An Irritating Argument

[Mortal Man]

I've never heard of anybody who claimed that Joseph knew Egyptian independent of revelation.

Can you point to somebody who has maintained that?

Michael H. Chandler

[LifeOnaPlate]

Michael H. Chandler

Out of curiosity, CFR.

[Mortal Man]

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.

"And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

[Mortal Man]

Out of curiosity, CFR.

LOAP, because I like you so much. I'll not only give you Chandler, but Hugh Nibley himself as a bonus.

Dr. Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price, Part I. Challenge and Response (Continued),"

Improvement Era, February 1968, p. 17.

Moreover, it was Joseph Smith himself who first proposed and submitted to the test. When the papyri of the Book of Abraham first came into his hands, the Prophet, having learned that their owner, Michael H. Chandler, had gone out of his way to solicit the opinions of the experts in the big cities where he had exhibited his mummies, went into a room by himself and wrote out his interpretation of some of the symbols; then he invited Mr. Chandler to compare what he had written with the opinions of "the most learned." Chandler did so, and was properly impressed, voluntarily giving Joseph Smith a signed statement: "... to make known to all who may be desirous, concenring the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. [signed:] Michael H. Chandler."

[Mortal Man]

?????

What was that? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention, too busy making straw men. Does anyone have some string I could borrow?

[selek]

LOAP, because I like you so much. I'll not only give you Chandler, but Hugh Nibley himself as a bonus.

Dr. Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price, Part I. Challenge and Response (Continued),"

Improvement Era, February 1968, p. 17.

Which quote, unfortunately, does not support- or frankly, even address- the qualifier "independent of revelation".

Go Directly to Jail.

Do not pass Go.

Do not collect $200.

[Mortal Man]

Which quote, unfortunately, does not support- or frankly, even address- the qualifier "independent of revelation".

That has never been my argument. In fact, the point of my OP was just the opposite. I provided the reference simply because DP and LOAP asked for it.

[Strindberg]

That movie is a tad overrated.

Probably. And so is fortune. God favors the meek.

[selek]

That has never been my argument. In fact, the point of my OP was just the opposite. I provided the reference simply because DP and LOAP asked for it.

Except, of course, for the fact that the quote you offered up to answer the CFR does not address the argument being referenced.

If you were offering it up to support the claim- which is precisely why you offered up the name Chandler- you failed utterly; whether or not that was your original position.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Except, of course, for the fact that the quote you offered up to answer the CFR does not address the argument being referenced.

If you were offering it up to support the claim- which is precisely why you offered up the name Chandler- you failed utterly; whether or not that was your original position.

You know, I have to agree with you here, the quote the MM put up did nothing to show his clim of "I've never heard of anybody who claimed that Joseph knew Egyptian independent of revelation.

Can you point to somebody who has maintained that?"

Michael H. Chandler Chandler never told us the mechanism for translation. You loose again.

[Stargazer]

After I read the OP, I thought to myself, yeah, he's made a few good points here, and some of the apologetics arguments he mentioned are definitely weak. I had a couple of quibbles, but then I started reading the responses. Yikes! I've been reading since grade 1 or 2, and that's a fair number of years, but I didn't read him here as beating up on Joseph Smith. I read him as beating up on some apologetics arguments that are simply lame. 'Cuz some of them ARE lame. Let me demonstrate.

Over and over again we hear that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing.

Some apologists (not necessarily the ones who post here) apologize by emphasizing that Joseph was human sometimes didn't know everything he maybe could or should have known.

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

The apologetic answer here sucks rocks. Joseph is not even on record calling that drumlin the Hill Cumorah; others made some unwarranted assumptions that were clearly unscriptural -- Mormon 6:6 says that all the records were in the HC except for the ones that Moroni took with him and eventually buried in that drumlin for Joseph to dig up. Granting the argument is the wrong tack.

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

He put horses in there because that was what was on the plates and what the translation yielded. Arguing that horses means tapirs is a sucky response, and wrong besides. There's enough recently uncovered evidence that horses were endemic to the Americas before the Spaniards arrived that we don't need to invoke tapirs anyway.

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

He didn't understand the full significance at the time? Yikes! He gave differing accounts for the same reason that we all give differing accounts to important events in our own lives, because of the time or space available, the audience, the purpose of the occasion in which one tells it, and sometimes because of a concern that including all the details might in a particular instance be casting pearls before swine. If he told the tale the same exact way everytime he said it, then people would complain about THAT. Bet on it.

The arguments MM is complaining about ARE sucky arguments, if not downright misleading. And they shouldn't be used.

[cjcampbell]

The arguments MM is complaining about ARE sucky arguments, if not downright misleading. And they shouldn't be used.

The arguments are sucky, which is why no one uses them. What is irritating is the allegation that we do use these arguments. I am sure that each of those arguments were made by someone somewhere at some point in time. But claiming that these are the basis of apologetics is, flatly, a straw man argument. It is this straw man that needs to be burned.

[ttribe]

The arguments are sucky, which is why no one uses them. What is irritating is the allegation that we do use these arguments. I am sure that each of those arguments were made by someone somewhere at some point in time. But claiming that these are the basis of apologetics is, flatly, a straw man argument. It is this straw man that needs to be burned.

Agreed - these are NOT the sum total of the counterarguments and the OP clearly tries to present them as such.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In a courteous and fruitful dialog it behooves one to make a best effort to charitably understand and accurately present the views of the other. That certainly did not happen effectively in the OP, imo.

[Mortal Man]

You know, I have to agree with you here, the quote the MM put up did nothing to show his clim of "I've never heard of anybody who claimed that Joseph knew Egyptian independent of revelation.

Can you point to somebody who has maintained that?"

Michael H. Chandler Chandler never told us the mechanism for translation. You loose again.

I will humor your attempts to derail this thread by sticking to my position that Chandler produced a document stating, in effect, that Joseph could translate Egyptian. The "independent of revelation" caveat belongs to DP, not me. If you insist on that qualifier, then the burden of proof is on you to show that Chandler believed that Joseph received revelation. Given that Chandler was a swindler, I think it is unlikely that he believed Joseph to be a prophet. He was simply trying to make a sale by flattering the customer.

[Mortal Man]

The arguments MM is complaining about ARE sucky arguments, if not downright misleading. And they shouldn't be used.

Finally, a friend!

[Mortal Man]

In a courteous and fruitful dialog it behooves one to make a best effort to charitably understand and accurately present the views of the other. That certainly did not happen effectively in the OP, imo.

I thought about editing my OP again to address this concern but on second reading I don't see where I imply that it is the "sum total of the counterargument." Instead I refer specifically to "this line of apologetics". I also don't see where I target anyone in particular. Of course, I could spell all this out to make it absolutely clear, but then I might become an enabler for laziness, sloppy reading and knee-jerk reactions. I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ANYONE ON THIS BOARD HAS EVER HAD A KNEE-JERK REACTION!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your "this line" is generally a straw man that isn't directly applicable to any specific published claims or arguments with which I am familiar, though. Take it for what it's worth, I spend a good deal of time thinking and reading and talking about LDS apologetics and feel you've largely missed the boat.

[Mars]

Probably. And so is fortune. God favors the meek.

I was going to put "fortune favors the bold who are not overbearing" but my Latin only takes me so far...

[selek]

I will humor your attempts to derail this thread by sticking by my position that Chandler produced a document stating, in effect, that Joseph could translate Egyptian. If you want to add the "independent of revelation" caveat, then the burden of proof is on you to show that Chandler believed in modern revelation.

Um....nope.

You lose again.

You fronted the argument, you get to defend it.

DCP asked you to provide a source who claimed Joseph could translate Egyptian, you replied with Chandler.

Chandler himself makes no such claim, as I pointed out above. You were attempting to put words in his mouth.

Unless you wish us to consider your statement above a retraction?

[Mortal Man]

Your "this line" is generally a straw man that isn't directly applicable to any specific published claims or arguments with which I am familiar, though.

Being relatively new to this board, I was unaware that "this line" is a loaded term. Nevertheless, with my newfound wisdom, I hereby pledge to tiptoe around the fractal boundary of incendiary rhetoric (except perhaps when I really want to cheese certain people off. I'm thinking selek right now.)

Take it for what it's worth, I spend a good deal of time thinking and reading and talking about LDS apologetics

Did I mention how much I enjoy your website?

and feel you've largely missed the boat.

Again, I was unaware of the boat. Is it a ferry? Perhaps I can catch the next one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Um....nope.

You lose again.

You fronted the argument, you get to defend it.

DCP asked you to provide a source who claimed Joseph could translate Egyptian, you replied with Chandler.

Chandler himself makes no such claim, as I pointed out above. You were attempting to put words in his mouth.

Unless you wish us to consider your statement above a retraction?

What we are left with is a rather ambiguous quote that you cant determine anything 100% So by default the quote cannot be use to posite one position or the other. Time to give it up MM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Being relatively new to this board, I was unaware that "this line" is a loaded term. Nevertheless, with my newfound wisdom, I hereby pledge to tiptoe around the fractal boundary of incendiary rhetoric (except perhaps when I really want to cheese certain people off. I'm thinking selek right now.)

I'm not referring to the exact phrase, I'm referring to your creation of a "line of arguments" which you did not provide any foundation or sources for. You posed a series of straw men. I don't believe the arguments you set forth and criticize are actually being advanced by any significant group, person, book, etc. (which "significance" is in the eye of the beholder, in many ways). That's why most of us can agree with you that such arguments are pretty weak in their current explication. But at the same time, I don't know of anyone who is thoughtfully putting forth ideas in that way.

Did I mention how much I enjoy your website?

OK, now you've gone and lost all remaining credibility!

What we are left with is a rather ambiguous quote that you cant determine anything 100% So by default the quote cannot be use to posite one position or the other. Time to give it up MM.

Parenthetically I don't think it has any significant relevance to LDS apologetics whatever Michael Chandler thought.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Parenthetically I don't think it has any significant relevance to LDS apologetics whatever Michael Chandler thought.

Couldnt have said it better.

[Mortal Man]

I'm not referring to the exact phrase, I'm referring to your creation of a "line of arguments" which you did not provide any foundation or sources for. You posed a series of straw men. I don't believe the arguments you set forth and criticize are actually being advanced by any significant group, person, book, etc. (which "significance" is in the eye of the beholder, in many ways). That's why most of us can agree with you that such arguments are pretty weak in their current explication. But at the same time, I don't know of anyone who is thoughtfully putting forth ideas in that way.

I can't speak to your experiences but I can state that I have heard all of these arguments many times. If you insist on a specific source, you can look at Bushman's explanation of the first High Priesthood confirmations in RSR.

In addition (I didn't want to get into this but since you are pushing so hard), I can tell you that I exchanged a series of emails recently with Kevin Barney regarding his Jewish Redactor Theory for the BoA. I like Kevin a lot, he is honest and bright and doesn't throw up smokescreens. I asked him why it was legitimate for a Jew living 2000 years ago to reinterpret Egyptian scenes but illegitimate for Joseph Smith to do so in 1835; i.e., why not eliminate the middle man? He agreed with this point and after some further discussion stated that he thought that Joseph Smith simply did not understand what he was doing. No offense to Kevin, but this strikes me as an explanation that people come to when they have exhausted all other explanations.

In every case I mentioned, the "straw men" were put in front of me by serious apologists; I did not invent any of them. I'm not saying that you have made any of these arguments or even that you have heard any of these arguments. I am only saying that I have heard every one of them from a serious source. (No, I am not going to send you my private emails.)