Brant Gardner Metaphorically Craps On An Interpreter Article

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 4055
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Brant Gardner Metaphorically Craps On An Interpreter Article

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

A few days ago, Sic et Non 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.
“Brant Gardner” wrote: 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
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6651
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Brant Gardner Metaphorically Craps On An Interpreter Article

Post by 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.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Brant Gardner Metaphorically Craps On An Interpreter Article

Post by 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.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9948
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Brant Gardner Metaphorically Craps On An Interpreter Article

Post by 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.
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.

Post Reply