Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_wenglund]

Cheers Wade,

As a follow up; If the Book of Abraham was revelatory how come Joseph got the facsimilies wrong?

I don't know that he did get them wrong. Granted, Joseph's itranslation of the glyphs differ in some respects, though not all, from how certain modern Egyptologists have translated them. But, in terms of the gospel, I determine "right"or "wrong" in the scriptures based on the methods God has availed us. I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

Cheers Wade,

As a follow up; If the Book of Abraham was revelatory how come Joseph got the facsimilies wrong?

I don't know that he did get them wrong. Granted, Joseph's itranslation of the glyphs differ in some respects, though not all, from how certain modern Egyptologists have translated them. But, in terms of the gospel, I determine "right"or "wrong" in the scriptures based on the methods God has availed us. I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Joseph got almost all of it wrong - that's a fact. Any credible Egyptologist will agree with that, not just "certain" Egyptologists. You're being disingenuous here, Wade. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, but at least don't misrepresent the facts.

[_malkie]

Cheers Wade,

As a follow up; If the Book of Abraham was revelatory how come Joseph got the facsimilies wrong?

I don't know that he did get them wrong. Granted, Joseph's itranslation of the glyphs differ in some respects, though not all, from how certain modern Egyptologists have translated them. But, in terms of the gospel, I determine "right"or "wrong" in the scriptures based on the methods God has availed us. I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade.

Two things:
1. I hope you don't run afoul of Apple's IP department with your reference to itranslation - perhaps the lower-case 't' will save you (;=)

2. Your avatar is very effective. A couple of weeks ago a newspaper here in Toronto had a front-page photo of a guy in a canoe. Even looking at the newspaper box from many metres away (yards, if you prefer) I was immediately reminded of you, and, much to my surprise, it gave me a pleasant fuzzy feeling. Who woulda thunk! Especially when I recognised that I have not always been kind towards you.

Please accept #2. as an olive branch extended in your direction from someone who will likely remain critical of your religion while attempting to refrain from criticism of defenders of your faith, especially yourself.

[_Themis]

I don't know that he did get them wrong. Granted, Joseph's itranslation of the glyphs differ in some respects, though not all, from how certain modern Egyptologists have translated them.

You have got to be kidding me. Joseph's translation differs from from Egyptologists like night and day.

But, in terms of the gospel, I determine "right"or "wrong" in the scriptures based on the methods God has availed us. I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.

A method told to you by men, and a method in which you can get any answer you want, which is great because people will use this method to ignore any amount of evidence. A method in which emotions are vital. Emotions may be the best way to keep people believing anything. Emotions tend to create strong attachments to certain beliefs no matter how irrational they are.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.

Yeah, me too.

Of course, I don't think God really exists, but if he/she does, I'm quite confident that he/she can make that readily apparent and tell me whatever he/she wants.

Nevertheless, in the mean time, I'm not going to let people claim that they speak for God and accept them at their word when there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their claim.

[_onandagus]

Hi Scratch,

It may be helpful for me to tell you a bit about the history of my interpretation of the Kinderhook plates translation. I made the initial content-match years back as a somewhat unorthodox believer. Before this, I thought that Joseph Smith did translate from the Kinderhook plates by revelation, but wasn't bothered by this, since to me it was just like the catalyst theory of the Book of Abraham: a given text was used to prompt a revelation about something else. So, I didn't need an apologetic that said Joseph had not translated by revelation. What changed my mind was the GAEL match, and realizing from that that Joseph Smith didn't need revelation in order to get the reported content he did from the Kinderhook plates.

Later, when I discovered the eyewitness account and finalized my explanation, I was an ex-Mormon atheist. In fact, you may recall me hinting at my present understanding of the Kinderhook plates as a nonbeliever on this board a few years ago.

To paint my research as great but my conclusion from it as stupid apologetics is, frankly, just to rip that interpretation out of its context. I had no intention of creating a Kinderhook plates apologetic. My work on this was not apologetic in purpose, but only in effect.

Others prone to my same stupidity on this issue here include George Miller and Chris Smith, who have explicitly agreed that this find overturns the Kinderhook plates criticism of Joseph Smith as translator. The three of us comprise, no doubt, a veritable trinity of idiocy.

My "boasting," by the way, about this paper in advance was motivated simply by having observed how much attention was drawn to last year's big presentation by the presenter's advance proclamations about how formidable it would be. I'm not usually much of a boaster, but 1) I liked the idea of having people anticipate my session and 2) knew that if I did make such "boasts," they would be true--as, again, such "Mopologists" as Chris Smith have acknowledged here. So, for what it's worth, there's the explanation for my pre-conference posts here.

In writing all this, I don't want to overlook your effusive compliments to my research on this matter. I appreciate those very much.

Cheers,

Don

[_Socrates]

Don,

How does Joseph Smith, Jr. extending the revelatory fraud that is the GAEL/Book of Abraham to the Kinderhook Plates to "translate" a character, with or without God's assistance at the time, somehow save Joseph Smith, Jr.'s prophetic claims, even in the slightest degree, from the critical damnation that the Kinderhook Plates incident is?

Isn't your 'interpretation' of your historical find more hopeful, apologetically, than it is deductive?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Don.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing your research, or your "conclusion" per se. My critical comments were aimed at the more polemical aspects of your own hyping of the presentation and research and your subsequent combativeness. (Frankly, I think the fact alone that you were the one giving the presentation would have been hype enough. I bet that people would have been excited about it simply because you are who you are.) If you want your research to fit into that pattern of rhetorical back-and-forth, that's your choice, of course. But my two cents is that you're better off trying to avoid it.

As for the "conclusion"... Well, as I noted early on, I fail to see how a subtle shift in our understanding of JS-as-translator manages to "crush" the critics' observations concerning the whole Kinderhook episode. The gist of the criticism, as I understand it, has always been simply that Joseph Smith was duped into thinking that the K. Plates were legitimate ancient scripture, rather like what happened with the Book of Abraham papyri. So, while it's interesting to note that Joseph Smith began his "translation" of the KP via the GAEL (and how did he intend to translate the remainder of the KP, I wonder? Would this have been a "secular" translation as well?), this really does virtually nothing to "crush" the old criticisms. And regardless, Don, I just flat-out think you would have been better off without the taunts and the hype. As I indicated above, it just adds more fuel to the old fire that was started decades ago by you-know-who.

[_onandagus]

Hi Socrates!

For all my responses to such arguments, questions, and misrepresentations of what I've argued, see above! =)

Cheers,

Don

[_onandagus]

Hi there, Don.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing your research, or your "conclusion" per se. My critical comments were aimed at the more polemical aspects of your own hyping of the presentation and research and your subsequent combativeness. (Frankly, I think the fact alone that you were the one giving the presentation would have been hype enough. I bet that people would have been excited about it simply because you are who you are.) If you want your research to fit into that pattern of rhetorical back-and-forth, that's your choice, of course. But my two cents is that you're better off trying to avoid it.

I appreciate your input, Dr., and you you may very well be right. The tack I took in the pre-conference 'hype' was purely experimental. On reflection now, I'd say that I wouldn't expect to repeat it for future presentations and publications.

As for the "conclusion"... Well, as I noted early on, I fail to see how a subtle shift in our understanding of Joseph Smith-as-translator manages to "crush" the critics' observations concerning the whole Kinderhook episode.

Okay, I see the shift from direct revelation to character comparisons. Where the subtle part?

The gist of the criticism, as I understand it, has always been simply that Joseph Smith was duped into thinking that the K. Plates were legitimate ancient scripture, rather like what happened with the Book of Abraham papyri.

I've been thinking about this issue a long time, and I was I've always understood that the primary, and substantive, criticism was that Joseph Smith was giving false revelation.

by the way, are we sure he saw it as scripture?

So, while it's interesting to note that Joseph Smith began his "translation" of the KP via the GAEL (and how did he intend to translate the remainder of the KP, I wonder?

If he intended to translate it all, then I would think he expected to need revelation along with the GAEL. I'm not convinced he did intend that, though it seems likely given his intial, seemingly successful foray at translating it. That he ultimately did not buy the plates could be interpreted as resulting from later revelation that the plates were not worth translating, but, of course, there's a great deal of uncertainty about all this and we really don't know what his intentions were to start with. What we can see is simply how he interpreted the part he did engage with, and this was by character-matching.

Would this have been a "secular" translation as well?), this really does virtually nothing to "crush" the old criticisms.

Sharper critical scholars than you disagree. Perhaps they're wrong along with me. But it's worth noting. There's nothing apologetic or silly about the conclusion that this find simply refutes the old critical argument, unless you think that people like Chris Smith are apt to fall for silly apologetics.

And regardless, Don, I just flat-out think you would have been better off without the taunts and the hype.

OK. I'm convinced.

As I indicated above, it just adds more fuel to the old fire that was started decades ago by you-know-who.

I knew Voldemort was in this somehow!

Thanks again for your input.

Cheers,

Don