Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_Jaybear]

Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.

Bingo!!

Don

While that is certainly true, matching up one character, sort of, does not give a real scholar enough information to declare from there that:
(1) the symbol has the same meaning on both the KP and the GAEL;
(2) The KP contains the of history of the person referenced by the symbol; or
(3) the person referenced by the symbol was buried with plates.

To reach those additional conclusions one either needs revelatory skills, or a willingness to make stuff up. You can't get there by just being an incompetent scholar.

When the person who has the inclination to make stuff up, is perceived by his followers to be a profit of God, he knows fully well that when he makes stuff up, his followers will treat it as prophetic insight, and not merely another surmise.

[_Buffalo]

Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?

Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.

So the implication here is that, when it comes to translating, Joseph was a bit of a dim bulb?

[_Themis]

To reach those additional conclusions one either needs revelatory skills, or a willingness to make stuff up. You can't get there by just being an incompetent scholar.

I don't think Don is suggesting that Joseph was even a scholar. I think he does suggest that Joseph was surmising, and the extra information really is not that much, or even that important.

When the person who has the inclination to make stuff up, is perceived by his followers to be a profit of God, he knows fully well that when he makes stuff up, his followers will treat it as prophetic insight, and not merely another surmise.

Probably. I tend to think if Joseph was a real prophet he would have asked for divine information about the KP. He claimed to do so on many many occasions and about things more trivial.

Buffalo

So the implication here is that, when it comes to translating, Joseph was a bit of a dim bulb?

He would have to be if he were a real prophet not to ask God about it. As a pious fraud he would not need to be a dim bulb at all. He just made things up he knew believers would believe.

[_wenglund]

A method told to you by men, and a method in which you can get any answer you want, which is great because people will use this method to ignore any amount of evidence. A method in which emotions are vital. Emotions may be the best way to keep people believing anything. Emotions tend to create strong attachments to certain beliefs no matter how irrational they are.

You have stated your prejudices before. You are entitled to them, just as I am entitled to view your vacuous opining as devoid of value to me and my life. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.

Yeah, me too.

Of course, I don't think God really exists, but if he/she does, I'm quite confident that he/she can make that readily apparent and tell me whatever he/she wants.

Nevertheless, in the mean time, I'm not going to let people claim that they speak for God and accept them at their word when there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their claim.

I am certainly not speaking for God. I am letting him speak for himself, and this to those with ears to hear. I am just sharing with you what I believe he has told me and other believing members. You can take it or leave it, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

You have stated your prejudices before. You are entitled to them, just as I am entitled to view your vacuous opining as devoid of value to me and my life. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I just understand where you come from. :) You can believe what ever you want Wade.

[_wenglund]

Please accept #2. as an olive branch extended in your direction from someone who will likely remain critical of your religion while attempting to refrain from criticism of defenders of your faith, especially yourself.

Olive branch warmly accepted by one who isn't adverse to considering differing views of his faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

Olive branch warmly accepted by one who isn't adverse to considering differing views of his faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am open to differing views. It's just that you have nor provided one I am not already very familiar with.

[_wenglund]

I am open to differing views. It's just that you have nor provided one I am not already very familiar with.

Likewise. That makes us even. Have a nice day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

Likewise. That makes us even. Have a nice day.

Sorry haven't seen it from youtr posts. You also have ignored these.

Joseph's translation differs from from Egyptologists like night and day.

Buffalo

Joseph got almost all of it wrong - that's a fact. Any credible Egyptologist will agree with that, not just "certain" Egyptologists. You're being disingenuous here, Wade. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, but at least don't misrepresent the facts.

We all know why you did, so have a nice your day yourself. :)