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

[cdowis]

del

Edited July 14, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

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.

It is clear that our discussion is pointless.

[cdowis]

selek1,

You wrote:

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

According to Skousen, JS had a private meeting with several of his closest associates, and his brother asked him about the translation process. He specifically declined to answer. Skousen makes the point that JS did not describe that process. (JS Papers, TV documentary)

Any apologist who claims the contrary has absolutely nothing to stand on, other than pure speculation and assertion.

Edited July 14, 2012 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

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.

I c/p from a poster on another board. Did Joseph read each word sometimes and other times get revelation?

Isaac Hale, the father of Emma Hale Smith, stated in an 1834 affidavit:

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

The first-hand account of Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, was published in an 1879 article in the RLDS publication Saint's Herald:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down.

Joseph Knight, Sr., an early member of the Church and a close friend of Joseph Smith, wrote the following in a document on file in the LDS Church archives:

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentence and it would appear in bright roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence would come and so on. But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated." (spelling preserved from original)

William Smith

In volume two of "A New Witness for Christ in America," LDS writer Francis Kirkham notes that Joseph Smith's brother William also confirmed the use of the hat and seer stone. His account is also similar to the accounts given by Harris and Whitmer although he refers to the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." He stated, "The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God" (2:417).

1830 Newspaper Account

The article from the Cincinnati Advertiser of June 2, 1830, supports the 'stone in the hat' translation method:

"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from the world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."

The article corroborates the 'stone in the hat' version of the translation, as opposed to Joseph's description of 'two stones in silver bows'. Considering the earliness of the article, June 1830, it is closer to the original method of the translation as told by Smith's first scribes----Emma, Harris, Whitmer, Joseph Knight, etc.---before Cowdery became involved. Perhaps the original 'peep-stone' story evolved over time into the 'Urim and Thummim' version, in an attempt to give Joseph's practice a Biblical stamp, and to shed the image of his 1820s 'peep-stoning'.

There is one interesting quote, that cant be verified so its just conjecture, in fact it was in Fawn Brodies book "No man Knows My History" where Oliver expressed doubts about the BOM translation as the plates were not present in the translation process. It reads ....

"I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses, when he would be translating from plates, through 'the Urim and Thummim', and the plates not be in sight at all. (Dialogue, Volume 15, No 2 summer 1982, pg 51)

And also in the "cyber conversation" they talk about Joseph possibly having a form of autism here is a snip of the quote:

...a more modern psychological profile of Joseph Smith. I believe he may have seen some type of image of the gold plates in his mind, possibly even in a type of epileptic vision. There are theories he had temporal lobe epilepsy, which can produce extreme religious and spiritual experiences (talking to God, hearing voices, angel visitations, seeing things that are not there). There are people alive today who behave much like Joseph did, his profile is not that difficult to figure out, given what we know now about how the brain works. And there is evidence for more than just temporal lobe epilepsy, I also see evidence in what I have studied that he had other conditions, I know one psychiatrist wrote a book that profiled Joseph, I've not read that book but read a summary and it sounds accurate. I suspect Joseph had something similar to what today would be called high functioning Autism or Asperger's, as well as a narcissistic personality. Add those together with temporal lobe epilepsy, and Joseph comes into better focus. He may have believed he was seeing real things at some level, and he had the skills to bring it all together into a believable yarn that would eventually produce income.

[CASteinman]

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

That is not really true. Hearsay is admissible as well under certain circumstances, particularly in a situation where the original person is no longer around to testify.

And most (though not all) of the evidence surrounding Joseph Smith's spiritual revelations is hearsay. This would include, even, at least one section that is recorded in the D&C as a revelation.

Unfortunately, it is not (any longer) subject to cross examination since the testifiers have all died.

[CASteinman]

It is clear that our discussion is pointless.

Well, that is what I thought, but I was willing to answer your questions out of politeness.

[CASteinman]

...a more modern psychological profile of Joseph Smith. I believe he may have seen some type of image of the gold plates in his mind, possibly even in a type of epileptic vision. There are theories he had temporal lobe epilepsy, which can produce extreme religious and spiritual experiences (talking to God, hearing voices, angel visitations, seeing things that are not there). There are people alive today who behave much like Joseph did, his profile is not that difficult to figure out, given what we know now about how the brain works. And there is evidence for more than just temporal lobe epilepsy, I also see evidence in what I have studied that he had other conditions, I know one psychiatrist wrote a book that profiled Joseph, I've not read that book but read a summary and it sounds accurate. I suspect Joseph had something similar to what today would be called high functioning Autism or Asperger's, as well as a narcissistic personality. Add those together with temporal lobe epilepsy, and Joseph comes into better focus. He may have believed he was seeing real things at some level, and he had the skills to bring it all together into a believable yarn that would eventually produce income.

This seems like one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I do not believe that Autistic/Aspergers people are able to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder -- not that I have studied it, but being rather well aware of both syndromes, I do not see how it is possible. It would be like trying to feed a cat live bees. It just would not work.

Not only that, but it is very difficult for people with either one of these disorders, much less both, to attract and maintain the intellectual and emotional loyalty of sound minded, thoughtful and honest people such as Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor and Brigham Young through many years and extremely difficult trials.

I wonder what sorts of demons this same person would have believed inhabited Jesus -- who sometimes made enraging claims about Himself.

[zerinus]

"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.

Those minutes are extremely brief, and leave a lot of things unsaid. The DHC quote isn't any more informative either:

Another item of interest will be found in the following circumstance; several of the brethren took occasion to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon; and now the minutes--"Brother 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." "Brother Joseph Smith, Jun. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things." (p. 13). This will account for the Prophet confining himself to the merest generalities in all his statements concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

However, unless my memory is playing big tricks I me, I recall having read another version of this which gives a bit more detail. Hyrum Smith's gesture of asking Joseph Smith to provide the explanation was prompted by a questioner who had asked, paraphrasing from memory, "Who did the translating, Joseph Smith or the instruments he used?" In other words, if my recollection serves me right, somebody was asking whether Joseph Smith intellectually participated in the translation process, or whether he was a passive conduit through whom the words were given. Did he have a choice of the vocabulary and idiom to use, or did he have no choice in the matter? If somebody else had been appointed by the Lord to translate the Book of Mormon, would the end result have been identical to what Joseph had produced, or would it have been different? That apparently was the question that prompted Hyman Smith to turn the thing over to Joseph Smith for an answer. That is the question that a lot of people have been asking ever since. And Joseph declined to give a detailed explanation. And answering it is not easy. If we go by the descriptions given of the translation process by David Whitmer and others, it would appear that he did not intellectually participate in the translation process. If the words would appear before his eyes, and he simply read them off and dictated them to his scribe, then he was not intellectually participating in the translation process. But on the other hand, if we go by the description given of how Oliver Cowdery should have translated, then he would have intellectually participated in the translation process. And there are several possible reasons why Joseph Smith was reluctant to explain it, one of them being that the process was a spiritual one which cannot be easily explained. That is one of the possible reasons that Elder Maxwell gave for Joseph's reluctance to explain the translation process:

Why do we not have more disclosure concerning the process of translation of the Book of Mormon? Perhaps the full process was not disclosed because we would not be ready to understand it, even if given. Perhaps, too, the Lord wanted to leave the Book of Mormon in the realm of faith, though it is drenched with intrinsic evidence. After all, Christ instructed Mormon, who was reviewing the Savior’s own teachings among the Nephites, not to record all of them on the plates because “I will try the faith of my people” (3 Ne. 26:11). Perhaps the details of translation are withheld also because we are intended to immerse ourselves in the substance of the book rather than becoming unduly concerned with the process by which we received it. Source.

That article by Elder Maxwell is a very good one in fact, and I highly recommend it.

[zerinus]

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).
  

Those are interesting articles, which at best describe the physical aspect of the translation process (as observed by fallible human observers); but they do not go into the deeper spiritual aspects of the translation process (by Joseph Smith himself), especially the extent to which he intellectually participated in that process. I think that it the question that is being asked in this thread, rather than the mere physical aspect of the translation process.

Edited July 15, 2012 by zerinus

[ANACO]

FARMS wrote articles about the Maya 2012 Prophecy.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=1&id=216

"An event is mentioned that was expected to take place on the Maya date 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 3 K'anki'in; following the generally accepted correlation of their calendar with ours, that would fall on Sunday, 23 December 2012."

Of course FARMS was wrong. That prophecy foresaw the end of FARMS in 2012, though some months earlier.

[TAO]

And also in the "cyber conversation" they talk about Joseph possibly having a form of autism here is a snip of the quote:

...a more modern psychological profile of Joseph Smith. I believe he may have seen some type of image of the gold plates in his mind, possibly even in a type of epileptic vision. There are theories he had temporal lobe epilepsy, which can produce extreme religious and spiritual experiences (talking to God, hearing voices, angel visitations, seeing things that are not there). There are people alive today who behave much like Joseph did, his profile is not that difficult to figure out, given what we know now about how the brain works. And there is evidence for more than just temporal lobe epilepsy, I also see evidence in what I have studied that he had other conditions, I know one psychiatrist wrote a book that profiled Joseph, I've not read that book but read a summary and it sounds accurate. I suspect Joseph had something similar to what today would be called high functioning Autism or Asperger's, as well as a narcissistic personality. Add those together with temporal lobe epilepsy, and Joseph comes into better focus. He may have believed he was seeing real things at some level, and he had the skills to bring it all together into a believable yarn that would eventually produce income.

Tacenda, Asperger's and Autism both have a tendency to cause social awkwardness. From what I have seen, Joseph Smith did not have social awkwardness to the degree that a person with Asperger's has.

Autism and Narcissism can relate, but most of the time do not. This is because again, people with Asperger's tend to be socially shy (those who aren't, like me, have probably gone through training). In addition, people with Asperger's tend to have very unusual extruding interests - and while religion could be that, it would be normal for a person with Asperger's to have more than one, and I don't see Joseph having too much of that.

Ultimately, I don't think Joseph Smith fits the category of somebody with Asperger's or Autism.

Edited July 15, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

I wonder what sorts of demons this same person would have believed inhabited Jesus -- who sometimes made enraging claims about Himself.

On another forum, I found a thread trying to ask whether Jesus had Asperger's/Autism, and I had to post a rather similar response. So I think while people understand some things about Asperger's, they don't really understand how people with Asperger's tend to think. So, my suggestion would be to be a bit patient with those people... it's a hard to explain thing.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[zerinus]

LOL!!!!!

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

More comic relief.

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.

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.

Not enough detail to satisfy a lot of other people, apparently.

Rob is right. Joseph Smith did not describe the translation process, neither in public nor (as far as anyone knows) in private. See my previous posts #83 and #84. I don't believe in disagreeing people just for the sake of disagreeing.

[Robert F. Smith]

FARMS wrote articles about the Maya 2012 Prophecy.

http://maxwellinstit...=9&num=1&id=216

"An event is mentioned that was expected to take place on the Maya date 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 3 K'anki'in; following the generally accepted correlation of their calendar with ours, that would fall on Sunday, 23 December 2012."

Of course FARMS was wrong. That prophecy foresaw the end of FARMS in 2012, though some months earlier.

Cute. I gave you a LOL rep point for that.

[cdowis]

On another forum, I found a thread trying to ask whether Jesus had Asperger's/Autism,

I try to avoid those who feel comfortable with making blasphemous statements. But that is just me.

[Darth_Bill]

Autism is blasphemous?

[CASteinman]

Autism is blasphemous?

The question is disingenuous.

[phaedrus ut]

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'm curious why you think this is a excellent example of apologetics. Apostle Dallin Oaks goes into a long winded defense of why it's possible that the Angel Moroni could be a Salamander is somehow positive?

He ponders why people are hiding the other meaning of salamander;

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

Because it's important to note that this pefectly fits with Josephs & Moroni narrative,

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.

I suspect that if the salamander was related to the Kirtland banking scandal and a salamander we would have seen a defense using the a gecko because insurance and banking are closely related financial institutions. Saying this is a example of successful apologetics is like saying this picture is a successful example of prophetic discernment.

Phaedrus

[BCSpace]

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

Sure. Can't remember what it was, but I remember my trainer stepping on my foot during a conversation and afterwards he pointed out how I was wrong and after further study, indeed I was.

[Robert F. Smith]

FARMS wrote articles about the Maya 2012 Prophecy.

http://maxwellinstit...=9&num=1&id=216

"An event is mentioned that was expected to take place on the Maya date 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 3 K'anki'in; following the generally accepted correlation of their calendar with ours, that would fall on Sunday, 23 December 2012."

Of course FARMS was wrong. That prophecy foresaw the end of FARMS in 2012, though some months earlier.

The main point of those brief Maxwell Institute comments was that the ancient Maya had prophets -- a concept which the anthropologists advising Mel Gibson included in his film about the Maya Apocalypto.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm curious why you think this is a excellent example of apologetics. Apostle Dallin Oaks goes into a long winded defense of why it's possible that the Angel Moroni could be a Salamander is somehow positive?

He ponders why people are hiding the other meaning of salamander;

Did you bother to read the FARMS Update which I included? If so, why are you deliberately hiding or ignoring the figurative meanings which good scholarship attaches to the salamander? Perhaps you'd like to tell us where in that Update or in Elder Oaks address you found an error.

Because it's important to note that this pefectly fits with Josephs & Moroni narrative,

Presumably the anti-Mormon forger thought so too, only "perfect" is not a word I would have used.

I suspect that if the salamander was related to the Kirtland banking scandal and a salamander we would have seen a defense using the a gecko because insurance and banking are closely related financial institutions. Saying this is a example of successful apologetics is like saying this picture is a successful example of prophetic discernment.

Sorry, the murdering forger beat you to the punch by creating his own imaginary scenario.

You might want to reflect sometime on the fact that two evangelical scholars closely examined FARMS' apologetic activities a few years ago, and unlike you they concluded that FARMS had done an excellent job, and that their fellow evangelicals had not. That's called "honesty," a very rare commodity in the polemic atmosphere which surrounds us. Have you ever tried having a reasonable discussion about these matters?

[Areabird]

What were the qualifications of the evangelical scholars to evaluate the apologetic efforts of FARMS? Why should we value their opinion?

[Robert F. Smith]

What were the qualifications of the evangelical scholars to evaluate the apologetic efforts of FARMS? Why should we value their opinion?

Both were graduates of the Talbot School of Theology at Biola College

Both have since gotten their PhDs.

You can make your own judgment of their competence by reading their article and book:

Mosser, Carl, and Paul Owen, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998), 179-205. First delivered on April 25, 1997, at the Evangelical Society Far West Annual Meeting. Online at http://www.cometozar...osser-owen.html .

Beckwith, F., C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002).

Edited July 17, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

Hi there. You wrote:

You might want to reflect sometime on the fact that two evangelical scholars closely examined FARMS' apologetic activities a few years ago, and unlike you they concluded that FARMS had done an excellent job, and that their fellow evangelicals had not. That's called "honesty," a very rare commodity in the polemic atmosphere which surrounds us. Have you ever tried having a reasonable discussion about these matters?

Just a point of clarification: Mosser and Owen argued that FARMS (and more broadly LDS scholars) had produced a massive amount of academically weighty literature defending Mormon scriptures and doctrines, and that evangelical scholars had simply failed to engage the literature by neglect. In other words, the problem was not that evangelical scholars were doing a poor job in their responses to LDS scholarship, but that for the most part they were not responding at all. Nor were Mosser and Owen claiming that FARMS apologetic arguments were cogent--only that they were impressive in sophistication and in quantity. By the way, I had made the same point (though not in as detailed a manner) in a couple of articles back in the late 1980s.

[Hamilton Porter]

Robert,

Hi there. You wrote:

Just a point of clarification: Mosser and Owen argued that FARMS (and more broadly LDS scholars) had produced a massive amount of academically weighty literature defending Mormon scriptures and doctrines, and that evangelical scholars had simply failed to engage the literature by neglect. In other words, the problem was not that evangelical scholars were doing a poor job in their responses to LDS scholarship, but that for the most part they were not responding at all. Nor were Mosser and Owen claiming that FARMS apologetic arguments were cogent--only that they were impressive in sophistication and in quantity. By the way, I had made the same point (though not in as detailed a manner) in a couple of articles back in the late 1980s.

I'm glad you concede that James White is not a real scholar. We finally agree on something.