Aristotle Smith wrote: He identfies the meaning of the word, but he feels the need to go beyond that through revelation. I understand that you are going to continue to stick with the "it simply renders them unnecessary and redundant" line of reasoning to explain why in this one case (and only the KP case) he only pursues a secular line of translation, but the pattern of his translations overwhelmingly doesn't follow this pattern. You have failed to account for why only in this case he does not also have revelation involved.
Smith does exactly the same thing here.
He identifies a symbol he has previously "translated." At best, that allows him to say that the KP contain a reference to "a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt."
That's it. But he takes it two steps further. He says the plates (1) contain the "history" of (2) the man buried with the plates.
Even an incompetent scholar can't reach such "surmises" from matching one symbol. It takes either revelatory skills, or a willingness to make up facts.
This is a key point.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
onandagus wrote:Of course, the Book of Mormon was in 1829, his language studies began in 1835, and he always remained a man of poor grammar and terrible spelling, but I guess MDB is largely about taking any new piece of information and turning toward supporting your foregone conclusion. Ciao,
Don
Been to MAD lately? Yeah, I thought so.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
onandagus wrote: How do you know he didn't? Because he accepted them in good faith in the first days they were in Nauvoo?
By looking at his behavior. If he had, I doubt he would have keep quite about knowing the plates are a fraud if he actually were a prophet. He claims communication with the divine to a level never seen after him, and yet we surmise that he wouldn't want to continue this connection with the KP. It's funny that God also never seems very interested in things like discernment when it comes to important things. I guess finding car keys really are more important. I always love the apologetic thinking that has to go on in order to try and defend the obvious. I still think you have done great work and I am not talking about you specifically here.
His actions with respect to the KP fit lots of possibilities, with no way to determine from them whether he was what he claimed or not.
Unfortunately none of them involve him being a prophet of God, which is also what you have argued, since no revelation was necessary. I am also looking at the larger picture as well.
Themis wrote:It's funny that God also never seems very interested in things like discernment when it comes to important things. I guess finding car keys really are more important.
When you think about it, God is down 2-0 on spotting hoaxes...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Themis wrote:Unfortunately none of them involve him being a prophet of God, which is also what you have argued, since no revelation was necessary.
This is what passes for you as rational argument? None of them rule out his being a prophet since none of them involve his giving false revelation on the Kinderhook plates. What he does when not acting as a revelator is irrelevant to whether he can act as a revelator.
don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic." - Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011
Themis wrote:Unfortunately none of them involve him being a prophet of God, which is also what you have argued, since no revelation was necessary.
This is what passes for you as rational argument? None of them rule out his being a prophet since none of them involve his giving false revelation on the Kinderhook plates. What he does when not acting as a revelator is irrelevant to whether he can act as a revelator.
don
Back to the two scales of credibility again: one for secular and one for sacred.
If I have stolen from you repeatedly and then asked to borrow your car, would you allow it? What if I said that God wants me to borrow your car?
Dad of a Mormon wrote:If I have stolen from you repeatedly and then asked to borrow your car, would you allow it? What if I said that God wants me to borrow your car?
I'd tell you to have God come get the keys.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Themis wrote:Unfortunately none of them involve him being a prophet of God, which is also what you have argued, since no revelation was necessary.
This is what passes for you as rational argument? None of them rule out his being a prophet since none of them involve his giving false revelation on the Kinderhook plates. What he does when not acting as a revelator is irrelevant to whether he can act as a revelator.
don
I agree that your argument does not rule it out. Again the idea is that he claims to be a revelator on a regular basis on a host of issues and questions he may have. It's not really logical if this is true that he would not seek revelation on an important issue. Who in the right mind would not seek God when he is so handy and right their for someone who is suppose to answer these kinds of questions. Just so you know, I am not arguing that he did seek revelation. As a pious fraud, it makes sense that he may not with something he may not be sure about, as he was with things like papyri that he felt he would be safe with.
Dad of a Mormon wrote:If I have stolen from you repeatedly and then asked to borrow your car, would you allow it? What if I said that God wants me to borrow your car?
I'd tell you to have God come get the keys.
He chose me to act as his proxy. By questioning me you are questioning God and risking damnation.