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

[Vance]

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.

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.

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

So?

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

So?

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.

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.

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:

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 July 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

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.

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

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.

The following statement, which was in the 1842 Wentworth Letter, appears to be the most Joseph ever said about the translation:

"Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God."

There is no description or explanation of the process that this translating involved. This is the point I have been making all along.

Since you claim there were occasions on which he went into details about the process, then I respectfully request that you provide a reference supporting this claim. In short, CFR (call for reference).

[Rob Bowman]

selek1,

You wrote:

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.

Vance already tried this explanation. I have already answered it.

Try to keep up.

[selek1]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

The following statement, which was in the 1842 Wentworth Letter, appears to be the most Joseph ever said about the translation:

"Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God."

There is no description or explanation of the process that this translating involved. This is the point I have been making all along.

Since you claim there were occasions on which he went into details about the process, then I respectfully request that you provide a reference supporting this claim. In short, CFR (call for reference).

And having been proven demonstrably and factually wrong, Bowman tries to shift the burden of proof to his victims.

Gee, you'd almost think we've danced this dance before...

[Rob Bowman]

Jim,

You wrote:

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).

Thanks. The first article does not quote Joseph Smith saying anything at all about the translation. The second article quotes him saying that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God using the Urim and Thummim. As I have pointed out, this is the most Joseph Smith ever said about his work of translation. He never gave a description of the process.

I agree with your comment about LDS artistic representations of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon. All such depictions I have seen are clearly inaccurate.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Quote

"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

You have misstated the meaning of Elder Oaks' comments. I have bolded one of them for your review. In fact, his very cautious and reasonable comments were right on target and represent accurate scholarship then available, at a time when no one knew that the Salamander Letter was a forgery.

This is an excellent example of successful apologetics.

See, for example:

SALAMANDER UPDATE 1985.pdf

Edited July 14, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

I understand, but when we post we post to the world...or hope we do.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You have misstated the meaning of Elder Oaks' comments. I have bolded one of them for your review. In fact, his very cautious and reasonable comments were right on target and represent accurate scholarship then available, at a time when no one knew that the Salamander Letter was a forgery.

This is an excellent example of successful apologetics.

See, for example:

I know this forgery cost many their faith..once they knew the truth, their lives were filled with nothing but doubt. But this is what the forger and the anti's wanted, neither care for the consequences.

[Robert F. Smith]

I know this forgery cost many their faith..once they knew the truth, their lives were filled with nothing but doubt. But this is what the forger and the anti's wanted, neither care for the consequences.

That was of course Hoffman's nefarious purpose, and he is highly respected by the other prisoners at the Utah State Prison for succeeding. There are indeed many who are weak in the faith, who are thrown to and fro by nearly any insubstantial rumor or controversy.

[Robert F. Smith]

Jim,

You wrote:

Thanks. The first article does not quote Joseph Smith saying anything at all about the translation. The second article quotes him saying that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God using the Urim and Thummim. As I have pointed out, this is the most Joseph Smith ever said about his work of translation. He never gave a description of the process.

I agree with your comment about LDS artistic representations of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon. All such depictions I have seen are clearly inaccurate.

You are quite correct generally here. The problem (as some have pointed out above) is with your used of the word "never." It seems clear to me that some of Joseph's associates may have received somewhat more than the sole declaration that he translated the Book of Mormon with the Urim & Thummim by the gift and power of God. That may have been as much as he was willing to say publicly, but it doesn't explain the detail which we obtain from a variety of witnesses -- who may have passed that sort of thing along from one to another.

I tried tackling that sort of thing in my 1980 paper on the subject (it was actually a reply to inaccurate comments on the subject by Ed Ashment in Sunstone), which you can read at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/46307834-Translation-of-Languages . I do not believe that we can explain the details these witnesses are providing without suggesting that Joseph himself described the process in private.

Does that make any sense? This without bringing in the theorizing of Brant Gardner or Royal Skousen based on empirical evidence from the original manuscript.

[CASteinman]

Since you claim there were occasions on which he went into details about the process, then I respectfully request that you provide a reference supporting this claim. In short, CFR (call for reference).

Some References:

• An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri 1887, p. 12.
  
• Kansas City Journal, 5 June, 1881.
  
• The Saints' Herald, Vol. 26, (November, 1879):341
  
• Joseph Knight Recollections of Early Mormon History, (Edited by Dean Jessee, BYU Studies), Vol.17, No.1
  
• Deseret Evening News, September 5, 1870 as quoted by Francis W. Kirkham in "The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era 42. 10 (October 1939).
  

Edited July 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[cdowis]

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.

I came to realize that the hat thing was a double edge sword for the antis.

On the one hand it was almost embarrassing, "strange", but it left them with an awkward question, "What exactly WAS in that hat?" The strange hat thing took away one of their favorite explanations -- clearly there was no manuscript involved in the dictation process. JS had his face in that hat for hours at a time. Was he simply looking into darkness for that time and dictating vast amounts of memorized text, or was it a remarkable feat of stream of consciousness. Where did the parable of the vineyard, Jacob chapter 5, come from. What about those complex intertwining stories in the book of Mosiah, going forwards and backwards in time.

I realized that the hat took away the easy solution, and felt no need to try to explain it away.

Edited July 14, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Some References:

• An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri 1887, p. 12.
  

One tiny problem.

Whitmer clearly was not a direct witness of the translation process.

JS refused to describe the process even to his closest associates, and David makes no mention of any such conversation, so those who quote Whitmer are faced with the problem of telling us how this is nothing more than speculation.

However, Skousen, in his research of the original manuscript, gives us some insights into this process. For example, he read the text in groups of 20 to 25 words at a time. It does not appear that he used the KJV Bible in the translation process. (The JS Papers, the TV documentary)

But you did not cite Skousen.

Edited July 14, 2012 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

Whitmer clearly was not a direct witness of the translation process.

That is irrelevant. He was apparently told details of the process. Which means that Joseph Smith did not refuse to discuss it and did discuss it.

[CASteinman]

But you did not cite Skousen.

Because Skousen did not know Joseph Smith and could not have heard him say anything.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That is irrelevant. He was apparently told details of the process. Which means that Joseph Smith did not refuse to discuss it and did discuss it.

Eye witness is all that would stand up in court...except for Kangaroo.