Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[SoyLeche]

Of course. The only logical way to translate a document is to stick your face in your hat and look at a rock. If I were translating plates, I'd look at the plates but then, I'm not the successful founder of one of the world's fastest growing religions.

The method used is irelevant to the definition of "translate". If he took the text from one language and put it into another - regardless of how he did it - then he translated it.

 

[Autodidact]

The method used is irelevant to the definition of "translate". If he took the text from one language and put it into another - regardless of how he did it - then he translated it.

That's the question: Did he take a text from one language and put it into another, or did he make it up out of whole cloth? That's what we're trying to figure out. Asserting is not demonstrating. The fact that he wasn't even looking at the "text" when he was "translating" certainly lends support to the latter hypothesis.

 

[SoyLeche]

That's the question: Did he take a text from one language and put it into another, or did he make it up out of whole cloth? That's what we're trying to figure out. Asserting is not demonstrating. The fact that he wasn't even looking at the "text" when he was "translating" certainly lends support to the latter hypothesis.

You were saying that the church should stop using the word "translate".

Those of us in the church believe that he did take a text from one language to another. Therefore, using the word to describe what he did is appropriate. Like I said, we don't really know all that much about the process.

You don't have to say that he translated it. You can believe whatever you want. The word is more than appropriate for us to use though.

 

[Autodidact]

You were saying that the church should stop using the word "translate".

Those of us in the church believe that he did take a text from one language to another. Therefore, using the word to describe what he did is appropriate. Like I said, we don't really know all that much about the process.

You don't have to say that he translated it. You can believe whatever you want. The word is more than appropriate for us to use though.

Well, it may be appropriate within the church, but it's not appropriate here unless you first established that is what happened, which is what the thread's about, and which you have not done.

 

[SoyLeche]

Well, it may be appropriate within the church, but it's not appropriate here unless you first established that is what happened, which is what the thread's about, and which you have not done.

How about we keep saying it until you prove that it didn't.

 

[Autodidact]

How about we keep saying it until you prove that it didn't.

Well gosh, that's so easy: No one can translate anything by putting two rocks into a hat and staring into it. Done. Now, moving right along...

 

[SoyLeche]

Well gosh, that's so easy: No one can translate anything by putting two rocks into a hat and staring into it. Done. Now, moving right along...

That was one of the lamest proofs that I've ever heard. Guess I can keep saying that he translated it.

(If he did translate that way, then it is possible to translate that way. Begging the question and all that jazz. --- And get the story right at least - nobody ever said that he put two rocks into a hat. The seer stone <> the Urim and Thummim)

 

[Melissa G]

He ( Smith) translated nothing because as I'm tired of pointing out, no such script ever existed, and the fascmilie I've seen of an alleged portion of the plates, is nothing like a proper text. It's a mess of mixed up signs , which has no rhythm whatsoever. It looks like a concoction, which it is.

Melissa G

 

[silvermoon383]

Yet Charles Anthon certified them to be authentic and that the translation was correct.

 

[Melissa G]

Who ?

 

[silvermoon383]

Professor Charles Anthon, considered one of the most knowledgeable linguists of the early-mid 19th century. Martin Harris took a sampling of the characters on the plates to him. You can read about it here:

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHstryInst32502000/Chapters/ChrchHstryInst32502000_07.pdf

Chapter 4, pg 46-47

 

[Melissa G]

I checked that. It's so out of date as to render it useless in my opinion. You'll have to do better than that.


~M

 

[Bishka]

I checked that. It's so out of date as to render it useless in my opinion. You'll have to do better than that.


~M

This is why I've quite participating, anything we give you, you automatically dismiss because it doesn't fit your criteria. I could quote endless passages of Joseph Smith's new biography (Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling), but even with all the citations and footnotes, you would dismiss it (as you have everything else) because it doesn't fit your criteria.

 

[SoyLeche]

He ( Smith) translated nothing because as I'm tired of pointing out, no such script ever existed, and the fascmilie I've seen of an alleged portion of the plates, is nothing like a proper text. It's a mess of mixed up signs , which has no rhythm whatsoever. It looks like a concoction, which it is.

Melissa G

Most people learn, after they notice that thier arguments are not being taken serisously, to look at their argument and figure out if the problem is with the argument or with the audience. In this case, it's with the argument.

You keep trying to tell us that it means something when something hasn't been found that we have no reason to believe should have been found, regardless of the veracity of Joseph Smith's account.

There's no reason to believe that "Reformed Egyptian" existed anywhere outside of the Nephite record keeping system - and most of those records were hidden or destroyed - so the lack of another "Reformed Egyptian" system means nothing.

Also, you should get the story right too. The transcript that Harris took to Anthon merely contained some of the charactors and their translation. He didn't translate a chapter and send it - just a mix-mash of charactors. There is no reason to expect any "rhythm" in them.

 

[Smoke]

Yet Charles Anthon certified them to be authentic and that the translation was correct.

Oh, come on.

Either Martin Harris lied about what Charles Anthon said, or Anthon did. Even if one believes that Harris was telling the truth, you're asking us to accept unwritten "authentication" from someone you yourselves believe to be a liar on the subject.

 

[SoyLeche]

Oh, come on.

Either Martin Harris lied about what Charles Anthon said, or Anthon did. Even if one believes that Harris was telling the truth, you're asking us to accept unwritten "authentication" from someone you yourselves believe to be a liar on the subject.

That depends on Anthon's incentives to authenticate and then subsequently lie. Assuming that his initial authentification (if it ever happened) was based on his expertise, and his subsequent denial was based on a bias against the source - I don't see why one should discount the initial work based on the subsequent denial.

It's impossible to say what actually happened there though, so it probably isn't worth discussing either way.

 

[Smoke]

That depends on Anthon's incentives to authenticate and then subsequently lie. Assuming that his initial authentification (if it ever happened) was based on his expertise, and his subsequent denial was based on a bias against the source - I don't see why one should discount the initial work based on the subsequent denial.

It's impossible to say what actually happened there though, so it probably isn't worth discussing either way.

That's why it was disingenuous for Silvermoon to claim that Anthon authenticated the letter. The most we can determine is that Martin Harris claimed, and Charles Anthon denied, that he authenticated the letter.

 

[SoyLeche]

That's why it was disingenuous for Silvermoon to claim that Anthon authenticated the letter. The most we can determine is that Martin Harris claimed, and Charles Anthon denied, that he authenticated the letter.

I agree with this statement.

 

[silvermoon383]

You can check the records though: Martin never changed his story- that Anthon certified the translated section. Anthon did change his story.

Not to mention that Martin came away from the experience a more firm supporter of Joseph.

 

[DeepShadow]

The most we can determine is that Martin Harris claimed, and Charles Anthon denied, that he authenticated the letter.

We can determine slightly more than that, but not much: Anton wrote in a letter to a friend that the translation was genuine, and later wrote to another friend that it was a fraud. (Source: And Some Cried Fraud; Anthon on the witness stand; the Anthon Letters)

But the bottom line is that Anton's truthfulness is in question, and for that reason, I don't usually cite his authentication.