Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_Analytics]

William Shryver made a brief appearance on the other board to express his thoughts on Don's presentation, and apparently to mend some fences with his fellow Latter-day Saints. For the benefit of those who are banned from that board, I'm taking the liberty to share his comments here.

Thanks to Don for having forwarded to me the slides to his presentation. I have reviewed the presentation multiple times now, and therefore make the following observations:


•The evidence supporting Bradley’s connection of the “translation” of the single character from one of the Kinderhook Plates to the Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language is, in my judgment, woefully deficient. (I note that, for one of the few times in recorded history, Dan Vogel and I are tending towards agreement on an issue. (See Dan’s comment about the Bradley presentation here.)
`

•Among several other tenuous evidentiary elements, the citation from “A Gentile” cannot be reasonably interpreted to say what Bradley wants us to believe it says. Rather, it quite explicitly states that, to the extent any relationship was observed between the Kinderhook Plates and something else, that “something else” was the characters from the “plates” of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, I think a valid argument can be made that there is some similarity between the characters observed on the Kinderhook Plates and the so-called "Anthon Transcript." Perhaps the former were fashioned using the latter as a guide?
`

•This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.


<sigh>

I’m afraid the only thing that comes to mind as I have observed this spectacle over the past few days are the immortal words of Dark Helmet from Spaceballs:


Quote

”So, Lonestar, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.”


Incidentally, I have, with this post, made a rather painful exception to my policy to never again participate on these cursed message boards. Know therefore that I will not pursue this discussion. Any further comment I have on this issue will come, if at all, via some other medium.

[_cinepro]

Interesting comments by Will. Sometimes the apologetic community can be unexpectedly diverse and interesting.

[_Analytics]

Interesting comments by Will. Sometimes the apologetic community can be unexpectedly diverse and interesting.

Will is quite the guy. His new avatar is that of a scarecrow being crucified.

Here is a link to his comments. Don has already replied.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/552 ... e__st__266

[_Buffalo]

Interesting comments by Will. Sometimes the apologetic community can be unexpectedly diverse and interesting.

Will is quite the guy. His new avatar is that of a scarecrow being crucified.

Here is a link to his comments. Don has already replied.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/552 ... e__st__266

Will obviously has a Jesus complex.

It's especially funny when he comes in as Nomad to defend himself. Nomad doesn't really ever post anything except to defend Will, but he still expects people to buy that Nomad isn't a Will sock puppet. :D

[_Buffalo]

This is absolutely key

When it comes to stuff like this, it's ironic that the less "evidence" there is, the easier it is to believe. If the Kinderhook plates had been lost, I suspect some apologists would still be defending them to this day.

If I were an apologist, every night when I say my prayers I would express thanks that the gold plates aren't around anymore.

I'm sure they do. I wonder if whatever prop Joseph used was any less obvious than the Kinderhook Plates?

[_consiglieri]

William Shryver made a brief appearance on the other board to express his thoughts on Don's presentation, and apparently to mend some fences with his fellow Latter-day Saints. For the benefit of those who are banned from that board, I'm taking the liberty to share his comments here.

Thanks for posting that so I could read it, Analytics.

I think Schryver's problem is that he seems to be arguing against Bradley because Bradley's position does not fit Schryver's preconceived apologetic function.

Truth doesn't really seem to enter into it for Schryver, as far as I can tell.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Equality]

This is basically the point I was trying to make. Smith was engaged in fraud and deception with respect to the KP whether his purported "translation" resulted from his consultation of a bogus lexicon or from a direct revelation from God. What's the difference?

The difference is that the new argument you offer above looks at Joseph Smith's Kinderhook plates translation as part of a pattern of fraud, rather than using it as primary evidence of the alleged fraud, which is what the old project does. In other words, if one doesn't already hold with you that Joseph Smith is a fraud, one can't conclude it merely from his application of the GAEL to the Kinderhook plates. The old argument could extrapolate from the premise of translation of fake plates to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a false prophet: "Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates." Your new argument extrapolates from the premise that Joseph Smith was a false prophet to the conclusion that his attempt to translate from the Kinderhook plates was fraudulent.

Respectfully, I disagree that the argument I am making is really new. Go read the Kinderhook page at MormonThink and you'll see that the primary focus is on the fact that what Joseph Smith said was on the plates was not, in fact, on the plates. Whether he looked at the GAEL or not, the fact is he produced a bogus translation of a forgery. He was duped. And he tried to (and successfully did, in fact) dupe others. I guess the apologist could argue that Smith had deceived himself as well as his followers into believing that he had actually "translated" something. But that does little to promote faith in his purported prophetic abilities.

I do not think my argument rests on the premise that Smith was a false prophet.

The primary and only substantive critical argument based on the Kinderhook plates episode--that Joseph Smith (supposedly) claimed God gave him the translation of what we know are fake plates--is undone since its premise of revelatory translation is false.

I have seen you make this point a number of times on both boards, Don. It seems to be the premise on which rests the apologetic conclusion that the new Kinderhook information is a "game-changer" and a problem for the critical position. Again, respectfully, I disagree. A substantive critical argument is, and has been, that Joseph Smith and the subsequent leaders of and teachers in the LDS church were fooled for 130 years before science irrefutably proved the plates were a hoax. That this is and has been the argument from critics is evident from reading, for example, the previously referenced page dedicated to the topic at MormonThink. Critics have pointed to the history of the Kinderhook Plates controversy as evidence that church leaders were uninspired, and that their faith-based claims changed over time as secular knowledge became so convincing that all but the most deluded religionists were compelled to admit their prior claims were undeniably refuted.

Moreover, the "revelatory translation" premise did not come from the critics; it came from the faithful church leaders and apologists, at least until 1980. Church members and leaders said repeatedly for 130 years that the translation was by revelation. (Need I cite the commonly known references? Ok, I'll cite one of my favorites, from Welby Ricks in 1962: "A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders. . . .
The plates are now back in their original category of genuine. . . . Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well.") It is just plain wrong to say that critics are responsible for advancing the proposition that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates by revelation. Critics simply attempted to refute the claim by pointing to the fact that the plates were a hoax, so no revelatory translation could have occurred. In this, the critics successfully refuted a claim repeatedly made by alleged “prophets, seers, and revelators” about the chief “Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator.” But it is also wrong to say that this is the "only substantive critical argument" made. And it is incorrect to say now, when critics such as I raise other arguments, that we are somehow moving the goalposts or shifting the debate or other such nonsense. As I have pointed out, the principal argument has been, and continues to be, that Joseph Smith and other alleged prophets exhibited no ability--for 130 years--to discern the fraud that was perpetrated with the Kinderhook Plates. Don, your presentation did nothing to change that fact; i.e, you did not present evidence that Joseph Smith or any other purportedly inspired priesthood holder or church member ever recognized that the Kinderhook Plates were a fraud until after science had proved it. And even then, there were apologists who refused to admit it.

It is also unfair to attack critics for making new arguments not made before. Of course we are. The new theory out there has significant holes, and when a critic points them out, it is no refutation to say that the argument had not previously been made. The reason critics did not attack the "Joseph did an academic translation" argument is that it hadn't really been made before. Now that it has, serious deficiencies in the argument are becoming apparent, and critics will point them out, as Kevin Graham, Analytics, and I, and others have done here and at the other board. So far, the proponents of the new theory have not even attempted to answer some of the more salient criticisms; e.g., the question about the origin of the meaning given to the character at issue.

If Joseph were trying to figure out what was on the plates using the GAEL, why would he not try to make coherent sense of the ideas in the GAEL definition? I'm at a loss to see how this is something that only prophets or frauds do, and not something ordinary people do as well.

Ordinary people conducting a translation exercise will consult a dictionary or lexicon or other language translation text to assist in their translation efforts. They will not start with a phony made-up lexicon and use that as a basis for translating every foreign text that comes across their desk. I suppose prophets, if they existed, would ask of God in faith, nothing wavering, and he would reveal to them whether the plates were real or fake and whether he should translate and, if so, what the translation should say. That's what Joseph Smith alleged happened with the Book of Mormon, and it's what the church said happened with the Kinderhook Plates, only it doesn't seem to have actually happened with the Kinderhook Plates, as you so ably pointed out last week.

Here's a question to ponder. By what method did Joseph identify the skeleton with whom the Kinderhook Plates were buried? Was that an academic or secular exercise? Joseph Smith said the skeleton was the man about whom the Kinderhook Plates was written, a lost Jaredite, a descendant of Ham. So how did Joseph Smith get that little tidbit?

Another: if Joseph Smith started the translation but then "lost interest" because, presumably, he realized they were not really about a long-lost Jaredite, then why didn't he let William Clayton and Parley P. Pratt and Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor, et al. in on the secret? The Kinderhook Plates were a subject of great and excited interest among the Saints in 1843. Surely if Joseph Smith had detected the fraud, whether through revelation or his newly acquired secular academic talents, he would have put all the questions to rest, wouldn't he?

And another: Wade Englund said on that other board that Joseph Smith did not have in his possession the Kinderhook Plates for more than five days before they were sent to the Antiquarian Society. Wade used this to support an argument that Joseph Smith could not have worked on a translation of the plates (as some contemporary accounts alleged he as doing). But this ignores the fact that (a) they had made copies of the plates and (b) Joseph Smith didn't need to have the gold plates in his possession when he translated the Book of Mormon, so why would he need the Kinderhook Plates in his possession to translate them.

Finally: Don makes much of the fact that Joseph Smith did not purchase the Kinderhook Plates. I have two theories on that. One, he may have learned the lesson Moroni worked so hard to teach him that he should not seek to hold on to metal plates to get rich. Two, in 1843 he had lots of wives and may have been short of cash from having to buy so much jewelry, perfume, flowers, and whatnot to try to keep them all happy.

[_harmony]

Two, in 1843 he had lots of wives and may have been short of cash from having to buy so much jewelry, perfume, flowers, and whatnot to try to keep them all happy.

Okay, that made me laugh!

It takes a lot of courage and chutzpah to come to a place where hostility is part of the norm, and make a new argument. I give Don props for that. But it's also part of the deal that learning is not a one-way street (Dan notwithstanding). To strengthen an argument, it always pays to listen to the opposition, even when they're making mincemeat of your argument.

[_Roger]

This is an interesting thread. Equality makes some excellent points. I would add one observation:

I suppose prophets, if they existed, would ask of God in faith, nothing wavering, and he would reveal to them whether the plates were real or fake and whether he should translate and, if so, what the translation should say. That's what Joseph Smith alleged happened with the Book of Mormon, and it's what the church said happened with the Kinderhook Plates, only it doesn't seem to have actually happened with the Kinderhook Plates, as you so ably pointed out last week.

Moreover, God allegedly informed Joseph that evil men had stolen the first 116 manuscript pages and intended to "alter the words" to make it appear as though Joseph could not retranslate the same words. Remarkably, God had been aware that this was going to happen centuries earlier and had accordingly instructed his Nephite prophets to make additional plates for a wise purpose, ie. in order to out-fox these future evil men--whoever and wherever they and the coveted manuscript were located.

Given that, it's surprising that God was apparently in the dark with regard to the Kinderhook plates.

[_Kishkumen]

Congratulations to Don. I have not watched the presentation, but knowing his work I am sure it was a huge success. I am glad that Don was able to show that Joseph Smith used the GAEL in order to translate a bit of the Kinderhook plates. It seems quite likely that he figured out that something was up, hence he did not buy them. Still, I am left very confused by this GAEL and KEP business. Obviously, Joseph thought they were of some worth, but beyond that it all appears murky to me.

Daniel seems to think there is some room in there for a cipher of some kind, but then one wonders why it is Joseph would approach a document he thought might be ancient with a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language that was really a cipher. Did he think that these gentlemen knew the secret code that he and his friends had manufactured from the Book of Abraham to conceal it from the Gentiles? I really don't get it. Well, there is one out of the way possibility that I could almost see: he assumed they were fellow Masons, and figured out soon enough that they were not.

In the end, however, I feel like we are all involved in some kind of abstruse and esoteric theological discussion, when so many good people really only care whether the Book of Abraham was ancient or not. In short, no it is not. These findings, wonderful as they are, do not change that. What we should ask ourselves is why people care whether it is "really ancient" or not. The answer to that question is that popular religious thought has been steamrolled by scientific discourse, and theologians only have themselves to blame for that. If only people could give up their unrealistic expectations, then we could leave these dumb questions behind.