Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_jon]

Thanks George.

The critical argument that was to have been scuppered by this game changer was :
Joseph was a false prophet because he attempted to translate (indeed came up with a partial translation of) fake plates, and real Prophets don't do that.

I'm not sure that reinforcing (as Don's presentation does) that Joseph...
1. Did indeed produce a translation, albeit partial, of fake plates
2. That the scribe's account (amongst others) is pretty accurate
3. That he used the GAEL to produce his partial translation
...actually constitutes game changing information.

I agree, it's nice to dot i's and cross t's when it comes to historical accuracy. But in terms of the critical argument against Joseph's skills (secular or inspired) as a translator, so what?

If we applied Don's findings - that the KP translation was secular because there was no evidence of revelation being used but there was evidence of a secular translation - to the Book of Abraham. Then we can say with equal boldness, that it too was an entirely secular translation and if Joseph was capable of getting one translation badly wrong. Well....you get the point.

[_George Miller]

The critical argument that was to have been scuppered by this game changer was :
Joseph was a false prophet because he attempted to translate (indeed came up with a partial translation of) fake plates, and real Prophets don't do that.

I'm not sure that reinforcing (as Don's presentation does) that Joseph...
1. Did indeed produce a translation, albeit partial, of fake plates
2. That the scribe's account (amongst others) is pretty accurate
3. That he used the GAEL to produce his partial translation
...actually constitutes game changing information.

I agree, it's nice to dot i's and cross t's when it comes to historical accuracy. But in terms of the critical argument against Joseph's skills (secular or inspired) as a translator, so what?

If we applied Don's findings - that the KP translation was secular because there was no evidence of revelation being used but there was evidence of a secular translation - to the Book of Abraham. Then we can say with equal boldness, that it too was an entirely secular translation and if Joseph was capable of getting one translation badly wrong. Well....you get the point.

Having talked to Don in May for several hours about the subject, I think I can safely say that your rendition of the nature of the "game change" was not Don's perception of the nature of the material. The nature of the discussion and obsession of certain people in framing the discussion as critics vs. apologists has IMHO stymied productive scholarly conversation of the subject.

[_jon]

The critical argument that was to have been scuppered by this game changer was :
Joseph was a false prophet because he attempted to translate (indeed came up with a partial translation of) fake plates, and real Prophets don't do that.

I'm not sure that reinforcing (as Don's presentation does) that Joseph...
1. Did indeed produce a translation, albeit partial, of fake plates
2. That the scribe's account (amongst others) is pretty accurate
3. That he used the GAEL to produce his partial translation
...actually constitutes game changing information.

I agree, it's nice to dot i's and cross t's when it comes to historical accuracy. But in terms of the critical argument against Joseph's skills (secular or inspired) as a translator, so what?

If we applied Don's findings - that the KP translation was secular because there was no evidence of revelation being used but there was evidence of a secular translation - to the Book of Abraham. Then we can say with equal boldness, that it too was an entirely secular translation and if Joseph was capable of getting one translation badly wrong. Well....you get the point.

Having talked to Don in May for several hours about the subject, I think I can safely say that your rendition of the nature of the "game change" was not Don's perception of the nature of the material. The nature of the discussion and obsession of certain people in framing the discussion as critics vs. apologists has IMHO stymied productive scholarly conversation of the subject.

This is what Don said in May on this board:

"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 framed it himself.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

GM, I understand your disappointment. It would be similar to going to a conference of Bible scholars and after someone just made some excellent discoveries about the identity and background of the Yahwist, all the subsequent discussion was about the scientific accuracy of creationism.

Nevertheless, you have to consider the nature of a discussion forum and realize that there are reasons why people participate. What drives the interest in Mormon history for most people here is the relevance that it has to the truthfulness of the church today. Mormon history, as you correctly point out, can be fascinating in its own right, but for most, the big picture they are most concerned with is what are the implications about the church's truthfulness.

I think you are giving Don a little too much credit and the critics too little credit with regard to their focus at least on this board. (But of course, I would say that, wouldn't I? I'm a critic.) Don did make his presentation at an apologetic conference. His participation here has been primarily to stress the secular/revelatory distinction and to chastise critics for not seeing the implications it has in the critic/apologist discussion. Meanwhile, I think there are plenty of critics, myself included, that have acknowledged that his discovery is a fascinating discovery and I agree with your observation that it does shed light on the thought process of Joseph Smith. As history, it is an interesting find and will provide insight into the Joseph Smith's psychology.

But will it extricate the apologist from all the difficulties pertaining to the KP episode? That may be the wiffle ball question in your view, but it remains relevant to those that are struggling with whether Mormonism is true or not. Or at least true in the sense most TBMs understand it to be true. (Just like creationism is relevant for those who are struggling with whether the Bible is inerrant.) And besides, most of us critics are angry that we didn't have ribs when we discussed the issue!

[_George Miller]

Nevertheless, you have to consider the nature of a discussion forum and realize that there are reasons why people participate. What drives the interest in Mormon history for most people here is the relevance that it has to the truthfulness of the church today. Mormon history, as you correctly point out, can be fascinating in its own right, but for most, the big picture they are most concerned with is what are the implications about the church's truthfulness.

for what it's worth I do understand the deep emotions that run through this question of "truthfulness" or the lack thereof and this largely drives the interest of many.

I think you are giving Don a little too much credit and the critics too little credit with regard to their focus at least on this board. (But of course, I would say that, wouldn't I? I'm a critic.) Don did make his presentation at an apologetic conference. His participation here has been primarily to stress the secular/revelatory distinction and to chastise critics for not seeing the implications it has in the critic/apologist discussion. Meanwhile, I think there are plenty of critics, myself included, that have acknowledged that his discovery is a fascinating discovery and I agree with your observation that it does shed light on the thought process of Joseph Smith. As history, it is an interesting find and will provide insight into the Joseph Smith's psychology.

Having watched multiple threads created on the subject both here and elsewhere, I would also point out that Don has largely been unable to talk about anything else but this point ad nauseam because it is all the critics and apologists want to talk about. In fact Don has been forced repeatedly to state over and over the same argument in a dozen different ways because he gets asked only the same question over and over again.

And besides, most of us critics are angry that we didn't have ribs when we discussed the issue!

Mmmmmm .... BBQ .... Yes I think you are right .... BBQ makes everything better .... If Mormonism had more BBQ then I am pretty sure that nobody would care if it was true or not, as long as it was filling, tasty and yummy ... Oh and don't forget nourishing and strengthening to our bodies. ;-)

[_jon]

George, as yet nobody has seen the characters in question.

Do you have images or links to them so that we can see the match?

[_George Miller]

George, as yet nobody has seen the characters in question.

Do you have images or links to them so that we can see the match?

Sure Jon, actually Don has presented the evidence and the characters over on the other board. The analysis of Clayton's account is the first post, the GAEL entries are contained at the bottom of the first page and Don's analysis of the characters is contained on page 2.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/552 ... ok-plates/

[_Nomad]

I’ve watched from a distance as this discussion has developed. I don’t really have a dog in this race. Never thought the Kinderhook plates issue was a big deal in the first place. I have checked out the things that Bradley has brought together to make his case. I just have a couple reactions to it:

He has to remove 2/3 of the parts of the character to make it match the one in the GAEL, and I don’t find the reasoning behind his “dissection” to be very strongly justified. He has to do it to force his comparison, but I think it’s justified on shaky grounds.

I can’t quite tell what historical sources Bradley actually cited in his presentation, but the sources listed in this thread don’t seem to strongly connect the episode with the GAEL. Two of them talk about the characters from the plates of the Book of Mormon. When I look at the KPs, I see characters that look a lot more like the Book of Mormon “caractors” than like the ones in the GAEL. So it makes sense to me that that comparison would have been made by people in 1843, most of which were probably familiar with those characters that had been widely published.

I’m not super-impressed with the parallels between the text of the KP “translation” and the explanations for the character in the GAEL. Yes, there are similarities, but the same parallels could be shown for various verses in the text of the Book of Abraham and Book of Genesis. Bradley wants us to view the GAEL as the only possible source for the phrases, but that’s not true. Schryver mentions that character and it’s explanation many times in his presentation, showing how it is dependent on the text of the Book of Abraham. What’s interesting is that he also talks about several other characters whose explanations contain just about as much parallel information as the one Bradley selects. “#9 Ho ee oop” (the character doesn't look anything like #11 "Ho ee oop hah") says, in the 5th degree:

A prince of the royal blood

a true descendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the transgressions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah

Abr. 1:26 – 27 says:

1:26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

1:27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Then there’s this from Genesis:

Genesis 14:19;22

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

So, I guess I’m just not very impressed by the fact that they are some similarities between the alleged KP translation and the explanation given for the one character Bradley chooses from the GAEL, especially when the character comparison is not very impressive to begin with, and the textual parallels are not unique.

Besides, I don’t see how it really gives much comfort to faithful LDS to have someone make the argument that Joseph Smith tried to make a “secular” translation of anything. From my viewpoint, that isn’t something Joseph Smith would have done. At least I don’t see any precedent for it in his history up to this point. He’s all about “inspired translation” or nothing at all, if you ask me.

In any case, that’s my take on it.

I am amused to see that Schryver and Vogel more or less agree about this Bradley argument. That’s got to be a first.

[_jon]

George, as yet nobody has seen the characters in question.

Do you have images or links to them so that we can see the match?

Sure Jon, actually Don has presented the evidence and the characters over on the other board. The analysis of Clayton's account is the first post, the GAEL entries are contained at the bottom of the first page and Don's analysis of the characters is contained on page 2.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/552 ... ok-plates/

Sadly the 'other' board doesn't accept challenging critics such as myself and so I am unable to view the link.

Is there another way?

[_Equality]

Don has been forced repeatedly to state over and over the same argument in a dozen different ways because he gets asked only the same question over and over again.

Some might say he has dodged the same questions over and over.

I grant all the points you make about the historical significance of Don's presentation, and I have congratulated him on his fine work from a historical standpoint. I really do think he's done great work here and I really do look forward to reading his article. That said, I think he has overstated his case on the secular/revelatory distinction, and I would point out that it has been Don and the apologists who have advanced the argument that Joseph Smith's translation was secular, or academic, as opposed to revelatory. It is that distinction that Don has repeatedly said has pulled the rug out from under the "primary and only substantive" critical argument. The critics, myself included, have engaged him on that point and pushed back, and while he's been a good sport about engaging some of our arguments, others he has, quite frankly, ignored.