Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

[_Stem]

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.

[_kairos]

My sense is that Clarke's fingerprints are all over the JST and Joseph Smith's fingerprints are all over Clarke's work. Can Jackson concede that the Clarke's commentary was not a source of Joseph Smith work on the JST- i think he will answer that uh uh Clarke's work was used in some fashion when Joseph Smith wrote the JST .
Now it is clear that Joseph Smith used the KJV in the Book of Mormon when years ago that was not conceded; to me Wayment and Wilson present a
solid case for Joseph Smith use of Clarke's work. So much for divine direct inspiration from God to Joseph Smith on both books imho.

k

[_Stem]

My sense is that Clarke's fingerprints are all over the JST and Joseph Smith's fingerprints are all over Clarke's work. Can Jackson concede that the Clarke's commentary was not a source of Joseph Smith work on the JST- i think he will answer that uh uh Clarke's work was used in some fashion when Joseph Smith wrote the JST .
Now it is clear that Joseph Smith used the KJV in the Book of Mormon when years ago that was not conceded; to me Wayment and Wilson present a
solid case for Joseph Smith use of Clarke's work. So much for divine direct inspiration from God to Joseph Smith on both books imho.

k

In the comments Jeff Lindsay says,

It is simply amazing that the handful of weak parallels to Adam Clarke are being billed as evidence of “plagiarism” by the most prominent voices of anti-Mormonism. Even if every case raised by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon really were cases of Joseph being influenced directly by Clarke, they would represent little more than occasional minor influence. Since the JST was never published by Joseph, there isn’t even a case for actual plagiarism for that incomplete work in progress (requires publication without attribution). But the reality is that among the alleged instances of borrowing from Clarke published by Wayment and Lemmon, not a single one withstands scrutiny. Their best examples are sometimes completely erroneous, far-fetched, or have much more credible explanations rather than borrowing from Clarke. But some of our critics bill this as an amazing find of historical importance that cuts to the heart of LDS claims.
Thanks for doing the homework required to show what an empty, even ridiculous case this is against the JST.

SHoot. Seems all settled to me.

[_Shulem]

Don't forget about this thread:

Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

It's conclusively shown that Smith ripped off Clarke. Never mind what the apologists have to say. What they have to say is not important and may be safely ignored.

[_fetchface]

It's funny how strong parallels can be dismissed when inconvenient for LDS belief, but weak parallels become strong evidence when they link the Book of Mormon to some random ancient proper noun.

There's just no attempt at consistency here.

[_Shulem]

It's funny how strong parallels can be dismissed when inconvenient for LDS belief, but weak parallels become strong evidence when they link the Book of Mormon to some random ancient proper noun.

There's just no attempt at consistency here.

Double standard lying Mormons. Oh how Mormons love to cover lies and cover their own sins up in them. I wouldn't trust a Mormon any further than I could throw one.

[_Kishkumen]

There will always be bizarre denials from the Mopologists. Their job is to say what they perceive to be necessary to keep people in the Church, no matter how implausible or unsupported by the evidence.

[_Dr Moore]

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.”

[_Stem]

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.”

I thought I'd pull up Wayment/lemonss treatment and see it side by side with this response. Of course it's true in that wayment and lemon only offered a few examples to make their case and yet otherwise suggested there are many more examples. I figured Jacksons problem would be relying on the small sample, but he certainly doesn't think so. After reading jackson I'm wondering if other commentaries also fill in as sources.

[_moksha]

There will always be bizarre denials from the Mopologists. Their job is to say what they perceive to be necessary to keep people in the Church, no matter how implausible or unsupported by the evidence.

No matter how bogus the rebuttal, people in the wards take comfort in knowing there is a rebuttal. The Interpreter has done its job.