Socrates wrote: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?
Since that's not a revelation from God but merely a character match, it actually doesn't heighten my sense of how God works in mysterious ways.
I also find it less than mysterious when people try to bait me back into tangential discussions that I've exited. Some things are just obvious.
Regards,
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
Socrates wrote: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?
Since that's not a revelation from God but merely a character match, it actually doesn't heighten my sense of how God works in mysterious ways.
I also find it less than mysterious when people try to bait me back into tangential discussions that I've exited. Some things are just obvious.
Regards,
Don
Tangential? Had not, according to Mormon scripture, God given Joseph Smith, Jr. "sight and power to translate"? Doctrine & Covenants 3:12. Tangential to what?
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."
"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
Socrates wrote:Do you not think that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s 'sight and power' to translate came from God? Do you dispute D&C section 3:12?
Socrates, seriously, you are just being obnoxiously persistent, and also tangential to the topic. I'm not obliged to cover every topic under the sun that relates to Mormonism. I came here to discuss the theory I've advanced on the Kinderhook plates, which is about character matching, and not about D&C 3:12. I don't deny D&C 3:12, but it has nothing to do with the topic.
If you're willing to squander good will and get yourself blocked in order to continue to try to press me into the topic you think I should've come here to talk about, by all means continue.
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
Socrates wrote:Do you not think that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s 'sight and power' to translate came from God? Do you dispute D&C section 3:12?
Socrates, seriously, you are just being obnoxiously persistent, and also tangential to the topic. I'm not obliged to cover every topic under the sun that relates to Mormonism. I came here to discuss the theory I've advanced on the Kinderhook plates, which is about character matching, and not about D&C 3:12. I don't deny D&C 3:12, but it has nothing to do with the topic.
If you're willing to squander good will and get yourself blocked in order to continue to try to press me into the topic you think I should've come here to talk about, by all means continue.
Don
Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."
Socrates wrote:Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?
Discussed at great length by me above. I haven't said it rules out revelation. I've pointed out that it makes it redundant.
If you're not satisfied with my answers, fine. But don't pretend I haven't laid them out.
"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
Socrates wrote:Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?
Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.
Themis wrote:Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.
Bingo!!
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:Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.
Bingo!!
Don
Don,
Do you have any idea/have you spent time considering/researching how the character on the hoax KP came to match the one on the revelatory GAEL?
'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.