JST relied on bible commentary by Adam Clarke, new research shows

[Exiled]

Did Joseph Smith have any original ideas that could have only come from God?  It seems like he borrowed from everywhere in his environment and that all of his ideas can be sourced from his surroundings.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

that's the thing though, this lady and this Prof. Wayment, neither of whom I know or have ever heard of before must be operating under different mental schemas and see things differently and what really unlaces my skates is not so much them but others who trumpet either view as the only one or correct one. It's one thing try to convince someone to their side, we do it all the time but another as saying that view is the correct one

I don't think either are saying that.  So I'm not sure why it's getting brought up here.  

[toon]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:31 AM, carbon dioxide said:

I love this argument as if to suggest that a genus would never read or use other sources.  Steven Hawking was considered a genius by many.  I am sure he read works by others and learned things from others. If he used information that he he learned from others in a speech or book, it still would not make him less of a genius.  Even if he forgot or neglected to cite a source, he still would be a genius.  Its not an either/or proposition as this point suggests.  Some people might nitpick things to the point that it results in their own damnation if they are not careful.

But that's not the point being made.

The point had to do with the apparent fact that scribes who were present when Smith was working on the JST did not reference his use of other resources or that other resources were in the room at the time.

It could be that there were such resources being used in the room at the time, but that they did not mention it for whatever reason. However, if that's the case, then it undercuts the claim that Smith didn't have other resources in the room during his other translation activities on grounds that others present didn't mention them. In other words, the stories related by others in the room during Smith's translation activities (JST, BoM, Abraham) may not be complete or entirely accurate.

On the other hand, if no resources were in the room, the Smith demonstrated a remarkable ability to absorb, remember, process and synthesize those resources so that, once he began translating activities in front of others, he could "translate" in a way where nobody picked up on the fact that he had prepared and researched in advance. In other words, genius. And this could be applied to his other translating activities, not just the JST, in that he may not have been the unlearned kid that seems to be a part of the traditional narrative.

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Did Joseph Smith have any original ideas that could have only come from God?  It seems like he borrowed from everywhere in his environment and that all of his ideas can be sourced from his surroundings.

One can find a lot of "his" ideas other places - that is true. In fact one can find basically all of them in the scriptures readily available to all. For instance baptism for the dead is known to have been practiced in some early sects. Later Church councils addressed it by banning it. So it since it is found in scripture, it is hard to say Joseph came up with something original here. Yet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only Church I know of which practices it today (that includes the  Mormon offshoots). The idea that God is an exalted man is not original to Joseph Smith, as it too can be found in scripture. See Hebrews and Exodus. The idea of eternal marriage, I do believe is new, and I think was an introduced covenant promised in Isaiah, where YHWH says He will make a covenant with the Gentiles in their land. But other than that, maybe it would help if you would state what "original idea" you have in mind or question? I pose to you that basically all of them are scripture-based. Other than that I don't know really what you are referring to by your comment that "it seems like he borrowed from everywhere in his environment." I think you will find that he restored many scriptural precepts which were lost in the state-promoted orthodoxy. 

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Did Joseph Smith have any original ideas that could have only come from God?  It seems like he borrowed from everywhere in his environment and that all of his ideas can be sourced from his surroundings.

The LDS notion of pre-existence isn't totally unique, but I don't think it has many close analogs contemporary to Joseph Smith. Plato and Origen also had that belief. Not sure if Joseph Smith got it from somewhere or came up with it independently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence

All new religious movements borrow from previous ideas, though - including Christianity when it was getting off the ground.

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

One can find a lot of "his" ideas other places - that is true. In fact one can find basically all of them in the scriptures readily available to all. For instance baptism for the dead is known to have been practiced in some early sects. Later Church councils addressed it by banning it. So it since it is found in scripture, it is hard to say Joseph came up with something original here. Yet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only Church I know of which practices it today (that includes the  Mormon offshoots). The idea that God is an exalted man is not original to Joseph Smith, as it too can be found in scripture. See Hebrews and Exodus. The idea of eternal marriage, I do believe is new, and I think was an introduced covenant promised in Isaiah, where YHWH says He will make a covenant with the Gentiles in their land. But other than that, maybe it would help if you would state what "original idea" you have in mind or question? I pose to you that basically all of them are scripture-based. Other than that I don't know really what you are referring to by your comment that "it seems like he borrowed from everywhere in his environment." I think you will find that he restored many scriptural precepts which were lost in the state-promoted orthodoxy. 

I cannot think of an original idea Joseph Smith had, hence the question.  So, I am not surprised that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from Clarke for his bible "translation."  He seemed to have been someone who synthesized existing ideas for his scripture and then developed an authority structure that makes the church really legalistic. 

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

The LDS notion of pre-existence isn't totally unique, but I don't think it has many close analogs contemporary to Joseph Smith. Plato and Origen also had that belief. Not sure if Joseph Smith got it from somewhere or came up with it independently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence

All new religious movements borrow from previous ideas, though - including Christianity when it was getting off the ground.

Yes, but I always thought mormonism was a new revelation when it was really only a synthesis of old ideas and then sold as something new.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I cannot think of an original idea Joseph Smith had, hence the question.  So, I am not surprised that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from Clarke for his bible "translation."  He seemed to have been someone who synthesized existing ideas for his scripture and then developed an authority structure that makes the church really legalistic. 

Well, I imagine he used the same process with Clarke as he did with ideas which presented themselves in scripture - he prayed about them. I don't see what is so wrong about that. As for the authority structure - I think it evolved. A lot of it seems to come from BY. Nevertheless, I believe it is reflective of the structure of heaven, so I don't get too uptight about it. Cheers. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The LDS notion of pre-existence isn't totally unique, but I don't think it has many close analogs contemporary to Joseph Smith. Plato and Origen also had that belief. Not sure if Joseph Smith got it from somewhere or came up with it independently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence

All new religious movements borrow from previous ideas, though - including Christianity when it was getting off the ground.

It's a reasonably common Jewish belief particularly in the mystic tradition. It has a much more platonic thrust in that tradition than what Joseph produces but definitely is there. The common argument is that Joseph got the idea from the more esoteric tradition that largely arises out of theurgical platonism and potentially masonry. Terryl Givens brings this up relative to Masonry with the Masonic "historian" Laurence Dermott. For Dermott this is the heavenly Grand Lodge. However it's very fragmentary and I think Givens is reading a lot into it. Givens point was that Milton, in Paradise Lost, almost goes to the idea of preexistence but later figures bring this up. He also notes the hermeticists, Kabbalists and so forth who explicitly embrace this, albeit in a more platonic rather than phenomenological sense.

The problem of course isn't finding notions of pre-existence in the Renaissance that continues underground in the renaissance tradition. The problem is tying Joseph Smith to knowledge of the same, which has typically only been done by loose parallels rather than direct contact.

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, toon said:

But that's not the point being made.

The point had to do with the apparent fact that scribes who were present when Smith was working on the JST did not reference his use of other resources or that other resources were in the room at the time.

It could be that there were such resources being used in the room at the time, but that they did not mention it for whatever reason. However, if that's the case, then it undercuts the claim that Smith didn't have other resources in the room during his other translation activities on grounds that others present didn't mention them. In other words, the stories related by others in the room during Smith's translation activities (JST, BoM, Abraham) may not be complete or entirely accurate.

On the other hand, if no resources were in the room, the Smith demonstrated a remarkable ability to absorb, remember, process and synthesize those resources so that, once he began translating activities in front of others, he could "translate" in a way where nobody picked up on the fact that he had prepared and researched in advance. In other words, genius. And this could be applied to his other translating activities, not just the JST, in that he may not have been the unlearned kid that seems to be a part of the traditional narrative.

I think a lot of Joseph's strengths came from the trauma he experienced. His leg surgery when young, his family's hardships of having to move from place to place and their poverty. The death of Alvin, was definitely a time to introduce baptism for the dead to counteract the horribleness after the minister told his family that Alvin was going to hell.

Life experiences can affect how people react to the world. And the times where everything was fairly new as far as having the freedom of choosing one's religion. And all the start ups coming up short to Joseph. I see nothing wrong with Joseph starting up this religion, but I am having difficulty believing it's God's only church on earth, but I may be wrong.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Tacenda

[rongo]

I haven't sat down and gone through this study comparing Clarke to the JST with a fine-toothed comb, but I believe that if I did, I would find that most of the JST did *not* come from Clarke

1) The big items, like the Book of Moses, Melchizedek and Salem, etc. are pure Joseph Smith/Restoration

2) I'm currently in 1 Samuel in my personal study. As I have read the Old Testament this year, I note (mentally, without writing down) how many JST changes involve common sense changes like God not forcing Pharaoh to refuse to allow the Israelites to leave (multiple changes multiple times), or the evil spirit afflicting Saul not being sent from God, etc. These don't come from Clarke, because they are not extant in the Masoretic or Septuagint texts. 

3) I'm sure I could come up with many, many more examples. 

It seems to me that this lady's study (began, as she said, when she was bored in Sunday School) simply noticed a few instances with obvious Clarkian influence, and she and others are blowing this up into cribbing or wholesale use. It seems obvious to me that the really significant JST sections (doctrinally, and volume-wise) are not dependent or stemming from Clarke. 

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I haven't sat down and gone through this study comparing Clarke to the JST with a fine-toothed comb, but I believe that if I did, I would find that most of the JST did *not* come from Clarke

1) The big items, like the Book of Moses, Melchizedek and Salem, etc. are pure Joseph Smith/Restoration

2) I'm currently in 1 Samuel in my personal study. As I have read the Old Testament this year, I note (mentally, without writing down) how many JST changes involve common sense changes like God not forcing Pharaoh to refuse to allow the Israelites to leave (multiple changes multiple times), or the evil spirit afflicting Saul not being sent from God, etc. These don't come from Clarke, because they are not extant in the Masoretic or Septuagint texts. 

3) I'm sure I could come up with many, many more examples. 

It seems to me that this lady's study (began, as she said, when she was bored in Sunday School) simply noticed a few instances with obvious Clarkian influence, and she and others are blowing this up into cribbing or wholesale use. It seems obvious to me that the really significant JST sections (doctrinally, and volume-wise) are not dependent or stemming from Clarke. 

She found hundreds parallels between JST and Clarke.  Perhaps you should sit down with a fine-tooth comb and give an apologetic response.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

She found hundreds parallels between JST and Clarke.  Perhaps you should sit down with a fine-tooth comb and give an apologetic response.

I'm sure they are all solid, nothing tenuous or stretching. 

I think I will take a closer look. Rome won't be built in a day, though . . .  

[Exiled]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm sure they are all solid, nothing tenuous or stretching. 

I think I will take a closer look. Rome won't be built in a day, though . . .  

I think she is now an agnostic atheist and was happy to leave BYU, fyi.  So, based on that I am guessing that "tenuous or stretching" could have a little more emphasis? 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I haven't sat down and gone through this study comparing Clarke to the JST with a fine-toothed comb, but I believe that if I did, I would find that most of the JST did *not* come from Clarke

He relies on Clarke more when he returns to the Old Testament when finishing up the New Testament. As you note there are some pretty significant revelations both in the JST but also the D&C tied to the translation process. Clarke is really part of "studying it out in your mind."

I think what's interesting about Joseph's use of Clarke is that clearly he sees the KJV as a flawed translation. Many of the revisions in the JST are slight word changes based upon Clarke. They don't tend to affect meaning but do affect clarity.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think she is now an agnostic atheist and was happy to leave BYU, fyi.  So, based on that I am guessing that "tenuous or stretching" could have a little more emphasis?

Sorry I haven't followed the whole thread. Who is "she?"

I believe a lot of the research was done by Thomas Wayment with a student  Hailey Lamne. Is that who you mean?

If folks are interested they have up a transcript of an interview with Wayment at LDS Perspectives on the issue.

Edited May 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

She found hundreds parallels between JST and Clarke.  Perhaps you should sit down with a fine-tooth comb and give an apologetic response.

 

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm sure they are all solid, nothing tenuous or stretching. 

I think I will take a closer look. Rome won't be built in a day, though . . .  

According to Wayment itbis about 200 - 300. According to Haley, the publishing rights for the paper are owned by U of U and at the moment the anticipated publishing date is 12/2018 - but dont hold your breathe as U of U has had the paper for I think two years

[rongo]

Where can we find the most comprehensive list of Clarkian parallels now? 

Or, is this tempest in a teapot merely taking Lamne and Wayment's word for it that there are 200-300 smoking guns?

Where can I get a list to compare with my JST and my Robert Mathews? 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but I always thought mormonism was a new revelation when it was really only a synthesis of old ideas and then sold as something new.

It was presented as a restoration of revelation.

[cinepro]

59 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

According to Wayment itbis about 200 - 300. According to Haley, the publishing rights for the paper are owned by U of U and at the moment the anticipated publishing date is 12/2018 - but dont hold your breathe as U of U has had the paper for I think two years

I think she said it would be published in a compilation with other papers dealing with Joseph Smith's translation projects, so the delay is probably related to getting everything organized.

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

Did Joseph Smith have any original ideas that could have only come from God?  It seems like he borrowed from everywhere in his environment and that all of his ideas can be sourced from his surroundings.

I think Joseph was extremely creative.  But does that mean his ideas were "original?"  Who measures what is original?  Einstein is one of the greatest geniuses in history, but were all of his ideas completely original?  How much of his work was built on earlier works and ideas?  How is anyone to judge these things?

I think the problem is with respect to the way correlated and naive Mormon teachings try to explain what Joseph did.  This narrative of an external theistic deity whispering ideas to Joseph, and that Joseph was just a puppet repeating these ideas directly from a divine source.  This idea is the concept for what it means to be a prophet in correlated Mormonism.  And a critical evaluation of the data shows that this cannot be true.  

The good news is that after people realize just how inaccurate and naive the correlated narrative is, they can start to truly examine their life and their beliefs in God and their assumptions about what God is.  

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Where can we find the most comprehensive list of Clarkian parallels now? 

Or, is this tempest in a teapot merely taking Lamne and Wayment's word for it that there are 200-300 smoking guns?

Where can I get a list to compare with my JST and my Robert Mathews? 

If someone hasn't answered this already, Clarke's commentary is verse based commentary. So, I don't think it would be difficult for one to have the two side by side to compare.

[why me]

https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng

The above is from an article published in 2013. It seems that others were also involved in the translation process, acting as scribes. The OP link credits Rigdon with giving Joseph the book by Clarke, if I understood it correctly. From the link:

Therefore, it can be argued that Clarke was less a theological resource than he was a practical one and, by means of Sidney Rigdon, Smith likely became familiar with the commentary and utilized it at varying levels of engagement throughout the “translation” process.⁷ Finally, characterizing the overall intent and purpose of Smith’s retranslation of the Bible has been a somewhat elusive endeavor.

JST was also not published during his lifetime. I am sure that Joseph and others were researching sources and coming to their own conclusions about what was read. Inspiration comes from many sources and through the act of prayer, truth and falsehood can be distinguished during the research process. Also, since others were involved in the process, Joseph must have had a marvelous memory if he could quote a commentary verbatim without others knowing as they recorded his words.

Edited May 15, 2018 by why me

[why me]

This is an interesting video from the church.

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2009-02-1021-episode-21-the-joseph-smith-translation-jst-part-2?lang=eng

I wonder how this squares with Clarke. It makes me wonder just where Clarkes commentary was in Joseph's house and what happened to the book,  if it existed at all.

Edited May 15, 2018 by why me

[Atheist Mormon]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:24 AM, FormerLDS said:

Well, Joseph Smith did claim this was an "inspired" translation after all...

Well, it is as inspired as four Books was written after 1St Genesis or First Gospel of Mark, subsequently copied to Matthew and Luke and aggrandized by John....Humans do this throughout the history.....

[provoman]

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

If someone hasn't answered this already, Clarke's commentary is verse based commentary. So, I don't think it would be difficult for one to have the two side by side to compare.

That is what Haley did, but what are parrallels?