How are the Kinderhook Plates a secular translation?

[_Jaybear]

The traditional "anti-Mormon" objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the "revelation" was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic.

Not really. As phrased, you imply that the critical argument is that a "real prophet" would have known that the KP was a forgery.

The more compelling criticism is that in presenting the Book of Mormon, and Book of Abraham to the public, Smith fraudulently claimed to have a special ability to locate, identify and/or translate ancient artifacts. The KP incident, where he offers a partial translation of a bogus artifact, exposes Smith as a fraud.

Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates.

Successfully? I wouldn't say that. I would say Don paper seeks to resolve the problem by suggesting that Smith did not purport to translate the KP by revelatory means.

But, does it really matter? Lets not forget, this is the same person who led people to believe he could find buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat.

What difference does it make if Smith claims his "remarkable talent" comes from a special stone, revelation from God, or from bogus scholarship? A fraud is a fraud.

[_onandagus]

I would say Don paper seeks to resolve the problem by suggesting that Smith did not purport to translate the KP by revelatory means.

But, does it really matter?

Give me a break. Of course it matters. If I'd discovered instead a statement that said Joseph Smith reported getting this text by direct revelation, you'd use that for all it was worth. The difference is vast.

Hasta,

Don

[_Jaybear]

I would say Don paper seeks to resolve the problem by suggesting that Smith did not purport to translate the KP by revelatory means.

But, does it really matter?

Give me a break. Of course it matters. If I'd discovered instead a statement that said Joseph Smith reported getting this text by direct revelation, you'd use that for all it was worth. The difference is vast.

Hasta,

Don

Don,

I think you missed the subtle but vast difference between:

"Would it matter?"
and
"Would it really matter?"

[_Tarski]

I would say Don paper seeks to resolve the problem by suggesting that Smith did not purport to translate the KP by revelatory means.

But, does it really matter?

Give me a break. Of course it matters. If I'd discovered instead a statement that said Joseph Smith reported getting this text by direct revelation, you'd use that for all it was worth. The difference is vast.

Hasta,

Don

It occurs to me that all of this academic attention to detail may have obscured the big picture.
It is only by having the big picture in mind that we can make the best sense of the otherwise boring details.

The big picture may be described bluntly and roughly as follows:

A superstitious Joseph Smith came on the scene with a dubious background in dubious circumstances and presented himself as being a prophet. His angle was that he could translate ancient documents by the power of God.

What we end up with is the Book of Mormon (nice effort), the Book of Abraham (oops) and the Kinderhook plates (oh oh).

The last two turn out to be obvious failures with all the markings of conscious fraud. In this story there are everywhere the markings of a huge narcisistic ego always ready to claim grand abilities and spin often impromtu stories (Zelph, "Egyptus", loins of Ham, pharohs, Kolob, etc.) and provide fanciful semieducated hermeneutics.

The whole fraudulant nature of his enterprise is highlighted by his secretly insituting a dubious cult of spiritual wifery that implicated him in clear dishonesty. A strangley reincarnate part of his legacy is to be found headed for prison in Texas.

Everything is neatly explained by assuming what is already obvious to most people who manage to get an undiluted version of the story:

Joseph Smith was not really a prophet of God at all but was just a charismatic figure who instituted a relgious cult which grew to modest modern proportions. In the process the character of the movement has changed dramatically becoming what is now more or less big business--highly correlated and corporate. It has ossified.

The most important questions about Joseph Smith have obvious answers that are not changed by your efforts.

You might think I am just giving things a spin but the spin is intrinsic.

[_onandagus]

Hi Tarski,

The problem with that as a response here is that it sprawls into a thousand other subdiscussions. The general patterns you're invoking are all comprised of individual cases, which need to be settled on their own terms. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at larger patterns--to the contrary. I'm just saying they are far beyond the scope of addressing a specialized topic like this. For those who see an overall pattern of falsity and fraud discussion this issue won't matter. But perhaps that's why it was presented at FAIR and will appear in the JMH, rather than being presented at the ExMo conference and appearing in Free Inquiry.

With regards,

Don

[_Aristotle Smith]

It occurs to me that all of this academic attention to detail may have obscured the big picture.

2 points.

#1: I think a lot of people have been trying to bring this issue into the bigger picture. The response by the apologists, both here and at MDD, has been to insist on keeping the scope very small.

#2: I think this is a general problem with apologetics in the LDS community. So many apologetic explanations only work when the scope of explanation is kept artificially small. Take Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon; it looks fine until you realize that tight translation theories cause more problems than they solve, which of course makes the Hebraisms impossible. No tight translation == No Hebraisms.

This has been one of the more frustrating things for me in this entire episode. My position has been that this might explain a small issue with a small scope. But, this data taken globally does enormous damage to the apologetic cause.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I agree with the overall assessment by most here: it is an interesting find, but the most it can do is move the needle from fraud to incompetence. From an apologetic point of view, it makes the case for Joseph Smith weaker because it removes the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't attempt a translation at all. He most definitely did, and unfortunately showed that he had no ability to translate.

One other thought about the secular/revelatory distinction. Joseph Smith was claiming to be God's chosen prophet. It is hard to imagine that he somehow wouldn't consider asking God for the translation if he really had that special relationship. And it is hard to imagine that God would refuse giving him an answer and tell him that it was a fraud. So either Joseph Smith didn't ask because he knew he didn't really have a special relationship with God or he did ask and didn't receive an answer because he didn't really have a special relationship with God. Either way, there is no rational way to spin this episode in a way supportive of Mormonism.

[_Themis]

One other thought about the secular/revelatory distinction. Joseph Smith was claiming to be God's chosen prophet. It is hard to imagine that he somehow wouldn't consider asking God for the translation if he really had that special relationship. And it is hard to imagine that God would refuse giving him an answer and tell him that it was a fraud. So either Joseph Smith didn't ask because he knew he didn't really have a special relationship with God or he did ask and didn't receive an answer because he didn't really have a special relationship with God. Either way, there is no rational way to spin this episode in a way supportive of Mormonism.

This is a point I have raised as well. Joseph claimed to have seen God, Jesus and a host of angels. He claims revelations on a daily basis about a host of issues. Many of these revelations come through Joseph having a question and asking god. If he were a true prophet under these conditions, asking God would be the first place he would go to seek information about the plates.

I agree with the overall assessment by most here: it is an interesting find, but the most it can do is move the needle from fraud to incompetence.

Some like CS have already brought up what this could mean to other issues which are far more crucial to Joseph claims like the KEP. I had to laugh when I read this from Will.

This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.

What I find interesting here is that Will seems to understand what damage the KEP does for Joseph's claims, and seems to be chiding Don for doing good work that might solve a minor problem at the expense of lending supporting evidence to an issue(KEP) that is a major blow to Joseph's prophetic claims.

From an apologetic point of view, it makes the case for Joseph Smith weaker because it removes the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't attempt a translation at all. He most definitely did, and unfortunately showed that he had no ability to translate.

Don's findings as I understand them with limited information about them is that it shows Joseph comparing a character from the KP to the Gael that can be translated into what Clayton says Joseph's claims about the KP. It does not necessarily exclude revelatory means for reasons some have already given.

[_onandagus]

Don's findings as I understand them with limited information about them is that it shows Joseph comparing a character from the KP to the Gael that can be translated into what Clayton says Joseph's claims about the KP. It does not necessarily exclude revelatory means for reasons some have already given.

It doesn't exclude revelatory claims; it simply renders them unnecessary and redundant. If people want to believe without reason that he invoked revelation to derive content that he was already claiming to derive in another way using the GAEL, they are free to believe that as a matter of Mormon, or ex-Mormon, faith.

Don

[_CaliforniaKid]

I had to laugh when I read this from Will.

This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.

I thought that was fairly entertaining, as well. William can certainly be relied upon not to beat around the bush.