When is a prophet translating as a prophet?

[_Fence Sitter]

Honorentheos,

So then would that translation fall into the mechanical category? And if it could be shown that the EA/GAEL were used to produce the Book of Abraham then would it also fall into the mechanical category?

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos,

So then would that translation fall into the mechanical category?

That's my understanding right now, though it appears there is a significant amount of elaboration on Joseph's part between the "translation" and the description of the symbol on the KEP.

And if it could be shown that the EA/GAEL were used to produce the Book of Abraham then would it also fall into the mechanical category?

I think that would be the case, though it does not answer the question - which catagory would the EA/GAEL fall into?

[_Fence Sitter]

That's my understanding right now, though it appears there is a significant amount of elaboration on Joseph's part between the "translation" and the description of the symbol on the KEP.

This is where I think Chris Smith's theory is interesting. If Chris is correct then one character broken down into parts can translate into a paragraph and would explain the elaboration on Joseph's part.

I think that would be the case, though it does not answer the question - which category would the EA/GAEL fall into?

Interesting. So objects used in a mechanical translation such as seer stones, sprouts or lexicons are not innately supernatural? (Reminds me of the Life of Brian Scene with the stone seller. "Oh, not like these, sir. Look at this! Feel the quality of that, that's craftsmanship, sir.") It's not like you can find seer stones or magical sprouts just lying on the ground.

[_honorentheos]

That's my understanding right now, though it appears there is a significant amount of elaboration on Joseph's part between the "translation" and the description of the symbol on the KEP.

This is where I think Chris Smith's theory is interesting. If Chris is correct then one character broken down into parts can translate into a paragraph and would explain the elaboration on Joseph's part.

Agreed.

I think that would be the case, though it does not answer the question - which category would the EA/GAEL fall into?

Interesting. So objects used in a mechanical translation such as seer stones, sprouts or lexicons are not innately supernatural? (Reminds me of the Life of Brian Scene with the stone seller. "Oh, not like these, sir. Look at this! Feel the quality of that, that's craftsmanship, sir.") It's not like you can find seer stones or magical sprouts just lying on the ground.

The challenge is to exclude value-judgments from the description to the greatest extent possible. By classifying the translations into methods that are not based on whether or not Joseph Smith was divinely inspired we can at least attempt to reach consensus conclusions on the evolution of Joseph Smith's processes. Even if the interpretation or explanations might differ.

This is not that different from work we do professionally regarding the assessment of scenic quality or visual interest. The process has to be constructed in a defensible manner, and to do so requires removing bias language to the greatest extent possible. In this case, I think it has to require removing references to "secular" vs. "divine" and this includes methodology used in translation. If we don't describe the use of the EA/GAEL in translating the kinderhook plates as mechanical (i.e. - it's use is independent of the users' native ability to translate or their supernatural connections to the divine) then how do we categorize it? And do so without value-judgement entering into the discussion?

[_Fence Sitter]

I think that would be the case, though it does not answer the question - which category would the EA/GAEL fall into?


The challenge is to exclude value-judgments from the description to the greatest extent possible. By classifying the translations into methods that are not based on whether or not Joseph Smith was divinely inspired we can at least attempt to reach consensus conclusions on the evolution of Joseph Smith's processes. Even if the interpretation or explanations might differ.

This is not that different from work we do professionally regarding the assessment of scenic quality or visual interest. The process has to be constructed in a defensible manner, and to do so requires removing bias language to the greatest extent possible. In this case, I think it has to require removing references to "secular" vs. "divine" and this includes methodology used in translation. If we don't describe the use of the EA/GAEL in translating the kinderhook plates as mechanical (i.e. - it's use is independent of the users' native ability to translate or their supernatural connections to the divine) then how do we categorize it? And do so without value-judgement entering into the discussion?

Okay so you have categorized the process Joseph Smith used to translate the Kinderhook figure as mechanical and in doing so you can avoid a value judgement regarding if it was inspired. Why? Is the intent to put on hold the divine vs secular question so you can layout ground work that is acceptable to both sides?

[_honorentheos]

Is the intent to put on hold the divine vs secular question so you can layout ground work that is acceptable to both sides?

Perhaps the question to ask is why undertake the exercise at all? In my mind, doing so is worth while for what it could tell us about Joseph Smith's evolution as seer. I don't know if you would agree with this, but I am not able to say with certainty when and if Joseph Smith was knowingly perpetrating fraud on others and when he thought he may be producing something that wasn't fraudulent. By taking the question of divine-influence out of the question we can atleast examine the evidence as free of this question as possible.

So if we can see a pattern in methods and their results maybe it will say something more about the question you raise and maybe it won't. So in that sense, yes the idea is to put the question aside in order to lay the ground work. I'm not sure if it necessarily CAN be acceptable to both sides but if so then all the better.

[_Fence Sitter]

Perhaps the question to ask is why undertake the exercise at all?

Lol, this is almost exactly the way I phrased it the first time I typed the response instead I just left it at "Why?".

In my mind, doing so is worth while for what it could tell us about Joseph Smith's evolution as seer. I don't know if you would agree with this, but I am not able to say with certainty when and if Joseph Smith was knowingly perpetrating fraud on others and when he thought he may be producing something that wasn't fraudulent.

Neither can I though I believe both occurred frequently.

By taking the question of divine-influence out of the question we can at least examine the evidence as free of this question as possible.

So if we can see a pattern in methods and their results maybe it will say something more about the question you raise and maybe it won't. So in that sense, yes the idea is to put the question aside in order to lay the ground work. I'm not sure if it necessarily CAN be acceptable to both sides but if so then all the better.

[_Drifting]

The only latter day Prophet who translated anything was Joseph Smith.
When the papyrus came back into the hands of the Church the Prophet at the time (Kimball?) had the God given right, according to Mormonism, to translate it all. He didn't/couldn't. Instead he chose to pass it on to a General Authority who dudnt have the Priesthood keys for translation, nor did he have the academic qualifications to translate such a piece.

If the papyrus truly contained the things Joseph claimed, then this was a ridiculously negligent way to treat them. Of course, if they didn't contain such information or if the Prophet had no translator ability then the reasons become far more understandable.

[_honorentheos]

The only latter day Prophet who translated anything was Joseph Smith.
When the papyrus came back into the hands of the Church the Prophet at the time (Kimball?) had the God given right, according to Mormonism, to translate it all. He didn't/couldn't. Instead he chose to pass it on to a General Authority who dudnt have the Priesthood keys for translation, nor did he have the academic qualifications to translate such a piece.

If the papyrus truly contained the things Joseph claimed, then this was a ridiculously negligent way to treat them. Of course, if they didn't contain such information or if the Prophet had no translator ability then the reasons become far more understandable.

It believe the papyrus came into church hands in the mid-late 60's which means that McKay was the prophet.

I wonder - did he believe in his own abilities as prophet enough that he got a thrill before looking at them for the first time? As if he might see something that no one else could see there? I wonder if they tried to use the U&T? I honestly do. Because I then wonder what they thought after it didn't work?

[_sock puppet]

When is a prophet translating as a prophet?

When he doesn't say or write anything?