Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_Kevin Graham]

Where's the evidence that Joseph Smith -- commonly referred to by himself and by his followers as a prophet, seer, and revelator -- claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham without divine revelation?

Dan,the same source used to prove he translated K-Hook via "academic" means, is the same source that details translated verses of the Book of Abraham, using characters that come directly from what apologists insist to be the "wrong scroll." You can't have it both ways here. If relying on the GAEL means no revelation was involved, then the same must be true for at least some portions of the Book of Abraham.

But I agree with you that the fact that he was "prophet seer and revelator" is strong evidence that he relied on revelation to do his translations. This is why there is every reason to believe revelation was involved in K-Hook as well. What kind of divine translator relies on academic means for no apparent reason? I tried to make this point to Pahoran on the other forum but he keeps telling me this doesn't count as evidence at all.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have to assume that you have not been following this thread

You're right. I have not.

Several here seem to think that I'm lying, but I'm not. And I'm going to leave again in a few minutes, and I won't be back until perhaps briefly tomorrow.

He was, they believed, a "prophet, seer, and revelator" and therefore it would make no sense for him not to seek a translation of the KP via revelation.

To seek a divine revelation and to actually get one are two quite distinct things, even for believers (like me) in divine revelation.

I see no reason to believe that Joseph claimed to have received a revealed translation of the Kinderhook plates -- his failure to complete or publish such a translation, or to have even done much substantial work toward it, seems prima facie evidence for that conclusion -- and no reason to doubt that he claimed such a revealed translation for the Book of Abraham.

At this point, I guess you can refine your standard to claim that the Bradley approach is appropriate for small or partial translations and your approach is appropriate for fuller translations, but I think anyone can see that would be completely ad hoc.

Anyone who concludes that seems quite mistaken to me.

It's no small distinction that Joseph acquired the papyri and published a text for the Book of Abraham, but never sought to acquire the Kinderhook plates and published no text from them.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

It's no small distinction that Joseph acquired the papyri and published a text for the Book of Abraham, but never sought to acquire the Kinderhook plates and published no text from them.

It hardly matters whether it is a small or big distinction, but whether it is a relevant distinction. The fact is that you have no rational basis for claiming that the KPs were not revelatory but the Book of Abraham was. Why would it matter whether he owns the plates or publishes? If the standard, as you suggested, is that he is a Prophet, it stands to reason that he would be a Prophet in both small things and big things.

[_wenglund]

Do you now accept Joseph Smith did attempt to make a translation of the Kinderhook plates...?

I have, for several years now, been open to that as a plausibility. At present, though, I am not entirely decided and am willing to explore more in-depth Don's hypothesis.

...and William Clayton's account is accurate?

I have always viewed it as a reasonable synopsis of what Clayton heard. I am yet unconvinced whether Clayton heard the information first-hand or second or otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

CFR on:
1. Joseph saying he translated it by revelation

Here are a few first and second-hand accounts:

" I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

"After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

"After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree…. The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

Here are a few first and second-hand accounts:

This is why the KP are a fairly trivial matter compared to the Book of Abraham, where revelation was claimed and Joseph got it very wrong.

[_Doctor Scratch]

To return back to the OP somewhat: I still think that Don Bradley deserves a hearty slap on the back for discovering the similarity between the GAEL and the Kinderhook Plates. That's a solid, interesting, scholarly find. Kudos, Don.

All that said, I think that Don kind of got caught up in the more polemical aspect of Mormon Studies that we have come to know as "Mopologetics." I think that the boasting about "crushing" the critics' argument was a big-time mistake. It's fine to be excited about discoveries; it's unwise to try and use these discoveries to try and score points on behalf of the war that was started decades ago by Louis Midgley, Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, and others. I'm sure these top-tier Mopologists get all kinds of jollies watching the newbies go to bat for them, but they are really the only ones who benefit.

My point here is simply that Don's a solid guy and a good scholar and I hope he finds a way to stay out of the fray from here on out. This thing about the translation being 'secular' is stupid and it's unfortunate that it's been drawn out so long. The real discovery is the bit about the GAEL, and that's the thing Don should be proud of.

Just my .02.

[_wenglund]

Here are a few first and second-hand accounts:

This is why the KP are a fairly trivial matter compared to the Book of Abraham, where revelation was claimed and Joseph got it very wrong.

That is one perspective. Others of us have a different perspective, and don't believe Joseph got the Book of Abraham "translation" wrong.

At the very least, though, I hope people now realize that there is evidence that Joseph, as well as the Church, believed the Book of Abraham translation was revelatory, while the same may not be said of the KP "translation."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

To return back to the OP somewhat: I still think that Don Bradley deserves a hearty slap on the back for discovering the similarity between the GAEL and the Kinderhook Plates. That's a solid, interesting, scholarly find. Kudos, Don.

All that said, I think that Don kind of got caught up in the more polemical aspect of Mormon Studies that we have come to know as "Mopologetics." I think that the boasting about "crushing" the critics' argument was a big-time mistake. It's fine to be excited about discoveries; it's unwise to try and use these discoveries to try and score points on behalf of the war that was started decades ago by Louis Midgley, Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, and others. I'm sure these top-tier Mopologists get all kinds of jollies watching the newbies go to bat for them, but they are really the only ones who benefit.

My point here is simply that Don's a solid guy and a good scholar and I hope he finds a way to stay out of the fray from here on out. This thing about the translation being 'secular' is stupid and it's unfortunate that it's been drawn out so long. The real discovery is the bit about the GAEL, and that's the thing Don should be proud of.

Just my .02.

Perhaps the two cents could have been better spent buying a sense of humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_jon]

CFR on:
1. Joseph saying he translated it by revelation

Here are a few first and second-hand accounts:

" I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

"After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

"After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree…. The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Cheers Wade,

As a follow up;

If the Book of Abraham was revelatory how come Joseph got the facsimilies wrong?