Tom wrote:Finney seems to be guilty of overstatement when he labels his interpretation of Park's point as "plainly clear," but his and Smallaxe's readings are plausible.
In my experience reading Hamblin's oeuvre, I have concluded that he is not the most adept and insightful of readers of the English language. I would say that, depending on how one wants to read Park, it doesn't really matter whether he advocates examination of Joseph Smith's religious genius through Book of Mormon scholarship or not. Only the most feeble of imaginations could fail to understand that Joseph Smith is as much an interpreter as he is a translator (because translation is, after all, an act of interpretation). He responded to the text he translated. Hamblin demands these stark positions because he of his own limitations and because of his clear agenda.
Does Joseph Smith's reading of the Book of Mormon not reflect on his religious genius?