MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 7:37 pm
sock puppet wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:55 pm
Perhaps you think/hope your glib, DCP-like answer, "I have no interest in..." lets you slip by. However, it sounds more like the old hat trick pulled by Joseph Smith himself (pun intended). You will recall the lost 116-pages first transcribed (allegedly) from the mythical Gold Plates. Perhaps like Joseph, you know you cannot with consistency recreate what you may (or may not) have written previously about the Book of Abraham. So better to take a powder on this issue, much the way Joseph Smith took a powder out the back door of his office in Nauvoo when Professor Henry Caswall explained that the text he possessed was a mere Greek Psalter, and not a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics with their meanings set forth in "reformed Egyptian", as the "prophet, seer, revelator and translator" had just moments earlier pronounced. When Professor Caswall explained that it was a mere Greek Psalter, the easy path for Joseph Smith was to slip quietly out the back door while no one was looking. And lest we forget, there's also that great example when after 'translating' just one character from the phony Kinderhook Plates, a character quite similar to one on the sensen papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was 'translated'--Joseph Smith abruptly stopped translating.
My, my, my, said the spider to the fly.
Selective facts, and no room for alternative explanations. You have no proof of anything untoward.
"Allegedly”, “mythical Gold Plates”, “phony Kinderhook Plates”, “took a powder”, “while no one was looking.”
These choices in word usage signal bias and reduce the credibility of the argument to a neutral or believing reader. It moves from critique into ridicule, making it easier to dismiss as polemic rather than critical analysis.
Other concerns with your post:
Assumptions without Evidence
Examples:
That Joseph Smith “knew he could not with consistency recreate” earlier writings.
That he "slipped quietly out the back door" as a means of evading exposure.
These are interpretations of events presented as facts. They rely on speculation about motives rather than established evidence. A more persuasive argument would distinguish clearly between facts and inferences.
Conflating Distinct Events Without Clear Distinction
Events involved:
The lost 116 pages, Book of Abraham translation, Greek Psalter incident, and the Kinderhook Plates.
The argument treats these as thematically and evidentially connected, but doesn’t lay out how each individually contributes to the broader conclusion. Without specific logical links, it feels like a pile-on rather than a focused argument.
Historical Inaccuracies or Contestable Claims
Example:
The Greek Psalter story, which is debated in terms of whether Joseph Smith actually claimed it was an Egyptian dictionary or not.
Similarly, the Kinderhook Plates incident is more complex; some evidence suggests Smith may not have fully translated them and could have abandoned the effort early.
Presenting these as settled facts when they are disputed among historians invites rebuttal and weakens the trustworthiness of the broader critique.
You provide No Citations or Sourcing. Assertions about historical events are made without pointing to any contemporary sources, scholarly work, or primary documents. This makes it harder for a critical reader to follow up or accept the claims as valid.
Lastly, you provide a Strawman Setup:
“Perhaps like Joseph, you know you cannot with consistency recreate what you may (or may not) have written previously…”
This hypothetical accusation assumes failure or deceit without engaging the actual arguments or explanations from defenders of Smith. It oversimplifies and doesn't engage opposing views in good faith.
In further reference to your post:
The statements provided contain several weaknesses and assumptions that merit scrutiny. Below are the key issues identified:
Logical Fallacies
Ad Hominem Attacks:
The statement employs ridicule and sarcasm to discredit Joseph Smith, such as the "old hat trick" pun and references to him slipping "quietly out the back door." These rhetorical devices do not address the substance of historical claims but instead aim to undermine credibility through mockery.
Circular Reasoning:
The claim that Joseph Smith could not recreate the lost 116 pages assumes his inability as evidence of fraud without considering alternative explanations, such as the possibility of deliberate sabotage or divine instruction not to retranslate.
Historical Inaccuracies
Greek Psalter Incident:
The narrative about Professor Henry Caswall and the Greek Psalter is often cited by critics but lacks corroborative evidence from neutral sources. It is based on Caswall's own account, which may have been biased against Joseph Smith.
Kinderhook Plates Translation:
The assertion that Joseph Smith translated a single character from the Kinderhook Plates and then abruptly stopped oversimplifies historical accounts. Evidence suggests that Smith may have speculated on their meaning rather than formally translating them, and the plates themselves were later proven to be a hoax.
Oversimplification of Complex Issues
Book of Abraham Translation:
The statement conflates criticisms of Joseph Smith's translation process with broader theological claims. Critics argue that the papyri used for the Book of Abraham do not match its text, but LDS apologists propose alternative theories, such as revelation-based translation or reliance on a missing scroll.
Lost 116 Pages:
The suggestion that bad actors could have left the original text unaltered ignores Joseph Smith's claim that they intended to manipulate it to discredit him. This overlooks historical context and competing narratives about the fate of the pages.
Bias and Lack of Nuance
One-Sided Presentation:
The statement exclusively cites criticisms without acknowledging defenses offered by LDS scholars or apologists, such as Hugh Nibley or John Gee, who argue for interpretive frameworks like revelation-based translation.
Dismissal of Faith-Based Perspectives:
It disregards LDS perspectives that emphasize spiritual confirmation over scholarly validation, which is central to how believers approach texts like the Book of Abraham.
Unsubstantiated Claims
Assumption of Fraud:
The statement presumes fraudulent intent without providing concrete evidence beyond anecdotal accounts and contested interpretations of historical events.
Comparison to Sensen Papyrus:
The claim that Joseph Smith derived extensive text from a single Egyptian character oversimplifies criticisms related to his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar." Critics assert this method was flawed, but apologists argue it reflects an interpretive process rather than direct linguistic translation.
Conclusion
The weaknesses in these statements stem from reliance on ridicule, oversimplification, historical inaccuracies, and one-sided arguments. A balanced analysis would require consideration of both critical and apologetic perspectives while avoiding logical fallacies and unsubstantiated claims.
Perplexity A.I.
The long and short of it is that you are trying to wrap up in a nutshell that which needs to be fleshed out much more than is possible on a message board such as this. Your post is a springboard, not a determinative and/or conclusive statement that should in any way be valued for its honesty.
Regards,
MG
