How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Uncle Ed wrote:
Shulem wrote:
To goof is to imply one makes a mistake or a blunder. The pretended translator wasn't just making a mistake or blundering. He was pretending -- he was lying! He knew he didn't know what the characters really meant. He knew he could't really read Egyptian. He made some stuff up out of thin air with the clear intention of deceiving everyone with his translations and explanations. This is not goofing up. It is lying.

:evil:

Paul O

Lying is not something that can be shown in this instance. He lied about polygamy, but even at those times it was more like a qualifying rather than lying; e.g. "What a thing it is to be accused of having six wives when I can only count one": Joseph Smith had not cohabited with any but Emma for the last nine months of his life, so in his mind he was telling the truth, from a certain pov.

I believe that Joseph Smith believed that he had a sometimes "on" sometimes "off" spiritual gift for "translating" sacred texts. But he was also trying to improve his common knowledge about languages, taking Hebrew and German lessons for instance. He wasn't a liar, but he also dissembled truth with his enemies, like Abraham....


Joseph Smith isn't alive to be interrogated, so we simply have to use our best judgment on whether he intended to deceive (lied) or screwed up the translation that he genuinely thought was the ancient writings of abraham (goofed). In order for him to have goofed up, you have to assume he actually believed that the resulting translation of the text and explanations of the facsimiles was correct. If there is a God, we also have to assume that an all knowing God would not have signed off on Joseph Smith's translation. Now that we know what a correct translation of the Joseph Smith papyri looks like, and compare them to Joseph Smith's translations it is hard to call his translation a goof. He wrote 5 chapters of text that had absolutely nothing to do with the papyri, and invented completely inaccurate explanations of the facsimiles. He was either completely insane, or intentionally created a fraud.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Uncle Ed »

DarkHelmet wrote:Joseph Smith isn't alive to be interrogated, so we simply have to use our best judgment on whether he intended to deceive (lied) or screwed up the translation that he genuinely thought was the ancient writings of abraham (goofed). In order for him to have goofed up, you have to assume he actually believed that the resulting translation of the text and explanations of the facsimiles was correct. If there is a God, we also have to assume that an all knowing God would not have signed off on Joseph Smith's translation. Now that we know what a correct translation of the Joseph Smith papyri looks like, and compare them to Joseph Smith's translations it is hard to call his translation a goof. He wrote 5 chapters of text that had absolutely nothing to do with the papyri, and invented completely inaccurate explanations of the facsimiles. He was either completely insane, or intentionally created a fraud.

I don't see any reason for judging him completely either one or the other. Mental illness is much more complex than that. And so is metaphysical perspective. Joseph Smith has been viewed by critics as living in the metaphysical world as much or more than the empirical (words to that effect are offered by Grant Palmer, If I recall correctly). If that is "insanity" it is a highly functional and consistent "insanity". If there is one feature about Joseph Smith that is consistent it is his commitment to his religious world view, which influenced his relationships intensely. His other consistent trait was open friendship to anyone, including those that he had to forgive for injuring him, which he always seems to have done if they wanted to return to his circle of friends and loved ones. If Joseph Smith was "insane" or a blatant knowing liar I have real trouble seeing how either trait would be possible....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Themis »

Uncle Ed wrote:The Lord also said that the Amerinds were Lamanites, and a bunch of other things were said by "the Lord".


I take your use of scare quotes that you recognize that all we have is Joseph claiming to speak for God.

One hundred percent accuracy is not required.


I would hope it wouldn't be far off. Kinda useless if it's not.

Nor is 24/7 status required in order for a person to be a "translator" at some other place and time.


Actually it would be. If one can translate from one language to another, I don't see why thy wouldn't be able to 24/7. Now with Joseph he seemed to suggest he learned how from God, but we can go just with he being able to get the translation from God. Again if the process is is hit and miss then it is again useless. With Joseph though he failed every-time on translations we can verify.

When Joseph Smith holds up a scroll or some plates or a psalter and says what it says, and is shown to be mistaken later, it does not follow that he was never a "translator".


No, but it becomes evidence that he couldn't, even though he claimed to be able to. Either he is lying or deceiving himself. Either one has the same result.

It does make absolute confidence in his revelatory powers impossible. Perhaps, given enough time, and some reduction in our technology, Joseph Smith's mistakes can be eradicated from the canon of "history" and he'll become as infallible as Moses or Abraham, et al. the "genuine prophets" of ancient mythology....


Doubtful. He doesn't have the advantage these mythical figures do. The issue in regards to the Joseph being called of God to restore God's church is whether he can be trusted. Can his claims that can be verified hold up. If they don't, then this is evidence he was either lying or deceiving himself. I think we can find plenty of examples of both when it come to religious figures. What translations hold up to scrutiny. I don't see any including the Book of Mormon. Maybe someone can come up with one I may have missed.
42
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Shulem »

DarkHelmet wrote:
Joseph Smith isn't alive to be interrogated, so we simply have to use our best judgment on whether he intended to deceive (lied) or screwed up the translation that he genuinely thought was the ancient writings of abraham (goofed)


But, when he was alive he was interrogated and we have witness to these accounts which help shed light on the fraud perpetrated by the Polygamous Joseph Smith:

Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past, p. 385; Nauvoo, May 1844

"Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet, 'This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis.' The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking on a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion, 'Why, that’s as plain as pikestaff,' was the rejoinder. 'Before the Fall snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment of their agency in the ruin of man.' We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct revelation."


Do I smell a fraud? Yes I do! Joseph Smith the fraud prophet!

SLAM DUNK!

Paul O
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Uncle Ed »

Themis wrote:
I take your use of scare quotes that you recognize that all we have is Joseph claiming to speak for God.

... The issue in regards to the Joseph being called of God to restore God's church is whether he can be trusted. Can his claims that can be verified hold up. If they don't, then this is evidence he was either lying or deceiving himself. I think we can find plenty of examples of both when it come to religious figures. What translations hold up to scrutiny. I don't see any including the Book of Mormon. Maybe someone can come up with one I may have missed.


Yes, "scare quotes" point to qualification in my use of them. I accept that the concept under discussion is qualified from my perspective: I have a problem with the concepts, either believing, or understanding. So when I put "God" into quotes, I am allowing that the word "God" is qualified: I am not talking about any dogmatic assertion of organized religion, but I am admitting that I believe in "God", without knowing anything outside of my own limited thinking about what "God Is". Confusingly, I also use quotes to refer to known quotations, as in the next line of text below.

We have the Book of Mormon. We have Joseph Smith's church. "By their fruits shall they be known". Not by their physical evidences of assertions made. No religion is without enigma and contradiction. Their fruits are all that count. "Scripture" comes through acceptance as such. Without that acceptance the written word fails to have any power. The contents of Joseph Smith's scripture are demonstrable. The provenance of their mode or origin is the only problematic part for some people (including myself)....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Themis »

Uncle Ed wrote:
We have the Book of Mormon. We have Joseph Smith's church. "By their fruits shall they be known".


What fruits would those be? We have some good fruits from Harry Potter. How about Scientology? Buddism? Humanists? How do these fruits prove God exists or that some movem,ent is God's moevment.

Not by their physical evidences of assertions made.


The physical evidences help us understand better what happened or probably happened. With Joseph it tells us his claims are not true. It tells us the Book of Mormon is just fiction as is the Book of Abraham. Looking at all the evidence it tells us the his other claimed revelations are most likely fiction as well. It doesn't mean he can't do good things. It doesn't mean the church he started cannot survive and become good in many ways. there are countless examples of this.

No religion is without enigma and contradiction.


There all man made.

Their fruits are all that count.


Just be careful to make sure you get the right beliefs from the fruits, and not ones that really don't have anything to do with them. Many seem to make this mistake with the LDS church.

"Scripture" comes through acceptance as such. Without that acceptance the written word fails to have any power.


Same is true for Scientology. Even some may view Harry Potter as scripture.

The contents of Joseph Smith's scripture are demonstrable. The provenance of their mode or origin is the only problematic part for some people (including myself)....


Yes. It demonstrable they are fiction. That they borrow from the environment around him. That he would borrow things he views as good is not a surprise, but it's good to understand we don't need to get it from LDS scripture unless you want to.
42
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Uncle Ed »

Uncle Ed wrote:We have the Book of Mormon. We have Joseph Smith's church. "By their fruits shall they be known".
Themis wrote:What fruits would those be? We have some good fruits from Harry Potter. How about Scientology? Buddism? Humanists? How do these fruits prove God exists or that some movem,ent is God's moevment.

Why make distinctions? On what basis would one distinction be superior to another? If someone gets good value out of their beliefs then where is the argument against it? That's just the point: there are well over six billion religions on this planet, one for every individual.
The physical evidences help us understand better what happened or probably happened. With Joseph it tells us his claims are not true. It tells us the Book of Mormon is just fiction as is the Book of Abraham. Looking at all the evidence it tells us the his other claimed revelations are most likely fiction as well. It doesn't mean he can't do good things. It doesn't mean the church he started cannot survive and become good in many ways. there are countless examples of this.

And how is the Bible not also mostly fictitious? Since Book of Mormon studies are continually making associations with growing discoveries in archaeology and the other sciences, it seems that the only real advantage the Bible has over the Book of Mormon is a big head start.
There all man made.

Then Joseph Smith's religion is just as valid as those before and those that come after. "Valid" does not equal success. That is something nobody has control over.
Just be careful to make sure you get the right beliefs from the fruits, and not ones that really don't have anything to do with them. Many seem to make this mistake with the LDS church.

You would have to be much more specific in order to make your point.
Same is true for Scientology. Even some may view Harry Potter as scripture.

"Scripture" is wholly subjective, so any of our imaginative and inspiring literature might function as such.
Yes. It demonstrable they are fiction. That they borrow from the environment around him. That he would borrow things he views as good is not a surprise, but it's good to understand we don't need to get it from LDS scripture unless you want to.

Again, fictions are something that all religious writing and creating share in common. And you are right, nobody has to accept assertions of truth that they are not convinced by....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Themis »

Uncle Ed wrote:Why make distinctions? On what basis would one distinction be superior to another?


What distinctions are you referring to?

If someone gets good value out of their beliefs then where is the argument against it? That's just the point: there are well over six billion religions on this planet, one for every individual.


This is way to simplistic. What value do they get? Is is all good? Is some of it causing harm? Do they recognize some of the harm it may be causing? On another thread some brought up some of the harm the LDS church causes. Now I would say other groups do as well. Some more, some less.

And how is the Bible not also mostly fictitious?


I am sure much of it is, but it has some real history from the start. The Book of Mormon never has, and still does not, other then from the 1800's.

Since Book of Mormon studies are continually making associations with growing discoveries in archaeology and the other sciences, it seems that the only real advantage the Bible has over the Book of Mormon is a big head start.


Very incorrect. First these associations are not verified, and look to be the usual parallelism that is popular in apologetics. The Bible has known geography, people, and even some events.

Then Joseph Smith's religion is just as valid as those before and those that come after. "Valid" does not equal success. That is something nobody has control over.


Sure.

You would have to be much more specific in order to make your point.


The church makes me feel good. Therefore Joseph saw God and the Book of Mormon is a real story about a real people.

"Scripture" is wholly subjective, so any of our imaginative and inspiring literature might function as such.


Glad we agree. Scripture is what ever a person wants it to be.

Again, fictions are something that all religious writing and creating share in common. And you are right, nobody has to accept assertions of truth that they are not convinced by....


People can believe what ever they want to. I tend to think the truth is better. More accurate beliefs allow individual or groups to make better decisions for themselves that would be more likely to create success and happiness. Less accurate. less likely.
42
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Uncle Ed »

Themis wrote:What distinctions are you referring to?

There are no distinctions worthy of objection. It is your assertion that some religious paradigms are not "truth" compared to other religious paradigms.

... What value do they get? Is is all good? Is some of it causing harm? Do they recognize some of the harm it may be causing? On another thread some brought up some of the harm the LDS church causes. Now I would say other groups do as well. Some more, some less.

Yes, it is all "good" as long as it works for them and they don't cause harm for others. Harm is entirely separate from religious dogma, since the very same dogma can be entirely harmless if the believers choose so. The LDS Church does not cause harm because of the dogma, the harm is caused by the way it is practiced.

I am sure much of it is, but it has some real history from the start. The Book of Mormon never has, and still does not, other then from the 1800's.

The Bible's "history" is entirely manufactured to fit accepted facts. That Cyrus, et al. a handful of historical persons are included is obviously because the Bible was compiled contemporary to said-persons, or soon enough after them to deliberately make the Bible seem historically grounded; e.g. "There was in the days of Herod, king of Judea...."

You are right about the Book of Mormon being a composite of 19th century origins and influences such as popularly held conceptions vis-a-vis ancient American origins, etc. But it does include some fascinating pieces which defy explanation without going far beyond the simplest explanation, which is that God inspired the book and Joseph Smith dictated it. That is far more miraculous and implicit of God's will than the old, tired mishandled Bible. So critics look for an empirical explanation, even if it makes Joseph Smith even more unlikely than being a simple "conduit" of metaphysical inspiration.

Elsewhere I have proposed that all of the strange "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon are pointless objections, since "God" is not an anachronism! Every jot or tittle of historical fact (and "alternate historical" fact) is within the omniscient purview of "God". And "God" evidently has a sense of humor that peeks out of the entire debate over Book of Mormon origins.

Very incorrect. First these associations are not verified, and look to be the usual parallelism that is popular in apologetics. The Bible has known geography, people, and even some events.

So does the Book of Mormon. It starts in grounded Jewish historical tradition, in the "real world" of old archaeology. Ancient American archaeology is not nearly as inhabited or venerable a field as Old World archaeology of which biblical archaeology is a part.

Abraham is not a known person, he is mythical; so are Moses, David and Solomon, other than perhaps a singular extra-biblical artifact with a name that might be David's or Solomon's. There is no "temple of Solomon". No mighty city of Jerusalem at the time required for either king's reign. There is no Egyptian exodus or sojourn in the Sinai wilderness for forty years, no conquest of Canaan, etc. Inclusion of Egyptian Pharaohs et al. historical persons is quite immaterial as "fact" if the mention of such is in a mythical context.

The church makes me feel good. Therefore Joseph saw God and the Book of Mormon is a real story about a real people.

That does not follow. The Church makes me feel good, but personally I don't believe in "real people" being knowable. Too much water/time has passed under the bridge to make them more than remotely accessible. Humans rewrite their "history" continually and so "history" is not really what happened, it is what we say happened.

People can believe what ever they want to. I tend to think the truth is better. More accurate beliefs allow individual or groups to make better decisions for themselves that would be more likely to create success and happiness. Less accurate. less likely.

"What is truth?" The question remains. If "God" reveals truth to you it won't match someone else's truth, or the truth of six billion other souls.

Even Mormon truth does not form a monolith of agreement among the membership and does not admit close examination. That is why the questions are few and general. Specifics will point out right away the huge variation in personal "truthiness".

As long as your truth and my truth don't go to war, we should find sufficient room to coexist....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

Post by _Themis »

Uncle Ed wrote:There are no distinctions worthy of objection. It is your assertion that some religious paradigms are not "truth" compared to other religious paradigms.


You asserted good fruits. I just showed it is subjective and can be found just about everywhere and with just about everything. It doesn't prove anything other then someone thinks they get value out of it.

Yes, it is all "good" as long as it works for them and they don't cause harm for others. Harm is entirely separate from religious dogma, since the very same dogma can be entirely harmless if the believers choose so. The LDS Church does not cause harm because of the dogma, the harm is caused by the way it is practiced.


I would disagree. Church's or other organization are human organizations, so how they interpret and act on dogma can have harmful effects. Some of that may not even be recognized by adherents of the dogma. Harm can be very connected to dogma, just as good can be.

The Bible's "history" is entirely manufactured to fit accepted facts. That Cyrus, et al. a handful of historical persons are included is obviously because the Bible was compiled contemporary to said-persons, or soon enough after them to deliberately make the Bible seem historically grounded; e.g. "There was in the days of Herod, king of Judea...."


That's what makes it fun for historians. It's a problem even in modern times.

You are right about the Book of Mormon being a composite of 19th century origins and influences such as popularly held conceptions vis-à-vis ancient American origins, etc. But it does include some fascinating pieces which defy explanation without going far beyond the simplest explanation, which is that God inspired the book and Joseph Smith dictated it.


And what would those be?

Elsewhere I have proposed that all of the strange "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon are pointless objections, since "God" is not an anachronism! Every jot or tittle of historical fact (and "alternate historical" fact) is within the omniscient purview of "God". And "God" evidently has a sense of humor that peeks out of the entire debate over Book of Mormon origins.


I have no idea what you mean by strange. Anachronism are indicators of a texts claimed authenticity. The Book of Mormon has plenty to indicate it is not ancient as it is claimed. I also don't know for sure what you mean by sense of humor, other then it is a way to try and get around all the problems. I don't find them good arguments that God would joke around this way. The simplest explanation is that one is just trying anything to ignore the problems.

So does the Book of Mormon. It starts in grounded Jewish historical tradition, in the "real world" of old archaeology.


All of which come from the Bible and other known source available in the 19 century.

Ancient American archaeology is not nearly as inhabited or venerable a field as Old World archaeology of which biblical archaeology is a part.


You would be mistaken. More time and money may go into Middle eastern areas, but what goes on in the new world is top notch, and much of it is is going on in later times where more knowledge and better tools are available to scientists.

Abraham is not a known person, he is mythical; so are Moses, David and Solomon, other than perhaps a singular extra-biblical artifact with a name that might be David's or Solomon's. There is no "temple of Solomon". No mighty city of Jerusalem at the time required for either king's reign. There is no Egyptian exodus or sojourn in the Sinai wilderness for forty years, no conquest of Canaan, etc. Inclusion of Egyptian Pharaohs et al. historical persons is quite immaterial as "fact" if the mention of such is in a mythical context.


So? You are not discussing these issues with some biblical literalist. The Bible still has some actual places, people, etc. The Book of Mormon has none other then Old world stories taken from the Bible and other sources.

That does not follow.


I would agree that it is not logical, but it is how many people think and make decisions.

"What is truth?" The question remains. If "God" reveals truth to you it won't match someone else's truth, or the truth of six billion other souls.


Funny some always run to subjective truth when threy cannot back up what they are trying to defend. The show breaking bad is a great show. That is a true statement for me. A subjective one. It could be false for someone else. Objective truths, which is really what we are talking about are those statements that are true at all times. They are true for everyone regardless of whether they accept it or not. How most members define the church is true would be an objective truth claim. The Book of Mormon is a story about a real people who came from the old world to the new is an objective truth claim.
42
Post Reply