How are the Kinderhook Plates a secular translation?

[_Aristotle Smith]

It now seems that the apologetic for the Kinderhook Plates has to be (and probably will be) that, yes, Joseph Smith did translate some of the Kinderhook plates, but the translation was a secular translation. The key word for the new apologetic is "secular."

So my question is, "How is this a secular translation?" It seems the answer is that the GAEL was used, therefore that means it's secular. Presumably, Joseph used the GAEL in a manner similar to a modern translator using a grammar and lexicon as an aid to translating a foreign language.

The problem is that now one has to see the GAEL as completely secular in origin. If the GAEL was received either wholly or in part through revelation, then the translation of the Kinderhook Plates cannot be secular. Here's why:

Suppose I decide I want to translate the book of Matthew from ancient Greek into English. Consider the following two scenarios.

Scenario #1: I go to the local college, take a few course on ancient Greek, learn some vocabulary, and buy some reference grammars. After much study I produce a translation of the book of Matthew.

Scenario #2: I pray to God and he gives me a grammar and a lexicon of ancient Greek, along with some sample translated passages. I used these tools to translate the book of Matthew.

In both scenarios, I did a lot of work, but I don't see how scenario #2 can be considered secular, while scenario #1 is. The translation has a divine origin, and without that divine assistance, there would be no translation. If the GAEL is of divine origin, then scenario #2 is what has happened, and I don't see how it can be secular.

[_Fence Sitter]

It also raises questions about the Book of Abraham. Is it a secular translation?

[_onandagus]

Hey Aristotle,

Of course, the argument assumes a premise about the GAEL that is under dispute. But suppose we grant your premise and run with it.

Scenario #2: I pray to God and he gives me a grammar and a lexicon of ancient Greek, along with some sample translated passages. I used these tools to translate the book of Matthew.

Suppose that then someone brings you a photo of an ancient papyrus and you wonder what script it's in. So, you pull out your lexicon and find that, lo and behold, you find a matching character and therefore opine that the definition on your lexicon must be the definition for the character on the papyrus. Was your work with this papyrus character revelatory in nature or nonrevelatory in nature? If you were simply finding a match, then the work was nonrevelatory. The fact that the lexicon itself was revelatory wouldn't make everthing that could be done with it revelatory.

If I decide to take your lexicon, or the GAEL, and use it to interpret as many more of the Kinderhook plates characters as I can, would my action of using it then be itself revelatory? Obviously not. Yet I would be using the same modus operandi that I'm arguing Joseph Smith used and that an eyewitness saw him use. The nature of the action doesn't change from being nonrevelatory to revelatory if we simply substitute Joseph Smith for me.

Ergo, Joseph Smith's translation of the Kinderhook plates character was nonrevelatory.

Don

[_CaliforniaKid]

The traditional "anti-Mormon" objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the "revelation" was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic. Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates.

Aristotle is correct, however, that there's another problem here that Don has simply deferred. Namely, where did Joseph's inaccurate knowledge of Egyptian come from in the first place? This question remains to be answered.

[Guest]

Hi Chris,

Nicely put.

My comments here can rightly be said to "defer" the GAEL issue. But I would like to note that my paper shouldn't be said to "defer" that issue; it is simply on another topic.

by the way, I'm perfectly fine with the ground of discussion shifting from the KP to the GAEL, as long as this is done with honest recognition, such as you've just made, that the traditional "strong" form of the critical argument from the Kinderhook plates--that only a false prophet translates fake plates--has been eliminated.

Don

[_Dad of a Mormon]

The traditional "anti-Mormon" objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the "revelation" was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic. Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates.

Aristotle is correct, however, that there's another problem here that Don has simply deferred. Namely, where did Joseph's inaccurate knowledge of Egyptian come from in the first place? This question remains to be answered.

But I don't think that the criticism relies on the KP being translated by revelation. It is enough to show that they were translated fraudulently. If there is no reasonable way for him to make a translation, then we have to conclude that Joseph Smith was perpetrating a fraud.

If Don has shown that it really was based on a single character and that the information in the GAEL for that one character can reasonably account for the partial translation, then this really could be a game changer. I don't think that it will be a winning change for Mormon apologists because as Aristotle suggests, it causes at least as many problems as it solves. But a game changer it would be.

As an aside, though, if a translation of a single character was all that was involved, it does seem strange that Joseph Smith would say that he translated a "portion" of the plates. Why wouldn't he say that he translated one character? But I'll wait to see the evidence.

[_CaliforniaKid]

It should be noted that my paper doesn't defer the GAEL problem; that simply isn't its topic.

I didn't mean to imply that your paper should have addressed this issue. One triumph per paper is more than enough. :)

Congrats again,

-Chris

[_Aristotle Smith]

Suppose that then someone brings you a photo of an ancient papyrus and you wonder what script it's in. So, you pull out your lexicon and find that, lo and behold, you find a matching character and therefore opine that the definition on your lexicon must be the definition for the character on the papyrus. Was your work with this papyrus character revelatory in nature or nonrevelatory in nature? If you were simply finding a match, then the work was nonrevelatory. The fact that the lexicon itself was revelatory wouldn't make everthing that could be done with it revelatory.

If I decide to take your lexicon, or the GAEL, and use it to interpret as many more of the Kinderhook plates characters as I can, would my action of using it then be itself revelatory? Obviously not. Yet I would be using the same modus operandi that I'm arguing Joseph Smith used and that an eyewitness saw him use. The nature of the action doesn't change from being nonrevelatory to revelatory if we simply substitute Joseph Smith for me.

Ergo, Joseph Smith's translation of the Kinderhook plates character was nonrevelatory.

Don

To be honest, I would disagree with most of that. However, I realize that this is basically now a debate over the meaning of the word "revelatory," which is fundamentally undecidable, and therefore not very enlightening.

Thanks for the clarification on how you see the Kinderhook Plates connected to the GAEL. This was the main clarification/point I was trying to make.

Aristotle is correct, however, that there's another problem here that Don has simply deferred. Namely, where did Joseph's inaccurate knowledge of Egyptian come from in the first place? This question remains to be answered.

I think this is what most critics are having a hard time with. I think most critics see this argument as slightly clarifying a small problem, only to defer a now much larger problem for the future. In short, while this presentation may have been good history, it wasn't good apologetics. While I think this is the right thing to do (prefer truth to apologetics), presenting it at FAIR is confusing. It seems like this might have been much more appropriate for a journal article in a scholarly source.

Simply put, if this theory is correct, it definitively ties Joseph Smith to the GAEL, and "the scribes did it" apologetic is definitively dead. I also think that the catalyst theory and the missing scroll theory also become a lot harder to defend as well.

[_onandagus]

To be honest, I would disagree with most of that. However, I realize that this is basically now a debate over the meaning of the word "revelatory," which is fundamentally undecidable, and therefore not very enlightening.

The claim, or assumption, has been that Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates by revelation--i.e., in the same sense he translated the Book of Mormon--and that assumption was the basis for the major critical argument, as Chris has noted. This assumption is demonstrably false.

I think most critics see this argument as slightly clarifying a small problem, only to defer a now much larger problem for the future.

While this is a line critics may want to take, it is wrong, as I'll explain later tonight.

In short, while this presentation may have been good history, it wasn't good apologetics. While I think this is the right thing to do (prefer truth to apologetics), presenting it at FAIR is confusing. It seems like this might have been much more appropriate for a journal article in a scholarly source.

It was both, and it will appear a peer-reviewed article.

Don

[_Socrates]

To be honest, I would disagree with most of that. However, I realize that this is basically now a debate over the meaning of the word "revelatory," which is fundamentally undecidable, and therefore not very enlightening.

The claim, or assumption, has been that Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates by revelation--i.e., in the same sense he translated the Book of Mormon--and that assumption was the basis for the major critical argument, as Chris has noted. This assumption is demonstrably false.

Wouldn't the critics have claimed it wasn't revelation?

If the critics believed it was by revelation, wouldn't they be believers instead of critics?

How does your thesis do anything but buttress the critics' claims that it was not revelation?