Comparing 2 Nephi 26 With 3 Nephi 8-10

[Bernard Gui]

Which raises some interesting questions.

During the translation process, what steps were made to preserve and protect the developing manuscript?

Was it reviewed by Joseph and his assistants during down time?

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Your version does not comport with the description of what went on as described by the people who were in the tiny room with him, but anything is possible, I suppose. It’s even possible he told the truth about translating the book. 

My version agrees very well with those that believe that portions of the KJV of the Bible and of Clarke's commentary are  found in the BoM. I assume you do not believe they are. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

"The reality of his situation was that he was an uneducated farm boy"

A more precise description is semieducated, three years (iirc) of schooling even if very basic education is still education.  He could read, he could write, if not well.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

My version agrees very well with those that believe that portions of the KJV of the Bible and of Clarke's commentary are  found in the BoM.

I believe the evidence of Clarke's commentary is connected with the JST, not the BoM, but I may have missed it.  The original research is about the JST though:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

"Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence.1 What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible."

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/7/2018 at 2:15 PM, CA Steve said:

My version agrees very well with those that believe that portions of the KJV of the Bible and of Clarke's commentary are  found in the BoM. I assume you do not believe they are. 

Not at all. ‘‘Tis a puzzlement. Shoot! I memorized the Prologue to Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Anything is possible.

Were those folks in the room with Joseph aware he had Clarke’s commentary and the KJ bible in the hat or under the table, or that he was pouring over them by candlelight when they were sleeping? Or that somehow he read them once upon a time or heard someone read from them, and then used his photographic memory to weave them into his narrative? How do you think he pulled it off?

Edited March 10, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/7/2018 at 2:23 PM, Calm said:

"The reality of his situation was that he was an uneducated farm boy"

A more precise description is semieducated, three years (iirc) of schooling even if very basic education is still education.  He could read, he could write, if not well.

Do we have a notion of what those 3 years of schooling entailed? Sister Gui teaches kindergarten. Add 2 years and you get 3 years of schooling. I think you understand what I mean. 😉

Edited March 17, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe the evidence of Clarke's commentary is connected with the JST, not the BoM, but I may have missed it.  The original research is about the JST though:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

"Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence.1 What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible."

There are some who think they detect Clarke’s footprints in the BoM.

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/01/18/40843

There are some reddit discussions, too.

[CA Steve]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe the evidence of Clarke's commentary is connected with the JST, not the BoM, but I may have missed it.  The original research is about the JST though:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

"Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence.1 What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible."

Ahh yes Calm I think you are correct.

 

Thanks for the correction.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Ahh yes Calm I think you are correct.

 

Thanks for the correction.

See my comment directly above.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are some who think they detect Clarke’s footprints in the BoM.

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/01/18/40843

There are some reddit discussions, too.

Peer reviewed, serious academic work on the BoM and Clarke's etc. has not been done yet that I am aware of.  I have  gotten the impression of CA Steve that such things matter to him, he doesn't generally make highly speculative claims as I recall.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Calm

[Nevo]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

"The reality of his situation was that he was an uneducated farm boy"

A more precise description is semieducated, three years (iirc) of schooling even if very basic education is still education.  He could read, he could write, if not well.

A recent Dialogue article estimates that Joseph probably had the equivalent of 7 full years of formal schooling, broken down as follows:

• winter 1810-11 term
• winter 1811-12 term
• summer 1812 term
• first part of winter 1812-13 term
• latter part of winter 1813-14 term
• winter 1814-15 term
• winter 1815-16 term
• latter part of winter 1816-17 term
• winter 1817-18 term
• winter 1818-19 term
• winter 1819-20 term
• winter 1820-21 term
• winter 1821-22 term
• winter 1822-23 term
• winter 1825-26 term

Remember, too, that Joseph Sr. was a schoolteacher. And Lydia Mack, Lucy's mother, taught school as well. The family was literate. They subscribed to the local newspaper. Joseph also participated in a juvenile debating club and attended Methodist and other meetings "as often as occasion would permit." So we're not dealing here with a moron.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Nevo

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Nevo said:

A recent Dialogue article estimates that Joseph probably had the equivalent of 7 full years of formal schooling, broken down as follows:

• winter 1810-11 term
• winter 1811-12 term
• summer 1812 term
• first part of winter 1812-13 term
• latter part of winter 1813-14 term
• winter 1814-15 term
• winter 1815-16 term
• latter part of winter 1816-17 term
• winter 1817-18 term
• winter 1818-19 term
• winter 1819-20 term
• winter 1820-21 term
• winter 1821-22 term
• winter 1822-23 term
• winter 1825-26 term

Remember, too, that Joseph Sr. was a schoolteacher. And Lydia Mack, Lucy's mother, taught school as well. The family was literate. They subscribed to the local newspaper. Joseph also participated in a juvenile debating club and attended Methodist and other meetings "as often as occasion would permit." So we're not dealing here with a moron.

What was the quality and scope of the school terms he attended? Do we know the extent of Joseph Sr.’s qualifications to be a school teacher? High school graduate, college certificate? How rigorous was the training and competition in the juvenile debating club? Many of Joseph’s contemporaries testified he was a moron, not using that word, of course.

Hopefully, no one here thinks he was a moron. What gave rise to your observation?

Edited March 8, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What was the quality and scope of the school terms he attended? Do we know the extent of Joseph Sr.’s qualifications to be a school teacher? High school graduate, college certificate? How rigorous was the training and competition in the juvenile debating club? Many of Joseph’s contemporaries testified he was a moron, not using that word, of course. Hopefully, no one here thinks he was a moron. What gave rise to that observation?

Probably the seriousness of the charges and the fantastic nature of Joseph's claims.  I do find it somewhat moronic that Joseph Smith would be accused of a fraud in the face of eleven witnesses, three of whom saw the angel, the gold plates, and heard the voice of God.  Then there is the individual verification from God to man by the Holy Ghost and life experience living its principles.  The Clarke stories and others, interesting as they are, do not compromise the other factors mentioned here, imo.

[Calm]

On 2018-03-07 at 7:55 PM, Nevo said:

A recent Dialogue article estimates that Joseph probably had the equivalent of 7 full years of formal schooling, broken down as follows:

• winter 1810-11 term
• winter 1811-12 term
• summer 1812 term
• first part of winter 1812-13 term
• latter part of winter 1813-14 term
• winter 1814-15 term
• winter 1815-16 term
• latter part of winter 1816-17 term
• winter 1817-18 term
• winter 1818-19 term
• winter 1819-20 term
• winter 1820-21 term
• winter 1821-22 term
• winter 1822-23 term
• winter 1825-26 term

Remember, too, that Joseph Sr. was a schoolteacher. And Lydia Mack, Lucy's mother, taught school as well. The family was literate. They subscribed to the local newspaper. Joseph also participated in a juvenile debating club and attended Methodist and other meetings "as often as occasion would permit." So we're not dealing here with a moron.

Nevo, do you have the name or link for this article...too much came up googling.

[Nevo]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nevo, do you have the name or link for this article...too much came up googling.

Sure. Here's the reference:

• William Davis, "Reassessing Joseph Smith Jr.'s Formal Education," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 49, no. 4 (Winter 2016): 1–58.

[Calm]

Thank you so much.  I meant to look at it myself and then got distracted until I got asked something similar and this should be exactly what they  needed.

[theplains]

On 05/03/2018 at 4:43 PM, cinepro said:

This is especially notable in light of the recent discoveries about Joseph's reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible commentary in the creation of the JST.  Certainly, we don't have any eyewitness accounts saying that they saw Joseph regularly referencing Adam Clarke's work, but it seems to be very likely that he did just that.

Why would he need to rely on the Adam Clarke Bible commentary?

Jim