DiscussMormonism.com

From the conversations surrounding Don's character connection between the GAEL and the Kinderhoax Plates, it is surmised that Joseph didn't attempt to use any revelatory skills (there is no evidence to categorically show that he did) so therefore it was a secular translation.

Well, if we apply that same logic to the translation of the Book of Abraham doesn't it match exactly, making it also a secular, non-revelatory translation?

jon wrote:From the conversations surrounding Don's character connection between the GAEL and the Kinderhoax Plates, it is surmised that Joseph didn't attempt to use any revelatory skills (there is no evidence to categorically show that he did) so therefore it was a secular translation.

Well, if we apply that same logic to the translation of the Book of Abraham doesn't it match exactly, making it also a secular, non-revelatory translation?

You know, maybe the long-term goal of apologetics here is to get the church to decanonize the Book of Abraham. Ever since the papyrus were found, it's been an albatross around the neck of the church.

jon wrote:From the conversations surrounding Don's character connection between the GAEL and the Kinderhoax Plates, it is surmised that Joseph didn't attempt to use any revelatory skills (there is no evidence to categorically show that he did) so therefore it was a secular translation.

Well, if we apply that same logic to the translation of the Book of Abraham doesn't it match exactly, making it also a secular, non-revelatory translation?

The trick is to only apply apologetic claims to the specific issue they were meant to address. Don's discovery only has relevance to the Kinderhook plates and wasn't meant to have any relevance to any other potential issues.

Apologists aren't interested in considering side effects or collateral damage.

Don might be on to something here. This distinction could be applied usefully in other areas where Joseph Smith's translation work is problematic. This would explain the anachronistic use of those parts in the Book of Mormon copied from the KJV of the Bible. Those passages could be viewed as a secular translation also.

Would we all agree that Joseph Smith used "revelatory" (made it up, pretended, had divine help), means to come up with the GAEL?

If so, then using the GAEL to "translate" a familiar character on the KP isn't a secular translation but a revelatory short cut.

In other words, he didn't need to ask God once again for the interpretation/translation of a character from which he already got the answer/information.

Maybe Joseph Smith consulted the GAEL so he would be consistent thereby furthering the appearance that he could translate?

;-)

Also, any evidence that the KP were for sale?

~td~

Fence Sitter wrote:Don might be on to something here. This distinction could be applied usefully in other areas where Joseph Smith's translation work is problematic. This would explain the anachronistic use of those parts in the Book of Mormon copied from the KJV of the Bible. Those passages could be viewed as a secular translation also.

That sounds very much like a variation on Blake Ostler's expansion hypothesis about Book of Mormon translation: all the anachronisms and errors are simply from Joseph Smith attempting to use his own understanding to fill in the gaps between the true revelatory portions that are accurately portraying real ancient events. I think he wrote an article in Dialogue in the late 80s about it. It's a handy little apologetic argument (even if nonsensical to critics). You can dismiss all the obviously wrong parts as being the work of a "man" either doing a "secular" translation or "expanding" on the text. All the stuff that science has not proven false can then be safely attributed to "revelation." If it turns out later that stuff you thought was revelation was wrong (like, dark-skinned people don't actually ever turn white by being righteous), you can simply move that particular item from the "revelation" column to the "'secular' or 'expansion' acting-as-a-man-not-a-prophet" column.

truth dancer wrote:Would we all agree that Joseph Smith used "revelatory" (made it up, pretended, had divine help), means to come up with the GAEL?

If so, then using the GAEL to "translate" a familiar character on the KP isn't a secular translation but a revelatory short cut.

In other words, he didn't need to ask God once again for the interpretation/translation of a character from which he already got the answer/information.

Maybe Joseph Smith consulted the GAEL so he would be consistent thereby furthering the appearance that he could translate?

That's a question that has been posed many times from many people both here and at the other board, and Don has simply refused to engage the question. I hope he engages it in the article he is writing. Where did Joseph Smith get the idea that the "ho e oop ha" character from the GAEL, which is the character Don says matches a character on the Kinderhook Plates, means something about Ham and the kingly descent, etc? Don keeps calling it a "secular" or "academic" translation. If so, Don should be able to cite to a non-Mormon scholarly text that gives that particular translation to that particular character. I don't think he can. If he can't, then there are only two possibilities, it seems to me: either Joseph Smith (or someone associated with him) simply pulled the meaning for the character out of his ear, or he got it by revelation.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:The trick is to only apply apologetic claims to the specific issue they were meant to address. Don's discovery only has relevance to the Kinderhook plates and wasn't meant to have any relevance to any other potential issues.

Apologists aren't interested in considering side effects or collateral damage.

This is the pot calling the kettle, or maybe the white rabbit, black.

You folks want to take certain implications for other issues from this Kinderhook plates evidence without first accepting its genuine implications for the Kinderhook plates incident itself. I'm not against looking at its implications for other things at all. But I'm against the silly sleight of hand that wants to skip the step of honestly assessing their implications for the KP.

The evidence on the Book of Abraham can then be hashed out on its own terms, including whatever implications the newly understood KP incident brings to bear on it.

Don

Equality wrote:

truth dancer wrote:Would we all agree that Joseph Smith used "revelatory" (made it up, pretended, had divine help), means to come up with the GAEL?

If so, then using the GAEL to "translate" a familiar character on the KP isn't a secular translation but a revelatory short cut.

In other words, he didn't need to ask God once again for the interpretation/translation of a character from which he already got the answer/information.

Maybe Joseph Smith consulted the GAEL so he would be consistent thereby furthering the appearance that he could translate?

That's a question that has been posed many times from many people both here and at the other board, and Don has simply refused to engage the question.

Actually, I've addressed all these points already, not that I expect you to be willing to acknowledge that.

Don

onandagus wrote:

Equality wrote:
That's a question that has been posed many times from many people both here and at the other board, and Don has simply refused to engage the question.

Actually, I've addressed all these points already, not that I expect you to be willing to acknowledge that.

Don

If you have, I apologize. There are multiple threads going on multiple boards and while I have tried to keep up, I know I have not read every post that's been made. I have not seen where you pointed to a non-Mormon secular translation of the character in question or told us where Joseph Smith got the original notion that the character had something to do with Ham, etc. If you've done that, I have not seen it. I think, perhaps, our disagreement is over the meaning of a "secular" or "academic" translation. I think to you it might mean only that Joseph Smith, in providing the translation that is quoted by William Clayton, did not ask God and receive it directly from God but instead looked at what the GAEL said. If that's what you are calling a "secular" or "academic" translation, then that is where our disagreement lies.

An analogy:

Suppose I set out to translate Vergil's Aeneid from Latin into English by consulting a Latin-to-English dictionary. I have two such dictionaries at my disposal. The first is John Traupman's New College Latin & English Dictionary, a reference widely used by secular academics. The second, let's say, is a Latin-English dictionary written by a self-proclaimed "prophet." I see these words (one might even call them "caractors"): "Arma virumque cano" and I begin my translation. In consulting Traupman, I arrive at the English translation of "I sing of arms and a man." When consulting the dictionary written by the supposed prophet, however, I get something like "There once was a man named Zelph who was a descendant of noodly-armed pirates who came across the seven seas in submarines with glass windows." If I decide that the proper translation is the latter, have I engaged in a "secular" or "academic" translation? By your definition, Don, I guess the answer would have to be yes. I would say no, though. That's the point I am trying to make about your finding. It is interesting, but it does not mean that Joseph Smith was engaged in a secular or academic translation, unless the words secular and academic mean something like what I've just described in my analogy. You seem to be saying that what makes Joseph Smith's translation "secular" is that he consulted a dictionary of sorts. I am saying that the nature of the dictionary he consulted is relevant to the inquiry of whether the translation he produced was really secular.