If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

I have to agree with Beastie. What a great thread!

It's more entertaining than President Obama's speech.

KA
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Chap »

Just to remind us, by the way, this was the OP:

JoetheClerk wrote:Joseph put his head in a hat, looked at a brown rock and the words of the Book of Mormon appeared to him in English. No excuses about horses, smelting ore for metal swords or anything else holds up if the statement is accurate.

The baloney of him choosing words he was familiar with to explain Tapirs as Horses is pure unadulterated b***s***. Cureloms and Cumoms was not changed to foxes and wolverines, was it?

God put the words in front of him on the rock and he read them off, or he didn't. It can't be both ways.


So far as I can see, insofar as DCP has produced an evidenced position in response to what JoetheClerk said, that evidenced position amounts to no more than saying that whether

he read them off, or he didn't


may have depended on Smith's emotional (or moral) state at the time he looked at the stone. No evidence has been produced that Smith's emotional (or moral) state ever changed the content of what he read off, when he could read off.

And that seems to be where the discussion has got to.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

beastie wrote:What a remarkable and happy coincidence that Joseph's decision to either use the words on the seer stone, or to paraphrase, in his own words, a language he didn't know - happen to coincide so nicely to the needs of today's apologists. Why, it almost seems designed to do so.

What a remarkable and happy coincidence that you imagine your cynicism to constitute evidence of something or other.


.
_Ray A

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Ray A »

Chap wrote: No evidence has been produced that Smith's emotional (or moral) state ever changed the content of what he read off, when he could read off.

And that seems to be where the discussion has got to.


D&C 9 tries to explain why Oliver Cowdery couldn't translate.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.



This doesn't seem to be a mechanical process, like reading information off a computer. If that were the case, then anyone would be able to do it.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Chap wrote:Suppose we accept that this second claim is the case (what is the documentary source for this claim, by the way? I am not denying the evidence exists, just asking).

It's in a reminiscence from David Whitmer that I don't have at my fingertips at the moment.

Chap wrote:Clearly all we are entitled to deduce from the fact alleged is that whether or not the letters were visible depended on Smith's emotional (or moral) state at the time.

I've sought to deduce nothing beyond that.

Chap wrote:No evidence is however cited here to establish the point that, when letters were visible on the stone, the content or accuracy of the text represented by those letters in any way depended on Smith's emotional (or moral) state at the time. I don't think that any early source ever suggests that was the case - Smith is never represented as saying (for instance) 'Oliver, we must re-do our work of this morning; my feelings were out of order, and I fear that I did not read the stone aright.'

I've said that I don't know precisely how the translation process worked. Let me translate that: I don't know precisely how the translation process worked. Let me go beyond that: I don't think that anybody who didn't or hasn't experienced it knows precisely how the translation process worked. Let me now draw an implication from that: If nobody who didn't or hasn't experienced it knows precisely how the translation process worked, it might be wise to be somewhat tentative about what is entailed by the nature of the translation process, which isn't precisely known.

That's all I've claimed.

But I've noted that there is at least some evidence of a subjective involvement by Joseph Smith's mind or spirit in the translation process -- evidence that does not appear to exist for the straightforward, mechanical, automatic processes of a computer.

I don't say that I've proved anything by this. I've simply expressed my hunch for the nature of a process the character of which is left underdetermined by the extant evidence. Other hunches may vary, but I know of nothing to rule mine out of bounds, and I think the evidence of interaction between Joseph's mind or spirit and the translation process is, if the account I've cited be credited, pretty solid. (Ray's citation of D&C 9 is right on point.)

Chap wrote:So when we are told that there was

Daniel Peterson wrote:a degree of subjective involvement or interaction in a process that was anything but automatic and mechanical

it would be prudent to realise that there is no evidence that the effects of the "subjective involvement or interaction" went beyond Smith being able to read letters off the stone or not being able to do so. We have no reason, for instance, to suppose that Smith's emotional state ever led him to read off 'steel', when he would, in a better adjusted state, have read 'copper'.

We have, as I've said numerous times now, insufficient evidence to demonstrate with any degree of confidence whether that was or was not the case.

Which has always been my point.

Chap wrote:it would seem that if DCP's response is intended to convey that the choice between (for instance) 'horse' or 'curelom' appearing depended on Smith's emotional state, then that is no more than speculation on DCP's part, unsupported by evidence.

I've never claimed otherwise.

As I've said several times now, I don't know the precise nature of the translation process, and, just as I don't believe that others know exactly what that imperfectly known nature entailed, I don't claim to know what it entailed.

That has been my point from the beginning of the thread. I've been happy to repeat it many times. I won't, though, have much time to repeat it many more times this evening.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Chap »

Ray A wrote:
Chap wrote: No evidence has been produced that Smith's emotional (or moral) state ever changed the content of what he read off, when he could read off.

And that seems to be where the discussion has got to.


D&C 9 tries to explain why Oliver Cowdery couldn't translate.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.




This doesn't seem to be a mechanical process, like reading information off a computer. If that were the case, then anyone would be able to do it.


We mustn't take words out of context if we are to do apologetics right ... Let us have the whole of D&C 9:

1Behold, I say unto you, my son, that because you did not translate according to that which you desired of me, and did commence again to write for my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun., even so I would that ye should continue until you have finished this record, which I have entrusted unto him.
2 And then, behold, other records have I, that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate.
3 Be patient, my son, for it is wisdom in me, and it is not expedient that you should translate at this present time.
4 Behold, the work which you are called to do is to write for my servant Joseph.
5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.
6 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.
11 Behold, it was expedient when you commenced; but you feared, and the time is past, and it is not expedient now;
12 For, do you not behold that I have given unto my servant Joseph sufficient strength, whereby it is made up? And neither of you have I condemned.
13 Do this thing which I have commanded you, and you shall prosper. Be faithful, and yield to no temptation.
14 Stand fast in the work wherewith I have called you, and a hair of your head shall not be lost, and you shall be lifted up at the last day. Amen.


The problem posed by verses 1 to 5 is that God has not permitted Oliver to translate, but wants him to go on writing for Joseph as his scribe.

Oliver then 'murmurs' against this (verse 6).

God then tells him (verses 7 to 9) that if Oliver will only "study it out in [his] mind" Oliver will "shall feel that it is right" that God has decided as he has.

This is not about the process of how to do a translation, as Ray A seems to be suggesting, but about whether or not Oliver is allowed to attempt that kind of thing at all.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Chap »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Chap wrote:it would seem that if DCP's response is intended to convey that the choice between (for instance) 'horse' or 'curelom' appearing depended on Smith's emotional state, then that is no more than speculation on DCP's part, unsupported by evidence.

I've never claimed otherwise.



QFT
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Ray A

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Ray A »

Chap wrote:This is not about the process of how to do a translation, as Ray A seems to be suggesting, but about whether or not Oliver is allowed to attempt that kind of thing at all.


So what do you make of verse 5?:

5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Chap »

Ray A wrote:
Chap wrote:This is not about the process of how to do a translation, as Ray A seems to be suggesting, but about whether or not Oliver is allowed to attempt that kind of thing at all.


So what do you make of verse 5?:

5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.


To be honest, I am repelled by the process of trying to make detailed sense out of the cloudy and pretentious ramblings that Smith made up when he was revelating on the fly, but on the courageous assumption that D&C 9 does make coherent sense in every detail I would say that verse 5 links back to verse 1, and refers to Oliver continuing to write for Joseph, which process he had interrupted "when [he] began to translate".

But however you take it, I don't see that this alters the point that verses 7 to 9 are not guidance on how to translate.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Ray A

Re: If Joseph 'saw the words in English'

Post by _Ray A »

Chap wrote:But however you take it, I don't see that this alters the point that verses 7 to 9 are not guidance on how to translate.


I'm a bit puzzled. They are guidance on how to translate. And they show that the process required "studying it out in your mind", and then "asking if it be right". To give a rough example, sort of how like a writer gets "writer's block", but then when the block goes, "the inspiration flows". If Joseph couldn't translate after an argument with his wife, then that says something about the sort of "mind frame" he needed to be in for the process to work. So it couldn't have been a "mechanical process". It had to be dependent on a specific mind frame, and Oliver seems not to have been able to achieve that frame of mind long enough to keep going.
Post Reply