california boy Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Exactly. Given his use of the word claimed, how can anyone think the Parish quote is being used to establish Parish as a "believer". I have one question for you. Would you feel comfortable if the church had quoted the entire Parrish quote in the essay? Do you think they should? Would it be more honest to include the entire quote so that people could see the context of the quote? If you are ok with that, then I see no problem. If you think that the small phrase used is the only part that should be included, then I question your position and the honesty of the church using that partial quote to support their position. I think one thing is clear. People are pretty testy about how the church has distorted things in the past to present a certain narrative. I think those that are objecting to how the church used the quote are manifesting their anger and absolutely don't want that practice to continue. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 48 minutes ago, stemelbow said: To be fair, Tacenda, the last line is suggesting fraud for the past year--that is after Parrish acted as scribe. It could be read to say, Parrish was all on board with the "translation" as he acted as scribe, but then was off board when fraud started, which he claims was for the past year. You can't take that last sentence out of context with the entire statement...the last sentence is the summation of the point that Parrish is making. He lists the examples of Smith various "revelations" 01. The translation of the papyri. 02. The establishment of the Anti- banking Bank 03. His assertion that it will be n over whelming success 04. His fraudulent declaration's regarding the assets held in the bank...these are the points in Parrishes argument of fraud by Smith the last sentence is his summation and conclusion of those points. It must be taken as a whole 1
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You can't take that last sentence out of context with the entire statement...the last sentence is the summation of the point that Parrish is making. He lists the examples of Smith various "revelations" 01. The translation of the papyri. 02. The establishment of the Anti- banking Bank 03. His assertion that it will be n over whelming success 04. His fraudulent declaration's regarding the assets held in the bank...these are the points in Parrishes argument of fraud by Smith the last sentence is his summation and conclusion of those points. It must be taken as a whole Hmm...I'm reading it differently. it seems he made no issue of fraud concerning the translation portion--he could very well be using that to say he was on board at that time. Moreso with the stuff concerning the banking stuff. 2
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You can't take that last sentence out of context with the entire statement...the last sentence is the summation of the point that Parrish is making. He lists the examples of Smith various "revelations" 01. The translation of the papyri. 02. The establishment of the Anti- banking Bank 03. His assertion that it will be n over whelming success 04. His fraudulent declaration's regarding the assets held in the bank...these are the points in Parrishes argument of fraud by Smith the last sentence is his summation and conclusion of those points. It must be taken as a whole Exactly and when he said "claimed", I read that as...claimed: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
bluebell Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, california boy said: I have one question for you. Would you feel comfortable if the church had quoted the entire Parrish quote in the essay? Do you think they should? Would it be more honest to include the entire quote so that people could see the context of the quote? If you are ok with that, then I see no problem. If you think that the small phrase used is the only part that should be included, then I question your position and the honesty of the church using that partial quote to support their position. I think one thing is clear. People are pretty testy about how the church has distorted things in the past to present a certain narrative. I think those that are objecting to how the church used the quote are manifesting their anger and absolutely don't want that practice to continue. I wouldn't care if the entire quote was used, but from a scholarly point of view, I don't think it's appropriate to use the whole thing. If the quote was used to support Parish's feelings about the translation, then the whole thing would need to be presented. But since it was used to support JS's feelings about the translation, whether or not Parish believed it seems irrelevant and therefore, the whole quote seems unnecessary. 3
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: I have one question for you. Would you feel comfortable if the church had quoted the entire Parrish quote in the essay? Do you think they should? Would it be more honest to include the entire quote so that people could see the context of the quote? If you are ok with that, then I see no problem. If you think that the small phrase used is the only part that should be included, then I question your position and the honesty of the church using that partial quote to support their position. I think one thing is clear. People are pretty testy about how the church has distorted things in the past to present a certain narrative. I think those that are objecting to how the church used the quote are manifesting their anger and absolutely don't want that practice to continue. Sure, I'd be fine with a full quote. I have no issue with more information being provided. I've taken the Church to task on this board many times for their selective history and misrepresentations. I just don't believe this is one of them.
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 30 minutes ago, bluebell said: I wouldn't care if the entire quote was used, but from a scholarly point of view, I don't think it's appropriate to use the whole thing. If the quote was used to support Parish's feelings about the translation, then the whole thing would need to be presented. But since it was used to support JS's feelings about the translation, whether or not Parish believed it seems irrelevant and therefore, the whole quote seems unnecessary. I admit confused by the claim that the quote was used to show that Joseph thought the translation was by the gift and power of God. The quote from the essay is that he did translate by revelation, not that he thought he did. The quote doesn't really help. I don't think it's as egregious a thing as I first did, thanks to Nevo's explanations to me. But it's still a problem, in my view.
california boy Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I wouldn't care if the entire quote was used, but from a scholarly point of view, I don't think it's appropriate to use the whole thing. If the quote was used to support Parish's feelings about the translation, then the whole thing would need to be presented. But since it was used to support JS's feelings about the translation, whether or not Parish believed it seems irrelevant and therefore, the whole quote seems unnecessary. 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Sure, I'd be fine with a full quote. I have no issue with more information being provided. I've taken the Church to task on this board many times for their selective history and misrepresentations. I just don't believe this is one of them. Well then perhaps the solution to solve the issue is to include the entire quote so that others will see the full context of the quote. What is obvious is that some people do feel it is a distortion of the quote to not put the whole thing in context. Perhaps if enough people think that is a problem the church will insert the entire quote and the problem would be solved. Right now, it seems to only be working for some people. 1
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 If true, Parrish might have seen a few questionable actions by Joseph such as the training of a dove and walking on water. https://books.google.com/books?id=g41JAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=when+did+joseph+smith+walk+on+water&source=bl&ots=KPJGWjDT9G&sig=GvHGxz0cZY_12VovgKh1-rkqawc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN54vluNHRAhUM92MKHRGvCfU4ChDoAQgzMAY#v=onepage&q=when did joseph smith walk on water&f=false
bluebell Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 33 minutes ago, california boy said: Well then perhaps the solution to solve the issue is to include the entire quote so that others will see the full context of the quote. What is obvious is that some people do feel it is a distortion of the quote to not put the whole thing in context. Perhaps if enough people think that is a problem the church will insert the entire quote and the problem would be solved. Right now, it seems to only be working for some people. Like i said, i don't have a problem with it. I'm also of the opinion though that if it holds up to scholarly review (meaning, if the church used the reference the way that most scholars would use it), then it's acceptable. I also think that we have to get away from the idea that there is some way to please everyone. There just isn't. No matter what the church does, there will be people who think it's acceptable and others that think its immoral or deceptive. People can be presented with the exact same information and come away with completely contradictory ideas of what it said and how it should be dealt with. I'm seeing this today with Trump's inauguration speech. Half of my Facebook friends think that it was great, and the other half think it was horrible (there are some that are neutral about it i'm sure). The speech was the same, the only difference was in the people listening.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Tacenda said: If true, Parrish might have seen a few questionable actions by Joseph such as the training of a dove and walking on water. https://books.google.com/books?id=g41JAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=when+did+joseph+smith+walk+on+water&source=bl&ots=KPJGWjDT9G&sig=GvHGxz0cZY_12VovgKh1-rkqawc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN54vluNHRAhUM92MKHRGvCfU4ChDoAQgzMAY#v=onepage&q=when did joseph smith walk on water&f=false I hope you don't consider either of these a historical event. Do you really think given the punchline that this event happened? Edited January 20, 2017 by JLHPROF
bluebell Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I admit confused by the claim that the quote was used to show that Joseph thought the translation was by the gift and power of God. The quote from the essay is that he did translate by revelation, not that he thought he did. The quote doesn't really help. I don't think it's as egregious a thing as I first did, thanks to Nevo's explanations to me. But it's still a problem, in my view. I thought the quote was that JS claimed to translate by revelation? 1
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: I thought the quote was that JS claimed to translate by revelation? I may be a little nitpicky here. Here's the words the immediately precede the note: Quote Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records Somewhere along the line it seems like someone indicated that this was all about Joseph thought he had translated by revelation. To me it seems this is about others thinking it was by revelation. I have little doubt that Parrish, at least at some point, thought it was done by revelation, but this quote doesn't support that notion. This was included in a rant about how he thought Joseph and others were frauds. Edited January 20, 2017 by stemelbow 1
bluebell Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 43 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I may be a little nitpicky here. Here's the words the immediately precede the note: Somewhere along the line it seems like someone indicated that this was all about Joseph thought he had translated by revelation. To me it seems this is about others thinking it was by revelation. I have little doubt that Parrish, at least at some point, thought it was done by revelation, but this quote doesn't support that notion. This was included in a rant about how he thought Joseph and others were frauds. I don't think your point of view is unreasonable. How I read it though is that the essay uses the John Whitmir quote to back up the statement of "and others" believed it was by revelation, while the Parish quote is a reference to back up the statement of "Joseph Smith" believed it was by revelation. Because there are those who accuse JS of knowingly committing a fraud, establishing his beliefs could be beneficial. 3
Calm Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 The article that looks like it is a satire starts out with "one of Joe Smith's holy clan". If I am reading it correctly, it does not identify who it is, but it seems unlikely it is Joseph himself. Given there is no report of this happening elsewhere I am aware of, it sounds like it is fiction and likely understood to be such, given the usage of the "son of Erin" to provide the humor. AntiIrish and antiMormon all in one.
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think your point of view is unreasonable. How I read it though is that the essay uses the John Whitmir quote to back up the statement of "and others" believed it was by revelation, while the Parish quote is a reference to back up the statement of "Joseph Smith" believed it was by revelation. Because there are those who accuse JS of knowingly committing a fraud, establishing his beliefs could be beneficial. Yeah I'm at a loss as to why this quotes means anything, really. The quoted portion of the essay doesn't say anything about what Joseph believed it to be. But again, as Nevo pointed out there is little controversial in the notion that Joseph believed it was by revelation. But the quoted portion of the essay and Parrish' quote don't seem to jive. One says what Joseph claimed (Parrish), the other says people believed it was by revelation (the essay).
pogi Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 4 hours ago, california boy said: I have one question for you. Would you feel comfortable if the church had quoted the entire Parrish quote in the essay? Do you think they should? Would it be more honest to include the entire quote so that people could see the context of the quote? List the entire document in a footnote? Seriously? Are we taking scholarly integrity to a bit of an extreme here? The only relevant part of the document which acted to support the essay was the quoted portion. The rest of the document was irrelevant and does no harm to the integrity of the assertion of the essay and makes it no less true, so there is no scholarly mandate to include it.
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, pogi said: List the entire document in a footnote? Seriously? Are we taking scholarly integrity to a bit of an extreme here? The only relevant part of the document which acted to support the essay was the quoted portion. The rest of the document was irrelevant and does no harm to the integrity of the assertion of the essay and makes it no less true, so there is no scholarly mandate to include it. I disagree wholeheartedly. Putting it in context changes the whole thing, imo. 2
pogi Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, stemelbow said: But the quoted portion of the essay and Parrish' quote don't seem to jive. One says what Joseph claimed (Parrish), the other says people believed it was by revelation (the essay). I agree they could have used a better source. While it is not expressly stated that Parish was a believer in the process, the document is evidence that he was involved in the process. Could there be any doubt that he was a believer? I am sure that there are other supporting documents to show that he was a believer.
pogi Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I disagree wholeheartedly. Putting it in context changes the whole thing, imo. Does it change the fact that Parish WAS a believer?
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree they could have used a better source. While it is not expressly stated that Parish was a believer in the process, the document is evidence that he was involved in the process. Could there be any doubt that he was a believer? I am sure that there are other supporting documents to show that he was a believer. The quotation that was used was the opening of his attack against Joseph Smith. That's simple enough. it is not evidence that he thought Joseph did translate by the power of God, even if he did think so at some point. It's a problematic source. The essay is much better without it included. 1
california boy Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 29 minutes ago, pogi said: List the entire document in a footnote? Seriously? Are we taking scholarly integrity to a bit of an extreme here? The only relevant part of the document which acted to support the essay was the quoted portion. The rest of the document was irrelevant and does no harm to the integrity of the assertion of the essay and makes it no less true, so there is no scholarly mandate to include it. If an eyewitness account is important to include in explaining what happened, then there should be no problem including the entire eyewitness account. It certainly would add clarity and context to the situation. When in doubt, and when there seems to be confusion on context, then more information only clarifies the situation. Obviously, there are some that feel more context is necessary. What harm could that possibly do to the essay that is written to clarify an issue. 1
pogi Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) Here is my problem with the author of the article in the OP. He said: "Examining that footnote reveals something which reflects the scholarly character of the essay." While I agree that they could have chosen a better source, it doesn't change the fact that Parish was a believing part of the process as Joseph's scribe. Remove the footnote, and the statement remains true. This guy is turning a gnat into a camel, and is guilty of cherry picking himself. He is attempting to pollute the integrity of the entire essay due to the lesser portion of a single footnote. I think the scholarly character of the essay is excellent with 46 excellent footnotes. Only the lesser half -a side note- of one footnote is in question. Nobody is actually challenging the content of the essay itself. Removing the lesser half of the footnote in question doesn't do harm to the integrity of the essay. There had to be a good reason for them to choose that quote when there are, no doubt, many quotes which testify of belief in Joseph's abilities. Perhaps they used it because it is the only quote which goes into much detail about the process of translation of the BoA using a scribe. What if the quote was taken from the context of a believing Parish? There is no doubt that he was once a believer. Would you guys challenge the quote, complaining that it is taken out of context of the entirety of the life of Parish? Where do you draw the line? When does it become honest to state that "people believed in Joseph's abilities"? Is that statement only true if people maintain belief for their whole life? I don't think that was the intent or purpose of the essay to show that they were life-long believers. It certainly is not stated that way anyway. Does anybody actually have a problem with the content of the essay itself? If not, give these guys a friggin break! It is a GOOD essay. Edited January 20, 2017 by pogi
Ouagadougou Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 On 18.01.2017 at 8:18 AM, Tacenda said: Okay, hold the horses.... http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/cherry-picking-the-book-of-abraham-essay/ Critics and apologetics...doing the same thing? Of course they are. Any little fact that might support either side will be used to their advantage. 1
PacMan Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I'm really late to the party here, but the cherry-picking allegation is hypocritically pathetic. First, what's more cherry-picking then focusing on a parenthetical string citation....in a footnote! Second, the whole purpose of the citations was to explain Joseph Smith's revelatory process. The Parrish citation confirms the Whitmer quote. Indeed, how in the world can Whitmer, Parrish, or anyone else authenticate the validity of the revaltory process itself? They couldn't. But they CAN validate Joseph Smith's process. The proposition for which the parenthetical is used is completely proper. Sure, it's not Blue Book proper, but it's close enough. I will also say that the fact that Parrish's testimony was antagonistic is also highly probative. Being antagonistic, he would have little reason to validate Joseph Smith's process unless it's what actually occurred. It's akin to a statement against party interests. Edited January 24, 2017 by PacMan 1
Recommended Posts