NOM

https://www.fromthedesk.org/producing-a ... scripture/

Wow, what an interesting attempt to explain away the Adam Clarke plagiarism.

Sample:

What about the fact that Joseph Smith did borrow from Adam Clark. Does this constitute plagiarism?

Mark Ashurst-McGee: No, not necessarily, and here’s why. Plagiarism means borrowing without attribution. Since Joseph Smith never published the Joseph Smith Translation, as he had hoped to, we don’t know how he would have presented it to readers.
If Smith’s introduction to the Joseph Smith Translation had said that all the changes were a result of direct revelation, or that all of them were his own ideas—or even some combination of the two—then his borrowing from Clarke would be something that could be reasonably called plagiarism.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That's hilarious. And you know who is missing from this Q & A? Consiglieri's buddy Brian Hauglid! I wonder what he'd have to say.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:41 amhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

For some strange reason, that's almost exactly what my reaction was/is.

Ouch! Eye cramps from rolling beyond safe limits.

This is similar to the Kinderhook Plates defense.

"If Joseph HAD claimed to translate all of it, then he would've been conned. But since he never finished it, we can only assume he realized it was not a true, ancient record."

and on and on.

Interestingly I don't recall JS giving attribution credit in the BOM intro to Johnathan Edwards for all the phrasing from his sermons.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:32 am Interestingly I don't recall JS giving attribution credit in the BOM intro to Johnathan Edwards for all the phrasing from his sermons.

I'm looking now and I can't find anywhere that JS gives the Campbellites credit for the idea of the Melchizedek priesthood, Swedenborg for the multiple tiers of heaven, the King James Bible for the foundation of the Book of Mormon, the temperance movement for the Word of Wisdom, the King James Bible for the Book of Moses, Jasher/Josephus/Adam Clarke for the ideas in the Book of Abraham.

Weird.

jfro18 wrote:

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:32 am Interestingly I don't recall JS giving attribution credit in the BOM intro to Johnathan Edwards for all the phrasing from his sermons.

I'm looking now and I can't find anywhere that JS gives the Campbellites credit for the idea of the Melchizedek priesthood, Swedenborg for the multiple tiers of heaven, the King James Bible for the foundation of the Book of Mormon, the temperance movement for the Word of Wisdom, the King James Bible for the Book of Moses, Jasher/Josephus/Adam Clarke for the ideas in the Book of Abraham.

Weird.

But everyone was borrowing back then, totally normal for the 19th century. So you see, no big deal. [emoji1]

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 am But everyone was borrowing back then, totally normal for the 19th century. So you see, no big deal. [emoji1]

I miss Brother Jake's videos

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 am

jfro18 wrote:

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:32 am Interestingly I don't recall JS giving attribution credit in the BOM intro to Johnathan Edwards for all the phrasing from his sermons.

I'm looking now and I can't find anywhere that JS gives the Campbellites credit for the idea of the Melchizedek priesthood, Swedenborg for the multiple tiers of heaven, the King James Bible for the foundation of the Book of Mormon, the temperance movement for the Word of Wisdom, the King James Bible for the Book of Moses, Jasher/Josephus/Adam Clarke for the ideas in the Book of Abraham.

Weird.

But everyone was borrowing back then, totally normal for the 19th century. So you see, no big deal. [emoji1]

Actually... yes? Except for the "no big deal" part.

Ideas about authorship and ownership have been pretty fluid through the ages. Here's a very short survey of how the ideas have evolved, which suggests "plagiarism" is probably the wrong word:

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archiv ... urvey.html

William Charvat describes the 1840s as an era of “wholesale scissoring.”

By the mid 1800s, things began to change.

Now, trying to pass Adam Clarke's work off as revelation would definitely be fraud. Unfortunately, I think the apologists' defense would work well enough for believers against the charge of fraud, too. First, it's technically true, which we all know is the best kind of true. Further, they're unwilling to accept that Joseph Smith orchestrated much more obvious frauds.

IMO, this particular episode of Pay No Attention To That Man Behind the Curtain best serves as a bit of canker to eat away at the stupidly high confidence believers tend to have in their false prophets.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:14 am https://www.fromthedesk.org/producing-a ... scripture/


If Smith’s introduction to the Joseph Smith Translation had said that all the changes were a result of direct revelation, ...

Did JS call it the JST? Seems like the name of the thing - "translation" - implies revelation? If not, then anything JS claims he "translated" was ....

wow.