Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by _Kishkumen »

At some point, though, this growing mas ... vironment.

Clarke, Late War—not exactly rare works. Both extremely popular and reprinted many times. This is not exactly the stuff one must schlep to Cambridge to find, eh?

There is a certain truth to what you say, but the point is better made with rare and poorly circulating works.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Stem
_Emeritus
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by _Stem »

moinmoin wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:47 pm


At some point, though, this growing massive library of what Joseph Smith "could have used" runs into Occam's Razor, doesn't it? When I was a member of FAIR, we had an inside joke: "Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years." Clarke's six-volume work is now added to this hypothetical library, next to "The Late War" on the shelf. Future academics, trying to make their mark on pretty well worked-over ground, are going to add other massive works to add to the mix of hypothetical works Smith (and inevitably, a committee of others) used in producing what Smith produced in his environment.
Would you suggest assuming God put the words and ideas into Joseph's head as a more reasonable conclusion then to assume Joseph got the ideas from material present in his environment? I mean it may be that it wasn't Joseph or just Joseph anyway.

As I said, I've read the MHA article published by the University of Illinois Press.

If the shoe were on the other foot (if what you call Mopologists were hinting for years at "hundreds" of parallels, but only ever giving a handful as examples), this place would be going bananas over it. But, because it aligns with the desired outcome here, they are given a pass at using the "Elder Perry's briefcase" tactic.
That may be to some extent or another. But this has been going on for decades--defenders offer parallels as examples of the type of connections that are said to make a solid case. Those connections then become critiqued. And it sounds very similar. Of course, it is much more reasonable to conclude something like Joseph got these ideas from material published in his day, then it is to suggest something like Abraham used random god-allusions from the area considered his super-region, if he existed, but not matching the era from which he would have lived, as some sort of direct hit support the Book of Abraham. (sorry that example was discussed on that other board recently and it boggles my mind how it works for anyone).

The difference is, of course, one set of parallels makes a reasonable case--as in Joseph used material in his day to come up with ideas for his work...compared to weird sketchy, not even connections that are often used as parallels to defend the faith.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by _Kishkumen »

Would you suggest assuming God put the words and ideas into Joseph's head as a more reasonable conclusion then to assume Joseph got the ideas from material present in his environment? I mean it may be that it wasn't Joseph or just Joseph anyway.
I suspect that the problem is not so much where he got the ideas as how certain explanations impact the testimonies of fragile believers. If you really believe, and you have a certain level of sophistication, then God planting a thought in your head directly or a thought to go read a certain book doesn’t make all that much difference. To those people who need larger than life heroes to follow, it apparently does make a lot of difference. Apologetics exist to protect those fragile believers. Education strengthens them such that they either see they don’t need the religion or that they don’t need the thin gruel of standard apologetics.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by _moksha »

I think the point has been sufficiently established that there is no way Sister M. Goose could have been familiar with the collective writings of Elder Aesop or those Grimm Brothers from Manti. These are not the Droids you seek.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Joseph coulnd't possibly have relied on Adam Clarke

Post by _Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:29 pm
Right. Jackson actually sows doubt in a Clarke influence on the JST in at least 3 ways:

1) Outright dismissal of the body of evidence as meaningless coincidences

2) Nit-picking to cast doubt on each individual instance of correspondence

3) Categorizing instances of correspondence with Clarke as meaningless academic clarifications, not central to the revelatory messages throughout the JST

The third in particular stands out. If Jackson is so convinced that Clarke didn't help paint the house, why does Jackson bother mentioning that the spots Clarke may have painted are in unimportant rooms? Clearly, Jackson himself isn't convinced by any of his own arguments.
Yes, on the whole it fails to persuade because it is unrelentingly negative in a way that seems to be a real stretch. In some cases, the criticisms are just. It is when he tries so hard to wave everything away that the apologetic nature of the criticism really comes to the fore. We all know too well the apologetic reflex of trying so hard to allay the fears of doubting believers by saying, "Nothing to see here; move along!"
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply