thews wrote: Are you claiming that Joseph Smith, a prophet of God who translated the Book of Mormon and the Egyptian papyrus did not use "divine means" to translate the Kinderhook plates, but instead he was "acting as a man" so to speak?
Bingo!
Visual comparison of characters on different documents is not something that only a prophet can do; it's something that a human being of any spiritual level could do.
What can be done by any person translating something is not the same when compared to a person like Joseph Smith who claimed he was a prophet of God. This whole "acting as a man" and not as a prophet is a bit ridiculous, especially when the end result was a segue that specifically stated the story of a descendant of Ham.
onandagus wrote: I'm guessing that even someone who spends much of his time focusing on misrepresenting and demonizing the faith of others on message boards could make such a comparison, since it requires only the proper functioning of one's (physical) eyes and nothing whatsoever in the way of charity, largeness of soul, or spiritual perception. I think you'll have no problem making the comparison accurately when you see the video of the presentation.
Well Don, if I offended you I apologize, but I hardly see your "demonizing" accusation as anything but more of the same tired sensationalizing in poor attempts at answering criticism.
onandagus wrote:Such visual comparison isn't the function of a prophet, but simply of a man.
Don
Not when the man claims to be a prophet, and the truth claims of that man weigh heavily on his self-professed ability to translate ancient documents with the help of God.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
Last edited by Guest on Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
The content Clayton says Joseph got from the Kinderhook plates can all be derived from a single character definition given in the GAEL. A character matching the one thus-defined is found at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates and is even arguably the most prominent character on the plates.
Joseph Smith could thus have derived the entire "translation" from the Kinderhook plates by a simple character match. And--in fact--I have an eyewitness account, written six days after the Clayton journal entry, in which someone sees Joseph comparing these characters and identifying a match, using the "Egyptian alphabet"--the GAEL.
Making a visual match of characters is not revelatory: it's something anyone can do. Thus Joseph's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not a revelatory one, but a visual and intellectual one.
I hope that's clearer.
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
thews wrote:Well Don, if I offended you I apologize, but I hardly see your "demonizing" accusation as anything but more of the same tired sensationalizing in poor attempts at answering criticism.
You are quite literally a demonizer, Thews, since you attribute my religion to demonic inspiration of Joseph Smith.
onandagus wrote:Such visual comparison isn't the function of a prophet, but simply of a man.
Don
Not when the man claims to be a prophet, and the truth claims of that man weigh heavily on his self-professed ability to translate ancient documents with the help of God.[/quote]
That's exactly the point, Thews--that he wasn't translating this with the help of God. He was comparing similar characters, which is simply a human thing, not a revelatory thing.
"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
onandagus wrote:Joseph Smith could thus have derived the entire "translation" from the Kinderhook plates by a simple character match. And--in fact--I have an eyewitness account, written six days after the Clayton journal entry, in which someone sees Joseph comparing these characters and identifying a match, using the "Egyptian alphabet"--the GAEL.
Making a visual match of characters is not revelatory: it's something anyone can do. Thus Joseph's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not a revelatory one, but a visual and intellectual one.
Don,
In your opinion, what was the nature of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the character from the GAEL? I.e., did he receive this knowledge via revelation?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
The content Clayton says Joseph got from the Kinderhook plates can all be derived from a single character definition given in the GAEL. A character matching the one thus-defined is found at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates and is even arguably the most prominent character on the plates.
Joseph Smith could thus have derived the entire "translation" from the Kinderhook plates by a simple character match. And--in fact--I have an eyewitness account, written six days after the Clayton journal entry, in which someone sees Joseph comparing these characters and identifying a match, using the "Egyptian alphabet"--the GAEL.
Making a visual match of characters is not revelatory: it's something anyone can do. Thus Joseph's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not a revelatory one, but a visual and intellectual one.
I hope that's clearer.
Don
Joseph wrote the GAEL, or at least had a connection with it. Would he not know at that point, when he saw similiar markings, that the KP were fakes?
(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:Joseph wrote the GAEL, or at least had a connection with it. Would he not know at that point, when he saw similiar markings, that the KP were fakes?
Hi Harm,
The GAEL characters come from the Egyptian papyri. They are, by the way, mostly not similar to the Kinderhook plates characters.
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
In your opinion, what was the nature of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the character from the GAEL? I.e., did he receive this knowledge via revelation?
Hi Scratch,
Do you mean the GAEL definition itself? I'm still open on exactly what the GAEL is. My strong suspicion is that it was created for multiple purposes.
Get back with me on this one in a few years.... ;-)
by the way, regarding Joseph's KP translation as revelatory or nonrevelatory, see my response to Aristotle's interesting question on the other thread.
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
I am anxious to see whether there is a match between the KP and the GAEL and that the character in the GAEL really does match the translation provided by Joseph Smith. If that is really true, then I think that everyone would have to conclude that you made at the very least a very intriguing find that would entail substantial reevaluation of what Joseph Smith may have thought about the KP.
harmony wrote:Joseph wrote the GAEL, or at least had a connection with it. Would he not know at that point, when he saw similiar markings, that the KP were fakes?
Hi Harm,
The GAEL characters come from the Egyptian papyri. They are, by the way, mostly not similar to the Kinderhook plates characters.
Don
So why is there a similiar character on the KP, which we know are fake?
(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.