Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_Fifth Columnist]

Did the forgers of the plates just chicken-scratch a bunch of random characters? If so, Joseph could be the first apologist to fall victim to parallelomania.

So parallelomania goes right to the top. Why am I not surprised? Luckily for TBMs, Joseph Smith's parallelomania does not implicate his status as a prophet (nor does a long laundry list of other distasteful things <cough> Joseph Smith's polygamy <cough>)

[Guest]

If you want to continue on with the academic vs. revelatory word games, have at it.

I can't see how I was playing word games, since I've stated that the words aren't what matter. Rather, in response to your insistence on an idiosyncratic use of the word "revelatory" and your insistence that the discussion turned on one's definition of that word, I pointed out that the word used is irrelevant: "What term you use is irrelevant. The point is that the action that will have to be attributed to Joseph Smith in "translating" from the Kinderhook plates is entirely different."

Just let me remind you that on a strictly historical basis, your pronouncements to have definitively shown that Joseph Smith did not invoke revelatory means are complete nonsense, as purely historical research can show no such thing. You may be right and I may be wrong, but your historical evidence cannot adjudicate the matter.

Historical evidence is entirely relevant to whether Joseph Smith claimed to use revelation on the Kinderhook plates. What the new findings show is: 1) the content he obtained could be obtained entirely without them, placing the burden of proof on the idea that he did what was utterly unnecessary; and 2) that someone who was there, saw him use the GAEL in interpreting the KP, and heard what he said about this stated that he had found matching characters and "therefore" would be able to decipher the characters, indicating his understanding of what Joseph had just shown and told him: that he was translating by character-matching, and not by revelation.

Naturally, any of us are free to adopt interpretations of the incident that take this evidence into account or interpretations that ignore it.

Like I said, I will stop referring to your presentation as apologetic, since it wasn't. You are, I am sure, a great historian. Please, continue with the historical research, I only wish we could clone about 20 of you to do research in Mormonism.

Ah, thanks!

Don

[_onandagus]

If it is true that Joseph Smith spotted a like-character on the KP as from the GAEL, how long, if this can be ascertained, did he spend working on a translation?

It can't be ascertained. However, given the simplicity of what needed to be done in order to make the connection, I would estimate about 10 minutes.

Did it go something like this: Joseph Smith got the KP looked them over cursorily and found them to contain curious markings. He took them, then and searched them over, trying to match them up with any various translations he'd been involved with previously. When he found the match between the KP character and the GAEL character, at this time, he set them aside hoping to get back to them but never did?

Something like this, except that I suspect Joseph later knew or suspected the plates to be a forgery, and hence did not purchase them.

Is there any indication that Joseph Smith considered the KP a fraud after it was sumarized by Phelps that he translated a portion of them?

Not Phelps, Clayton. If he ultimately thought them genuine, he had every reason to buy them. But he didn't.

Don

[_cinepro]

So parallelomania goes right to the top. Why am I not surprised? Luckily for TBMs, Joseph Smith's parallelomania does not implicate his status as a prophet (nor does a long laundry list of other distasteful things <cough> Joseph Smith's polygamy <cough>)

I propose that we call Don's theory "The Nibley Theory of Kinderhook Translation"

[_Aristotle Smith]

Sometimes I think apologists take their eyes off the ball.

If an apologist is arguing against someone, and that person doesn't believe Joseph Smith had any supernatural gifts, then it seems odd for a "defender of the faith" to try and win the argument by arguing that Joseph Smith didn't have supernatural gifts. They confuse "agreement" with "winning the argument".
...
If apologists don't make corresponding gains in moving non-believers towards their position, they will ultimately succeed in proving that the Prophets are just like everyone else with no special supernatural abilities, and the Church is just like every other religious organization.

QFT.

I suspect this is part of the problem with my attempted engagement with Don. The KP thing may result in an agreement among apologists and critics on this minor issue of what kind of translation was going on here, but I don't see it moving the overall apologetic argument forward. This leads to much confusion in the puny mind of Aristotle Smith.

[_LDS truthseeker]

Is there any indication that Joseph Smith considered the KP a fraud after it was sumarized by Phelps that he translated a portion of them?

Only that he did no further translation work on them.

[_Equality]

Is there any indication that Joseph Smith considered the KP a fraud after it was sumarized by Phelps that he translated a portion of them?

Only that he did no further translation work on them.

That's true of the Book of Joseph as well. And the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. And the inspired version of the Bible.

[_onandagus]

That's true of the Book of Joseph as well. And the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. And the inspired version of the Bible.

I agree <shock! ;-)> with Equality.

On the analogy with the Egyptian papyri, we wouldn't expect Joseph to do all his translating right away.

We would, however, both on that analogy and given the crucial role of ancient metal plates to his prophetic claims, expect him to purchase them. While some may want to quibble with this, the value of ancient metal plates in shoring up Joseph's Book of Mormon claims is just self-evident.

Certainly we don't know the exact course that his thought on the genuineness of the Kinderhook plates took, the best surmise from the available evidence is that he initially gave them the benefit of the doubt but was ultimately unconvinced of their genuineness.

Don

[_onandagus]

I propose that we call Don's theory "The Nibley Theory of Kinderhook Translation"

I'm puzzled, Cinepro. Does this mean you think my explanation mistaken or just that you think it shows Joseph pre-Nibleying Nibley?

Don

[_stemelbow]

If it is true that Joseph Smith spotted a like-character on the KP as from the GAEL, how long, if this can be ascertained, did he spend working on a translation?

It can't be ascertained. However, given the simplicity of what needed to be done in order to make the connection, I would estimate about 10 minutes.

Did it go something like this: Joseph Smith got the KP looked them over cursorily and found them to contain curious markings. He took them, then and searched them over, trying to match them up with any various translations he'd been involved with previously. When he found the match between the KP character and the GAEL character, at this time, he set them aside hoping to get back to them but never did?

Something like this, except that I suspect Joseph later knew or suspected the plates to be a forgery, and hence did not purchase them.

Is there any indication that Joseph Smith considered the KP a fraud after it was sumarized by Phelps that he translated a portion of them?

Not Phelps, Clayton. If he ultimately thought them genuine, he had every reason to buy them. But he didn't.

Don

Thanks for the response. I have plenty more to ingest on this.