Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_onandagus]

Are you claiming that Joseph Smith, a prophet of God who translated the Book of Mormon and the Egyptian papyrus did not use "divine means" to translate the Kinderhook plates, but instead he was "acting as a man" so to speak?

Bingo!

Visual comparison of characters on different documents is not something that only a prophet can do; it's something that a human being of any spiritual level could do. I'm guessing that even someone who spends much of his time focusing on misrepresenting and demonizing the faith of others on message boards could make such a comparison, since it requires only the proper functioning of one's (physical) eyes and nothing whatsoever in the way of charity, largeness of soul, or spiritual perception. I think you'll have no problem making the comparison accurately when you see the video of the presentation.

Such visual comparison isn't the function of a prophet, but simply of a man.

Don

[_onandagus]

"In response to another poster I opined that my FAIR presentation will be a complete demolition in itself of the critical argument from the Kinderhook plates.

Let readers judge for themselves how given I am to hyperbole.

Don"

Don, this is what you said your presentation was going to achieve.
Why didn't it deliver?

Watch the video, Jon, and tell me honestly that it did not demolish the critical argument based on Joseph's translation from the Kinderhook plates: "Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates."

Cheers,

Don

[_thews]

He wasn't interested enough at that time in finishing the Book of Abraham or even starting the BoJ so I see no reason why he was going to be that interested in the KP.

The Book of Joseph was different than the Kinderhook plates because Joseph Smith wasn't behind them. From what I've read, there was great excitement when they were found, as the people believed they were part of the proof that Mormonism was true. Remember that Zelph was supposed to be proof the Book of Mormon was true, so the excitement generated with the Kinderhook plates would have been further proof.

Apologists may cheer a small victory from their pov that Joseph did not try to do a divine translation, but may lose a bigger battle in how this may damage some apologetic arguments about the KEP, which is far more damaging to Joseph claims then the KP could ever be.

I agree. The main point to all of this is that William Clayton is now taken for his word. In the past, apologists have refused to acknowledge Joseph Smith attempted the translation and blamed it all on Clayton.

[_jon]

Hi Brade,

Yes, that is part of my article (I also had linked documents on my website that included a list of all the relevant statements as well as the discrepancy spreadsheet).

However, I am not sure if it is the latest version. Three or four years ago during a discussion I was having at FAIR with Don Bradley, I investigated the plausibility (prompted by Bradley) that the Egyptian Alphabets and Grammar (EA and GAEL), or Greek, Latin, and Hebrew lexicons, may have been appealed to in coming up with a partial translation. As a result of that investigation, I determined that several of the characters on the Kinderhook Plates resembled some of the characters in the EA/GAEL, and given the English explanations associated with the EA/GAEL characters, it may have formed the basis for a partial academic translation of the Kinderhook Plates mentioned by Clayton and/or Pratt. If memory serves me correctly, I believe I ammended my article acknowledging this plausibility.

I am not sure if I kept the documentation for my research or links to the FAIR thread in question (I will have to check the harddrive of my old computer), but Bradley and another respected historian (I believe it was Amherst-McGee) were supposed to formally publish their own similar findings, though I don't know if that has happened yet or not.

But, I appreciate you posting my article nevertheless. It gives us at least something to work with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Don, this is a post from March this year.
Did you discuss the similarity of symbols between GAEL and Kinderhook plates 'years ago' or is he making that up?
If he's not making it up, why has it taken you years to present it?

[_Simon Belmont]

Was Don Bradley's theory and presentation a complete demolition of the critical arguments? That was the advance boast, wasn't it?

So if it isn't, it's a "bomb?"

That's called a false dichotomy -- it is either a "complete demolition" or a "bomb."

You need to rethink your position.

[_EAllusion]

Don -

I fail to understand how the critical argument even as you laid it out has been demolished. Given that the Kinderhook plates were not, in fact, an account of an ancient Jaredite who was a descendant of Ham and no "translation" of them would reasonably yield that interpretation it would seem that even a secular endeavor would still place Joseph Smith likely in the role of inventing a pseudo-historical religious account based on a fraud. I suppose this is fine if you have already accepted Smith as an author of pseudoepigraphia, but not so much if you are tied to the historicity of his religious tales.

What am I missing?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

How has Don's presentation been accepted among Mormon apologists? DCP seemed to indicate that he thought it was a good presentation, but didn't indicate whether he endorsed the theory. Are there any others that have embraced his theory?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Don -

I fail to understand how the critical argument even as you laid it out has been demolished. Given that the Kinderhook plates were not, in fact, an account of an ancient Jaredite who was a descendant of Ham and no "translation" of them would reasonably yield that interpretation it would seem that even a secular endeavor would still place Joseph Smith likely in the role of inventing a pseudo-historical religious account based on a fraud. I suppose this is fine if you have already accepted Smith as an author of pseudoepigraphia, but not so much if you are tied to the historicity of his religious tales.

What am I missing?

Yes, I think that is the most pressing issue. An honest man can make the attempt to translate the plates, but the only possible result would be complete failure. That he actually succeeded in any type of translation at all causes one to rightly question whether he can be trusted.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Watch the video, Jon, and tell me honestly that it did not demolish the critical argument based on Joseph's translation from the Kinderhook plates: "Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates."

Cheers,

Don

Is the video available?

[Guest]

...