Critics of the Church cannot explain how the Book of Mormon came to be, how Joseph Smith produced inspired scripture, and that fact frustrates them. Because they cannot account for its existence on its own terms, they are always searching for an alternative explanation. The underlying assumption never changes. Surely Joseph Smith was not capable of producing such a record himself.

That assumption has driven a long series of failed theories.

First it was Philastus Hurlbut and Eber Howe, who claimed Joseph Smith plagiarized an unpublished novel by Solomon Spaulding. When that theory collapsed under scrutiny, the explanation shifted to Sidney Rigdon and View of the Hebrews. When that also failed to account for the evidence, critics moved on again.

It does not matter how little evidence exists or how weak the claims are. Ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons spread any unsubstantiated theory they can find as fast as wildfire. Truth is secondary. What matters is preserving a narrative that disparages the prophet Joseph Smith, and they show little concern for misrepresenting facts, omitting evidence, or promoting false claims to achieve that goal. This pattern is clearly visible in the latest accusation that Joseph Smith plagiarized Adam Clarke.

Joseph Smith Plagarized Adam Clarke

The most recent version of this pattern is the claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized a British Bible scholar named Adam Clarke.

Adam Clarke wrote a large and influential Bible commentary between 1811 and 1825. He was a contemporary of Joseph Smith. Because of that, critics argue that Joseph Smith could have had access to Clarke’s work and used it as a source for both the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

On the surface, this sounds plausible.

The 2017 Adam Clarke Theory

The modern Adam Clarke theory originates with research published beginning in 2017 by Thomas Wayment and his research assistant Haley Wilson-Lemmon. Their work suggested that certain small wording changes in the Joseph Smith Translation resemble comments found in Adam Clarke’s Bible commentary.

At first, this was not controversial. Many Latter-day Saint scholars openly acknowledge that Joseph Smith believed in seeking truth from any source and later studied Hebrew, Greek, and biblical scholarship. Even Wayment himself never claimed plagiarism.

The controversy began when this research was taken out of its scholarly context and repackaged by critics. Wilson-Lemmon later appeared on hostile podcasts, where the word “plagiarism” was introduced and repeatedly used. The claim was no longer about influence or study, but about deception. Joseph Smith, critics said, had been caught stealing.

That charge depended entirely on whether the proposed parallels actually held up.

They did not.

Kent Jackson Reviews the Evidence

Kent P. Jackson is widely recognized as the leading scholar on the Joseph Smith Translation. After the plagiarism claims gained traction online, Jackson conducted a detailed review of every example Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon cited.

His findings were published in the Interpreter journal and were unambiguous. Jackson concluded that none of the proposed Adam Clarke parallels could withstand careful scrutiny.

Not some of them. Not most of them. None.

The problem was not one or two weak examples. The problem was the entire method.

Example One: “Songs of Solomon”

One of the most frequently cited examples involves the Joseph Smith Translation note stating that the Song of Solomon is “not inspired scripture.”

Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon argued that this idea came from Adam Clarke, who also rejected the book as inspired. They further pointed out that Clarke sometimes referred to the book using the Latin plural title Canticles, and that the JST manuscript uses “Songs” rather than “Song.”

This is the entirety of the connection.

Kent Jackson pointed out several fatal problems with this claim. Rejection of the Song of Solomon as inspired was common long before Adam Clarke. Clarke himself referred to the book using singular titles over ninety times. The plural form proves nothing. Most importantly, Joseph Smith had already translated the Book of Mormon, dictated the Book of Moses, and received dozens of revelations by the time he reached this passage. The idea that he required Adam Clarke to make this determination is unsupported.

This is not evidence of dependence. It is coincidence combined with assumption.

Example Two: “Shall” Versus “Will”

Another proposed parallel involves Joseph Smith changing “shall” to “will” in passages such as Exodus 11:9.

Adam Clarke criticized the King James translators for using “shall” in that verse, so the argument is that Joseph Smith must have followed Clarke.

Jackson showed that Joseph Smith made this exact grammatical change repeatedly throughout the JST, including in passages Clarke never commented on and in verses Joseph revised earlier in the translation process. In some cases, Joseph made the same change in identical verses long before reaching the passage in question.

There is no pattern of borrowing. There is only a consistent editing habit.

Example Three: “Without a Cause”

One of the central claims involves Matthew 5:22, where the JST removes the phrase “without a cause.” Adam Clarke noted that this phrase is missing from some Greek manuscripts.

Wilson-Lemmon cited this as her first major discovery linking Clarke to the JST.

Jackson pointed out what the theory ignored. The Book of Mormon already removes the phrase “without a cause” in the Sermon on the Mount found in 3 Nephi. When Joseph Smith revised Matthew 5, he consistently aligned it with the Book of Mormon text, inserting dozens of phrases that have nothing to do with Adam Clarke.

The source for this change is documented and internal. It is not Clarke.

The Mathematical Problem

Jackson also highlighted a problem critics rarely address.

Joseph Smith made changes in roughly 3,600 Bible verses. Adam Clarke’s commentary spans hundreds of thousands of words. Out of that massive body of material, critics identified about thirty vague parallels.

Those parallels are isolated, random, and insignificant when compared to the total number of JST changes. Critics cannot explain why Joseph would supposedly rely on Clarke for trivial wording changes while ignoring Clarke’s many substantial doctrinal arguments. They also cannot explain the thousands of JST revisions that have no resemblance to Clarke at all.

The numbers do not work.

Even the Authors Backed Away

Over time, even the original participants retreated from the strongest claims. Thomas Wayment has consistently rejected the charge of plagiarism. Haley Wilson-Lemmon later stated publicly that Joseph Smith’s work cannot properly be called plagiarism.

Yet critics continue to repeat the accusation as if it were established fact.

This pattern is familiar. A theory is proposed. It is amplified before being tested. When it collapses under review, the accusation remains, stripped of its qualifications and repeated as proof.

The Larger Pattern

The Adam Clarke theory is not unique. It follows the same structure as the Spaulding theory, the Sidney Rigdon Theory and the View of the Hebrews theory before it. When one explanation fails, another is introduced. Evidence is treated selectively. Context is ignored. Coincidence is treated as causation.

The conclusion is always fixed in advance, but the theories cannot be accurate because Joseph Smith was a prophet and translated sacred works by the gift and power of God.

At some point, the pattern itself becomes the evidence.

For more information, listen to the Church History Matters Podcast about it. 

Continue reading at the original source →