Would this have been a "secular" translation as well?), this really does virtually nothing to "crush" the old criticisms.
Sharper critical scholars than you disagree. Perhaps they're wrong along with me. But it's worth noting. There's nothing apologetic or silly about the conclusion that this find simply refutes the old critical argument, unless you think that people like Chris Smith are apt to fall for silly apologetics.
Do Chris Smith and George Miller think that the old critical argument was strictly about whether Joseph Smith relied on revelation or not? Maybe they do. I'd be interested to see a link or something similar to a set of criticism that fits what you've described re: the critics' position. I can't recall ever having seen critics repeatedly make this point about "revelation" being the key issue in the argument.
"[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
What does the 'translator' part of the religious title of Joseph Smith that goes "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet" mean? What are the religious underpinnings of "a translator" mean?
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."
What does the 'translator' part of the religious title of Joseph Smith that goes "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet" mean? What are the religious underpinnings of "a translator" mean?
This sounds like a big question, Socrates. Perhaps you could apply the Socratic method to it?
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
It rather seems like it when you look at the world, doesn't it?
by the way, wouldn't it be grand if you were conversing through posts with 'the' Socrates rather than just me?
A Socratic dialogue in cyberspace.... Perhaps you could join in as well so we could both get our intellectual butts kicked.
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
So, while it's interesting to note that Joseph Smith began his "translation" of the KP via the GAEL (and how did he intend to translate the remainder of the KP, I wonder?
If he intended to translate it all, then I would think he expected to need revelation along with the GAEL. I'm not convinced he did intend that, though it seems likely given his intial, seemingly successful foray at translating it.
How can one have a successful foray at translating gibberish? He might as well have been trying to translate Martian. So how was his initial foray at translating it the least bit successful?
(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.
It rather seems like it when you look at the world, doesn't it?
How about when you look at Joseph Smith, Jr. comparing a character of the GAEL to a similar one (with extra hash lines removed) on the Kinderhook Plates and declaring those plates are about a descendant of Ham with whose bones the plates were found?
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."
What does the 'translator' part of the religious title of Joseph Smith that goes "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet" mean? What are the religious underpinnings of "a translator" mean?
This sounds like a big question, Socrates. Perhaps you could apply the Socratic method to it?
Don
Do you think that 'translator' in that string of four appellations Joseph Smith, Jr. aggrandized himself with refers to an 'academic translator' compared to God-inspired 'seer, revelator and prophet' roles?
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."
Doctor Scratch wrote:Do Chris Smith and George Miller think that the old critical argument was strictly about whether Joseph Smith relied on revelation or not? Maybe they do. I'd be interested to see a link or something similar to a set of criticism that fits what you've described re: the critics' position. I can't recall ever having seen critics repeatedly make this point about "revelation" being the key issue in the argument.
Hey Doctor Scratch - prior to hearing Don's presentation I had spent only about fourish hours total reading and rereading the discussion of the KP. Personally, I thought of the argument as largely a two-pronged argument. The first leg of the argument was that Joseph Smith was duped, and the second leg was that Joseph Smith translated a fake set of plates by revelation. To me there were 21st century parallels to the first leg in the case of Mark Hofmann. For a few Mormons the fact that the first presidency didn't detect the fraud was a big deal, but for me and I think many (if not most) Mormons the failure to detect Hofmann's fraud has been a "no biggie" issue for me. On the other hand Joseph Smith translating by revelation a fake set of plates was a much bigger problem. Of the two legs of the argument, the second one was to me the larger problem, though for me the KP were never that big of a deal. I think that Don's work does significantly weaken the impact of the second leg of the argument. But that is just my take on the subject.
harmony wrote:How can one have a successful foray at translating gibberish? He might as well have been trying to translate Martian. So how was his initial foray at translating it the least bit successful?
Harmony,
You are correct--he was translating Martian--as I said seemingly successful since he found a character match.
For similar questions to me and similar answers from me, see above.
Cheers,
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