onandagus wrote: It actually indicates positive things about him, including his belief in ancient metal plates.
You are approaching the issue from a specific worldview: that Joseph believed in ancient metal plates
An equally worthy (albeit much more cynical) approach would be that Joseph was showing off for his followers.
Another approach would be that Joseph was curious...
or suspicious...
or fearful...
(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.
harmony wrote: You are approaching the issue from a specific worldview: that Joseph believed in ancient metal plates
An equally worthy (albeit much more cynical) approach would be that Joseph was showing off for his followers.
Another approach would be that Joseph was curious...
or suspicious...
or fearful...
I would suggest that either view of Joseph as prophet or fraud would have him believing in metal plates. I doubt a fraud would make something up they didn't think was possible or even likely.
Themis wrote:I would suggest that either view of Joseph as prophet or fraud would have him believing in metal plates. I doubt a fraud would make something up they didn't think was possible or even likely.
Is "believe in" the right descriptor? Have knowledge of, maybe... but belief is tied to something besides knowledge.
(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.
for what it's worth, I’m not a great follower of apologetic debates anymore, though I did follow the KP issue through the ‘80s, but this one has received quite a lot of publicity. I understand this is a major “sticking point” with critics and those who have lost faith, and perhaps Don has offered some slack to the more rigid denunciations (“How could a prophet get this wrong?”). I’m still not sold on the idea of an “academic translation”, particularly when one considers that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon without notes, and without plates, in some 6O or so days. Considering how long it took to produce the Book of Abraham, could that be considered an “academic translation” too? If not, why not?
Themis wrote:I would suggest that either view of Joseph as prophet or fraud would have him believing in metal plates. I doubt a fraud would make something up they didn't think was possible or even likely.
Is "believe in" the right descriptor? Have knowledge of, maybe... but belief is tied to something besides knowledge.
I think Joseph believed in ancient records on metal plates, so it would seem to be a believable story to create.
harmony wrote:Is "believe in" the right descriptor? Have knowledge of, maybe... but belief is tied to something besides knowledge.
I think Joseph believed in ancient records on metal plates, so it would seem to be a believable story to create.
It's one thing to believe the story that's supposedly written on ancient metal plates, and another thing to know that ancient metal plates with ancient writing on them exists.
Did he believe what was supposedly written on the plates, or did he just know what such plates existed?
(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.
harmony wrote: It's one thing to believe the story that's supposedly written on ancient metal plates, and another thing to know that ancient metal plates with ancient writing on them exists.
Did he believe what was supposedly written on the plates, or did he just know what such plates existed?
Joseph grew up in a world that believed in these kinds of things, and I think Joseph believed as well. This is why he and possibly others choose to create a story written on Gold plates. As such, I think Joseph would believe such things as the kinder-hook plates were possible, even though he may have some doubts having created his own story.
They didn't make the distinction because it didn't occur to anyone that secular translation was an option. It was simply assumed that "translation" meant "revelatory translation."
CFR.
Maybe it didn't occur to anyone, not even Joseph Smith, Jr. who thought it was a revelatory translation too, just as Charlotte Haven reported Joseph Smith, Jr. as having said that revelation would be involved, aye?
How I can document what people didn't think is entirely beyond me. And my statement was about critics interpreting the Clayton journal entry, not about Charlotte Haven's secondhand account of what Joseph said when he first saw the plates.
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
Buffalo wrote:So really the problem is God taught Joseph a really terrible, useless way to translate ancient documents, and Joseph, on his own, used that on the KP?
Buffalo wrote:
onandagus wrote: LOL!
Well, I'll give you points for humor...
Don
Do you think it's appropriate to try to glean an entire sentence from one Egyptian (or Egyptian-looking) character? Is this a good method for translating Egyptian into English?
Well, Don? Is it?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
onandagus wrote: How I can document what people didn't think is entirely beyond me. And my statement was about critics interpreting the Clayton journal entry, not about Charlotte Haven's secondhand account of what Joseph said when he first saw the plates.
Don
Is there any particular reason to dismiss what Charlotte Haven wrote?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.