palerobber wrote:Tobin wrote:I absolutely understand that "critics" of Mormonism aren't going to believe any of that. But, they don't believe that God revealed the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham or talked with Joseph Smith in the first place.
Tobin, all through out this thread you keep using the term "revealed". that may be an accurate term in the general sense of anything that god helps bring to light could be said to have been "revealed". but when discussing more narrowly the various canonized writings of Joseph Smith, it seems to me you use this term to deliberately muddy the water.
some of the canon was given by revelation and some by translation. and from the way the term "translation" is used in the D&C, it's clear that we're talking about the common everyday sense of the word, only with the ability to perform provided by a gift from God rather than by secular training. in the D&C there is zero indication that by "translation" what is really meant is "revelation while meditating upon a prop which we tell everyone is the authentical original even though it's not."
so could you explain your fondness for using the term "revealed" when talking about something that the D&C says was "translated"?
Actually, revealed is a better term for it. "translated" connotates that Joseph Smith had some innate ability or knowledge of the languages in question. I seriously doubt he possessed any knowledge of the languages involved. And I also believe it would have taken a great deal of time for the Lord to teach him the langauges and nuances involved which would have hampered the effort to restore and reveal these documents. I really don't see why the critics care one way or the other which he did. The whole claim is predicated on man speaking with God and God revealing (or teaching the man to translate) the documents. Since most critics place little value on these documents, it seems to me that only reason they attack them is to dissuade those that believe in them from doing so.