"Joseph Smith'S Reported Translation From The Kinderhook Plates" - Don Bradley

[Deborah]

Here's hoping this year's "Game Changer" has more staying power than last year's.

Last year's game changer stayed with me. I found it very thoughtful and it made a great deal of sense, assuming I know what you are talking about (the Two Trees was also a game changer). Perhaps it hasn't stayed at the forefront due to all the hateful diatribe against the person who presented it, but the idea itself gives much to think about especially when one of those in opposition declared that he's thinking of not pursuing this any further as he's spent enough time doing so.

[David T]

Ohhh yeah. This critical argument is getting thrust under the tectonic plates and buried under Mount Doom. Or maybe thrown into it!

That which is hyperbole in one context may be and often is the strictest truth in another.

Don

Hehe. I knew this sounded familiar

Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the "translation documents" of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

That may sound like hyperbole, but in this case I think it's deadly accurate.

I am, by the way, very much looking forward to Bradley's presentation. I just read some of his great work in The Persistence of Polygamy. I have a lot of respect not only for his work, but for him as a person, as well.

[DonBradley]

Here's hoping this year's "Game Changer" has more staying power than last year's.

Count on it.

Will's presentation was, I think, fascinating. But it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory, and was not fully able to persuade nonbelievers of good will. This one will do both.

Don

[DonBradley]

Count on it.

Will's presentation was, I think, fascinating. But it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory, and was not fully able to persuade nonbelievers of good will. This one will do both.

Don

I think, by the way, that Will has acknowledged at least the first of these points, appealing to his anticipated future publication for a more adequate exposition.

Don

[Nomad]

Hehe. I knew this sounded familiar

I am, by the way, very much looking forward to Bradley's presentation. I just read some of his great work in The Persistence of Polygamy. I have a lot of respect not only for his work, but for him as a person, as well.

I agree that Don Bradley has done some very good work, and I look forward to his FAIR conference presentation.

But why would you take a swipe at Will Schryver in this thread about Don's presentation?

I've been waiting for anyone to present counter-arguments to Will Schryver's presentation from the 2010 conference (still available for viewing here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Instead, all I've seen are ad hominem attacks. Since last year, over 100 Schryver attack threads have been started on that board that shall not be named.

But I won't derail this thread with talk about Will. I just couldn't understand why you would attack him in this thread, and then not give any reasons for it when I asked you. Maybe I'll start my own thread about it.

[Nomad]

Count on it.

Will's presentation was, I think, fascinating. But it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory, and was not fully able to persuade nonbelievers of good will. This one will do both.

Don

I hope you will elaborate on this sentence: "... it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory ..."

I've heard people say things like this. And I've heard lots of people say Will's presentation was just a bunch of bunk. But I still haven't heard anyone give any substantive reasons for their dismissals.

[DonBradley]

Just to be clear, it is only a mystery if one assume that Smith actually had the ability to translate ancient manuscripts.

To the non believer, the plates are part of a consistent pattern of Smith convincing his followers that he has stumbled upon ancient historical treasures: seer stones, buried treasures, golden plates, breastplates, Zelph's bones, Adam's alter, Abrahamic writings.

That said, since you don't have a reputation for being hyperbolic, I am actually quite surprised that would make such a bold claim. "The critical argument based on reports of Joseph Smith translating from the Kinderhook plates will, at this year's FAIR conference, be vaporized--annihilated."

I will certainly stay tuned.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jaybear.

I actually think there are mysteries to resolved regardless of what one believes about his prophetic calling. Where, for instance, did the content reportedly translated from the plates come from? If one believes Joseph Smith made it up, why would he have made up that content in particular? Why have the record be about a Hamite ruler? If, on the other hand, one believes Nauvoo rumor made up the reported translation, why did the rumor mill arrive at that topic?

There are mysteries about the reported translation anyway you cut it. I plan to solve them all.

Don

[DonBradley]

[duplicate post]

[DonBradley]

I hope you will elaborate on this sentence: "... it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory ..."

I've heard people say things like this. And I've heard lots of people say Will's presentation was just a bunch of bunk. But I still haven't heard anyone give any substantive reasons for their dismissals.

Hi Nomad,

Will necessarily glossed over his case for direction of dependence with the Book of Abraham, presenting only broad strokes ideas on this and not laying out the specific data.

Note also that Will himself has said that his argument will only be complete in its full written form. Do you disagree with him on this point?

Don

[DonBradley]

I agree that Don Bradley has done some very good work, and I look forward to his FAIR conference presentation.

But why would you take a swipe at Will Schryver in this thread about Don's presentation?

I've been waiting for anyone to present counter-arguments to Will Schryver's presentation from the 2010 conference (still available for viewing here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Instead, all I've seen are ad hominem attacks. Since last year, over 100 Schryver attack threads have been started on that board that shall not be named.

But I won't derail this thread with talk about Will. I just couldn't understand why you would attack him in this thread, and then not give any reasons for it when I asked you. Maybe I'll start my own thread about it.

Nomad, since this is such a contentious topic perhaps you ought to start that other thread.

Don

[DonBradley]

I agree that Don Bradley has done some very good work, and I look forward to his FAIR conference presentation.

But why would you take a swipe at Will Schryver in this thread about Don's presentation?

I've been waiting for anyone to present counter-arguments to Will Schryver's presentation from the 2010 conference (still available for viewing here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Instead, all I've seen are ad hominem attacks. Since last year, over 100 Schryver attack threads have been started on that board that shall not be named.

But I won't derail this thread with talk about Will. I just couldn't understand why you would attack him in this thread, and then not give any reasons for it when I asked you. Maybe I'll start my own thread about it.

Nomad, since this is such a contentious topic perhaps you ought to start that other thread.

Don

[David T]

I wasn't the first to make a reference to the previous presentation. There were references all over the place in this thread. I just called them as I saw them and cited them.

I didn't attack Will, either. I just acknowledged that something super-hyped as a game-changer somewhat fizzled out without presenting much of substance to actually respond to. As Don said, even Will expressed that it was only a preview, and his actual documented findings that would be the REAL unstoppable game changer had yet to be published.

Continuing the analogy, people were hyped to see The Lord of the Rings, and they ended up just getting a trailer FOR the production.

Reviewers and critics are still waiting for the movie to come out. Unfortunately, he pulled a Mel Gibson, and just lost one of his distributors.

Don, am I correct in assuming your presentation this conference will be the actual presentation itself, and not just a trailer for the "real" argument?

[Nomad]

I wasn't the first to make a reference to the previous presentation. There were references all over the place in this thread. I just called them as I saw them and cited them.

I didn't attack Will, either. I just acknowledged that something super-hyped as a game-changer somewhat fizzled out without presenting much of substance to actually respond to. As Don said, even Will expressed that it was only a preview, and his actual documented findings that would be the REAL unstoppable game changer had yet to be published.

Continuing the analogy, people were hyped to see The Lord of the Rings, and they ended up just getting a trailer FOR the production.

Reviewers and critics are still waiting for the movie to come out. Unfortunately, he pulled a Mel Gibson, and just lost one of his distributors.

Don, am I correct in assuming your presentation this conference will be the actual presentation itself, and not just a trailer for the "real" argument?

This is a bunch of bunk. Absolute total bunk!

Tell you the truth, I don’t believe you have even viewed his presentation.

Schryver presented several very specific arguments with a ton of text-critical evidence to support them. Most importantly, he presented a ton of persuasive arguments that the KEP are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. That is the game-changing argument.

I haven’t seen anyone respond to any of his arguments yet. No one. It’s all just been wave-of-a-hand dismissals, just like yours. No specifics. No nothing.

Anyway, if I decide to pursue this further, I’ll start a new thread.

[cinepro]

I haven’t seen anyone respond to any of his arguments yet. No one. It’s all just been wave-of-a-hand dismissals, just like yours. No specifics. No nothing.

This was the classic discussion on the issue, and while the crap-to-gold ratio is pretty high, if you start with Dan Vogel's comments in post #463 and then focus on Vogel's and Chris Smith's comments, you can find some responses to his arguments.

[David T]

This is a bunch of bunk. Absolute total bunk!

Tell you the truth, I don’t believe you have even viewed his presentation.

Not only was I viewing the presentation live online (I paid for it), I also re-watched the videos as soon as Will announced they were posted on YouTube. More than once. It was a great show, and did present some fascinating ideas, and I initially ate it all up.

[DonBradley]

I was at Will's presentation and was one of those (few) who gave it a standing ovation. I was utterly fascinated.

One part where I simply didn't get the details of his argument was the question of direction of dependence. I heard his larger point on this, and it sounded plausible. But I didn't see all the steps in this argument laid out before me. Hence I was and am anxiously awaiting his complete, published argument.

I'm not sure I have much else to say about this until then, but I may chime in a tad on another thread on the topic.

Don

[Nomad]

This was the classic discussion on the issue, and while the crap-to-gold ratio is pretty high, if you start with Dan Vogel's comments in post #463 and then focus on Vogel's and Chris Smith's comments, you can find some responses to his arguments.

I hope people do read that thread. Then they will discover that all Vogel and Smith and others did was the same thing nackhadlow has done on this thread: make no arguments, just give bald assertions. All that was ever said, in essence, was "No it's not." Will presented several very detailed examples of the dependency of the KEP on the BoA. Since then (and I think I've been paying very close attention to what has been said in the past year) if there is anything in the way of a substantive counter-argument, I have yet to see it. There is a reason that there has been nothing but ad hominem attacks on him during all this time. No one has anything substantive to say as a rebuttal to his presentation. Instead, they just say he's a bad person, he's an idiot, he's a liar, etc., or they just assert that his arguments are false. No evidence. Just assertion. On the other hand, Daniel McClellin is one person who has defended Will's arguments. I watched him totally rip apart the critics who tried to say him and Will were idiots with ridiculous arguments.

Anyway, I don't have the time right now to start a new thread on the topic. But I will try to find time over the weekend to do it.

Again, best wishes to Don Bradley on his upcoming presentation. If he has a good set of arguments that show how wrong the critics have been on this Kinderhook plate issue, I hope he is ready for the inevitable ad hominem attacks that will follow on the heels of his presentation. I can see it now: "Bradley is just a deluded idiot who let himself get sucked back into the cult ... etc., etc."

[Skylla]

This thread is not about Will Schryver. Get back on topic, please.

Skylla

[Thinking]

I thought it may be of interest to many here to know that at this August's FAIR conference I'll be presenting a paper tentatively titled "Joseph Smith's Reported Translation from the Kinderhook Plates: Solving a Historical Mystery."

I'm saving the crux of the paper for the conference, but I've presented it to Craig Foster, of the FAIR board, and recently to the staff of the Joseph Smith Papers, where I've been interning since the first of the year, and gotten "wows."

Though I'll be accused of overstating by some (who haven't yet seen my evidence), I'll say this much: the critical argument based on reports of Joseph Smith translating from the Kinderhook plates will, at this year's FAIR conference, be vaporized--annihilated. Those who've seen the presentation have said it's a tour de force that will settle, once and for all, the Kinderhook plates question. And the evidence is clear and definitive enough that no honest person who sees it laid out will be able to deny the conclusions presented or again apply to this incident the longstanding critical argument, "Only a bogus a prophet translates bogus plates."

Somebody once wrote

He did provide a bit of translation. Despite the attempts to deny this by Stanley Kimball and others, the evidence points decidedly in that direction. William Clayton did not acquire his information about Joseph and the Kinderhook plates from the rumor mill. Clayton was Joseph's personal secretary, and a man as much in his confidence as any at the time. He dined with Joseph at the Mansion House, examined the plates while there, and traced one of them on the reverse of the page where he recorded his journal entry for the day, including this regarding the plates, "Brother Joseph has translated a portion of them, and says they contain...."

But, apologist that I am, I have uncovered the method of translation employed by Joseph Smith--it was not claimed to be revelatory. This finding confirms a hypothesis set out by Mark Ashurst-McGee at the 1996 MHA; and Mark and I may yet publish a collaborative paper on this. I'm not going to spill the beans here; but the evidence is quite definite--Joseph did produce a putative translation, but did so through "secular" means, and not as a prophet.

Keep an eye out for a paper laying this out in a future issue of the Journal of Mormon History.

I sincerely hope that your annihilation doesn't depend on the "he wasn't acting as a prophet" defense.

[wenglund]

Dear Friends,

I thought it may be of interest to many here to know that at this August's FAIR conference I'll be presenting a paper tentatively titled "Joseph Smith's Reported Translation from the Kinderhook Plates: Solving a Historical Mystery."...

If your FAIR presentation will be an extension of our discussion several years back, it will indeed be insightful. It may even be a game-changer for those who aren't cemented in their respective positions. I look forward to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

Yes. Don's got some great material that will blow everyone's socks off. I am so excited for you Don. And I had a blast hanging out at MHA with you. Sorry I didn't get to attend your presentation today, but it serves you right for not attending mine. In all seriousness... I forgot I had already committed to attend Chris Blythe's session on Demonology.

[Ariarates]

I sincerely hope that your annihilation doesn't depend on the "he wasn't acting as a prophet" defense.

Defense? I thought that was the charge...

[DonBradley]

I won't offer a defense. I'll give a complete scholarly explanation of what happened.

I began piecing together what I'll be presenting on the Kinderhook plates before I regained my faith--i.e., as a nonbeliever. Hence my purpose wasn't apologetic, but explanatory. And when good explanatory work happens also to have apologetic value, that speaks favorably of the faith, does it not?

Don

[Dan Vogel]

Hi Don,

What I want to know is do you thrust the critical argument under the plates of mount doom . (obscure reference for the win!)

If I had to guess based on previous debates you were involved in concerning the kinderhook plates I bet you argue JS did attempt a translation of the kinderhook plates but a purely secular translation. Hence the fact he got it wrong has no bearing on his status as a prophet. Just that it probably would not have been to wise to hire JS as a secular translator. Translating gibberish into "descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoh" using a purely secular translation does not give a person great confidence in Josephs secular translating skills . Of course I am just guessing what your argument is going to be I could be way wrong.

If I am right hopefully I did not prematurely spill the beans .

Best,

Uncertain

My guess is that Don has found similarity between one or more of the Kinderhook characters and those in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), or perhaps even the BOA translation MSS, and argues that JS used those fake translations to translate the Kinderhook plates. Therefore, it wasn’t an inspired translation, just a mistake. If I’m right, it will be interesting to see if he can make a cogent argument of this.

[Thinking]

I won't offer a defense. I'll give a complete scholarly explanation of what happened.

I began piecing together what I'll be presenting on the Kinderhook plates before I regained my faith--i.e., as a nonbeliever. Hence my purpose wasn't apologetic, but explanatory. And when good explanatory work happens also to have apologetic value, that speaks favorably of the faith, does it not?

Let's assume that you clearly demonstrate that Joseph Smith did not attempt an inspired translation. I hope you address the fact that the LDS Church believed for years that he did, so much so that the reported attempt was included in the official History of the Church.