Curious To Know If An Apologtic Ever Defended Something And It Turned Out To Be False

[Nofear]

I think, vaguely recall, that some church apologists held tentative reservation about the possibility that some of the Hoffman forgeries were genuine and that even if they were it wouldn't change things.

[Vance]

He expressly refused to answer questions about the translation process.

You mean he NEVER said that it was "by the gift and power of God"?

Who knew?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You mean he NEVER said that it was "by the gift and power of God"?

Who knew?

Give me a break. That statement was not an explanation or description of the translation process. It answered no questions about the process.

[Darth_Bill]

I made mention of the hat before. Early on in this boards history the residents mocked the hat story...then somewhere along it was accepted. When I pointed it out, that the apologetic moved...I was then told that I didnt know what I was talking about. Im not so interested in apologetics anymore.

[Calm]

I made mention of the hat before. Early on in this boards history the residents mocked the hat story...then somewhere along it was accepted. When I pointed it out, that the apologetic moved...I was then told that I didnt know what I was talking about. Im not so interested in apologetics anymore.

That is rather strange because on the board that many posted before here, zlmb, we had at least 20 conversations about the seer stone in the hat, some quite extensive. I would have though most here would have known simply from that exposure if they had heard of it elsewhere.

[Damien the Leper]

Joseph wasn't just less specific than one might like. He expressly refused to answer questions about the translation process.

Can you provide evidence of this? It is a CFR only because I have not yet heard until now that Joseph refused to speak of the process.

[HiJolly]

Give me a break. That statement was not an explanation or description of the translation process. It answered no questions about the process.

That doesn't make your flat denial true. You lied, Joseph did answer and it's on record.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change the facts.

HiJolly

[phaedrus ut]

I recall Sandra Tanner disagreeing with her husband Jerald on the Salamander Letter. Jerald thought it a forgery. She maintained that it was authentic.

As part of the same example Apostle Dallin Oaks came out to defend the Salamander letter and the connection with a salamander and the Angel Moroni. This is probably the best example of failed apologetics and why the church seems to let outside groups handle these issues now.

"Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word 'salamander' in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W.W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word 'salamander' in the modern sense of a 'tailed amphibian.'

One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of 'salamander,' which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s.... That meaning... is 'a mythical being thought to be able to live in fire.'

A being that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the Angel Moroni:... the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.

In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship or membership in the Church?" (August 16 1985, CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium )

Phaedrus

[mapman]

The obvious examples that come to mind are about Hoffman forgeries. For example, here is an article by Gordon B. Hinckley making a defense of the Church's authority before the Joseph Smith III blessing was found to be a forgery. FAIR has some more examples here.

Of course people make all sorts of arguments. Some arguments are strong and some aren't. It's the same with apologetics. All arguments are good for is persuading people to believe some position. They are independent from what is actually true or false. In my opinion, in the vast majority of times all you can do is debate about the probability of something being true or false and we need to recognize that these probabilities change when we recognize new data.

Edited July 13, 2012 by mapman

[Vance]

That statement was not an explanation or description of the translation process.

Right, got it.

So, saying that "he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God" is "not an explanation or description of the translation process".

It answered no questions about the process.

Right so making a statement on HOW the translation was accomplished answers "no questions about the process".

Got it.

Thanks for providing some comic relief.

[Rob Bowman]

Valentinus,

You asked:

Can you provide evidence of this? It is a CFR only because I have not yet heard until now that Joseph refused to speak of the process.

Sure, no problem:

"Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.

Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c."

--"Minutes of a general Conference held at the dwelling of br. Serenes Burnet[t] in the Town of Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, October 25, 1831," in

The Conference Minutes and Record Book, of Christ's Church of Latter Day Saints

, at

Joseph Smith Papers, 15

.

See also History of the Church 1:220.

And see also the following comment:

"Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public." "Book of Mormon Translation by Joseph Smith," LDS FAQ, Brigham Young University.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

You asked:

Sure, no problem:

"Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.

Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c."

--"Minutes of a general Conference held at the dwelling of br. Serenes Burnet[t] in the Town of Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, October 25, 1831," in

The Conference Minutes and Record Book, of Christ's Church of Latter Day Saints

, at

Joseph Smith Papers, 15

.

See also History of the Church 1:220.

And see also the following comment:

"Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public." "Book of Mormon Translation by Joseph Smith," LDS FAQ, Brigham Young University.

Thanks, Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

HiJolly,

You wrote:

That doesn't make your flat denial true. You lied, Joseph did answer and it's on record.

Joseph's "answer" was that he declined to answer the question because supposedly it was not "exedient" for those things to be known. If you want to call that an answer, that's fine, but you aren't addressing the point I made: Joseph refused to describe the translation process.

Is BYU's website lying when it says, as I quoted in my previous post, that Joseph declined to describe the process?

You wrote:

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change the facts.

Now there's something with which I can agree.

[Rob Bowman]

Valentinus,

You're welcome.

Thanks, Rob.

[wenglund]

For instance, Joseph Smith looking in a hat vs. the plates to translate.

There was a time that I thought that Joseph only translated by looking in a hat, and later discovered that I was wrong. I learned that there were a variety of modes of translation (like looking at the plates) employed over the course of the translation.

Is that what you were looking for?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Sure, no problem:

"Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.

Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that

it was not intended to tell the world

all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c."

--"Minutes of a general Conference held at the dwelling of br. Serenes Burnet[t] in the Town of Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, October 25, 1831," in

The Conference Minutes and Record Book, of Christ's Church of Latter Day Saints

, at

Joseph Smith Papers, 15

.

See also History of the Church 1:220.

And see also the following comment:

"Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public." "Book of Mormon Translation by Joseph Smith," LDS FAQ, Brigham Young University.

LOL!!!!!

When did refusing to do something IN PUBLIC or TO TELL THE WORLD turn into a blanket refusal?

More comic relief.

[kolipoki09]

As a missionary I defended the idea that polygamy was introduced because too many men were killed off during the persecutions and the widows needed caring for. Ironically, that's the most common explanation offered on mormon.org profiles today. I also defended the idea that Joseph Smith was a practicing monogamist and was only married to his other wives in a "spiritual" sense. I also defended the idea that New Testament wine was non-alcoholic, and that the current understanding and practice of the Word of Wisdom was precisely as it was in the 1830s. I denied that there were post-manifesto plural marriages or that Joseph Smith used a seerstone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon.

I've come a long way in six years.

[TAO]

While Joseph was hesitant to describe the process, I don't think he all out refused. Here's an article about it: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=10

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

When did refusing to do something IN PUBLIC or TO TELL THE WORLD turn into a blanket refusal?

No one here is talking about the abstract possibility that Joseph might have divulged the translation process to someone in private and sworn him to everlasting secrecy. The issue arises because Mormons themselves today don't know and can't agree about what the translation process was. And Mormons have debated the translation process or method for well over a century. "It is too bad that he wasn't more specific," why me lamented. So I pointed out that it wasn't merely that Joseph wasn't "more specific," but that he refused to explain the translation process. In context, of course, that means he didn't explain it for the benefit of Mormons generally.

I'd suggest you get serious, but empirical evidence strongly indicates such an appeal would be useless.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

You wrote:

While Joseph was hesitant to describe the process, I don't think he all out refused. Here's an article about it: http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=10

Here's what Ricks says in that very article:

"The Prophet left no more explicit details concerning the manner in which the seerstone or the interpreters functioned than to say that they operated 'by the gift and power of God.' This is particularly unfortunate, since only he was in a position to describe how these instruments enhanced his power to translate, whereas others were at least able to see and describe them."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For instance, Joseph Smith looking in a hat vs. the plates to translate.

Yes...done to death.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As a missionary I defended the idea that polygamy was introduced because too many men were killed off during the persecutions and the widows needed caring for. Ironically, that's the most common explanation offered on mormon.org profiles today. I also defended the idea that Joseph Smith was a practicing monogamist and was only married to his other wives in a "spiritual" sense. I also defended the idea that New Testament wine was non-alcoholic, and that the current understanding and practice of the Word of Wisdom was precisely as it was in the 1830s. I denied that there were post-manifesto plural marriages or that Joseph Smith used a seerstone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon.

I've come a long way in six years.

Understandable, but what do we have to do with what Christ drank in the NT? When it comes to JS we will never know all the facts. Having said that God has allowed the practice of polygamy in the past...the question then; did our leaders live within it's constraints...Unless they were crazy they would have not done so...if he were simply a cult leader, there are more simple ways to justify inappropriate behavior. Any man or woman who is married find that complex enough.

[HiJolly]

Here's what Ricks says in that very article:

"The Prophet left no more explicit details concerning the manner in which the seerstone or the interpreters functioned than to say that they operated 'by the gift and power of God.' This is particularly unfortunate, since only he was in a position to describe how these instruments enhanced his power to translate, whereas others were at least able to see and describe them."

Rob, do you agree with what Ricks says in the above quoted statement?

HiJolly

Edited July 13, 2012 by HiJolly

[Nofear]

Example: amateur apologists defending the idea that Joseph Smith explained the translation process.The more seasoned apologist instead discuss to what extent the translation was verbatim vs impression (because Bro. Joseph never gave information that we possess enough to definitavely answer the question).

[Rob Bowman]

HiJolly,

You wrote:

Rob, do you agree with what Ricks says in the above quoted statement?

I'm happy to answer your question, but first things first: Please retract your earlier claim that I lied.