Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

[_Kishkumen]

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

Indubitably. Salvation is much more important than clear thinking.

[_fetchface]

If parallels don’t work then I’m afraid the entirety of the Interpreter’s corpus is null and void.

Yep, if parallels to Clarke's commentary don't offer strong evidence of a connection, then no parallels offer strong evidence of a connection.

[_Dr Moore]

With only a few subject-noun changes, Kent Jackson's article could be re purposed to explain beautifully and forcefully why the Book of Mormon is not a historical text.

[_fetchface]

With only a few subject-noun changes, Kent Jackson's article could be re purposed to explain beautifully and forcefully why the Book of Mormon is not a historical text.

I guess the interesting follow up question for me is, do these people not see the double standard or do they see it and it doesn't bother them?

It's hard for me to understand since I never spent any significant time wrestling with the contrary evidence. The day I decided to wrestle with the contrary evidence with an open mind was the day I lost my belief. And specifically, I lost my belief because I realized that I would have to maintain a huge double standard of evidence to maintain that belief. I couldn't bring myself to do that.

I guess I just don't understand what makes these guys tick.

[_Dr Exiled]

With only a few subject-noun changes, Kent Jackson's article could be re purposed to explain beautifully and forcefully why the Book of Mormon is not a historical text.

I guess the interesting follow up question for me is, do these people not see the double standard or do they see it and it doesn't bother them?

It's hard for me to understand since I never spent any significant time wrestling with the contrary evidence. The day I decided to wrestle with the contrary evidence with an open mind was the day I lost my belief. And specifically, I lost my belief because I realized that I would have to maintain a huge double standard of evidence to maintain that belief. I couldn't bring myself to do that.

I guess I just don't understand what makes these guys tick.

I think they are so obsessed with supporting the team that they'll sacrifice logic. One sees that attitude of turning a blind eye to whatever the supposed "enemy" is saying regardless of the truth in many areas including politics. The team and its goals are paramount. So, attack the foes and support your friends.

[_kairos]

Are any of you concerned that Wayment and Wilson only gave a few examples? Why? to constrain the devastation to the JST by Clarke was Wayment asked top tone it down and not list/comment on the hundred instances they found?
Am i all wet here? is an exhaustive list and assessment of supposedly hundred instances around somewhere?

thanx
k

ps- i asked in an email to Wayment about 3 weeks ago, whether the second document Buck's theological dictionary was used by Joseph Smith on the JST- he replied that he had not investigated that but said he would be interested if someone did that- he added the does see Buck being used in the D&C!
The beat, i mean plagarism goes on and on and on.

[_Dr Moore]

It isn't that Jackson fails to present some logic -- he does. His article raises intriguing questions. For instance, why DID Joseph change "unicorns" in one place (consistent with Clarke), but not in other places where "unicorn" or "unicorns" appears? Jackson did the research to show that yes, Joseph did cover at least one of those other "unicorn" passages in the JST. Obviously a contradiction - what gives?

I submit that the real problem is the logic of Jackson's implicit foundational assumption -- that Joseph sought for completeness and consistency in his works, and/or that God guided him to a place of completeness and consistency.

But of course he didn't, and He didn't. What a terrible place to start an academic perspective on Joseph Smith. There are hundreds of ways in which Joseph's translations, revelations, theology and his actions produced highly problematic contradictions, anachronisms, falsehoods, honest mistakes, etc.

I found Matthew Grey's summary of a (the?) primary motivation behind Joseph's translation enterprises to be simply perfect. That being "showing off", or as Grey puts it ever so gently:

display his erudition

(in Grey, Approaching Egyptian Papyri through Biblical Language, 2000)

In the framework of Joseph "showing off", Wayment's conclusions and Jackson's questions can both be valid simultaneously. Joseph never undertook the burden of being complete and consistent in any of his translations. Why does Jackson feel compelled to make it so with Wayment's JST discovery?

[_Rick Grunder]

Kairos,

Regarding Buck's Theological Dictionary which you mentioned, here is my somewhat brief entry which may serve as an introduction to that work:

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp77.pdf

[_kairos]

Rick
Thanx for the links and comment!
k

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I would have to agree with Brant Gardner’s assessment of Kent Jackson’s article. http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1236733

And, in real life Kent Jackson is a total douche. His posting history here would made kiwi57 blush. Take a short trip down memory lane and look at some of his posts:

http://mormondiscussions.com/memberlist ... le&u=18269