William Davis and Maxwell Institute.
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:38 pm
Once again the Maxwell Institute is on notice over a favourable review of William Davis book.
John Perry in the comments section:
"I have a few comments regarding Dan's link Publication Raises Questions About Maxwell Institute’s Path that ties to an editorial concerned with the MI's favorable review of William L. Davis' Visions in a Seer Stone.
Davis’ book suggests that Joseph Smith planted “heads” or textual clues and cues within the text of the Book of Mormon from which he extrapolated lengthy narratives. I’d give my opinion on the unlikelihood of this theory, but Interpreter Journal reviews by Brian Hales, Brant Gardner, and a related paper by Stephen O. Smoot in 2020 did the job nicely (see links).
https://journal.interpreter...
https://journal.interpreter...
https://journal.interpreter...
By chance a couple of years ago I came upon a 2016 Dialogue Journal paper by the same Mr. Davis entitled “Reassessing Joseph Smith Jr.’s Formal Education” (see link below). As with his book, Davis’ tone is reasonable, unbiased, and non-accusatory. He is undoubtedly sincere and I appreciated a lot of new information he provided about standards and educational practices in New England and New York in the early 1800s.
However, I also found several flaws in the paper – some of them quite serious in my view. I thought about writing a formal response at the time, but I have neither the time nor the expertise. I do provide one or two examples of many:
Footnote 14 of his paper is provided as an example of Joseph Smith’s ability to write coherent letters and intricate texts, but then admits that the spelling and punctuation in the footnoted letter were modernized (ie, corrected - not how Joseph actually wrote it)! He uses this to weaken Emma’s claim that Joseph could neither write nor dictate a coherent or well-worded letter, but fails to establish what Emma’s idea of such would be. He could have easily included the earliest surviving writing of Emma Smith herself (see Joseph Smith Papers) as a comparison that, even with spelling and punctuation not modernized, reads more fluidly and coherently than Joseph’s "modernized" letter.
Davis also includes a phrase from Joseph's 1832 history where he states that he was "merely instructed in reading, writing, and the ground rules of arithmetic, which constituted my whole literary acquirements" (with all of Joseph's spelling and punctuation errors corrected, of course) and then tries to tell the reader that Joseph in fact is revealing that he was educated in more subjects than just the "3 Relief Society", completely ignoring Joseph's clear statement to the contrary ("which constituted my whole literary acquirements").
https://www.dialoguejournal..."
The thinking, methodology, and assumptions behind the flaws in this 2016 paper appear to have made their way into Mr. Davis’ 2020 book as well."
John Perry in the comments section:
"I have a few comments regarding Dan's link Publication Raises Questions About Maxwell Institute’s Path that ties to an editorial concerned with the MI's favorable review of William L. Davis' Visions in a Seer Stone.
Davis’ book suggests that Joseph Smith planted “heads” or textual clues and cues within the text of the Book of Mormon from which he extrapolated lengthy narratives. I’d give my opinion on the unlikelihood of this theory, but Interpreter Journal reviews by Brian Hales, Brant Gardner, and a related paper by Stephen O. Smoot in 2020 did the job nicely (see links).
https://journal.interpreter...
https://journal.interpreter...
https://journal.interpreter...
By chance a couple of years ago I came upon a 2016 Dialogue Journal paper by the same Mr. Davis entitled “Reassessing Joseph Smith Jr.’s Formal Education” (see link below). As with his book, Davis’ tone is reasonable, unbiased, and non-accusatory. He is undoubtedly sincere and I appreciated a lot of new information he provided about standards and educational practices in New England and New York in the early 1800s.
However, I also found several flaws in the paper – some of them quite serious in my view. I thought about writing a formal response at the time, but I have neither the time nor the expertise. I do provide one or two examples of many:
Footnote 14 of his paper is provided as an example of Joseph Smith’s ability to write coherent letters and intricate texts, but then admits that the spelling and punctuation in the footnoted letter were modernized (ie, corrected - not how Joseph actually wrote it)! He uses this to weaken Emma’s claim that Joseph could neither write nor dictate a coherent or well-worded letter, but fails to establish what Emma’s idea of such would be. He could have easily included the earliest surviving writing of Emma Smith herself (see Joseph Smith Papers) as a comparison that, even with spelling and punctuation not modernized, reads more fluidly and coherently than Joseph’s "modernized" letter.
Davis also includes a phrase from Joseph's 1832 history where he states that he was "merely instructed in reading, writing, and the ground rules of arithmetic, which constituted my whole literary acquirements" (with all of Joseph's spelling and punctuation errors corrected, of course) and then tries to tell the reader that Joseph in fact is revealing that he was educated in more subjects than just the "3 Relief Society", completely ignoring Joseph's clear statement to the contrary ("which constituted my whole literary acquirements").
https://www.dialoguejournal..."
The thinking, methodology, and assumptions behind the flaws in this 2016 paper appear to have made their way into Mr. Davis’ 2020 book as well."