Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_jon]

No.

In what ways do you think the translation method Joseph used on the KP differs from the way he produced the Book of Abraham?

[_Dan Vogel]

Malkie,

Why, whatever are you suggesting? Nudge! Nudge! Say no more!

ETA: Do you think that Nomad is correct in his assessment of the degree of agreement between you and Schryver?

I expressed some possible criticism, but I’m undecided about Don’s findings. I still think he has something, but I’m not sure how far we can take it. Will, for obvious reasons took my preliminary remarks and ran with them.

[_jon]

No.

In what ways do you think the translation method Joseph used on the KP differs from the way he produced the Book of Abraham?

Bumped because I think Daniel may have 'missed' this question and I'm sure he will want to answer it...

[_Daniel Peterson]

He claimed to translate the Book of Abraham papyri by revelation, while he didn't claim to translate the Kinderhook plates by revelation. (And we don't know how that claimed revelation worked exactly, either.)

In fact, we don't even have a written translation of the Kinderhook plates from Joseph at all, so far as I'm aware, and, unlike the Book of Abraham, he certainly never produced a complete text.

Those are some salient differences upon which to reflect, ponder, and meditate.

[_jon]

He claimed to translate the Book of Abraham papyri by revelation, while he didn't claim to translate the Kinderhook plates by revelation. (And we don't know how that claimed revelation worked exactly, either.)

In fact, we don't even have a written translation of the Kinderhook plates from Joseph at all, so far as I'm aware, and, unlike the Book of Abraham, he certainly never produced a complete text.

Those are some salient differences upon which to reflect, ponder, and meditate.

CFR on:
1. Joseph saying he translated it by revelation
2. How can you claim that we have a complete text for the Book of Abraham when the papyri is "missing"?

[_thews]

Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.

What part of "I'm not interested in another Schryverthread" did you and Thews not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure why you're attempting to drag me into the discussion about the drama queen Wade, as I am equally disinterested, so let's get back to the OP. Do you now accept Joseph Smith did attempt to make a translation of the Kinderhook plates and William Clayton's account is accurate?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

He claimed to translate the Book of Abraham papyri by revelation, while he didn't claim to translate the Kinderhook plates by revelation. (And we don't know how that claimed revelation worked exactly, either.)

Could you please provide the reference where Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham papyri by revelation?

[_Daniel Peterson]

By "complete text," I simply meant that the English Book of Abraham is a substantial, self-sufficient, written text, not merely a line or two of second-hand summary.

Where's the evidence that Joseph Smith -- commonly referred to by himself and by his followers as a prophet, seer, and revelator -- claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham without divine revelation?

[_jon]

By "complete text," I simply meant that the English Book of Abraham is a substantial, self-sufficient, written text, not merely a line or two of second-hand summary.

Where's the evidence that Joseph Smith -- commonly referred to by himself and by his followers as a prophet, seer, and revelator -- claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham without divine revelation?

You cannot be proud of this reply.

Why not just hold your hands up and say 'it's a fair cop' or 'you got me'?

So the phrase 'complete text' was misleading and you have no support to your statement about Joseph claiming the Book of Abraham was produced by revelation.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

By "complete text," I simply meant that the English Book of Abraham is a substantial, self-sufficient, written text, not merely a line or two of second-hand summary.

Where's the evidence that Joseph Smith -- commonly referred to by himself and by his followers as a prophet, seer, and revelator -- claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham without divine revelation?

I have to assume that you have not been following this thread and Bradley's argument at all in order to make this statement. Bradley has been defending the KP episode as not being detrimental to Mormonism precisely because it was a secular translation which he did by "normal" means, and therefore the episode is totally irrelevant to whether Joseph Smith could translate via revelation. He points out, correctly as far as I know, that there is no direct evidence that Joseph Smith claimed that the KP translation was in any sense revelatory. In other words, the standard Bradley proposes is that if Joseph Smith translate via "normal" means and does not claim that that it was via revelation, we should not assume that it was revlation.

Many of the critics here have pointed out what you just referenced. Joseph Smith and his followers claimed that Joseph Smith had a special relationship with God. He was, they believed, a "prophet, seer, and revelator" and therefore it would make no sense for him not to seek a translation of the KP via revelation. But Bradley has been steadfast on the standard: normal means + no specific claim of revelation = secular translation.

Nevertheless, you are now proposing the opposite approach preferred by Bradley. Unless there is a specific claim that he was not translating via revelation, we should assume that he probably is, since he did have a special relationship with God. If that is the standard, then it would apply equally to the KP as to the Book of Abraham. Your standard would be: Prophet of God + no specific claim of no revelation = revelatory translation.

At this point, I guess you can refine your standard to claim that the Bradley approach is appropriate for small or partial translations and your approach is appropriate for fuller translations, but I think anyone can see that would be completely ad hoc.