177 replies to this topic

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 13 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

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://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=10

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 13 July 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

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:

TAO, on 13 July 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

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."

[Pa Pa]

Tacenda, on 12 July 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

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

Yes...done to death.

[Pa Pa]

kolipoki09, on 13 July 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 13 July 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

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 by HiJolly, 13 July 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[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:

HiJolly, on 13 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

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.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 13 July 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

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.

You are the one that tried to preclude that possibility with your blanket/general statement.  The references you provided to support your blanket/general statement specifically allowed that possibility.

So, your blanket/general statement is unsupportable.  You should retract it or modify it to allow that possibility.

Quote

The issue arises because Mormons themselves today don't know and can't agree about what the translation process was.

So?  Even then it is only an issue to some.  To most of us "by the gift and power of God" is sufficient.

Quote

And Mormons have debated the translation process or method for well over a century.

So?

Quote

"It is too bad that he wasn't more specific," why me lamented.

So?

Quote

So I pointed out that it wasn't merely that Joseph wasn't "more specific," but that he refused to explain the translation process.

Which you can't support and which the statement you use in a feeble attempt at supporting it specifically deny it by specifically stating conditions under which he would provide explanations.

Quote

In context, of course, that means he didn't explain it for the benefit of Mormons generally.

WOW!!!!

You have the lamentation of one person and you extrapolate that to be "Mormons generally".

More comic relief.

Quote

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

As soon as I stop laughing!  Too often it is really hard to take your arguments seriously.  (For some reason, nit picky and nincompoopery come to mind.)

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written:

"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."

You replied:

Vance, on 13 July 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

You are the one that tried to preclude that possibility with your blanket/general statement.

False. I tried to do no such thing. I know what my intentions were, I have explained my intended meaning (though it was plain enough), and yet you continue to try to attack me for something I didn't say.

Forget your misrepresentation of my original position. Here's what I am saying now (as well as then): When Joseph Smith was asked to make known to Latter-day Saints how the "gift" of translation actually worked, he refused. That is why Brigham Young University (in a rare anti-Mormon moment?) states that "only Joseph Smith knew the actual process." It is why to this day Mormons debate the question among themselves.

Vance, my point is a simple historical fact. Your attempt to divert attention from that fact by misrepresenting my meaning is blatant.

[selek1]

Bowman's statesments (as usual) provide a textbook example of the absolutism and (frankly) stiff-neckedness of the critics I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Despite all factual and non-disputed evidence to the contrary, Bowman continues to insist that "Joseph Smith refused to describe the translation process."   Period.    End of sentence.   End of argument.

The facts, however don't support that absolutist statement,

Joseph DID in fact describe the translation process on several occasions- but he did not do so in detail.  Joseph did talk about the translation process- but not to Bowman's satisfaction.

Rather than admit that the problem lies in his own expectations, Bowman attempts to recast the facts to suit his preferences.

The absolutism (and demagoguery) occur when individuals and organizations such as Bowman rewrite history and facts to support their position, rather than the other way aroud.

As a paid anti-Mormon demagogue, Bowman is pushing a specific proposition and agenda.  Absolutism and misrepresentation are the most direct and effective means by which he can advance that agenda.

The apologist, on the other hand, can be more circumspect because the facts (and reasonable interpretation thereof) are on his side.

As has been amply demonstrated in this thread, an apologist will adjust his opinion and "defense" as new facts arise.

Critics such as Bowman demand that the facts instead conform to their predetermined conclusions.


That, unfortunately, is the process in a nutshell.

[Tacenda]

Pa Pa, on 13 July 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Yes...done to death.

I was just giving a for instance.  I don't have questions about the translation method per say.

[Rob Bowman]

selek1,

You wrote:

selek1, on 13 July 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Bowman's statesments (as usual) provide a textbook example of the absolutism and (frankly) stiff-neckedness of the critics I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Despite all factual and non-disputed evidence to the contrary, Bowman continues to insist that "Joseph Smith refused to describe the translation process."   Period. End of sentence.   End of argument.

The facts, however don't support that absolutist statement,

Joseph DID in fact describe the translation process on several occasions- but he did not do so in detail.  Joseph did talk about the translation process- but not to Bowman's satisfaction.

Here's another absolutist comment from an equally stiff-necked source guilty of demagoguery, paid anti-Mormons evidently:

"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.

BYU says exactly what I have been saying. Had any Mormon posted what I said, you would not be engaged in this ridiculous attempt at character assassination against them.

[selek1]

Rob Bowman, on 13 July 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

selek1,

You wrote:



Here's another absolutist comment from an equally stiff-necked source guilty of demagoguery, paid anti-Mormons evidently:

"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.

BYU says exactly what I have been saying. Had any Mormon posted what I said, you would not be engaged in this ridiculous attempt at character assassination against them.

Bowman, we'll set aside the personal attacks attempted mind-reading- the former are irrelevant and you're simply no good at the latter.

As regards the quote and your accusation, you're simply wrong.

What does the BYU quote actually say?  It says that Joseph declined "to describe it in public."

Note the qualifier.   "In public".

That doesn't mean (as you insist) that Joseph never described the process.   It details specific conditions under which he refused to discuss it.

The BYU quote is accurate.

Your absolutist interpretation (and agenda) is not.

Thank you for reiterating my point, but we really only needed the one example.

[CASteinman]

Rob Bowman, on 13 July 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

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

uhmmm... not quite true from the evidence available.   He sometimes would not go into details but apparently there were times that he did.  

Might not be enough detail to be satisfying to you though.

[theplains]

Rob Bowman, on 13 July 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

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.

2 Ensign articles mention one of the ways he is said to have done the translation.  But I don't know why this method is
not depicted in authorized artist renditions of the church in our modern day.  See the articles in July 1993 (A Treasured
Testament) and September 1977 (By the Gift and Power of God).  

Regards,
Jim

[CASteinman]

theplains, on 13 July 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

2 Ensign articles mention one of the ways he is said to have done the translation.  But I don't know why this method is
not depicted in authorized artist renditions of the church in our modern day.  

If they are still alive, you could ask the artists.  Have you tried or is it not that big a deal to you?

Edited by CASteinman, 13 July 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[selek1]

theplains, on 13 July 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

2 Ensign articles mention one of the ways he is said to have done the translation.  But I don't know why this method is
not depicted in authorized artist renditions of the church in our modern day.  See the articles in July 1993 (A Treasured
Testament) and September 1977 (By the Gift and Power of God).  

Regards,
Jim

Jim,

If you want to troll out this tired old chestnut, be a dear and start your own thread, hmmm?

Or you could just append to any of the 500 other useless and idiotic attempts to beat this dead horse.