Daniel Peterson Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Only to Frogs.Normal people (i.e., outside of France) know how to spell.
Droopy Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I never said that it was "the sum total of the counterargument." However, I am saying that it is a crutch on which apologists increasingly rely when they can't come up with anything better. I am a big fan of Bushman, but when I'm reading RSR and he begins to delve into something truly interesting, I say to myself, Oh no, don't do it. Oh crap, here it comes... please don't say it... And then it hits, "...from these events we must conclude that Joseph simply did not understand the nature of..." ARGH!!!!What is it precisely you're looking for here? Of course Joseph was ignorant of many things and had to be guided, principle upon principle (line upon line) through the acquisition of Gospel knowledge. And? Why is this a be definition strike against him?So were Peter, James, John, Paul, and all of the others who held this calling ignorant at the beginning, and no doubt this is particularly acute at the beginning of a dispensation.
Mortal Man Posted March 9, 2009 Author Posted March 9, 2009 Why in the world is it a "cheap dodge" if you make the argument that Joseph was ignorant and apologists agree with you? Normally this board pits Mormon vs. non-Mormon or critic vs. apologist. I see however, that my OP has succeeded in getting everyone on both sides of the debate united in their opposition against my "arrogant" and "irritating" remarks. On one level I am pleased and proud for finally bringing unity to long-bitter rivals. On another level, however, I see that my OP has been largely misunderstood. Let me attempt to clarify with a specific example regarding the BoA. Critics claim that the BoA is bogus because Joseph was ignorant of Egyptian. Many of them think that Mormons think that Joseph could translate Egyptian. However, the more hip and froody Mormon apologists do not claim that Joseph knew anything about Egyptian. They delight in agreeing with critics that Joseph was completely ignorant of the language. This enables them to move the argument beyond the reach of any possible criticism by proclaiming that Joseph received the BoA by pure revelation and that it contains meaning so deep that no one, not the critics, nor the ancient Egyptians nor even Joseph himself could possibly have comprehend the divine mysteries contained in the book. In fact, only Hugh Nibley, along with perhaps two other professors, have come even close to unlocking the deep mysteries of the book. This is how the "Joseph's ignorance" argument (and in this case, everyone else's ignorance) shuts down straighforward inquiries and moves the whole debate into the apologists' own private sandbox.
Mortal Man Posted March 9, 2009 Author Posted March 9, 2009 What was he pointing at? CFR, see voo play (unless it's this one, in which case you can just say so).-Smac Yes, the article in the Quincy Whig. http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/miscoh03.htm
Daniel Peterson Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Critics claim that the BoA is bogus because Joseph was ignorant of Egyptian. Many of them think that Mormons think that Joseph could translate Egyptian. However, the more hip and froody Mormon apologists do not claim that Joseph knew anything about Egyptian. They delight in agreeing with critics that Joseph was completely ignorant of the language.I've never heard of anybody who claimed that Joseph knew Egyptian independent of revelation.Can you point to somebody who has maintained that?This enables them to move the argument beyond the reach of any possible criticismI hadn't noticed that we've successfully moved the Book of Abraham beyond the reach of any possible criticism.This is a red-letter day, and calls for a celebration.by proclaiming that Joseph received the BoA by pure revelation and that it contains meaning so deep that no one, not the critics, nor the ancient Egyptians nor even Joseph himself could possibly have comprehend the divine mysteries contained in the book.I think I missed this memo.In fact, only Hugh Nibley, along with perhaps two other professors, have come even close to unlocking the deep mysteries of the book.?????This is how the "Joseph's ignorance" argument (and in this case, everyone else's ignorance) shuts down straighforward inquiries and moves the whole debate into the apologists' own private sandbox.A nonsensical straw man caricature.
LifeOnaPlate Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I've never heard of anybody who claimed that Joseph knew Egyptian independent of revelation.Can you point to somebody who has maintained that?I hadn't noticed that we've successfully moved the Book of Abraham beyond the reach of any possible criticism.This is a red-letter day, and calls for a celebration.I think I missed this memo.?????A nonsensical straw man caricature.Prediction of the resolution of this conversation:
Jason Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 On another level, however, I see that my OP has been largely misunderstood.Actually I would say that most of us understood your basic argument quite well.
Mortal Man Posted March 9, 2009 Author Posted March 9, 2009 What is it precisely you're looking for here? Of course Joseph was ignorant of many things and had to be guided, principle upon principle (line upon line) through the acquisition of Gospel knowledge. And? Why is this a be definition strike against him?So were Peter, James, John, Paul, and all of the others who held this calling ignorant at the beginning, and no doubt this is particularly acute at the beginning of a dispensation. When Joseph gives a revelation, or he makes an authoritative statement regarding scripture that he has produced, shouldn't we presume that he knows more about it than anyone else does? In other words, it's about burden of proof. If you're going to overrule Joseph Smith's statements about his own revelations then you better have a bloody good reason.
The Dude Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Normally this board pits Mormon vs. non-Mormon or critic vs. apologist. I see however, that my OP has succeeded in getting everyone on both sides of the debate united in their opposition against my "arrogant" and "irritating" remarks. On one level I am pleased and proud for finally bringing unity to long-bitter rivals. On another level, however, I see that my OP has been largely misunderstood. Let me attempt to clarify with a specific example regarding the BoA. Critics claim that the BoA is bogus because Joseph was ignorant of Egyptian. Many of them think that Mormons think that Joseph could translate Egyptian. However, the more hip and froody Mormon apologists do not claim that Joseph knew anything about Egyptian. They delight in agreeing with critics that Joseph was completely ignorant of the language. This enables them to move the argument beyond the reach of any possible criticism by proclaiming that Joseph received the BoA by pure revelation and that it contains meaning so deep that no one, not the critics, nor the ancient Egyptians nor even Joseph himself could possibly have comprehend the divine mysteries contained in the book. In fact, only Hugh Nibley, along with perhaps two other professors, have come even close to unlocking the deep mysteries of the book. This is how the "Joseph's ignorance" argument (and in this case, everyone else's ignorance) shuts down straighforward inquiries and moves the whole debate into the apologists' own private sandbox.But don't you see? Critics have won the battle, showing that Joseph's BoA is Egyptological pseudoscience. In response, apologists turn to mysticism because they don't want to give up their faith. Don't you think mysticism is an improvement over pseudoscience? I do. You can't expect Mormons to quit believing. Be realistic, MM.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 But don't you see? Critics have won the battle, showing that Joseph's BoA is Egyptological pseudoscience.False premise.Invalidates what follows.
searchinguy Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Over and over again we hear that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing.While I don't agree with every example you have presented, I understand where you're coming from. If Joseph understood Egyptian by revelation how is that he didn't on certain key pointsâ??
searchinguy Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 When Joseph gives a revelation, or he makes an authoritative statement regarding scripture that he has produced, shouldn't we presume that he knows more about it than anyone else does? If you're going to overrule Joseph Smith's statements about his own revelations then you better have a bloody good reason.That's kinda what I was going for with paragraph 2 of my post.
Avatar4321 Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Over and over again we hear that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing.Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."Why did he ordain Elders before receiving or conferring the High Priesthood? "Because he didn't understand that Elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood."Why did he say that the BoA was written by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus? "Because he didn't realize that it was actually a Jewish redaction of the real BoA."Why does the BoA refer to Facsimilie 1 "at the commencement of this record"? "Because JS didn't realize that the BoA was further into the scroll, after the breathing permit."...and so on and so forth.Silly Joseph.There are several reasons why Mormons and non-Mormons alike should object to this line of apologetics. Imagine what would happen if this reasoning were applied to other prophets.QUESTION: Why did the Israelites wander in the wilderness?RESPONSE: Because Moses was lost and unwilling to admit it. Fortunately with today's GPS units this could never happen.For Mormons, this "trump card" of apologetics is objectionable for its sheer arrogance. "Don't worry you guys, Joseph may have been a clueless country bumpkin but we've got some really smart BYU professors now who can straighten out all his foul ups." Is it not a double standard to "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" on the one hand, while dismissing him as hopelessly ignorant on the other? We marvel at the genius of the religious system he organized and then claim that he did not understand his own revelations?!?!For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries. It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.Maybe someone should make these arguments before we decide to stop making them. I dont really see the point in stopping arguments that arent made.
e=mc2 Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I never said that it was "the sum total of the counterargument." However, I am saying that it is a crutch on which apologists increasingly rely when they can't come up with anything better. I am a big fan of Bushman, but when I'm reading RSR and he begins to delve into something truly interesting, I say to myself, Oh no, don't do it. Oh crap, here it comes... please don't say it... And then it hits, "...from these events we must conclude that Joseph simply did not understand the nature of..." ARGH!!!!So the facts are undigestable to you then that Joseph may very well have been ignorant? Dang, guess you'll just have to learn to live with it. Changing this to say he was a religious genius is far worse, since it is simply made up fantasy. There is nothing fantasy about Joseph being a bumpkin boy, anymore than there is in realizing the Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were bumpkin boys also.
Droopy Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 False premise.Invalidates what follows.Every statement Dude has ever made regarding claims that science qua science justifies atheism or is evidence of the nonexistence of God and spiritual phenomena can also fairly easily be shown to be pseudoscience.Dude perhaps, is the expert in this area.
The Dude Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Every statement Dude has ever made regarding claims that science qua science justifies atheism or is evidence of the nonexistence of God and spiritual phenomena can also fairly easily be shown to be pseudoscience.Oh? To show that, you will first have to find a case where I used science or anything else as evidence for a negative like nonexistence of God or spiritual phenomena. I think even Logic Chopper can see the problem for you here.
selek Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 I think even Logic Chopper can see the problem for you here.Is particular logic error committed by The Dude a case of circular logic, an appeal to one's own authority, or simply an ad hominem?Using oneself as an authority to debunk someone else's argument seems vaguely incestuous.
Strindberg Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Oh? To show that, you will first have to find a case where I used science or anything else as evidence for a negative like nonexistence of God or spiritual phenomena. I think even Logic Chopper can see the problem for you here.Arguments may come and go. But the Dude . . . the Dude abides. I, for one, believe he exists.
Droopy Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Oh? To show that, you will first have to find a case where I used science or anything else as evidence for a negative like nonexistence of God or spiritual phenomena. I think even Logic Chopper can see the problem for you here.Perhaps here, but not on the other board.Its gone on for years.
Cold Steel Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Oh, there are so many more that have been debunked and yet they rise from the swamps on misty moonlit nights and trudge into bookstores, websites, videos and even bumper stickers. How about the "Mormon Jesus" was born in Jerusalem, not Bethlehem?I got this from another website that seeks to debunk Christianity: "Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, if Luke is taken literally, according to E. P. Sanders [The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin Press, 1993, pp. 84-91)]. What husband would take a nine-month pregnant woman on such a trek from Nazareth at that time when only heads of households were obligated to register for a census when the census wouldâ??ve been stretched out over a period of weeks or even months? But if he did, why did he not take better precautions for the birth? Why not take Mary to her relative Elizabethâ??s home just a few miles away from Bethlehem for the birth of her baby?"The same lack of logic can be applied to our evangelical and Catholic critics that they use against us.
The Dude Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Perhaps here, but not on the other board.Its gone on for years.No way man, you've got me confused with that other Lebowski.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.