Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_Socrates]

Don, if Joseph Smith, Jr. did not receive revelation with respect to his GAEL-tool translation of a character on the KP, was Joseph Smith, Jr. just making up the part connecting a character about a descendant of Ham being the guy whose bones were found buried with the KP?

If it was by revelation, then you've merely succeeded in pointing out the mechanism (GAEL and character comparison) that assisted the revelation.

If it was not by revelation, then one must ask what else Joseph Smith, Jr. just made up in his writings about ancients when having 'ancient' plates as props.

Which is it?

[_Aristotle Smith]

I'm not getting anything out of this discussion, Aristotle, and you obviously aren't, since your positions remain the same regardless of the evidence or logic I present. Thus, I'm bowing out of further discussion with you.

Happy Posting,

Don

Don,

A helpful hint. Don't ask questions, then bow out. Do one or the other.

I'm fine with you bowing out of the conversation with me. It seems that many other people share the same concerns I have, so my guess is that you will end up having to answer these problems, provided you choose to remain engaged with the message boards.

ETA: You do make one accusation that sticks, I do keep going back and forth on calling this apologetics or not. My apologies for doing so.

[_onandagus]

Hi Socrates,
I don't see your attempt to set up a logical dichotomy as actually working.

Regarding the identification of the guy with whom the plates were buried as the descendant of Ham, this is easily accounted for in the scenario I'm proposing and will be explained in my joint paper with Mark Ashurst-McGee. I hesitate to lay out that part of the paper since it wasn't in my presentation and is something Mark, and not I, came up with. I hate to put you off like that, but look for the paper in the Journal of Mormon History, hopefully next year.

In any case all you'd be able to argue from this would be the possibility that the identification was made by revelation and not by simple surmise. I believe Aristotle and Analytics have similarly argued that revelation can't be positively ruled out. I have two comments on this: First, the eyewitness account by "A Gentile" on May 7, six days after the Clayton diary entry, indicates his understanding that the translation was made by a character match and nothing more. Second, I'm at a loss to understand why it would matter if revelation couldn't be entirely ruled out. Critics have sometimes criticized apologists for arguing merely for the possibility of something rather than its probability. But this is precisely what critics are doing here. Who cares if it's possible? That possibility doesn't give us any reason to believe it. And what kind of substantive "criticism" of LDS faith claims is it to argue what Joseph Smith might possibly have done?

Don

[_Dan Vogel]

Don,

I'll add that "A Gentile" identifies himself as a friendly non-Mormon resident of Nauvoo. His letter is dated the same day that Joseph is known from other sources to have shown the Kinderhook plates to a number of non-Mormon citizens. And the next sentence after what Dan quotes is, I believe, "He will therefore be able to decipher them."

A non-Mormon could easily be confused over what the GAEL is, associating it with the well known Book of Mormon rather than the relatively obscure Book of Abraham. And the title on the spine of the GAEL is "Egyptian Alphabet," indicating that it was known by the same name "A Gentile" uses for the GAEL.

Do you have any evidence the label was on the spine in 1843? I’m skeptical of that claim. A similar label appears on the “Kirtland Revelations” book, but the Joseph Smith papers crowd didn’t proffer even a guess about it.

Coupling that with the easy derivation from the GAEL of the content Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates we have Joseph using the GAEL to interpret the Kinderhook plates character. By reference to this one matching character, we can explain the "translated" content; and "A Gentile" confirms the character matching: he sees Joseph make a match--hence his comment "they are evidently the same characters." And it is based on this match to the "Egyptian alphabet" that he concludes that Joseph will "therefore be able to translate them."

I can see that. You might be right. However, saying they are the “same characters” is just as easy with the Book of Mormon characters, especially since the character you have identified isn’t exact. The same claim was made in relation to the Egyptian papyri.

The morning Mr. Chandler firs presented his papyrus to bro.—Smith, he was shown, by the latter, a number of chracters like those upon the writings of Mr. C. which were previously copied from the plates, containing the history of the Nephites, or Book of Mormon. … bro. S[mith]. Gave him the interpretation of some few for his satisfaction” (M&A 2:235, Dec. 1835).

As I said this source apparently supports your connection between the Kinderhook plates and the GAEL. I’m bringing this up as a potential problem. But still, your thesis is worth taking seriously, by both apologists and critics. If what you are saying is true, your fellow apologists should be disturbed by the trust Joseph Smith shows for the GAEL, which in no way can be described as a secular translation.

There is also an assumption that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to translate the Kinderhook plates and that it was completely secular. As I mentioned in my previous post, the passage in the GAEL doesn’t contain all the elements in Clayton’s journal and the character in the Kinderhook plates is more complex than the one in the GAEL. One might therefore postulate that the GAEL provided only part of the translation and that the remainder was done by revelation. I haven’t see all your evidence, but it seems your theory would demand that you be able to explain the additional elements in the Clayton passage in the same manner. You should also be able to explain the additional markings within the character in the same manner for you to be able to claim a secular translation. Can you do that? If you can’t, you might want tone down the rhetoric about demolishing the critic’s position. Just my observation.

[_onandagus]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your observations.

I think when you watch the video you'll see that I can make a more precise character match than you presently think. But we'll see, eh?

Robin Jensen tells me that the "Egyptian Alphabet" label on the GAEL may have been added in Utah. This is something to look into further. But I would argue that even if the label is added in Utah, it shows what the insiders knew the document as.

Finally, while I think there is already enough explanation for what Clayton says Joseph translated that there's no reason to think he relied on revelation, Mark Ashurst-McGee and I will explain the complete content Clayton says Joseph translated in our joint published paper. I don't claim revelation is ruled out, only that it is entirely unnecessary to explain the reported translation content. If people then want to posit gratuitous revelation that really doesn't add anything, they will be entirely free to do so, but I hardly think this provides the basis for a good critical argument.

Cheers,

Don

Don

[_harmony]

I don't claim revelation is ruled out, only that it is entirely unnecessary to explain the reported translation content.
Don

I'm not understanding the importance of "translation content" of something that was fake?

It seems like the only true translation content of such an item would be to proclaim that it's a fake.

[_onandagus]

I don't claim revelation is ruled out, only that it is entirely unnecessary to explain the reported translation content.
Don

I'm not understanding the importance of "translation content" of something that was fake?

It seems like the only true translation content of such an item would be to proclaim that it's a fake.

Hi Harmony,

No one is saying Joseph Smith's "translation" via the GAEL was correct. It wasn't. The question at issue isn't whether he came up with a wrong translation, since the document was a forgery, but how he came up with it. Different modes of arriving at the wrongful translation, such as direct revelation and simple character matching, have different implications.

Don

[_harmony]

Hi Harmony,

No one is saying Joseph Smith's "translation" via the GAEL was correct. It wasn't. The question at issue isn't whether he came up with a wrong translation, since the document was a forgery, but how he came up with it. Different modes of arriving at the wrongful translation, such as direct revelation and simple character matching, have different implications.

Don

Ah! The light dawns! Thank you!

Since direct revelation would not have resulted in a wrongful translation, and simple character matching could have... Okay... where does it go from there?

[_Equality]

Ok, after reading Don's many posts (thanks for staying engaged in the discussion, by the way), I think I understand the gist of the argument. It's this:

Critics have long argued that Joseph Smith fabricated his translation of the Kinderhook Plates, and that he claimed to have received it by revelation.

This new evidence shows that yes, indeed, Joseph Smith fabricated his translation of the Kinderhook Plates, but he never claimed to have received the translation by revelation (even though his followers, including contemporary and future "prophets, seers, and revelators" believed and proclaimed that he did). Somehow, this helps the apologetic case that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God.

I think this speaks volumes about the state of Mormon apologetics circa 2011.

That said, I think this is a great piece of Mormon history and the history-lover in me is stoked by this whole thing.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Does this "game-changer" simply prove that Joseph could easily be deceived and in the process perpetuate the deception?