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

[wenglund]

Honestly, the weirdest thing about the story of the Kinderhook plates is that the only thing that surprises LDS is that the artifacts were fraudulent.

Quite so...what with forensic science, archeology, and studies of ancient cultures,having been fully developed at the time, and most everyone out on the prairie having been fully educated in these areas, it seems near impossible that it took until the 1960's to prove them fraudulent.

Of course I am being facetious.

Granted, even though the Society of Antiquities and various museums didn't exactly vouch one way or the other as to the plates' authenticity, at least Orson Pratt was skeptical. It is also said that Joseph Smith was unwilling to translate the plates until they were sent to authorities for authentication--which means he was skeptical as well. So, your next statement isn't correct.

No one raises an eyebrow at the plates having been found in the first place, or the claimed origin and contents of the plates.

...not that any of this matters to the verity of the restored gospel or the Joseph as a prophet of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

For what it is worth... I wouldn't call Don's work on the Kinderhook plates an apologetic piece. Yes... he is presenting it at the FAIR conference, and hence, it has been judged to have apologetic value. But what he will present could just as well appear at a MHA or Sunstone conference. Although many LDS will find apologetic value in portions of my book (when it is finally published... sigh), I am pretty certain critics will find portions useful as well. I think such will be the case for Don's FAIR paper too. Personally, what I am excited about is that Don's presentation will finally move the discussion forward for all sides involved in the dialogue.

[cdowis]

Honestly, the weirdest thing about the story of the Kinderhook plates is that the only thing that surprises LDS is that the artifacts were fraudulent. No one raises an eyebrow at the plates having been found in the first place, or the claimed origin and contents of the plates.

I'm not surprised, considering the fact that JS pretty much ignored these plates, and there is absolutely no evidence that he made a translation. Surely such a translation existed, we would find some evidence of it, outside some unattributed comment.

But, again, thak you for telling us what we think and believe. It is very amusing what nonsense comes out of your mouth.

Take cdowis's "north star" theory (i.e. Joseph was just joking). Would it be possible to have such a theory if the plates hadn't been proven fraudulent? Where were the LDS in the 1840's who doubted the plates and their purported meaning?

They were too busy talking about how the hill Cumorah was in NY, and the great battles that were fought there.

**********If************* the plates had been permanently lost and were never able to be scientifically tested, everything about them from their finding, their presentation to Joseph, and Joseph's ability to discern an ancient and theologically important meaning from them, would fit comfortably in the LDS history of that period with no need for "north star" theories. [my emphasis]

Well, ***if*** you had a third leg growing out of your head, we would certainly find that fascinating. "What if" s a great party game, very entertaining, but not very useful for an intelligent discussion.

It would be the critics suggesting he made it up, not the believers.

And we could speculate on how well you could dance with that third leg.

[Ralph Man]

Thinking -

Suppose the reported translation from the Kinderhook plates was intended to be a secular affair. We still know the rough outline of that translation was intended to be a Biblical story that wasn't actually found on the plates. I don't see how the one gets Smith out of the woods merely by establishing that the translation wasn't intended to be revelatory. It still shows Smith as the sort of person who would create pseudo-Biblical stories out of false translations. That isn't exactly friendly to LDS belief. I suppose if you accept the BoM, BoA, etc. as Smith authored pseudoepigraphia that was divinely inspired, you're fine. But if you already think that, whether the Smith claims to translate from fake plates via revelation or some secular process shouldn't really matter.

I guess I'm missing a step here as far as the apologetic value of that argument is concerned.

[George Miller]

I had the pleasure of having dinner with Don Bradley at the MHA. During the dinner Don showed me the slides of his FAIR presentation. To say the least his presentation was a sheer delight to watch. There are ALOT of contradictory interpretations and explanations of the data surrounding the Kinderhood plates. In typical Bradley fashion he laid out all the data in an honest, complete and concise manner without any quibbling or subterfuge. Don's answer to this long standing conundrum in Mormon history is stunning, erudite and ROCK SOLID. If you are anything like me, when you see the data Don marshals your jaw will hit the ground.

[Thinking]

Thinking -

Suppose the reported translation from the Kinderhook plates was intended to be a secular affair. We still know the rough outline of that translation was intended to be a Biblical story that wasn't actually found on the plates. I don't see how the one gets Smith out of the woods merely by establishing that the translation wasn't intended to be revelatory. It still shows Smith as the sort of person who would create pseudo-Biblical stories out of false translations. That isn't exactly friendly to LDS belief. I suppose if you accept the BoM, BoA, etc. as Smith authored pseudoepigraphia that was divinely inspired, you're fine. But if you already think that, whether the Smith claims to translate from fake plates via revelation or some secular process shouldn't really matter.

I guess I'm missing a step here as far as the apologetic value of that argument is concerned.

Are you under the impression that I am an apologist?

[wenglund]

There are ALOT of contradictory interpretations and explanations of the data surrounding the Kinderhood plates.

This is due, in part, to the data, itself, being contradictory on various points. Such is the nature of human recollections and history.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

This is due, in part, to the data, itself, being contradictory on various points. Such is the nature of human recollections and history.

If this is what you believe Wade, then be prepared to have your head exploded when you listen to Don's talk. You are in fact dead wrong in your characterization of the witnesses treatment of the facts.

[wenglund]

To keep the fire of interest burning until Don's FAIR presentation in August, perhaps it may prove worthwhile to explicate the historical context surrounding the Kinderhook affair.

Let's start with the events leading up to the discovery of the plates.

The historical record is fairly consistent in stating that a merchant by the name of Robert Wiley began digging on a large mound near Kinderhook, Illinois (approx. 60 miles south by south east of Nauvoo).

The record conflicts as to whether the digging began on Sunday the 16th of April, 1843, or the following Saturday, the 22nd.

The hole was dug to the depth of between 8 to 10 feet and stopped at domed-shaped rock.

As for why Mr. Wiley was digging at that location, rumors were circulating at the time that "he had a number of strange dreams...that there was something in the mounds near Kinderhook." (W.P. Harris letter to Flagg, April 25th, 1855)

Also, over 35 years after the fact, W. Fugate, one of the admitted co-conspirators to the fraud, claimed that "We read in Pratt's prophecy that 'Truth is yet to spring out of the earth.' We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them." (W. Fugate in a letter to Cobb, June 30th, 1879)

I suppose it is possible that all the digging and the elaborate efforts in constructing the plates so as to appear ancient (to be explained later) was simply intended as a joke on the Mormons. However, given the way things played out, this excuse seems not only somewhat self-serving (he is attempting to evade suspicion of perpetrating a fraud on the general public as well as respected secular institutions), but implausible as well--at least as the sole reason behind the ruse. Rather, I suspect that the real or main motive behind the venture was entrepreneurial (Wiley was, after all, a merchant) if not also to gain notoriety. I don't think it unreasonable to assume that Wiley began digging in one of the nearby mounds in hopes of finding some valuable artifacts (treasure digging in mounds throughout the region was not uncommon at the time), but when that prospect began to look bleak, he conspired with others to manufacture the artifacts. This, of course, is conjecture on my part.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If this is what you believe Wade, then be prepared to have your head exploded when you listen to Don's talk. You are in fact dead wrong in your characterization of the witnesses treatment of the facts.

I am not sure exactly what "witnesses" you are referring to, but I am beginning to lay out some of the relevant historical data above, and even in the very beginnings of this fascinating tale there are inconsistencies in the historical data (only portions of which I alluded to above) as to the location of the excavation, when the digging began, how deep the whole was dug, why the digging ceased, and why the hole was being dug to begin with. And, I haven't even gotten to varied accounts of what was later discovered in the hole So, I clearly am not dead wrong in what I said. Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

I am not sure exactly what "witnesses" you are referring to, but I am beginning to lay out some of the relevant historical data above, and even in the very beginnings of this fascinating tale there are inconsistencies in the historical data (only portions of which I alluded to above) as to the location of the excavation, when the digging began, how deep the whole was dug, why the digging ceased, and why the hole was being dug to begin with. And, I haven't even gotten to varied accounts of what was later discovered in the hole So, I clearly am not dead wrong in what I said. Stay tuned.

Keep digging my friend, then perhaps you will see how deep the whole is and what is at the bottom. :rolleyes:

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Keep digging my friend, then perhaps you will see how deep the whole is and what is at the bottom. :rolleyes:

Take that,Wade!

[wenglund]

Keep digging my friend, then perhaps you will see how deep the whole is and what is at the bottom. :rolleyes:

A marvelous witticism. It almost made me forget what you are here attempting to bury.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

A marvelous witticism. It almost made me forget what you are here attempting to bury.

Wade, my friend buddy and pal, I think that you need to reevaluate your tactic here. Trained historians take courses on how to deal with testimony and how to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant minutiae. Don does this extremely well. The depth of the hole is an irrelevant minutiae unless of course you want to argue that no excavation every took place. Wade you are extremely good at detailed comparisons and identifying similarities and differences. But a historian's job is to calm the waters so that one can see the boat on the sea floor and the gold doubloons that have spilled from it hull. Muddying the water is not the role of a historian.

[Ralph Man]

No Thinking. I was reacting to your comments with my thoughts and wondering what your reaction was.

[Thinking]

No Thinking. I was reacting to your comments with my thoughts and wondering what your reaction was.

Not having heard Don Bradley's presentation, I can't know what kind of information he has which will put to rest any theory which claims that Joseph Smith attempted anything more than a secular translation. In my opinion, even a secular attempt is problematic because 1) it was generally believed for many years by the Church (leaders and lay members) that the plates were ancient and a witness of the Book of Mormon, and 2) the alleged secular attempt is obviously incorrect.

[DonBradley]

Not having heard Don Bradley's presentation, I can't know what kind of information he has which will put to rest any theory which claims that Joseph Smith attempted anything more than a secular translation. In my opinion, even a secular attempt is problematic because 1) it was generally believed for many years by the Church (leaders and lay members) that the plates were ancient and a witness of the Book of Mormon, and 2) the alleged secular attempt is obviously incorrect.

Sorry, I didn't follow.

Would you be so kind as to fill in the steps in the chain of reasoning from your points 1 and 2 above to some conclusion along the lines of "Therefore Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and Mormonism is not of God"?

Thanks,

Don

[Thinking]

Sorry, I didn't follow.

Would you be so kind as to fill in the steps in the chain of reasoning from your points 1 and 2 above to some conclusion along the lines of "Therefore Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and Mormonism is not of God"?

Thanks,

Don

The way I look at it, there are three possibilities.

1. Joseph made no translation attempt.

2. Joseph attempted a secular translation.

3. Joseph attempted a spiritual/inspired translation.

Whatever happened (apparently you will tell us which in your presentation), the Church believed that the plates were genuine and that Joseph had provided a preliminary translation (a preview of coming attractions). This belief was not short lived. I don't have to tell you about the broadsides or the references by church leaders to the plates being a witness of the Book of Mormon. There seems to be no dispute that the plates are fraudulent. How then, is it not problematic that the Church believed for years that they were genuine?

[Mars]

Kinda like the Hoffman forgeries and the Salamander Letter, Thinking? How could Gordon B. Hinckley have been duped if he's inspired of God? Do I understand you?

[Ralph Man]

Don -

If Smith was in the process of creating a pseudo-Biblical account out of what was a false translation, this demonstrates in at least that instance Smith is the sort of person who would invent pseudo-Biblical accounts on the basis of claimed translations that weren't, in fact, actual translations. I think how this is a piece of data against Smith's favor is obvious. I'm curious as to what the explanation is here. It seems implausible and ad hoc to presume that Smith's mistaken translation process would happen to yield a pseudo-epigraphical Biblical account out of those forgeries. And without that, it comes across as datum of "Smith making religious stuff up" regardless of it being a secular or revelatory translation process. That being said, I'm willing to let for a more full presentation rather than speculate on bits and pieces of speculation.

[cdowis]

Kinda like the Hoffman forgeries and the Salamander Letter, Thinking? How could Gordon B. Hinckley have been duped if he's inspired of God?

I understand that those who ask that question do not understand the role of a prophet. The prophets Joshua, Nathan, Jonah were all simularily mistaken. A prophet leads us to Christ, and administers the priesthood. It is not his role to satisfy our idle curiosity.

[cdowis]

Whatever happened (apparently you will tell us which in your presentation), the Church believed that the plates were genuine and that Joseph had provided a preliminary translation (a preview of coming attractions). This belief was not short lived. I don't have to tell you about the broadsides or the references by church leaders to the plates being a witness of the Book of Mormon. There seems to be no dispute that the plates are fraudulent. How then, is it not problematic that the Church believed for years that they were genuine?

For the same reason that they were mistaken about the location of the BOM Hill Cumorah. It is merely one of a thousand silly excuses to leave the church.

May I suggest that your "believe" is not the same as my believe.

[why me]

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."

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."

My personal journey has been a long and winding one. And I can't tell you all how thankful I am to have come to the good, good place I've arrived at in my life and faith, and to be able to contribute to understanding the Restoration's history. Until quite recently I'd never have even dreamed I'd be presenting at FAIR, much less being able to present there the results of an investigation that's both so fun and so definitively reinforces faith.

Having been once, and for some time, on the side of coming onto the boards to critique reasons to believe and to offer the reasons I then thought I had to not believe, I have been amazed at how fully I've been accepted as I've returned to my faith and to the church. The outpouring of welcomes when I announced my return here last summer overwhelmed me, and the continuing welcome, and the treatment I've received in my wards, at the Church History Library, among new friends, and everywhere, as a fellow saint--as if the past were simply washed away--moves me beyond what I can express. Thank you, all, for a second chance.

Don

Well, I am late to this thread because of my defense of the faith on another board, I just want to say Don that I am happy for you. As I told you before you would be a great fireside speaker. The lds church needs people like you to share their experiences with other members of the faith. Hopefully, you can begin to spread your message beyond the message boards.

[why me]

For what it is worth... I wouldn't call Don's work on the Kinderhook plates an apologetic piece. Yes... he is presenting it at the FAIR conference, and hence, it has been judged to have apologetic value. But what he will present could just as well appear at a MHA or Sunstone conference. Although many LDS will find apologetic value in portions of my book (when it is finally published... sigh), I am pretty certain critics will find portions useful as well. I think such will be the case for Don's FAIR paper too. Personally, what I am excited about is that Don's presentation will finally move the discussion forward for all sides involved in the dialogue.

For the critics, it will provide some needed time to stay on the boards in disagreement of his piece. No critic who has left the lds church wants information that may have proved his or her decision wrong. Don will be actively criticized for his presentation on FAIR in various antimormon sites. All sorts of loopholes will be sought and deepened if discovered. This is all going to make for an interesting August and September on the Internet boards for defenders and critics of the lds church.

[why me]

If you can't get an unbiased review from the fair board I'm not sure where you would get one.

Actually, the FAIR board would have shelved this presentation if it was deemed harmful or uninteresting. Harmful in the sense that it provided nothing new to debate. FAIR has its own weeding out process. Plus, I think that it may be difficult to present this information in a different setting. In the end, it is up to Don where and when he wants to present his information.