The apologetic approach of today is so incredibly different from religion of my youth!
For example, the concept of translation:
Joseph Smith never provided a definition. I am not sure that the LDS Church leaders (even in the current day) have ever provided a definition of the term 'translation'. I think you are confusing the question of what it means to translate with the idea of what it looked like when Joseph Smith translated. Those are two very different things....
This seems to be the outcome of insisting that certain conditions must be met, but also must be reconciled with facts and actual events.
But it is the insistence on variations of 'we never thought that' that i find simply astonishing.
...Nowhere has the Church ever described the process of producing the Book of Mormon as a translation process the way that we normally think of translation. Most of the descriptions that we have suggest that he used the Urim and Thummim to do it - which already makes this something that isn't normal translation. You may not like this, but I was never taught this idea that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham in a way that resembled what a professional translator might do...
...We read that Joseph didn't actually have to have the text in front of him to read from it using the seer stone or Nephite interpreters, and so on. Every indicator in these early witness accounts suggests that Joseph is simply a reader of the text...
No, what every indicator suggests is that Smith was simply dictating a fictional story, from out of his imagination.
It is like William Goldman using Simon "S." Morgenstern as the alleged author of The Princess Bride. Morgenstern and the translation process were thrown in to add a layer of authenticity. Fortunately, Goldman did not start off The Princess Bride by having Westley commit robbery and homicide. Additionally, Buttercup was given speaking lines.
There is some speculation that Miracle Max may have spoken Uto-Aztecan as his language of incantations, but we would need a definitive Bayesian analysis from the Interpreter.
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks once said. “One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of 'warts and all' kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now... there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.”
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks once said. “One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of 'warts and all' kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now... there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.”
"And probably shouldn't."
Yes, keep lies in your back pocket when the heat is turned up to hell scorching hot, so you can continue bearing your lying testimonies convincing the brainless... great strategy Dallin. They just cannot tell the truth, it is against their testimony to do so.
