A Reason For Faith: Problematical Apologetics

[_DonBradley]

Sock,

One thing that is interesting is that I believe that the plates were divided into pictures and characters. There is a line drawn near the top of each one and the top of the plates had pictures. I believe that the character that Don disassembles was meant to be a ship. If they were looked at that way by Joseph, (as they were with others close to him) it is less likely (in my opinion, in my opinion, in my opinion) that he would be doing any disassembling of that character.



And I see a mistake I made, it should be four ROWS of characters. oops.

I'm glad you can document exactly how Joseph Smith was understanding these.

Bzzzzzt!

[_DonBradley]

And, Grindael, let's recall that my GAEL match explains the actual content reported for Joseph Smith's KP translation, and explains it as parsimoniously as humanly possible--by tracing it to a single character match.

When you have an explanatory theory that can explain that content as fully and as parsimoniously, as opposed to say, not explaining it at all, or only with very complicated leaps, then this will be a fair fight between explanations--and not till then!

[_grindael]

I'm glad you can document exactly how Joseph Smith was understanding these.

Bzzzzzt!

I thought I was clear with my three in my opinion's that it was my opinion.

[_DonBradley]

demise of the Adam-God theory

So was there something that Young said after 1873 where he denied it? Or were you speaking of it's demise in the Church. And I agree that 1847 is where Young began making mention of it. And yes, you can say that Smith taught things close to it and it was misinterpreted by Young. I don't see it that way, but I'm not concerned that we disagree about it. I also have research that has not been published anywhere. As for the rest, I do take what you say seriously, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse here. I've enjoyed our chat. If you are not holding your Adam God findings close to the vest, I'd be interested in anything you would care to share. You've shared some of your research on other things with me that I promised not to reveal, and I would do the same with this if required. It would surely help me understand it better, I'm sure.

It is always an honor to me that you take the time to you do to comment on things I write and none of it ever offends me. Thank you.

Great! Let's talk privately about this. I've got information I think you'll find interesting! =)

Don

[_DonBradley]

Mormons believe in a deity who operates according to natural law and creates using the materials at hand--e.g., the creation account in Abraham.

The creation account of the Book of Abraham which was stolen from the Bible is just another fairy tale that has survived through generations of time and the Dark Ages.

OK. Let's grant just that description. How is it in any way relevant to how I mentioned the Book of Abraham above? I was showing that Mormon scripture teaches creation from something. Is it not true that the Book of Abraham teaches this?

The Abrahamic account of god telling him to murder his son is a horrific story -- pure evil, as is the Bible god. The Book of Abraham and the Explanations of the Facsimiles as translated by Joseph Smith is pure garbage.

How do you sleep at night?

No, don't answer me. I don't want to know. You have zero credibility in my eyes. You are lost.

I sleep beautifully. And all the more so since my return to Mormonism.

I'm sorry that your own path has taken you to such vitriolic feelings against Mormonism and against religion all together. You made a really cool Mormon and I was sad to see the apologists ostracize you.

I hope that life is treating you wonderfully, because I think you deserve it.

Don

[_grindael]

Really? Wow. Ok. THANKS! I emailed you my phone #, we got a new one.

[_DonBradley]

It's been a long time since I read up on your findings about the KP, about the connection of the first character of one plate and its JSjr 'translation' lining up with GAEL entry for a very similar character. So if you explained what you have concluded (if you have drawn any conclusions) in this regard, I'm sorry I don't remember. In any event, I would like to know where/how you think the fabricators got the characters for the KP.

Hey Sock,

I see that Grindael has provided an answer already about the Chinese tea chest. That's the main source that I know of as well.

About my GAEL match, and to provide a corrective to what Grindael is saying... As I mentioned above, I initially stumbled onto the connection. I was reading the GAEL and saw that there was a single character definition from which one could derive the content that Clayton says Joseph Smith got from the Kinderhook plates. So I looked on those plates and found a matching character.

To fully understand this match, you need to know three things:

First, on its first two pages the GAEL presents a system for "dissecting" characters into their component parts. It then begins giving definitions for these individual parts. The character that gives the definition matching Joseph Smith's reported KP translation can be found at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates. For the match to be exact, additional lines written on top of the boat shape have to be removed: but this is exactly what the GAEL instructs should be done before interpreting the characters.

Second, the character in question is arguably the most prominent of the some 200 characters on the Kinderhook plates. I've done this experiment: I've shown people the facsimilies and asked them which character stands out most prominently. I've had a couple people torn between two characters, but I've yet to have anyone not indicate this character as the most prominent or one of the two most prominent.

Third, the matching GAEL character and its definition occur on one of the very first pages of the GAEL after the rules of dissection are given. I don't have it front of me at this moment, but I think it's on the second page of character definitions. (Or it maybe the third.)

So...in order to "translate" using the GAEL and get the content Clayton says he did, all Joseph Smith would have to do is read 2 or 3 pages into the GAEL and match the symbol there with what is perhaps the most prominent symbol in the entire set of Kinderhook plates.

What I'm proposing is about as simple an explanation of the reported translation content as one could possibly find. And I have eye witness evidence to back it up too.

Grindael will quibble with all of this. And that's his right. If he comes up with a better explanation--one that better explains the text and explains it more simply, I'll take it! But that would be pretty hard to do.

Cheers,

Don

[_DonBradley]

Really? Wow. Ok. THANKS! I emailed you my phone #, we got a new one.

Sweet! Let's do it!

[_grindael]

And, Grindael, let's recall that my GAEL match explains the actual content reported for Joseph Smith's KP translation, and explains it as parsimoniously as humanly possible--by tracing it to a single character match.

When you have an explanatory theory that can explain that content as fully and as parsimoniously, as opposed to say, not explaining it at all, or only with very complicated leaps, then this will be a fair fight between explanations--and not till then!

Depends on what one thinks is complicated.

[_DonBradley]

At the time and place, the realistic options were those Sock and I already discussed.

The realistic option, for God Almighty, was to use a convicted charlatan, and then a tyrant?

I guess none of these people had the wherewithal to be God's restorative spokesperson?

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/18th-century.php

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/19th-century.php

Your position makes absolutely zero sense.

- Doc

Cam,

I initially didn't respond to this because you're talking past me, not to me, and it's hard to have any real dialogue on that basis.

You know I don't view Joseph Smith as a charlatan, so in phrasing it that way, you're not trying to represent my views at all.

Also, the question at hand is who should have been chosen to succeed Joseph Smith as president of the Mormon church at his death in 1844. You proposed myriad and sundry figures of the 1700s and 1800s, virtually all of whom were non-Mormons. That's like saying FDR should have been succeeded by Winston Churchill. He wasn't American, so it was'n even an option. Similarly, non-Mormons don't qualify as Mormon church presidents.

You're playing a game with no rules: ignore the actual historical situation and throw irrelevant answers at it.

Who in the Mormon church should have succeeded Joseph Smith, and why?

If you want to ignore the actual issue and just take potshots at me, I'll ignore your posts and let you continue to talk to yourself.

Don