Wayment on "borrowing" in the JST

[_Dr Moore]

Wayment shares some more examples in his July 2020 JMH article:

Thank you, I'll go look for it.

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.

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.

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?

[_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.

[_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]

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 Hunter Biden (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 information 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 Book of Mormon uses the language “to act” and not be acted upon.

Regards,
MG

[_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.

[_consiglieri]

If Joseph Smith had been "openly "using Adam Clark as a source, we would not be finding out about it only now.

[_mentalgymnast]

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

[_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]

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

[_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.