I'm surprised this episode doesn't generate much interest among critics of the LDS church. I understand why apologists wouldn't want to touch it, but it's pretty clear confirmation that Joseph Smith had no ability as a translator but rather had a pretty vivid imagination.
The safest apologetic I ever read was to assert that Joseph Smith was never a translator on his own. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham came via the Spirit. Without the Spirit, Joseph Smith was an ignorant student and never got beyond the merest beginning of learning how to translate anything. He demonstrated hubris when he shared what he thought he knew through his studies on his own. Perhaps he believed that as a prophet he would learn or pick up REAL translating skills easier and quickly. He was apparently mistaken to believe that about himself....
So, using this metric, how would it be possible to tell a "real" prophet from a charlatan? Using this argument, I could also claim to be a prophet with the gift of translation. If someone called me on my one of my translations, I could just argue that I was actually channeling Zeus via the Sacred Poltergeist, or whatever.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
My signature from the first minute of being registered.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
I'm surprised this episode doesn't generate much interest among critics of the LDS church. I understand why apologists wouldn't want to touch it, but it's pretty clear confirmation that Joseph Smith had no ability as a translator but rather had a pretty vivid imagination.
The safest apologetic I ever read was to assert that Joseph Smith was never a translator on his own. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham came via the Spirit. Without the Spirit, Joseph Smith was an ignorant student and never got beyond the merest beginning of learning how to translate anything. He demonstrated hubris when he shared what he thought he knew through his studies on his own. Perhaps he believed that as a prophet he would learn or pick up REAL translating skills easier and quickly. He was apparently mistaken to believe that about himself....
If that is what you call a 'safe' apologetic, why not go all the way and choose the very safest of all, which is:
"No matter how bad the known facts about a given episode involving Joseph Smith seem to be, you can always continue to believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, while blaming all the embarrassing things on his personal faults and imperfections.'
WARNING: in order for this apologetic to work, you must NEVER define in advance where the boundaries of the prophetic role are to be placed. Instead, examine each situation carefully, locate the embarrassing stuff (in this case, nonsensical pseudo-Hebrew) and draw the boundary of prophethood so as to exclude it. This is done on a strictly case-by-case basis: if on another occasion Joseph Smith gets some Hebrew right, you can make that count for his prophethood by shifting the boundary.
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.
It's been 10 years since I read "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" as a life preserver for my quickly disintegrating faith in the Book of Mormon. Bad decision...like BF Roberts "Studies of the Book of Mormon" before it...it only confirmed what I knew in my head but feared in my heart to be true.
I can't recommend this book enough...certainly a must read for anyone seeking a greater understanding and clearer perspective on the Book of Mormon
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace
"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick
“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
Yes, apologetics shift the boundaries. That is the very defining characteristic of apologetics. New information is always being drawn in, examined, explained and either dismissed or assimilated. Only the believers who ignore outside sources, evidence and works are comfortable with a never-changing religious paradigm. Or I should say, a slowly altered paradigm that originates from the Heads of the church in reaction to the outside evidence: by studying only their words the believer is probably (or was probably, not now with the Net pushing learning into warp speed) safe for the duration of his life....
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
I'm surprised this episode doesn't generate much interest among critics of the LDS church. I understand why apologists wouldn't want to touch it, but it's pretty clear confirmation that Joseph Smith had no ability as a translator but rather had a pretty vivid imagination.
Chap wrote:
Uncle Ed wrote:The safest apologetic I ever read was to assert that Joseph Smith was never a translator on his own. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham came via the Spirit. Without the Spirit, Joseph Smith was an ignorant student and never got beyond the merest beginning of learning how to translate anything. He demonstrated hubris when he shared what he thought he knew through his studies on his own. Perhaps he believed that as a prophet he would learn or pick up REAL translating skills easier and quickly. He was apparently mistaken to believe that about himself....
If that is what you call a 'safe' apologetic, why not go all the way and choose the very safest of all, which is:
"No matter how bad the known facts about a given episode involving Joseph Smith seem to be, you can always continue to believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, while blaming all the embarrassing things on his personal faults and imperfections.'
WARNING: in order for this apologetic to work, you must NEVER define in advance where the boundaries of the prophetic role are to be placed. Instead, examine each situation carefully, locate the embarrassing stuff (in this case, nonsensical pseudo-Hebrew) and draw the boundary of prophethood so as to exclude it. This is done on a strictly case-by-case basis: if on another occasion Joseph Smith gets some Hebrew right, you can make that count for his prophethood by shifting the boundary.
Uncle Ed wrote:Yes, apologetics shift the boundaries. That is the very defining characteristic of apologetics. New information is always being drawn in, examined, explained and either dismissed or assimilated.
What you say certainly applies to Mormon apologetics, which is typically engaged in the desperate task of dealing with an endless stream of new information damaging to Mormon truth claims which comes to the attention of members in a way that never happened before the internet. Sometimes the only way this can be done (or at least attempted to be done) is by radically changing the accepted meaning of common words such as 'translation'. It is common to find ex-Mormons who say that the obvious failure of such attempts was one of the things that led them to abandon their former religion.
I don't say that mainstream Christian apologetics is an unmitigated success: if it was, I would probably still be a Christian. But its problems and methods are different in important respects from those of Mormon apologetics, and I don't think it is known to have the same effect in repelling significant numbers of people from continued belief.
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.
Craig Paxton wrote:It's been 10 years since I read "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" as a life preserver for my quickly disintegrating faith in the Book of Mormon. Bad decision...like BF Roberts "Studies of the Book of Mormon" before it...it only confirmed what I knew in my head but feared in my heart to be true.
I can't recommend this book enough...certainly a must read for anyone seeking a greater understanding and clearer perspective on the Book of Mormon
I second your recommendation. I read it back in 1997 and I am very glad I did. (Although Ashment is an ass.) Signature Books once published books worth reading but it has since deteriorated to an outlet for disingenuous cranks like Bob Price.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)