Willy Law wrote:It is difficult to argue when you can just claim that Joseph was "inspired" despite what could or could not have been on the plates.
Without the plates this is particularly difficult.
The apologists are smart to begin to move away from the need of the plates, let's see if the church follows suit.
I think if more of this ever gets sorted out the Church will accept findings. As of now, there really isn't much to glean from it all. There were plates. The witnesses suggest, it seems, they were not consulted as Joseph dictated the words. How would translation work on such conditions? Who knows. I believe I've seen someone, can't remember who or where, suggest perhaps there was a intermediary doing the actual translation that then was given to Joseph which he dictated. The intermediary of course would be a heavenly being--one from another world, so the speak.
Moroni will be the only one that will be truly irritated by their shift away from the plates. Poor dude had to lug them all over the continent, for what?
I'm sure its all behidn him now. He's over it. I hated all the physical work my dad made me do growing up, and much of the time I think he just did it to make me work with no real results to come. I'm not mad about it now.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stem, Can you at least admit that to us skeptics or to outsiders examining the church, that the apologists move the goal post every time their original assertions are proven false? Seems to happen with Book of Abraham and now Book of Mormon. Papyri are not what we thought they were, so we create a scenario where there was no need for the papyri. Gold Plates are not what we claimed them to be so we will just say the gold plates obviously are not literal or do not contain what we claimed they contained. Apologists are making the truth claims of the church unrecognizable to the chapel member.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
Willy Law wrote:Stem, Can you at least admit that to us skeptics or to outsiders examining the church, that the apologists move the goal post every time their original assertions are proven false?
I think I can agree that assumptions are often discredited regarding things like what does the Book of Mormon suggest when it say... I really don't think its as easy as critics try to paint it for sure. But the good you can find is that LDS are listening to criticisms and are trying to figure out with criticisms in mind whether there is reason to believe still.
Seems to happen with Book of Abraham and now Book of Mormon. Papyri are not what we thought they were, so we create a scenario where there was no need for the papyri.
I don't think its about creating a senario, but examining that which we think we know with what we can discern from the evidence. Some things take a while before they are examined closely.
Gold Plates are not what we claimed them to be so we will just say the gold plates obviously are not literal or do not contain what we claimed they contained. Apologists are making the truth claims of the church unrecognizable to the chapel member.
Nah..the ultimately truth claims remain the same--Jesus is the Savior, afterall.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
bcspace wrote:Well, so far you have St. John quoting from both "halves" of Isaiah in the New Testament and attributing them to the same author (John 12:37–38 => Isaiah 53:1 and John 12:40–41 => Isaiah 6:9–10). Don't we also go back to as far as 200 BC and no indication of separate texts? And isn't Deutero-Isaiah an outgrowth of Doederlein's 19th century notion that Isaiah couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem?
It would seem that Deutero-Isaiah remains just a hypothesis, not even a theory. I'd say Nehor is right in the other thread when he says you'll only convince LDS who don't believe the ancients could prophecy.
Deutero-Isaiah is a fact. If you'd ever bothered to read Isaiah, it's obvious. But it's also the scholarly consensus.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
It is quite possible that the Deutero Isaiah portions found in the Book of Mormon were not put in there by Nephi, nor Mormon. Perhaps what Nephi and Mormon had in the Book of Mormon is something a bit different than the Deutero Isaiah portions that are also found in the KJV. But, since the KJV in Joseph Smith' time was by and large the Bible in English, God let it be that the KJV, Deutero-Isaiah, stuff was used in the translation.
That's only possible if you discount everything that's actually written in the Book of Mormon. You throw the Book of Mormon under the bus to try to save it, but it doesn't work.
Where's your evidence?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
It is quite possible that the Deutero Isaiah portions found in the Book of Mormon were not put in there by Nephi, nor Mormon. Perhaps what Nephi and Mormon had in the Book of Mormon is something a bit different than the Deutero Isaiah portions that are also found in the KJV. But, since the KJV in Joseph Smith' time was by and large the Bible in English, God let it be that the KJV, Deutero-Isaiah, stuff was used in the translation.
That's only possible if you discount everything that's actually written in the Book of Mormon. You through the Book of Mormon under the bus to try to save it, but it doesn't work.
Where's your evidence?
Any evidence in response to Buffalo's challenge?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
bcspace wrote:Well, so far you have St. John quoting from both "halves" of Isaiah in the New Testament and attributing them to the same author (John 12:37–38 => Isaiah 53:1 and John 12:40–41 => Isaiah 6:9–10). Don't we also go back to as far as 200 BC and no indication of separate texts? And isn't Deutero-Isaiah an outgrowth of Doederlein's 19th century notion that Isaiah couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem?
It would seem that Deutero-Isaiah remains just a hypothesis, not even a theory. I'd say Nehor is right in the other thread when he says you'll only convince LDS who don't believe the ancients could prophecy.
Deutero-Isaiah is a fact. If you'd ever bothered to read Isaiah, it's obvious. But it's also the scholarly consensus.
No, it is not a fact, your delusions of adequacy notwithstanding. It is, however, the scholarly consensus that a later author (and perhaps another author) redacted the original Isaiah's text.
stemelbow wrote: As far as we understand the plates weren't used in the translation. I suppose they could have in some way, but there is no witness testimony that suggests as much as Joseph, of course, never says anything about it.
This is one of the apologetic arguments about the translation of the Book of Mormon that bothers me the most: the idea that somehow the plates "weren't used" or "weren't important" in the translation process.
Look, either the Golden Plates that supposedly Nephi wrote on, Moroni redacted, etc. were important or they weren't. If they weren't, why the silly story in the Book of Mormon about keeping and preserving the plates for future generation, etc.?
It seems like the apologists for the church are even willing to throw the Golden Plates under the bus to defend the church.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park