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
moksha
God
Posts: 22502
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

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

Post by moksha »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:49 am
Are we wont to say that Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark?
Clarke and Smith both had functional seer stones and access to the Q gospel?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9949
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

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

Post by Gadianton »

I can understand the position that Joseph Smith took 10% and "restored" the ideas bound up in that 10% as God is efficient with revelation, and uses up what's in circulation first, rather than injecting new currency. The Mopologists are already committed to this given they don't deny the sun in noon day during summer in Phoenix -- where global warming doesn't exist for the high concentration of right-wingers -- accepting that the KJV exists in the Book of Mormon. But if they accept that, then they can't in principle reject the idea that Joseph Smith took 90% or even 100% and put the pieces back together. There are famous examples within Mormonism that seem to establish that such as "The 17 Points of the True Church". It's all right there in the Bible. It just need proper arrangement.

Why can't the Mopologists accept this?

Pretty simple. The Mopologists strongly lean toward the worldview of Gemli, ironically, and can't accept the Book of Mormon unless there is proof. It doesn't need to be 100% proven, but it must be at least 55.7% likely the Book of Mormon is true, based on science, otherwise they would reject it. Just like masks. If masks are shown to work with 55.7% certainty, then that is enough reason to wear them. As the example of masks show, the Mopologist strawman of "absolute proof" as the natural alternative to faith is easily dismissed.

Accepting the strong view that Joseph "put it together" while theologically tenable, pretty much nullifies the belief that material evidence will establish Joseph Smith as prophet with at least as much certainty as mask-wearing. They can't have a gotcha that shouts, "How could he have known!" And that's the center of their faith. Without it, the content means nothing to them.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

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. P and his cheerleaders are determined show one conclusion, that their brand of Mormonism is correct, the brethren be damned. They really don't care if on the one hand they doggedly attempt to prove the bofm historicity through parallelisms a la Mormon Codex and then deny parallelisms when it shows a 19th century fabrication like with the latest from Dr. Wayment. They will selectively use science when it suits them and deny it when the conclusions don't support them. And then will vehemently deny that this is what they are doing, all the while creating dossiers on their enemies and sometimes stalking them.

It is maddening for sure. However, my guess is that if a poll were taken, a highly significant number of those who leave, leave due to the lack of good answers from, and the intellectual dishonesty of the mopes. So, keep up the duplicity, Dr. P, mope cheerleaders. You are doing true science work through negative examples, as those who see the duplicity are probably more likely to espouse scientific reasoning and leave the silly mope religion.

Time to wear the clown suits, Dr. P, Midge. It's time.
"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: 1916
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm

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

Post by kairos »

I do not personally know Dr Wayment but he has been kind to reply to my email of two days ago when i wrote that rumors were that there there were hundreds of parallels between the JST and Clarke's work not yet published. He replied that he was working on getting the long list of parallels in publication form- he said he did not yet have a venue for publishing but is working in that direction. he earlier emailed that he knew of jackson's word dated in 2018. he did not mention any current jackson work or its rebuttal.

all i can say is stay tuned because if he does publish his work on hundreds of parallels , i believe that will stir the hornest's nest even more.
i hope he can do so and hold his job.

k

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 »

kairos wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:31 pm
I do not personally know Dr Wayment but he has been kind to reply to my email of two days ago when i wrote that rumors were that there there were hundreds of parallels between the JST and Clarke's work not yet published. He replied that he was working on getting the long list of parallels in publication form- he said he did not yet have a venue for publishing but is working in that direction.
Those are not rumors. His chapter in Producing Ancient Scripture states:
The direct parallels between Adam Clarke's commentary on the Bible and Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible are simply too numerous and too close to explain as mere coincidence or happenstance. Parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds...
kairos wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:31 pm
he earlier emailed that he knew of jackson's word dated in 2018. he did not mention any current jackson work or its rebuttal.
Wayment is very familiar with Jackson's work, he quotes or references Jackson 7 times in his article on Clarke in the JST.
kairos wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:31 pm
all i can say is stay tuned because if he does publish his work on hundreds of parallels , i believe that will stir the hornest's nest even more.
i hope he can do so and hold his job.

k
I would not hold your breath on this one. The chapter in "Producing Ancient Scripture" took over five years from production to publication but then the Uof U press is notoriously slow. They do put out really excellent books with actual peer review.
"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."

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 »

Jackson's article comes off as not much more than a desire to fulfill the need put out by Oaks that someone needs to say something when critiques come out. It doesn't matter too much what it is, but you have to respond. I was curious because I knew when Wayment and Lemmon first notified everyone of their findings they suggested it was but a small sampling that was to be published. That alone made the announcement of Jackson's piece come off as empty rather than complete. But, again, I was a bit surprised to see Jackson made a better go at it than I anticipated.

I don't know. Whose really inspected it quite as Wayment/Lemmon claim to have done? No one as far as I've seen. SOunds like there is plenty more yet to come on this. I'm surprised by Jackson's conclusion...I mean I shouldn't be, but I am.

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:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:21 am

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?
Several online articles/blog posts, and the University of Illinois Press-published item from the Mormon History Association (I have this one through JSTOR). I haven't read the chapter from the book published by the University of Utah Press, but given its length and descriptions of it, it doesn't seem any different from what has already been published.

kairos said that "[Wayment] replied that he was working on getting the long list of parallels in publication form- he said he did not yet have a venue for publishing but is working in that direction" (personal email).

I don't personally think anything else will be forthcoming; I think that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have been trading on the few parallels they've shared, while hinting that they have "hundreds" of them.
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.
Wilson-Lemmon indicated that "there are maybe 25 to 30 relevant passages in the New Testament, and fewer, maybe 10-15 in the OT (or numbers something like that). That occurrence is very believable to me. I did a study of every JST revision to 1 Corinthians, and one thing I looked for was whether any of them were attested in a secondary source (the four sources I used for this purpose were the Clarke Commentary, the Campbell translation, the Coverdale translation and Wesley’s Explanatory Notes). As I recall, the incidence of possible secondary source influence I noted was in the range of 7%, which seems consistent with Haley’s findings." (Kevin Barney)

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/08/15/ ... ommentary/
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.
At some point, though, this growing massive library of what Joseph Smith "could have used" runs into Occam's Razor, doesn't it? When I was a member of FAIR, we had an inside joke: "Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years." Clarke's six-volume work is now added to this hypothetical library, next to "The Late War" on the shelf. Future academics, trying to make their mark on pretty well worked-over ground, are going to add other massive works to add to the mix of hypothetical works Smith (and inevitably, a committee of others) used in producing what Smith produced in his environment.
I think it is clear you haven't read their article.
As I said, I've read the MHA article published by the University of Illinois Press.

If the shoe were on the other foot (if what you call Mopologists were hinting for years at "hundreds" of parallels, but only ever giving a handful as examples), this place would be going bananas over it. But, because it aligns with the desired outcome here, they are given a pass at using the "Elder Perry's briefcase" tactic.

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 »

Stem wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:31 am
Jackson's article comes off as not much more than a desire to fulfill the need put out by Oaks that someone needs to say something when critiques come out. It doesn't matter too much what it is, but you have to respond.
Right. Jackson actually sows doubt in a Clarke influence on the JST in at least 3 ways:

1) Outright dismissal of the body of evidence as meaningless coincidences

2) Nit-picking to cast doubt on each individual instance of correspondence

3) Categorizing instances of correspondence with Clarke as meaningless academic clarifications, not central to the revelatory messages throughout the JST

The third in particular stands out. If Jackson is so convinced that Clarke didn't help paint the house, why does Jackson bother mentioning that the spots Clarke may have painted are in unimportant rooms? Clearly, Jackson himself isn't convinced by any of his own arguments.

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 »

At some point, though, this growing mas ... vironment.

Clarke, Late War—not exactly rare works. Both extremely popular and reprinted many times. This is not exactly the stuff one must schlep to Cambridge to find, eh?

There is a certain truth to what you say, but the point is better made with rare and poorly circulating works.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

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 »

moinmoin wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:47 am


At some point, though, this growing massive library of what Joseph Smith "could have used" runs into Occam's Razor, doesn't it? When I was a member of FAIR, we had an inside joke: "Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years." Clarke's six-volume work is now added to this hypothetical library, next to "The Late War" on the shelf. Future academics, trying to make their mark on pretty well worked-over ground, are going to add other massive works to add to the mix of hypothetical works Smith (and inevitably, a committee of others) used in producing what Smith produced in his environment.
Would you suggest assuming God put the words and ideas into Joseph's head as a more reasonable conclusion then to assume Joseph got the ideas from material present in his environment? I mean it may be that it wasn't Joseph or just Joseph anyway.

As I said, I've read the MHA article published by the University of Illinois Press.

If the shoe were on the other foot (if what you call Mopologists were hinting for years at "hundreds" of parallels, but only ever giving a handful as examples), this place would be going bananas over it. But, because it aligns with the desired outcome here, they are given a pass at using the "Elder Perry's briefcase" tactic.
That may be to some extent or another. But this has been going on for decades--defenders offer parallels as examples of the type of connections that are said to make a solid case. Those connections then become critiqued. And it sounds very similar. Of course, it is much more reasonable to conclude something like Joseph got these ideas from material published in his day, then it is to suggest something like Abraham used random god-allusions from the area considered his super-region, if he existed, but not matching the era from which he would have lived, as some sort of direct hit support the Book of Abraham. (sorry that example was discussed on that other board recently and it boggles my mind how it works for anyone).

The difference is, of course, one set of parallels makes a reasonable case--as in Joseph used material in his day to come up with ideas for his work...compared to weird sketchy, not even connections that are often used as parallels to defend the faith.

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 »

Would you suggest assuming God put the words and ideas into Joseph's head as a more reasonable conclusion then to assume Joseph got the ideas from material present in his environment? I mean it may be that it wasn't Joseph or just Joseph anyway.
I suspect that the problem is not so much where he got the ideas as how certain explanations impact the testimonies of fragile believers. If you really believe, and you have a certain level of sophistication, then God planting a thought in your head directly or a thought to go read a certain book doesn’t make all that much difference. To those people who need larger than life heroes to follow, it apparently does make a lot of difference. Apologetics exist to protect those fragile believers. Education strengthens them such that they either see they don’t need the religion or that they don’t need the thin gruel of standard apologetics.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22502
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

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

Post by moksha »

I think the point has been sufficiently established that there is no way Sister M. Goose could have been familiar with the collective writings of Elder Aesop or those Grimm Brothers from Manti. These are not the Droids you seek.
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 »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:29 am
Right. Jackson actually sows doubt in a Clarke influence on the JST in at least 3 ways:

1) Outright dismissal of the body of evidence as meaningless coincidences

2) Nit-picking to cast doubt on each individual instance of correspondence

3) Categorizing instances of correspondence with Clarke as meaningless academic clarifications, not central to the revelatory messages throughout the JST

The third in particular stands out. If Jackson is so convinced that Clarke didn't help paint the house, why does Jackson bother mentioning that the spots Clarke may have painted are in unimportant rooms? Clearly, Jackson himself isn't convinced by any of his own arguments.
Yes, on the whole it fails to persuade because it is unrelentingly negative in a way that seems to be a real stretch. In some cases, the criticisms are just. It is when he tries so hard to wave everything away that the apologetic nature of the criticism really comes to the fore. We all know too well the apologetic reflex of trying so hard to allay the fears of doubting believers by saying, "Nothing to see here; move along!"
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Post Reply