How are the Kinderhook Plates a secular translation?

[_Themis]

It doesn't exclude revelatory claims; it simply renders them unnecessary and redundant. If people want to believe without reason that he invoked revelation to derive content that he was already claiming to derive in another way using the GAEL, they are free to believe that as a matter of Mormon, or ex-Mormon, faith.

Don

That's what I understand your opinion to be on the matter even if I may not have conveyed what you said very well. I am not aware that Joseph was claiming anything other then what the plates were about. Again considering what I said above, it seems inconsistent that a real prophet would not seek information straight from God considering all of his claims of doing just that was a regular occurrence.

[_onandagus]

Joseph Smith is known to have had even a nonprophetic interest in translation, taking some pains to obtain Hebrew lessons in Kirtland and later studying Greek and German. So, an attempt at linguistic, as opposed to prophetic, translation is something we might expect from him as a person. Also, the facts that he doesn't appear to have translated beyond this and that he didn't purchase the Kinderhook plates, while not definitive in either direction, are consistent with his later learning or concluding that the plates with a fraud and arguably suggest just that.

I don't see how the ambiguous data allow you to determine that he, in fact, didn't do what he should have as a prophet.
We know he had two modes of translation, either of which we might "expect" from him. And he showed at least some ambivalence with the Kinderhook plates, making preliminary translation from the Kinderhook plates but neither jumping fully onto the translation task--as he did with the papyri--nor purchasing the plates that would be the basis and showpiece for a new translated work.

Don

[_Themis]

Joseph Smith is known to have had even a nonprophetic interest in translation, taking some pains to obtain Hebrew lessons in Kirtland and later studying Greek and German. So, an attempt at linguistic, as opposed to prophetic, translation is something we might expect from him as a person. Also, the facts that he doesn't appear to have translated beyond this and that he didn't purchase the Kinderhook plates, while not definitive in either direction, are consistent with his later learning or concluding that the plates with a fraud and arguably suggest just that.

I don't see how the ambiguous data allow you to determine that he, in fact, didn't do what he should have as a prophet.
We know he had two modes of translation, either of which we might "expect" from him. And he showed at least some ambivalence with the Kinderhook plates, making preliminary translation from the Kinderhook plates but neither jumping fully onto the translation task--as he did with the papyri--nor purchasing the plates that would be the basis and showpiece for a new translated work.

Don

If he suspected the plates may not be legit, it would make sense that he would seek God for information as he did for so many other issues many more trivial then this. He supposedly translated the Book of Mormon in a matter of a few months. Seems a little odd that he would not have finished the Book of Abraham, BoJ, or attempted a divine translation of the KP. Restoring ancient scripture seems like it would be an important job. His actions fit one who knows he lacks any divine abilities to translate unknown languages.

[_onandagus]

If he suspected the plates may not be legit, it would make sense that he would seek God for information as he did for so many other issues many more trivial then this.

How do you know he didn't? Because he accepted them in good faith in the first days they were in Nauvoo?

His actions fit one who knows he lacks any divine abilities to translate unknown languages.

His actions with respect to the KP fit lots of possibilities, with no way to determine from them whether he was what he claimed or not.

Don

[_jon]

Joseph Smith is known to have had even a nonprophetic interest in translation, taking some pains to obtain Hebrew lessons in Kirtland and later studying Greek and German.

This would seem to lay waste to the description of Joseph as a mere uneducated farm boy, which is often used to dissuade people from thinking Joseph could produce works such as the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham under his own steam.

[_onandagus]

Of course, the Book of Mormon was in 1829, his language studies began in 1835, and he always remained a man of poor grammar and terrible spelling, but I guess MDB is largely about taking any new piece of information and turning toward supporting your foregone conclusion.

Ciao,

Don

[_jon]

Of course, the Book of Mormon was in 1829, his language studies began in 1835, and he always remained a man of poor grammar and terrible spelling, but I guess MDB is largely about taking any new piece of information and turning toward supporting your foregone conclusion.

Ciao,

Don

What is my 'foregone conclusion'?

I think it shows he was a bright boy in terms of his intellect.
That is not how Joseph is portrayed by Church publications in terms of his ability to produce something like the Book of Mormon from his own mind.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Joseph Smith is known to have had even a nonprophetic interest in translation, taking some pains to obtain Hebrew lessons in Kirtland and later studying Greek and German. So, an attempt at linguistic, as opposed to prophetic, translation is something we might expect from him as a person. Also, the facts that he doesn't appear to have translated beyond this and that he didn't purchase the Kinderhook plates, while not definitive in either direction, are consistent with his later learning or concluding that the plates with a fraud and arguably suggest just that.

I don't see how the ambiguous data allow you to determine that he, in fact, didn't do what he should have as a prophet.
We know he had two modes of translation, either of which we might "expect" from him. And he showed at least some ambivalence with the Kinderhook plates, making preliminary translation from the Kinderhook plates but neither jumping fully onto the translation task--as he did with the papyri--nor purchasing the plates that would be the basis and showpiece for a new translated work.

Don

Yes, it's true that Joseph Smith had interests in traditional modes of translation. But even here this hurts your case that you can separate a secular from a revelatory translation. He was never content to simply produce a secular translation from a text, rather he always used it as a springboard for interpolation, augmentation, and revision via revelation. The King Follet Discourse is a prime example:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... liefs.html

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible. I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible--Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith--in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh--the head. Sheit--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the Baith there. An old Jew, without any authority, added the word. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words... Thus, the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council"

He had at least a passing familiarity with Hebrew, that's obvious. But is this a secular or a revelatory translation? It's both. He identfies the meaning of the word, but he feels the need to go beyond that through revelation. I understand that you are going to continue to stick with the "it simply renders them unnecessary and redundant" line of reasoning to explain why in this one case (and only the KP case) he only pursues a secular line of translation, but the pattern of his translations overwhelmingly doesn't follow this pattern. You have failed to account for why only in this case he does not also have revelation involved.

Thus it's not obvious to me that he had "two modes of translation."

[_Jaybear]

He identfies the meaning of the word, but he feels the need to go beyond that through revelation. I understand that you are going to continue to stick with the "it simply renders them unnecessary and redundant" line of reasoning to explain why in this one case (and only the KP case) he only pursues a secular line of translation, but the pattern of his translations overwhelmingly doesn't follow this pattern. You have failed to account for why only in this case he does not also have revelation involved.

Smith does exactly the same thing here.

He identifies a symbol he has previously "translated." At best, that allows him to say that the KP contain a reference to "a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt."

That's it. But he takes it two steps further. He says the plates (1) contain the "history" of (2) the man buried with the plates.

Even an incompetent scholar can't reach such "surmises" from matching one symbol. It takes either revelatory skills, or a willingness to make up facts.

[_Buffalo]

Of course, the Book of Mormon was in 1829, his language studies began in 1835, and he always remained a man of poor grammar and terrible spelling, but I guess MDB is largely about taking any new piece of information and turning toward supporting your foregone conclusion.

Ciao,

Don

Let's not forget, a complete incompetent as a translator. :)