with uniquely LDS theology, etc.).

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Dr Moore »

Why does it matter whether Joseph plagiarized 1% or 100% of the JST? That’s like saying it isn’t a bank robbery unless you get all the money.

Stem
God
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Stem »

Nevo wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:19 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:55 pm
Is the fact that Jackson is not credentialed a reason to dismiss him?
But Jackson is credentialed, as I explained to Yahoo Bot on the other board. Not sure why he keeps claiming that Jackson "doesn't have the academic credentials" to review Wayment's articles.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/303008738
I think Yahoo bot has been right to point out that jackson simply hasn't given Wayment Wilson-Lemon a direct enough consideration. There does seem like elements of dismissal to his article rather than engagement. I too don't think jacksons points are completely empty, but overall his conclusions seem way overstated.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21366
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Kishkumen »

Nevo wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:19 pm
But Jackson is credentialed, as I explained to Yahoo Bot on the other board. Not sure why he keeps claiming that Jackson "doesn't have the academic credentials" to review Wayment's articles.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/303008738
I took this to mean that he counts Jackson's employment in Religious Education against him. I agree with you that he has a legit Ph.D., however. And thanks for bringing the receipts on that. I have always had a favorable impression of Jackson's care, and, honestly, he doesn't disappoint here. That said, I think he is inclined to set the bar excessively high. I understand what would motivate him to do that, but it does not mean that I reject his critique entirely. He makes worthwhile points. It is a critique to be taken seriously.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3615
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr Moore wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:10 pm
Why does it matter whether Joseph plagiarized 1% or 100% of the JST? That’s like saying it isn’t a bank robbery unless you get all the money.
It's the same as glossing over the anacronisms in the bofm and bofa. One is enough to put the books into the 19th century but what are you going to do when its clear what happened? Pretend it didn't in an authoritative manner.
"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
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21366
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:10 pm
Why does it matter whether Joseph plagiarized 1% or 100% of the JST? That’s like saying it isn’t a bank robbery unless you get all the money.
I think it does matter to believers how we characterize Joseph Smith's work. Critics tend to treat this as a real simple question, but I don't think it is, after all, that simple. It would not be very simple if you were trying to see this through believing eyes, certainly.

Personally, I think plagiarism is the wrong way to look at this, and I am a critic. Are we wont to say that Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by Fence Sitter »

moinmoin wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:42 pm
I've read several articles about this, and await the book for their full "case."
I would be interested in seeing these several articles. AFIK there are only three publications on this. The short publication put out by Wilson for her grant, the expansion of the same article published as chapter 11 in Producing Ancient Scripture, and the agenda driven legacy protecting review by Jackson in the Interpreter. I have not heard of a forth coming book and the grant paper and the final chapter are very similar. What are the several articles you have read?
moinmoin wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:42 pm
So far, in my view, the crumbs they've let out are underwhelming.
It all depends on how compelling the parallels are, not whether or not they're "into the hundreds."
Like Jackson, you are misstating the case Wayment and Wilson are trying to make, perhaps that is because you have not actually read the paper?. Wayment and Wilson are not arguing compelling impact so much they are pointing out that Smith was referencing Clarke's when he was working on the JST. The number of instances becomes important because a "few crumbs" can be dismissed as coincidence as Jackson attempts to do, a few hundred cannot.

moinmoin wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:42 pm
The "hundreds" of Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham parallels proposed by Nibley and others don't move critics, despite their number.
Hardly an apt comparison at all, Nibley et al look[ed] for anything and everything across thousands of years, through multiple cultures and languages, disregarding conflicting time frames, in an attempt to show tenuous connections to antiquity. It is and was parallelomania at its finest. Wayment and Wilson have compared one contemporary book to the JST and found evidence that the former was referenced in creating the latter. Frankly if you are going to find what Nibley, Sorenson, and Gee have done as evidence of antiquity, than what Rick Gunder has put together showing 19th century sources is much more impressive. Mormon PARALLELS: A Bibliographic Source And, to preempt the argument from ignorance "How could Joseph Smith have known?", that isn't Rick's point This point is the material was available in the 19th century. It is up to those making supernatural claims about how Joseph Smith produced something to show he did not take it from his own environment, Rick is just showing it was there.
moinmoin wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:42 pm
It's like the Tanners' "3913 changes to the Book of Mormon." Fewer than 10 are significant at all, and how they ran up the score can get comical. My favorite is the 26 word section in Alma that the printer erroneously left out in the 1830 edition (but which is in the manuscripts). When this was corrected in the 1837 edition, the Tanners count this as 26 changes.

From what I've seen so far, Wilson-Lemmon is at minimum holding back the best stuff. I am curious to see if they address the uniquely "Joseph" items at all --- items that form a much higher percentage of the overall JST than their Clarke parallels (Book of Moses, lengthy JST excerpts in the appendix, etc., items with uniquely LDS theology, etc.).
I think it is clear you haven't read their article. They are showing Smith used Clarke's.
In their conclusion they state:
However, while Smith apparently turned to Clarke's commentary to provide grammatical, linguistic, and historical assistance as he carried out his work, the commentary was not a source for the content in Smith's significant expansions. Therefore, it can be argued that it was less a theological source than a practical source.
What is really going on with the Jackson review is that the people at the Interpreter do not like scholarly treatments that provide a naturalistic explanation for how Joseph Smith may have produced his scripture and will go to any lengths, from poor reviews like this, to preventing highly qualified people like Bokovoy from getting hired, to driving out people like Hauglid at BYU, and even trying to get professors fired who publish scholarly naturalistic explanations on the subject. This article is just another example in a long list of articles that justifies BYU decision to fire these people from the MI. The stuff the Interpreter is throwing out wouldn't pass muster in any respectable journal.
Last edited by Fence Sitter on Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

Post Reply