How are the Kinderhook Plates a secular translation?

[_onandagus]

Hi Analytics,

The part that is different is the part crucial to the long-used critical argument: God telling Joseph what was on the Kinderhook plates.

Cheers,

Don

[_Buffalo]

Hi Analytics,

The part that is different is the part crucial to the long-used critical argument: God telling Joseph what was on the Kinderhook plates.

Cheers,

Don

So really the problem is God taught Joseph a really terrible, useless way to translate ancient documents, and Joseph, on his own, used that on the KP?

[_Analytics]

Hi Analytics,

The part that is different is the part crucial to the long-used critical argument: God telling Joseph what was on the Kinderhook plates.

Cheers,

Don

Hi Don,

Can you clarify? The critics never argued that God told Joseph what was on the plates.

My perspective is that first, the critics never cared about this secular/revelatory dinstinction. A typical anti-Mormon inference of the matter is this, written by Sandra Tanner.

Since Joseph Smith did not know the difference between ancient and modern brass plates, as the evidence clearly shows, and was oblivious to the fact that the hieroglyphics were forged, we cannot have any confidence in his work.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/kin ... plates.htm

Second, I don't believe Mormons made the distinction either. When God didn't tell Oliver Cowdery what was on the golden plates and Oliver got frustrated, God said, "you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind."

That being the case, I'd argue that the Book of Mormon was mainly a secular exercise too, with God just adding the minimum amount of inspiration necessary. After translating the entire Book of Mormon that way, Joseph Smith would have acquired significant secular skills in translating Egyptian, so that by the end, he would have needed very little inspiration at all.

I’m guessing that’s what his followers thought at the time—they saw Joseph Smith as an expert in Egyptian who could translate ancient documents, without qualification depending upon secular versus revelatory contexts.

[_harmony]

I’m guessing that’s what his followers thought at the time—they saw Joseph Smith as an expert in Egyptian who could translate ancient documents, without qualification depending upon secular versus revelatory contexts.

I wonder what the Brethren at the time thought about the discovery and resulting breaking of the code of the Rosetta Stone.

[_onandagus]

Analytics,

They didn't make the distinction because it didn't occur to anyone that secular translation was an option. It was simply assumed that "translation" meant "revelatory translation."

Frankly, if the argument didn't hinge on a notion of revelatory translation, I would never have bothered to give it much notice. For Joseph to assume good faith on the part of the plates' finders enough to try to figure out what the plates had on them doesn't mean he had no special connection with God. It actually indicates positive things about him, including his belief in ancient metal plates.

There is a clear distinction here between two modes of engagement with the Kinderhook plates, and these two modes have very different implications. And I think most observers will perceive the importance of this distinction.

You know, I think, that over the years I have overwhelmingly admired your capacity for systematic thought. In light of that, I am a bit nonplussed here. I don't expect you to see Mormonism, or even the overall picture here regarding the Kinderhook plates, my way. But not to catch the importance of the distinction between whether Joseph Smith provisionally assumed good faith and examined the plates in that light or translated by God telling him what the plates said...??

Don

[_onandagus]

So really the problem is God taught Joseph a really terrible, useless way to translate ancient documents, and Joseph, on his own, used that on the KP?

LOL!

Well, I'll give you points for humor...

Don

[_Socrates]

Analytics,

They didn't make the distinction because it didn't occur to anyone that secular translation was an option. It was simply assumed that "translation" meant "revelatory translation."

CFR.

Maybe it didn't occur to anyone, not even Joseph Smith, Jr. who thought it was a revelatory translation too, just as Charlotte Haven reported Joseph Smith, Jr. as having said that revelation would be involved, aye?

[_Buffalo]

So really the problem is God taught Joseph a really terrible, useless way to translate ancient documents, and Joseph, on his own, used that on the KP?

LOL!

Well, I'll give you points for humor...

Don

Do you think it's appropriate to try to glean an entire sentence from one Egyptian (or Egyptian-looking) character? Is this a good method for translating Egyptian into English?

[_Buffalo]

Analytics,

They didn't make the distinction because it didn't occur to anyone that secular translation was an option. It was simply assumed that "translation" meant "revelatory translation."

Frankly, if the argument didn't hinge on a notion of revelatory translation, I would never have bothered to give it much notice. For Joseph to assume good faith on the part of the plates' finders enough to try to figure out what the plates had on them doesn't mean he had no special connection with God. It actually indicates positive things about him, including his belief in ancient metal plates.

There is a clear distinction here between two modes of engagement with the Kinderhook plates, and these two modes have very different implications. And I think most observers will perceive the importance of this distinction.

You know, I think, that over the years I have overwhelmingly admired your capacity for systematic thought. In light of that, I am a bit nonplussed here. I don't expect you to see Mormonism, or even the overall picture here regarding the Kinderhook plates, my way. But not to catch the importance of the distinction between whether Joseph Smith provisionally assumed good faith and examined the plates in that light or translated by God telling him what the plates said...??

Don

Any way you take it it hurts his credibility. It doesn't matter if he was a confidence man or if he thought he was getting a revelation from God or if he thought he was translating using his own understanding - in any case, his credibility takes a hit. One more thing he couldn't get right.

[_Analytics]

Analytics,

They didn't make the distinction because it didn't occur to anyone that secular translation was an option. It was simply assumed that "translation" meant "revelatory translation."

Frankly, if the argument didn't hinge on a notion of revelatory translation, I would never have bothered to give it much notice. For Joseph to assume good faith on the part of the plates' finders enough to try to figure out what the plates had on them doesn't mean he had no special connection with God. It actually indicates positive things about him, including his belief in ancient metal plates.

There is a clear distinction here between two modes of engagement with the Kinderhook plates, and these two modes have very different implications. And I think most observers will perceive the importance of this distinction.

You know, I think, that over the years I have overwhelmingly admired your capacity for systematic thought. In light of that, I am a bit nonplussed here. I don't expect you to see Mormonism, or even the overall picture here regarding the Kinderhook plates, my way. But not to catch the importance of the distinction between whether Joseph Smith provisionally assumed good faith and examined the plates in that light or translated by God telling him what the plates said...??

Don

Hi Don,

For the reasons I've tried to explain, I just don't see how the fact that he utilized the GAEL precludes his overall engagement with the plates from being a part of a “revelatory translation” process.

But this might be because there are some details in your actual presentation that I haven't grasped from the descriptions I’ve seen on the Internet. I’ll refrain from commenting more until I’ve had the chance to carefully read the details of your argument.