Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

[_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.

[_Fence Sitter]

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".

[_moksha]

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?

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_Nevo]

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

[_moinmoin]

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.).

[_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]

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.

[_Kishkumen]

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 PhD, 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.

[_Dr Exiled]

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 Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. 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.