Talk:Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Yikes!

Folks -- forgive my intrusion, but as just another reader checking this article, I must say: referring to Joseph Smith as "the Prophet" throughout makes it a difficult and frustrating read for somebody who is less, well, sympathetic to the subject matter. Setting my own feelings aside, I think that the article reads better and makes a better impression if it's presented from a more neutral viewpoint. I would say the same thing on a page that referred to Mohammad as "the Prophet" , or Jesus as "the Messiah" all the time -- I am sure there are many examples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.245.208 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Name change

This should be moved to Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Any thoughts? B 00:23, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Fine by me. Go ahead and make the change. Visorstuff 01:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

20 years later, I oppose this change. "Joseph Smith Translation" is a description used by a specific sect of Mormonism. My understanding is that Smith called it the "Inspired Version". If that is correct, that should probably be the title of the article.Rscragun (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Smith himself referred to it as a translation, and it was referred to as a translation in the Doctrine and Covenants. Epachamo (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Twice-translated parts

Moved from the article:

There are two sections of the work that Smith dictated twice at different times in his life: one in the Book of Genesis and another in the Gospel of Matthew. These duplicate manuscripts contain many of the same revisions to the King James Version, with some substantive additions or changes in one but not in the other.

I once read a BYU Studies article comparing these two manuscripts, but I can't find the reference to it (--COGDEN)

This is a weird statement and does not read well - it makes it sound like he gave them word for word on two different occasions. There were in fact many sections of the bible that he translated more than once. The first sixteen psalms were translated a number of times, but the second sixteen were compeltely untouched (as were a section later in the Psalms). The bulk of the psalms were done mainly once or twice. Isaiah, John, Revelations and Paul's letters also received a good deal of attention on multiple occasions. The process was still incomplete at the time of his death, he was still making edits and changes and translations at that time. Please clarify as I have no idea where you are going here. This is another one of my areas of primary research, so I'm curious to your point. Have you ever read "A Plainer Translation" may be a good place to start for background --Visorstuff. -->

That's what happened, apparently, in this case. The BYU Studies article I'm talking about (and I'm looking for it--I think I copied it once, but I can't find the copy) examined two recently-available manuscripts that Smith apparently dictated word-for-word, where he went over the same passages and dictated two different versions. I think this is important to include here because it shows (and this is what the BYU article concluded) that Smith's work was not a precise restoration of the "lost" text of an earlier document, but an enhancement to the Bible that included explanations and elaborations, depending upon what he felt inspired to say at the time he was "translating".COGDEN 18:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question. How it is currently worded leads the reader to believe that Joseph Smith dictacted the exact same words for two passages on two seperate occasions. If this is the point you are trying to make, then it should read that Smith was able to give an exact word for word translation of the same text, without any changes of two passages. However, I don't think that that is the point you are trying to make. I think you are trying to say that Smith occasionally re-translated the same passage with different results on at least two occasions.

As far as "recently-available" the entire mss is complete in the COFC archives, and is viewable by CD since 1997-8ish (which to me is not recent). Robert Millet and a graduate student, who also lectured about it at BYU at the same time helped with the OCR conversion for the CD.

The entire manuscripts is described to the most miniscule detail in Robert Matthew's book - which is more about the translation process, the documents and manuscripts and the Bible used than the text itself. By "Bible," I mean that Smith bought a large family-type bible and made edits in the columns until manuscript pages were needed. Most of the minor changes were done directly in the bible, much like you'd mark your scriptures, so there is some controversy as to whether the changes are his random thoughts while marking or actual translation edits. I am aware of multiple passages that ended up with different results, and he even made comments that he felt like he needed to find a way to convey the author's meanings better as some wrote dualistically. That was one reason for pinning comments on top of other comments on top of second manuscripts of the same passage edited in his bible. Remember he spent nearly four years preparing the translation for publication and never felt that it was done. It definitely was a work in progress.

I agree that translation in our current vocabulary is not an descriptive word of what he did. I would rather call it an inspired rendition, inspired editing, inspired study, or restoration of the original intent. A number of years ago, Richard G. Scott suggested that we write in our scriptures the thoughts and impressions we have, as study is a source of revelation for us. That is what the translation is - except to the prophet of this dispensation, the revelations contained in his study set the doctrinal foundations we teach today. In this context, there is no wonder that there are differences in his translations of the same passage. If you think any of this information has merit for the article, feel free to add. I just didn't want to confuse the reader with all this additional (which I consider relevant but periphrial) information. -Visorstuff 20:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I was under the impression that the article I read regarded some new finds, but obviously Robert Matthew is the big authority on the JST, and he would probably cover it in his book. I've given up looking for the article--maybe it wasn't in BYU Studies, but in some other journal (I read it last fall) and I'm not going to be near BYU any time soon, so I'm just going to revise what's there and state something generic. If it still doesn't sound right, you can go ahead and change or delete it.COGDEN 01:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Greek Delete

User:Benefros stated that he couldn't find evidence for Smith studying greek - may want to do a more thourough search next time, but thanks for the edit anyway - keeps us honest. Here are a few sources:

• Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (commenting about greek word renderings), pages 300,309,372...
• Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol 1, "Bible Scholarship"; Vol 2, "Kirtland, Ohio"; Vol 3, "Scripture" (this one states he studied, hebrew greek and german (german most likely to understand Luther's changes to the text that is used today). See below for excerpt on Kirtland.
• Answers to Gospel questions, vol 2, p 86
• Anti-mormons including the Tanners also agree.
• Amatuer Mormon apologists also point to it. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, KIRTLAND, OHIO

As a result of this and other divine commands, Joseph Smith in 1833 invited about twenty elders to attend a School of the Prophets. Following the initial sessions of that school, Church leaders and members established a school of the elders, a grammar school, and various private schools, in which adults and youth studied theology, philosophy, government, literature, history, geography, English grammar, penmanship, arithmetic, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In 1836 more than one hundred Latter-day Saints commenced studying Hebrew. Women attended and taught school in Kirtland, and studied various subjects with their husbands.

Incidentally, has anyone got a hold of the new JST manuscript compliation book? Interesting to see the blots, the marks, the pins and the edits. Very interesting...-Visorstuff 17:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-Mormons?" What do you mean? Is that a universal term, or is it a label placed on them by one side of a debate?
If anything, they would be "Ex-Mormons."--Zach Collier (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Though the previous comment was listed long ago, it's worth mentioning that Anti-Mormonism is/was a self-attributed title. It can have a broad or general scope, but it's exactly that: anti (against) Mormonism. An Ex-Mormon would be one who was previously Mormon. One can be either, both, or neither. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation?

Since Joseph Smith did not know the source languages of the Bible (see above), this is clearly not a translation. In this case, it may be best to classify the JST as a revision.--ndansmith 03:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this is clearly explained in the second paragraph of the article. --Blainster 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But the section headings still refer to it as a translation. Also, the article is listed as an English translation of the Bible.--ndansmith 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it is clarified, Splanxna, you may want to read the definition of translated (from dictionary.com) [1]

This has not been clearly stated in the article, and all attempts to edit corrections differentiating Smith's "method" have been deleted.

1. To render in another language. 2.

1. To put into simpler terms; explain or interpret.

2. To express in different words; paraphrase.

3.

1. To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform: translate ideas into reality.

2. To express in another medium.

4. To transfer from one place or condition to another. 5. To forward or retransmit (a telegraphic message). 6.

1. Ecclesiastical. To transfer (a bishop) to another see.

2. To convey to heaven without death.

7. Physics. To subject (a body) to translation. 8. Biology. To subject (messenger RNA) to translation. 9. Archaic. To enrapture.

v. intr. 1.

1. To make a translation.

2. To work as a translator.

2. To admit of translation. 3. To be changed or transformed in effect. Often used with into or to: "Today's low inflation and steady growth in household income translate into more purchasing power" (Thomas G. Exter).

By this definition, translation is an appropriate term. In 1830, the term mean more than just conveying ideas from one language to another. -Visorstuff 16:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith did not convey ideas from one language to another. English was the only language involved if I have my facts straight. Also, I think that adding information would necessarily disqualify a revision from being called a translation. Besides, the definition of the word in 1830 is irrelvenat, we are classifying it today. Furthermore, the various definitions of "translation" listed in the dictionary reflect usage, not a technical definition (which is what we need).

Just to be clear, I think that the title of the article "Joseph Smith Translation" is acceptable since it is the name of the document, but there needs to be more some more clarification in the article. For instace, as Blainster pointed out, this is addressed in the second paragraph - but the heading of the second section still reads "Process of Translation" and the third section is "Content of the translation." This article is also listed as an "English translation of the Bible." Perhaps the terms "revision" and "version" should be used instead. --ndansmith 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant what the term meant in 1830, as that became the name of the document. Smith fully considered himself a "translator" one who "put into simpler terms; explain or interpret. To express in different words...express in another medium...to retransmit. Yes it is it not the common connotation of today, but the term is quite accurate, even from today's definition. If the New World translation gets to be an english translation, I see no reason that the JST shouldn't be a translation. Both add in text and have changes. Translation as a term is accurate. Just not translation from one language to another. -Visorstuff 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but great care and many scholars were used in the translation of the KJV, and many modern translations such as the NIV, the reformation movement churches were highly concerned with authenticity of the scripture and adherence to it. It is a very biased POV to state that this should be considered a translation. Much like the movies Kingdom of Heaven or Braveheart, they can best be described as loosely inspired by or historical fiction, and not translation.

Weasel words

This article, like many others on this subject, uses far too many weasel words and phrases. I offer you an example from the "content" section: "The majority of corrections are minor clarifying statements and language modernization."

"Corrections?" Who says they're corrections? Some may say they are, some may say they aren't. Furthermore, what are they correcting?

What about "clarifying statements?" Was what was written before unclear?

Modernization... was what was written before archaic?

Please avoid this kind of biased language or weaselly language. Andaleandale (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. For starters, the word "clarifications" needs to be removed.

Second, under Criticism it says- "to restore meaning and never claimed to be a linguistic translation" Restore meaning to the Bible? What? How can you restore meaning without being true to the original language that a text is written? That entire "counter argument" is poor and either should be heavily revised or completely removed. Please comment, otherwise after a few days I will remove that sentence entirely. --Zach Collier (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Content section lacks... content

The "content" section here is incoherent and lacks any kind of insight to the content of Smith's translation. The section is nothing but back and forth diatribe and gives no concrete examples of the differences between Smith's translation and other KJV translations. Thus, I delete this section. Someone write a content section that's actually about this text's content... not a section where a Mormon writes one inflammatory statement, and a Mormon hater comes right along using weasel words and flames right back. Andaleandale (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are The [citation needed]s really needed?

They seem like a pro-JST vandal's work... Personally, I think that, while the JST is inspired and accurate, the JST is not meant to replace or supplant, but rather support, the KJV. Granted, this is from an LDS point of view... (Whoops, forgot to login) Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was complete

Joseph Smith stopped working on the Bible's translation over a decade before his death. Its work lasted from June 1830 to July 1833. In the History of the Church, 1:368–69, it explains “We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father,” and “having finished the translation of the Bible, a few hours since.” Thus, this article could use a significant revision. As far as I can tell it's only the LDS church who says the translation wasn't complete, and this is used to explain any apparent error or contradiction in this version of the Bible. Please use some critical thinking when writing articles. The LDS church has its own website to publish their official church history, this webpage isn't for that. 69.169.132.34 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Use capital T for Translation

I've added a brief section on the meaning of the term "translation" in 1828, sourced from a dialogue between an Evangelical and LDS, which I presume is reliable. Generally if it refers to the book it should be T. If "translation" means "revision" then it should be "revision" to be NPOV, see wikt:translate and wikt:revise In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've removed this section for now. Criticism is welcome in this article, but the only argument in the section shouldn't exist, since it is a straw man argument; the statement that it is a faulty literal translation is true, but completely irrelevant when the translation not ever claimed to be literal (the revision process being extensively mentioned in the article). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've restored this section. It isn't for us to judge whether criticizing the very intention of "repairing" the Bible is valid or not. I've added context to this section to clarify that's the position of most other denominations and better explaining this specific sort of criticism. -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Community of Christ vs. RLDS anachronism

To me the sentence In 1944, the CoC Church brought out a carefully prepared “new corrected edition.” is rather jarring. It was not called Community of Christ back then. Why not refer to it as RLDS from 1872 to 2001, and Community of Christ after 2001? What do others think? SJK (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#Avoidance of anachronistic terminology, there is already a decided guideline to support exactly what you propose. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

McConkie quote

@Epachamo: Regarding this revert...the perspective of the LDS church is pretty well represented by the rest of the article. This translation is by its founder and first prophet and this section explains the precise doctrinal position. The "a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth" does not really add any information to that. It comes across as the opinion of one super-hyped person. It's not balanced by the opinions of anyone who doesn't particularly like this translation, though it does not seem worthwhile to just quote someone dissing it without giving reasons, just as this quote hypes it without giving reasons. I think the easiest fix is just to drop the quote. Thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: Ever since 2017 (and a little bit before) when it became clear that Adam Clarke was a significant source of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, there has been an effort to downplay the significance and esteem the translation played in the Church. I feel like the 'super-hyped' opinion is a valuable historical perspective that should be here, especially given the prominence of that individual within the LDS Church belief system. I think the best fix should be to remove the "perspective of the LDS church" from the rest of the article, and put it into the "LDS Church viewspoint" section.Epachamo (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is relevant. LDS use of the JST/IV has changed over time, and it is not sufficient for the article to only describe current LDS attitudes, which would be giving undue weight. While I agree that a quote from McConkie may not be the most thorough way to represent a history of support for the JST/IV, it seems better than having only the current official position of the CoJCoLDS.Rscragun (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word “murdered”

What is the purpose of the use of the word “murdered” in the first sentence? I am not questioning its truth—merely its relevance or value in this context. The article linked through that word is titled “Death of Joseph Smith” and not “Murder of Joseph Smith”, so why not say “died”? I am suspicious that this word choice may create undue sympathy for Smith in the reader, making his characterization of the JST/IV seem more believable. I will make the change to “died”, but I would welcome some discussion if others think the “murdered” description improves the article. Rscragun (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at how this is treated in other articles. For example, Nauvoo, Illinois says “After Joseph Smith's death in 1844”. Rscragun (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Interpreter Journal is not a valid source in most cases

I have moved the section with scholarship by Jackson to the LDS Church views section. Except under very specific circumstances, the Interpreter Journal is not a reliable secondary source. It's stated purpose is "A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship." It is a great source for presenting the Latter-day Saint viewpoint, and should belong in that section. It is not a good source for presenting independent scholarship and is WP:UNDUE otherwise. Outside of the apologetic community, there is NO disagreement that Clarke was a source for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Epachamo (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is totally false. It is “a peer-reviewed journal of The Interpreter Foundation, a nonprofit, independent, educational organization focused on the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Non-print versions of our journal are available free of charge, with our goal to increase understanding of scripture.” Kent Jackson isn’t an apologist. He’s a scholar of the JST and has been for decades. And I added Kevin Barney, who is not doing apologetic work these days. Whoever you have as a source is full of crap that this is a conclusion only accepted by the apologetic community. I deliberately left the question open as the question is still in debate. Marspe1 (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Jackson and Barney are fine scholars, and I've referenced Barney several times. When they publish in an apologetic source though, they are functioning in the role as an apologist. Epachamo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't verified whether this is just "an apologetic source" as your reply below seems to imply, then it's inappropriate to characterize their work in those journals as apologetic. And, again, they're not apologists. Both Jackson and Barney have been publishing scholarship on the JST for decades. Jackson _previously accepted_ the work of Wayment on this issue _and then_ published a rebuttal to it because he simply did not believe that Clarke had influence on the creation of the JST. Barney _has no problem_ with secondary source influence being present in the JST and he also simply disagrees that you can prove a connection to Clarke. Neither of those men have any faith stake in either conclusion (that Clarke was used or not used). Marspe1 (talk)

Please tell me what these other sources are outside of Wayment and Wilson Lemmon that agree that Clarke was used. Gotta be academic. Not Reddit and not podcasts. Marspe1 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Best thing to do is take it to the WP:RSN. I created a section on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Interpreter:_A_Journal_of_Latter-day_Saint_Faith_and_Scholarship for community input. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed. The peers asked to review it are selected from a narrow group of like-minded scholars. The purpose of the journal is increasing faith, which isn't inherently wrong, just not appropriate for Wikipedia without a specific caveat. Epachamo (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Along with publishing apologetics, Interpreter also publishes critical scholarship. If you really don't know this, then you're simply not familiar enough with the community. I also feel it's inappropriate to place mention of the Jackson rebuttal in the LDS Church view section because Jackson's views are not the Church's official views. They are Jackson's views. Also, why did you delete the Barney reference? And where are those references to those besides Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon who are neutral scholars that accept Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon's conclusions?

Ok, I saw that someone closed out the WP:RSN section pretty quickly before anyone could discuss it and reach a consensus, which is destructive and borderline vandalism. However, in reading Wikipedia policy, specifically, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it is clear that the Interpreter is not allowed, even though it is peer reviewed. "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." As long as it is not peer reviewed by the greater scientific community, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia except to show a viewpoint with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wayment himself is Latter-day Saint, but it is acceptable to cite him because of where he published his research. If Jackson can do the same, then I don't have any objection. On the Barney deletion, I was wrong to delete that, it was unintentional, my apologies. Epachamo (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, would BYU Studies be considered unreliable? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I think BYU Studies should also be used with caution. For example this article would not be appropriate in a Wikipedia article about Jesus' Atonement, unless it was clear from the context that it was presenting viewpoints of the Latter-day Saint community. This particular article on the Danite constitution could probably be used in just about every case. Similarly, this article on Book of Mormon pronunciation from the Interpreter is a good reference. this article presenting ancient evidence of Book of Mormon origins from the Interpreter should not be used without caveat. That said, BYU Studies is on a completely different level from the Interpreter. You can find many articles from BYU Studies in JSTOR. I couldn't find a single article from the Interpreter in JSTOR. BYU Studies is recognized in rankings of different journals. The Interpreter doesn't even appear in any ranking I could find. The Interpreter Journal is just a step above an internet blog. Epachamo (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo: I agree, but I couldn't find a way to quantify that difference. Thank you for teaching me some ways to examine reliability. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Being on JSTOR is just a matter of whether your journal is part of their database on not. JSTOR is not an exhaustive repository of academic publications nor is it a database that lists all the best sources. There are plenty great publications that can't be found there. And I am 100% certain that Interpreter has never applied for inclusion there, since the purpose of JSTOR is to provide accessibility and visibility--two things Interpreter already has since they are, in effect, an open source journal that makes their papers freely available online. The back issues of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and the FARMS Review are on JSTOR. Does that mean you accept those are credible academic sources? Interpreter is a newer journal as well--getting its start in 2012. I'm not surprised that Scimago hasn't ranked it yet.

2. Interpreter articles have been cited in other publications published by university presses. If it is good enough for, say, Oxford (Terryl Givens has cited their stuff in some of his Oxford publications), then surely it is good enough for Wikipedia. Interpreter articles are even cited in the same book where Wayment and Wilson Lemmon published their full findings on the Adam Clarke connection: Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translations in the Development of Mormon Christianity. See page 468 for example. Jackson is cited frequently in Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's study.

3. Jackson has been publishing in top venues for years on the JST. His views carry major weight regardless of the publication. His selection of Interpreter as a venue for publishing his findings may spell out at least some of the reputability that Interpreter holds. The credentials of those publishing can sometimes be less than preferred. I concede that. But Interpreter is still an excellent publication that has some of the top scholars of Mormonism publishing in it. You cannot glibly dismiss it as mere apologetics. Marspe1 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Being in JSTOR is not the end all be all, but it is still a valid data point. Scholars are at greater liberty to choose what they deem reliable. The citation on page 468 is a rather benign article. The Interpreter can be used as a source (and I've used it myself), but only with great caution. To illustrate why, let me try a different approach.

* Should the Washington Post be used as a source for its owner Jeff Bezos? In most cases the Washington Post is a fine source, but it is not independent enough from Jeff Bezos to be used in that context. Virtually every single author that publishes in the Interpreter gets their salary from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not independent enough.

* Would the Interpreter ever publish an article that reached a conclusion that was not faith promoting? If I knew nothing else, but that Jackson had published his research in the Interpreter, I could have told you what his conclusion would have been. Wayment went to great lengths to publish his research where he did, for the very reason that he wanted the credibility that publishing where he did would bring.

* If Alex Jones were to publish something in the journal Nature, it could be used as a source. If Albert Einstein were to publish something in the National Enquirer, it should not be used as a reliable source. It doesn't matter how amazing I'm sure Jackson is.

* It doesn't matter what you or I personally think of the Interpreter whether it is scholarly or mere apologetics. Show me evidence that the broader scholarly community accepts it as a reliable independent source. Epachamo (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It is only a valid point if the criteria to admit material to JSTOR is the quality or reputation of the journals/articles which, charitably, is a very dubious assumption. Marspe1 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Half of the sources used in neutral contexts on this page are from BYU Press and the BYU Religious Studies Center. By your logic, we should get rid of use of those sources. Marspe1 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not even a faith-affirming conclusion for Jackson. This is a faith-neutral one. Again, he previously trusted Wayment's scholarship but then decided to respond given what he saw were the weaknesses in the theory. Both Jackson and Barney are open to secondary-source influence. Marspe1 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, a comparison between Einstein/National Enquirer and Jackson/Interpreter is too juvenile to take seriously. Marspe1 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If mattered to you above when you accused Jackson of acting in the role of an apologist by publishing in Interpreter. These contradictions in thought are revealing a lot about you. I don't need to fish for sources for you. You clearly have a copy of the Producing Ancient Scripture. Interpreter is cited in there. It's also cited in Pearl of Greatest Price, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins, and other books. Again, if it's cited by Oxford, then it's good enough for Wikipedia. It likely won't matter though since you're clearly acting as a seedy Wikipedia overlord trying hard to stretch community guidelines and push your preferred perspective. Marspe1 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

JSTOR is a data point. Not an end all be all. Wikipedia directs people to JSTOR to look for sources. This is not just me.

No, if it is a neutral context, it is probably ok to use BYU Press or BYU Religious Studies Center. Not sure how many times I need to state this but I myself have used Interpreter as a resource. I do think there is too much reliance on these sources throughout the article though, and the banner at the top of the article is still valid.

My intent was to use an absurdly extreme example to illustrate my point. It was not to compare Jackson to Einstein or the National Enquirer to the Interpreter.

If you must know, I have spoken out against the Institute for Religious Research, which I see as the critical equivalent to the Interpreter foundation. If you want me to make a comparison, this is it. In the Pearl of Greatest Price, when it does quote the Interpreter, it prefaces it with "LDS Scholar states ...", which is exactly what I'm suggesting we do here. The "First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins" the entire book openly and explicitly from a Latter-day Saint context, which is also what I'm suggesting we do. Epachamo (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I opened up a new discussion at [2]. Hopefully we will get more input this time. Epachamo (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay Epachamo (Rachel Helps (BYU) you should read this as well), let's settle this. There's going to be no content settlement from the moderators. I apologize for my harsh tone sprinkled throughout my comments. It has simply been frustrating arguing what has seemed to be a simple point and one of little need for contention. But that doesn't excuse me from being a jerk here. Let's just summarize some uncontroversial points and see if they can put a clamp on our disagreement.

1. Kent Jackson is a well-recognized, long-time, published scholar on the JST. He is as much of an expert on the topic as you can find. Certainly of the same caliber as Thomas Wayment.
2. Thomas Wayment, Kent Jackson, Mark-Ashurst McGee, Kevin Barney, and even the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (since they approved the publication of Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon's material) all agree that this is a faith-neutral issue. It doesn't affect their view of the validity of the Church's truth claims.
3. We both agree that Interpreter is a generally good journal at the very least when publishing on neutral issues. As you say (and which I apologize for not giving adequate enough credit earlier), you have used Interpreter on occasion in more neutral contexts.

Given just these three data points, it seems like a fairly uncontroversial thing to include mention of Kent Jackson's piece right next to mention of Wayment's work. If it's a faith-neutral issue to them (and, for what its worth, myself), then I think it's fair to say that this should be one for you. It seems fairly clear to me that you are suspicious of putting Interpreter next to Wayment's work because you believe that this is an issue that is not faith-neutral. But if it is faith-neutral for us, I think it should be for you. Let's go through each other point you've offered as a summary of the discussion so far. I do believe that each of these points are very weak.

1. This is too close to a church salary to give too much weight: Again, half of the sources used in neutral contexts are from BYU. On top of this, Kent Jackson was close to three and a half years retired from BYU when he published his article with Interpreter. He retired in June 2017 and published his article with Interpreter in October 2020. In any case, not giving a well-credentialed and seminal figure in JST studies due weight simply because he's a BYU professor is a textbook genetic fallacy. It absolutely does not matter where he publishes. If Albert Einstein published something super important in the National Enquirer on physics, then I'd still read it and take it seriously.
2. Jackson is acting as an apologist if publishing in Interpreter: Just untrue. He's a JST scholar and published as a JST scholar. He previously trusted Wayment's scholarship and then published his rebuttal. Again, its a faith-neutral issue. Interpreter does publish on issues of faith but it also publishes critical scholarship from very well-credentialed names in the field.
3. Interpreter is not included in J-STOR: Again, the validity of this point depends entirely on the criteria for admitting content to their databases and we've established that quality and reputability are not those criteria. Interpreter is a newer journal and it may get its stay there at JSTOR and Scimago in the future.
4. The point is better under the LDS Church View section: It just isn't. This isn't the Church's official view on the subject. Including stuff from Bruce R. McConkie is okay since that is a Church leader giving his view of the JST. But this is an issue among Latter-day Saint and other Mormon Studies scholars. It simply isn't appropriate to include this under that section.
5. There is no one outside the apologetics community that disagrees that Clarke influenced the translation: We only have Wayment, Wilson-Lemmon, Barney, Jackson, and Ashurst-McGee on record here. You might (though, quite dubiously I'd add) be able to include Ronald Huggins since he's suggested a JST/Adam Clarke connection a while ago and would likely agree with Wayment and Wilson Lemmon. Thus we have Wayment, Wilson-Lemmon (though she doesn't have the credentials like the others do), and Huggins on one side and Barney and Jackson on another. Ashurst-McGee is a toss-up. He presented at the 2020 FAIR Conference about it but that conference took place before Jackson published his rebuttal. I don't remember what view Ashurst-McGee presented nor do I know how his view has been shaped up to this point. I'll consider emailing him. All this said, it's a pretty evenly divided issue among genuine scholars of the JST. I simply don't know what sort of tap you have on the community that gives you the impression that this is an issue only among "apologists." You need to either provide those sources or discard this point entirely.

I have decided to include mention of Jackson's religious affiliation in the body of the article as you suggested in your previous comment. I have also left out the mention of "substantive" at the beginning of that text unit to give undue weight to the rebuttal per suggestions from the new discussion page you opened up on Interpreter. Hopefully we can rest our disagreement here. I truly believe that this is an adequate and fair termination to our disputes. Marspe1 (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Requesting Administrator help to resolve the ongoing edit war between myself Epachamo and Marspe1. I attempted to create a request for comment at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Interpreter:_A_Journal_of_Latter-day_Saint_Faith_and_Scholarship, but this was rapidly archived before anyone really had a chance to comment. Request help on a way forward. Epachamo (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

See the various forms of dispute resolution. Generally, administrators do not resolve content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

On Trusting Wayment's Scholarship and Scholarly Consensus

Epachamo You are incorrect that I'm merely synthesizing what Jackson believed based on what he published. He himself said in his Interpreter article that he made the statement in the Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion "without doing the research myself but trusting the scholarship of Professor Wayment." Even so, I really don't understand why one can't merely infer that from what one has published. Could you explain this more?

On consensus, I'd also like to understand your point on this more and would appreciate documentation to support your position. Why can't we merely infer this from what has been published already? That's almost certainly what the audience will get from reading the article itself. Marspe1 (talk) 02:47pm, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The reference used to support the statement that Jackson previously trusted the scholarship of Wayment is from "Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion" edited by Dennis L. Largey. It states, "In many other places, <Joseph Smith> made small changes to clarify or expand existing words, sometimes drawing ideas for those changes from a popular Bible commentary." That's it. It doesn't even mention the Clarke commentary or Wayment so we must infer it. Furthermore, this Deseret Book published work is by no means a scholarly work nor does it pretend to be. It was written to the audience of believing adherents, not scholars. It has NO place on Wikipedia in this context. As far as consensus, no consensus is implied in the article as it currently stands. Just state what Wayment propose, Jackson's criticisms and leave it there. No need to editorialize. Epachamo (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

>It doesn't even mention the Clarke commentary or Wayment so we must infer it.<

Again, incorrect. Jackson explicitly states in his Interpreter article that he made that statement with Wayment's work in mind. His exact words:

The online posting of the research conclusions, as part of the student grant Wilson-Lemmon received, was the first publication of their proposed Adam Clarke-Joseph Smith connection. Wayment subsequently discussed the research in online interviews in 2017 and 2019, and Wilson-Lemmon did as well in 2018 and 2020. Likely the first reference to the matter in an academic publication was my own mention of it in Dennis L. Largey, ed., Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion. In an article on the JST I noted that in making revisions in the Bible, the Prophet was “sometimes drawing ideas for those changes from a popular Bible commentary.” I made that statement without doing the research myself but trusting the scholarship of Professor Wayment.

>Furthermore, this Deseret Book published work is by no means a scholarly work nor does it pretend to be. It was written to the audience of believing adherents, not scholars.<

It does not need to be addressed to scholars to be scholarly. Though I'd question your interpretation of it as being addressed solely to adherents. It's an assemblage of the best scholarship on each of those topics written by scholars who happen to be members of the Church. Yes, it's sensitive to Latter-day Saint beliefs and that is their primary target market; but that doesn't mean it isn't scholarly nor that it isn't meant to be useful for other scholars. Furthermore, it's only being used in this publication in a discussion about Jackson's beliefs (who, by the way, calls PGPRC "an academic publication" in that quote above) about Wayment's conclusions and how they were spoken of in Interpreter: an academic publication. It's only being used to provide context for Jackson's publication of his rebuttal.

>As far as consensus, no consensus is implied in the article as it currently stands. Just state what Wayment propose, Jackson's criticisms and leave it there. No need to editorialize.<

Alright, fair enough. Having found this, I think you're right. Marspe1 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, the Deseret Book citation does not support the statement, nor is the statement necessary in this article, nor is it an independent source. The whole purpose of that statement is to instill doubt in the scholarship of Wayment. Epachamo (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We could easily replace the citation from Deseret Book with the Interpreter source to make the statement directly supported. Define "necessity." What qualifies as "necessary" could disqualify much material from this and other articles on Wikipedia. Not sure what you mean by "independent" here. We've already talked about how many BYU sources are used in this article. The purpose of the statement is to explain the gaffe that Jackson made in merely assuming Wayment's conclusions were correct and writing in an academic publication that they were correct. It's not to throw shade at Wayment. I include it here to provide context to Jackson's response and correct the public record/consciousness. Read the Interpreter article and that quote in context. You can't honestly tell me that Jackson is just out to get Wayment. My lines do not violate the trust guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. It doesn't use any of the words they list and there's nothing that's meant to merely cast doubt on Wayment's credibility as a scholar. Marspe1 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Jackson's correction of an obscure "public record" is not necessary in this article see WP:UNDUE. He also did not write it in an academic publication. Both the Interpreter Journal and and book Jackson wrote are unabashedly based on an inherently unfalsifiable foundation (see Falsifiability for details). Falsifiability is a key feature of any scholarly journal, and because the Interpreter and PGPRC lack this feature, they cannot be considered scholarly for the purposes of Wikipedia. Epachamo (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Jackson's remarks are in a publication sold through the largest and most popular literature retailer in the Church. It's hardly obscure and can be easily misinterpreted. You talk about necessity but then appeal to the due and undue weight portion of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. This section I've written does not give undue weight to the viewpoint of Jackson. It merely corrects the public record/consciousness of this issue. If speaking of necessity, you will need to identify another criteria that allows us to determine necessary and not necessary. It's certainly useful for the purposes I've already described and doesn't violate any editorial guidelines. If you mean to say that Interpreter and PGPRC aren't academic because they're believers, then this is patently false. They're speaking of points that are falsifiable. Jackson's conclusions about Adam Clarke are falsifiable. Any of the articles that Interpreter writes contain falsifiable conclusions. The only thing that isn't falsifiable is the possibility of divine revelation being involved in Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. Sure, it's assumed that divine revelation was involved in Interpreter and PGPRC, but that doesn't mean that those publications aren't academic. Both Interpreter and PGPRC contain falsifiable information and can qualify as academic. Let's throw out all citations to BYU Studies and all other citations of anyone who assumes or uses language that suggests that divine revelation was involved in JS' scriptural productions in this article. If Wikipedia has to be so impudent as to exclude any publication by believers and only count secular scholarship as valid, then they'll have to wait for the secular Mormon Studies scholars to catch up and produce their own work. In the meantime, you get BYU Studies, Interpreter, and other scholarship by members of the Church. Please, let's rest our dispute. I honestly believe we've exhausted all possible points of contention and I honestly don't believe we've come to anything that is unfair for either "side" in this debate. Marspe1 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

After further thought, I can see how someone, without the assumptions I'm under, might conclude that the correction casts doubt on Wayment and have removed the PGPRC discussion. Marspe1 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)