Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_thews]

However, the claim that this translation may have come from a single character may make his mistake more understandable. We are moving away from fraud to mere incompetence.

I'll disagree. If only one character is supposedly understood, how then does a very specific translation involving the descendant of Ham come from that one character? Regarding the lack of divine intervention, how does one prove he didn't use his seer stones to make the translation? If there was no account of using seer stones, does this qualify as proof he didn't use them? If he didn't use the seer stones or consulted God, why wouldn't he? If one accepts divine intervention was used to translate the Book of Mormon and the papyrus to "translate" the Book of Abraham, wouldn't logic dictate that a prophet of God, who consulted with God, just ask God about it? Conversely, if Joseph Smith sent the plates off for authentication before a full translation was made, it would seem obvious that Joseph Smith, while believing the plates were authentic, needed an external human source to validate them. He needed this because he wasn't in control of the source as he was with both the Book of Mormon plates and the papyrus. When one factors in the Greek Psalter attempted translation, I fail to see how this moves away from fraud and sides with incompetence.

[_Analytics]

Analytics: why did you refer to it as a "bomb?" Are you trying to be a jerk?

I meant to imply that his work here is an explosive, seminal work that will change the nature of Kinderhook discussions.

On a different note, I do wonder if this whole "by revelation" vs. "by secular means" distinction is a false dichotomy. After all, the "by revelation" method explained in the D&C is to study it out in your own mind, take your best shot at making a translation, and if you don't get a stupor of thought, roll with what you came up with. There is a lot of overlap between that and a secular translation.

[_Buffalo]

Here's the gist:

The content Clayton says Joseph got from the Kinderhook plates can all be derived from a single character definition given in the GAEL. A character matching the one thus-defined is found at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates and is even arguably the most prominent character on the plates.

Joseph Smith could thus have derived the entire "translation" from the Kinderhook plates by a simple character match. And--in fact--I have an eyewitness account, written six days after the Clayton journal entry, in which someone sees Joseph comparing these characters and identifying a match, using the "Egyptian alphabet"--the GAEL.

Making a visual match of characters is not revelatory: it's something anyone can do. Thus Joseph's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not a revelatory one, but a visual and intellectual one.

I hope that's clearer.

Don

Thanks, that clears a lot up about Joseph's ability to "translate."

[_Buffalo]

However, the claim that this translation may have come from a single character may make his mistake more understandable. We are moving away from fraud to mere incompetence.

Either way, it discredits his ability as a "translator" of ancient documents (real or forged).

Well, the real translation of the Book of Abraham facsimiles already did that, but this pounds another nail into the coffin.

[_Aristotle Smith]

On a different note, I do wonder if this whole "by revelation" vs. "by secular means" distinction is a false dichotomy. After all, the "by revelation" method explained in the D&C is to study it out in your own mind, take your best shot at making a translation, and if you don't get a stupor of thought, roll with what you came up with. There is a lot of overlap between that and a secular translation.

I think this is a major problem too. The apologists are wanting to have it both ways on this.

For years critics have been pointing out all of the ways that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham cannot be translations. Apologists will usually accept some of the criticisms but still proclaim that it is inspired of God in some vague sense.

But, now the apologists now want to assert with 100% certainty that there is no revelation involved. Well, if the apologists wanted to insert some inspiration in the back door to account for the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham being of God, critics are entitled to also call the KP translation inspired in some vague sense as well.

[_Fence Sitter]

Joseph Smith consistently used props and items he encountered in producing scripture. It was a skill he developed as a youth during his treasure hunting days. How is the use of the GAEL as an aid to translate any different from what Joseph Smith did through out his life? Doesn't Don's presentation increase the likelihood that the rest of Joseph Smith's religious writings were also 'secular' attempts? Isn't the Book of Abraham another example of 'secular translation'? How does proving he used the GAEL to translate the KP eliminate fraud without knowing how Joseph Smith truly viewed the GAEL? Did Joesph Smith know it was useless to translate or had he convinced himself it actually worked? Either he knows it was useless, in which case he is a fraud, or he believes incorrectly he can actually can translate with it, which casts more suspicion on all the rest of his work. How do you separate his attempt at the KP from anything else he produced?

[_onandagus]

I think this is a major problem too. The apologists are wanting to have it both ways on this.

Pot, meet kettle.

Aristotle, your comments have been a perfect illustration of wanting to have it both ways. You want to enlist the new Kinderhook plates finding in support of your position on the Book of Abraham without even acknowledging their real implications for understanding the Kinderhook plates issue itself.

But, now the apologists now want to assert with 100% certainty that there is no revelation involved. Well, if the apologists wanted to insert some inspiration in the back door to account for the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham being of God, critics are entitled to also call the KP translation inspired in some vague sense as well.

As for no revelation being involved in the Kinderhook plates, you are simply presuming--and wrongly--that this is just an apologetic assumption. You should check out my more extensive comments on this to Kevin on the other board, but here's the gist:

1) Since all the content Joseph reportedly translated from the Kinderhook plates can be derived from a single GAEL definition, there is no need to posit revelatory claims on top of this unless you have some evidence for them. If you do posit them, Occam's razor would simply lop them off.

2) The eyewitness who sees Joseph compare the characters and find a match reports that "he will therefore be able to decipher them"--i.e., his understanding from what he saw and heard from Joseph was that the claim to translation was based simply on the character match and not on additional revelation.

by the way, as for me being "one of the apologists," you should know that while I had been working toward these interpretations years ago as a believer, I did not finalize them, nor find the eyewitness account, until I was an atheist outside the church. They are scholarly interpretations which, unlike your use of the data, are not shaped for polemical ends.

Cheers,

Don

[Guest]

Either way, it discredits his ability as a "translator" of ancient documents (real or forged).

It makes me smile, Buffalo, to realize that I am having an exchange with someone who can't see any distinction between translating something by God giving you its meaning and translating by comparing two similar characters.

You have a nice day. =)

Don

[_Themis]

It makes me smile, Buffalo, to realize that I am having an exchange with someone who can't see any distinction between translating something by God giving you its meaning and translating by comparing two similar characters.

You have a nice day.

Don

It's the characters he looked at I am interested in. Is there anything online yet?

[_onandagus]

Don,

Did you cover off the other possibility in your presentation?

The one where the KP characters were used to complete the GAEL.
The reverse of Joseph using the Gael to understand the KP.

Jon,

I tried to find a way to PM you on this instead of putting it in the thread, but you apparently have it set so you can't be PM-ed?

I think you'll see the answer to this for yourself if you check the relative chronology of the two documents in question.

Cheers,

Don