Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[why me]

What critics are left with is the argument that if Joseph Smith were a prophet he shouldn't have even provisionally assumed the plates' antiquity even enough to make such a comparison, which I find extremely weak and which is, in any case, a far cry from him claiming God told him what the fake characters meant.

Don

This was my point exactly in a previous post. I see no checkmate by the critics here. But I do see the rules have changed. Now it is up to the critics to play by the new rules. But my guess is: they will continue with the old rules and rule out the new rules. Their mantra will continue.

[Jaybear]

So, if someone were to produce a fraudulent document written in Hebrew, and were I to use a Hebrew disctionary to translate the fraudulent document, then you would consider me as fraudelent for attempting to translate a fraudulant document, even were I to not know beforehand that the document was fraudulent?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No Wade, not at all. But then, your analogy is off in three important respects.

First, the text found on the Kinderhook plates was not written in Egyptian.

Second, Smith was not using a Egyptian "dictionary" in any real sense of the word.

Third, it was presented that Smith had COMPLETED not merely attempted a partial translation.

[Pahoran]

I’ll state for the record that I never knew the critics argument had anything to do with a distinction between revelatory translations and secular translations.

Thank you for demonstrating how furiously the (heh heh) "critical" approach to the KP's is being re-jigged, even while you all adamantly insist that it's all just business as usual.

As you perfectly well know "Analytics," the one and only reason why any of you were ever interested in the KP's for as much as a nanosecond was because you thought they called Joseph's prophetic gifts into question.

Not his spelling.

Not his grammar.

Not his knowledge of other languages.

His prophetic gifts and nothing else.

When I Google "Kinderhook Plates," apart from Wikipedia, the first items that turn up are as follows:

MormonStink

The whole incident gives us a number of reasons to pause before accepting the prophetical calling of Joseph Smith and the validity of Mormonism.

As if that wasn't exactly what they were looking for. And this:

Rob Bowman

Suddenly, the Kinderhook Plates did not support Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, but instead raised serious questions about Joseph’s prophetic claims to be able to translate ancient languages.

Because if they didn't, Rob wouldn't care. And this:

The Jerry and Sandy Show

In any case, it is obvious that Joseph Smith's work on these fraudulent plates casts serious doubt upon his credibility as a translator of Mormon scriptures like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Like the Utah Lightheaded Misanthropes ever seriously considered the possibility of Joseph having any credibility. And this:

Another so-called "research" organisation

Even if we could excuse Smith's lack of discernment, it does not take away from the fact that Smith insisted he had the ability to "translate" the bogus pieces of metal. Whether Smith knowingly tried to deceive his followers or was deluded himself is of little consequence; certainly it shows he is not a man worthy of people's trust.

And then this:

A smug EV

The Kinderhook Plates were concocted by a few citizens of Kinderhook, Illinois, to demonstrate that the Mormon leader Joseph Smith was not able to read ancient plates like those he claimed to have read in the production of the Book of Mormon.

So if all the hyper-critical "critics" would like to be truthful for just this once, we might just get somewhere in the discussion.

And the truth is that not one of you cared a rat's backside about the KP's except that you thought they discredited Joseph's prophetic claims. So as soon as it turns out that Joseph's prophetic gifts were not engaged in his quick glance at one of the characters on one of the plates, they cease to be of any value to you at all.

I thought the point was that in the cases where Joseph’s talents in translating have been tested (e.g. Kinderhook, BOA facsimiles), that he was proven to be no more than somebody with a proclivity to make up stories.

And no doubt, in a post-Bradley world, a whole lot more of you will retreat to a position and claim that you've always thought it. However, Don's argument doesn't even help you there. According to him, Joseph saw a character on one of the plates that looked like something he'd seen before, looked up the meaning in an existing document, and applied it.

Which has nothing to do with any "proclivity to make up stories," either.

Focusing only on the Kinderhook plates, the apologists made a gambit by sacrificing a white knight (conceding that Joseph Smith sometimes invented stories and made worthless translations),

Have you tried reading for comprehension, instead of looking for something to shore up your wishful thinking?

There is no "conceding that Joseph Smith sometimes invented stories and made worthless translations" in view.

Joseph didn't "invent" any "story." He interpreted one character based upon its resemblance to another character.

Joseph didn't make a "worthless translation." Joseph didn't make a translation. He interpreted one character.

and in exchange get nothing more than a hopefully stronger defensive position (the claim that Joseph's failure to correctly translate the Kinderhook plates gives no evidence either way about Joseph Smith’s abilities to correctly translate using revelation).

You at last got something right: the KP's provide no evidence regarding Joseph's prophetic claims. However, there is no "failure" in view. If you didn't swim twenty laps of the pool before breakfast this morning, did you "fail" to do so? Only if you attempted to do so. Since Joseph at no time attempted to translate the KP's, it follows that there is no "failure" in view.

And I regret that I have no reason to accept that you have a good faith basis on which to claim to believe what you assert.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

FWIW, Analytics, I always saw the primary, and most effective, critical argument being that Joseph Smith made a revelatory translation from fake plates, showing that he was a false revelator. That Joseph Smith could have been taken in by the plates enough to compare them to the characters from the Egyptian papyri is comparatively small potatoes. What critics are left with is the argument that if Joseph Smith were a prophet he shouldn't have even provisionally assumed the plates' antiquity even enough to make such a comparison, which I find extremely weak and which is, in any case, a far cry from him claiming God told him what the fake characters meant.

Don

You can say that his incompetency in making “secular translations” has no bearing on the validity of his “revelatory translations”. But when it’s Joseph Smith doing the translating, is there really a distinction between the two approaches?

Specifically, the revelatory process entailed studying it out, asking God if it is right, and then either getting a burning in the bosom or a stupor of thought (see D&C 9). You’ve shown that when translating the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith studied it out. But that’s what one would expect him to do if he were following the revelatory translation process laid out in the scriptures.

[Pahoran]

The number of matches is irrelevant. You wouldn't expect many characters to match when the two sets were made up by different parties. What's important is that Joseph went to the GAEL to help him figure out the characters on the KP. This gives Joseph intellectual ownership of the GAEL

Really?

So any time I send my teenage sons to look something up in their Shorter Oxford Dictionary that "gives" them "intellectual ownership" thereof, does it?

Who knew?

and greatly adds to the evidence that he believed the GAEL to be exactly what he entitled it, a grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language.

No it doesn't. It simply shows that he thought it might be useful.

Don's finding pounds the final nails into the scribes-did-it theory

Let me once again protest the dishonest question-begging in that description. To the extent that Phelps, Parrish and anyone else contributed their own thoughts to the project, they were not merely "scribes." It's not disputed that they worked as scribes for Joseph, but there is no other instance of Joseph using multiple concurrent scribes on a single project. Until the hate clique accept the fact that something was radically different about whatever the KEP's actually record, by comparison to Joseph's other large-scale writing/translating projects, they are refusing to confront the facts.

and the cipher theory.

That remains to be seen.

The obvious has become painfully obvious and the improbable has become utterly impossible.

You hope.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

What critics are left with is the argument that if Joseph Smith were a prophet he shouldn't have even provisionally assumed the plates' antiquity even enough to make such a comparison, which I find extremely weak and which is, in any case, a far cry from him claiming God told him what the fake characters meant.

Don

That is an odd statement to make considering that those of us who don't believe in prophets, would never construct an argument riding on the premise of how a REAL prophet would react.

[wenglund]

No Wade, not at all. But then, your analogy is off in three important respects.

First, the text found on the Kinderhook plates was not written in Egyptian.

So? Did Joseph say that they were? Or, did he simply provide an academic translation of a single character usingf the GAEL?

Second, Smith was not using a Egyptian "dictionary" in any real sense of the word.

What do you mean by "real sense of the word"? Was there an Egyptian "dictionary" out on the plains back then in the "real sense of the word"?

Third, it was presented that Smith had COMPLETED not merely attempted a partial translation.

Where are you coming up with the word "completed"--not that this word makes any difference? After all, we are only talking about the "translation" of one of about 160 characters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

You can say that his incompetency in making “secular translations” has no bearing on the validity of his “revelatory translations”. But when it’s Joseph Smith doing the translating, is there really a distinction between the two approaches?

Specifically, the revelatory process entailed studying it out, asking God if it is right, and then either getting a burning in the bosom or a stupor of thought (see D&C 9). You’ve shown that when translating the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith studied it out. But that’s what one would expect him to do if he were following the revelatory translation process laid out in the scriptures.

Hi Analytics,

Please read the posts I've made, on both boards now, showing exactly what the eyewitness understood from his encounter with Joseph and the Kinderhook plates.

Also, if Joseph merely used the GAEL definition to "study out" the meaning of the KP character as part of a process of revelatory translation, then we would expect that translation to have additional, God-given information over and above the GAEL definition, but it doesn't. So, in this case, we have no reason to see anything in the process Joseph employed than him comparing characters, as the eyewitness account would also indicate.

If Joseph's revelatory process involves "studying out," it doesn't follow that whenever he studies something out he is engaged in seeking revelation. Joseph said, and Latter-day Saints believe, that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. And visual matching of similars is not particularly a prophetic activity. If you refuse to take seriously LDS belief on what a prophet is and then apply a contrary definition to this situation, I think you should be prepared for Latter-day Saints to remain unpersuaded.

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

That is an odd statement to make considering that those of us who don't believe in prophets, would never construct an argument riding on the premise of how a REAL prophet would react.

Nonsense. Every argument that Joseph Smith is not a prophet assumes a definition of what a true prophet would be and do, if prophets do or did exist. Otherwise, there is no way to discuss whether he was a prophet and anything statement you make that he is not a prophet would be literally meaningless, since the word "prophet" as you use it would have no meaning attached to it.

Don

[Pahoran]

That is an odd statement to make considering that those of us who don't believe in prophets, would never construct an argument riding on the premise of how a REAL prophet would react.

Thank you, Jaybear. It's important to acknowledge that those who don't believe in prophets have no valid basis on which to test anyone's prophetic claims.

We don't often see such refreshing honesty from the critics, and I appreciate it when we do see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

The number of matches is irrelevant.

It is relevant to the amount of information we have to work with when drawing conclusions--i.e precious little.

You wouldn't expect many characters to match when the two sets were made up by different parties.

I wouldn't formulate any expectations regarding matches, one way or the other, based on such scant information.

What's important is that Joseph went to the GAEL to help him figure out the characters on the KP. This gives Joseph intellectual ownership of the GAEL...

No more so that were he to have gone to both Hebrew and Greek dictionaries would give him intellectual ownership of those dictionaries.

...and greatly adds to the evidence that he believed the GAEL to be exactly what he entitled it, a grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language.

I don't know ow about "greatly," but it is a reasonable point to consider.

Don's finding pounds the final nails into the scribes-did-it theory and the cipher theory. The obvious has become painfully obvious and the improbable has become utterly impossible.

For certain theory laddened, dogmatic minds, I don't doubt that is how it is viewed. For the rest of us, there is still plentiy of room for meaningful and enlightening debate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Nonsense. Every argument that Joseph Smith is not a prophet assumes a definition of what a true prophet would be and do, if prophets do or did exist. Otherwise, there is no way to discuss whether he was a prophet and anything statement you make that he is not a prophet would be literally meaningless, since the word "prophet" as you use it would have no meaning attached to it.

Don

Pahoron: Thank you, Jaybear. It's important to acknowledge that those who don't believe in prophets have no valid basis on which to test anyone's prophetic claims.

We don't often see such refreshing honesty from the critics, and I appreciate it when we do see it.

Smith claimed to have the ability/means/skill/talent to translate ancient text into English. We can most certainly discuss whether the evidence backs up or belies this claim, without defining what a "true prophet" would be and do?

We can also readily test this claim, without regard to whether this "talent" purportedly comes from God via revelation, the use of magic rocks, Satan, or from a genetic mutation.

[Xander]

Given that the entire meaning Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates can be derived, via comparison with the GAEL, from a single, prominent character on the plates, and given that an eyewitness sees Joseph make the match and says that "he will therefore be able to decipher them," there is not only no need to posit revelatory translation, but such would be in opposition to the available evidence.

So it is an exact word for word translation as found in the GAEL? Because this is not what I was told. In any event, what no one has addressed is the fact that the information provided in the GAEL is based on revelation.

So we have revelation ---> GAEL ---> translation of K-Hook.

This is why I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can say revelation was not involved in this translation. Did Joseph Smith break out a seer stone or pray over the plates?

No, because the revelation part was already taken care of when he produced the GAEL. You guys want to begin with GAEL in order to get around the revelatory aspect of the translation. I'm refusing to do that because I think it is important to understand what the GAEL represent. There is nothing "academic" about it.

Am I wrong to think that you would, in other discussions, want to invoke Occam's Razor? Then why not apply it here?

I believe I am. A man claiming to be a Prophet, a divine revelator who can translate by the power of God, is challenged to produce a translation from an ancient source and he accepts the challenge by engaging in an "academic" translation? This defeats the purpose of being able to translate by the power of God.

Pahoran's analogy to a Hebrew Lexicon for the purpose of translating Hebrew, begs the question and misses a huge point. Hebrew Lexicons are academic resources created via academic means. There is no question that an academic method is at work in translating Hebrew from a Hebrew dictionary. However, the GAEL was created by revelation by someone who knew nothing of these languages. The effectiveness and validity of the GAEL is an open question that begs to be answered.

If you do, you'll find it lops off the presumed revelation and leaves us only with Joseph Smith's comparison of characters.

Again, the problem here is that the GAEL was produced via revelation.

Then, on top of that, your positing that Joseph also claimed revelation in translating also contradicts the eyewitness who saw Joseph make the comparison and heard him discuss what it meant.

What eye-witness and what did he/she say? As of yet, the evidence from the presentation has not been fully disclosed, right?

Any particular reason you think you're better positioned than the eyewitness to know what Joseph was claiming about how he translated here?

Since you haven't told me who the witness is or what he/she said, it is unfair to expect me to comment on it.

I think, by the way, that ultimately there is going to be less discussion of the Kinderhook plates, since that will simply be settled

What will be settled? There is still the huge problem of Joseph Smith trying to use a hoax to validate the GAEL, which he derived via revelation. I don't see that you've addressed this at all. Joseph Smith believed a hoax contained genuinely ancient material, which is what critics have been arguing ever since Fugate.

and more discussion will be focused on other issues, with some of the attention previously given to the KP now being transferred to the KEP, as you're doing. I also think, however, that there are legitimate and illegitimate ways of relating these discussions.

I agree. The KEP are far more significant. But the critical take on K-Hook falls in line with what we know of Joseph Smith's tendency when presented with an opportunity to prove he can translate ancient records. He jumps right in. If he believed the fraudulent K-Hook contained a character identical to one found in the GAEL, then this tells us he had studied the matter to some extent. I have seen the K-Hook plates and I have read the GAEL, but only you made the connection because you were actually looking for one. Likewise, so was Joseph Smith. So I have a problem with this notion that apologists like to float, which says he wasn't interested in K-Hook.

To be intellectually self-consistent, to say nothing of being objective or fair with others, one who uses the new Kinderhook plates finding to draw implications about the GAEL ought surely to first accept its implications for the Kinderhook plates issue itself.

And I believe I have. I'll say that if you can conclusively demonstrate that no revelation was involved, then yes, you would have effectively rendered moot any claim that he translated K-Hook via revelation. However, I don't see how you can expect me to simply jump on board with this conclusion without having seen evidence to support it.

These implications are not unclear: there is no longer any reason to posit that Joseph Smith invoked revelation in translating from the Kinderhook plates, and, in fact, there is reason to believe he did not.

But this is really a straw man since no one really made a distinction between academic and revelatory translation before now. This is your baby. In my experience, critics have used K-Hook to discredit Joseph Smith for the simple reason that he believed a hoax had an ancient origin. Most critics, usually Evangelical critics, don't care about the Mormon cop-out of "he wasn't perfect and never claimed to be," because for them, a man acting on the behalf of God in the capacity of Prophet, seer and revelator, wouldn't be fooled in such a way. Likewise, Caswall was equally unimpressed with Richard's explanation as to why Joseph Smith could be so terribly wrong while at the same time remain a legitimate prophet. This explanation only works for those who already accept him as a Prophet and need a reason to maintain that belief despite the evidence. So it seems your argument is really for fellow believers who think there is significance in this distinction you just created. For most critics I know, this is irrelevant. However, I do think your theory has run up against a problem with the GAEL, because it is a work that was produced via revelation.

Chris Smith has been honest in acknowledging this, while also believing--as you do--that the find has significant implications for understanding the GAEL: "The traditional 'anti-Mormon' objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the 'revelation' was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic. Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates."

As I said, I cannot comment further on this without seeing the evidence. I'm working with the scraps that have been provided thus far.

Before rushing to what implications you think the Kinderhook plates find has for the KEP issue, why not first straightforwardly acknowledge the implications that this find on the Kinderhook plates has for the Kinderhook plates?

I don't think I am rushing at all. The implications for our understanding of the GAEL, in my view, is far more significant in light of recent apologetics. I think I made this clear in previous posts. And I do not believe the revelatory nature of the GAEL has been adequately addressed. It seems to be taken for granted that the GAEL was a "standard academic" resource, so therefore no revelation was necessary when producing translation. By this logic, the Book of Abraham verses that clearly correlate to GAEL phrases, were translated via academic, not revelatory means.

[Hestia]

Everyone, tone down the personal rhetoric.

[Uncertain]

You know, when I first started cruising internet message boards I started with the firm conviction that people are mostly reasonably. That is when confronted with very strong evidence contradictory to a deeply held position would discard old views and accept views more likely to reflect reality. My time in message board madness has quickly disabused me of this notion. Of course I claim no immunity in resisting evidence that challenges deeply held views.

In my opinion the strongest critical argument regarding the Kinderhook plates is that JS attempted to translate the plates by revelation and this translation can be shown to be false. I really don't see how anyone can effectively argue Don has not decisively eviscerated this critical argument regarding the Kinderhook plates. I myself doubt many truth claims of the LDS church but when your right your right and Don has constructed a very good case for an academic translation of the Kinderhook plates.

Now, this may be one of those robbing Peter to pay Paul situations. Sure Don has made a great case that the Kinderhook plates were translated by academic means. But at the cost of showing that Joseph Smith (JS) very likely viewed the GAEL as a reliable means to translate ancient languages. The end goal of the critical argument with regards to both the Kinderhook plates and the KEP/GAEL is to show that JS's claim to translate ancient languages by revelation is likely false. If Don's presentation considerably strengths the critics case regarding the GAEL from a critical perspective they might end up being ahead of the game even if the strongest version of the Kinderhook argument must be discarded. Which is the point various critics have been hammering on in this thread. Frankly, it does appear at first glance the critical argument concerning the GAEL is much better off after Don's presentation than before his presentation. Don mentioned he might address this issue earlier in the thread I would be interested in hearing what he has to say.

I will also say I find critical arguments claiming a "true" prophet should have known right off the bat the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent to be very weak. I see no reason why true prophets must necessarily immediately receive revelation anytime they touch a document that will tell them whether or not the document is a fraud. This also holds true for claimed modern day prophets (i.e. Hofmann forgeries).

Best,

Uncertain

Edited August 8, 2011 by Uncertain

[DonBradley]

And I believe I have. I'll say that if you can conclusively demonstrate that no revelation was involved, then yes, you would have effectively rendered moot any claim that he translated K-Hook via revelation. However, I don't see how you can expect me to simply jump on board with this conclusion without having seen evidence to support it.

Kevin,

This only helps to make my point about how you're treating the idea that Joseph Smith translated the KP via the GAEL. You're willing to immediately accept and run with it when it comes to the critical implications you see for the Book of Abraham but insist on deferring acceptance of it when it comes to apologetic implications for the Kinderhook plates. So, which is it? Are you deferring judgment or accepting this and running with it?

I don't know how soon the presentation will be put online. I'll post the character definition later, so you can see the correlation.

More later,

Don

[WalkerW]

I will say this: Being one who has never spent much time on the KEP and GAEL details (which is why it is a subject I do not debate. I try not to open my mouth on subjects I know little of.), I am happy to have Kevin on these threads. It is nice to see individuals like him, Chris, Don, and others go back and forth. It is very informative and helpful for those like me who are novices in this particular area.

What are some of the best available material on these subjects? I'd like to have better sources than random internet boards.

[Pahoran]

So it is an exact word for word translation as found in the GAEL? Because this is not what I was told. In any event, what no one has addressed is the fact that the information provided in the GAEL is based on revelation.

So we have revelation ---> GAEL ---> translation of K-Hook.

This is why I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can say revelation was not involved in this translation. Did Joseph Smith break out a seer stone or pray over the plates?

No, because the revelation part was already taken care of when he produced the GAEL. You guys want to begin with GAEL in order to get around the revelatory aspect of the translation. I'm refusing to do that because I think it is important to understand what the GAEL represent. There is nothing "academic" about it.

IOW, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

The subject under discussion, Kevin, is the Kinderhook Plates. Not the Book of Abraham; not the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language; not any other part of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers; just the Kinderhook Plates.

As far as the Kinderhook Plates are concerned, the GAEL is a pre-existing document. To that extent, its provenance is essentially irrelevant. All that matters is that it was a pre-existing document and Joseph trusted it enough to consult it. Whether it was derived entirely, partly or not at all by some revelatory process is an open question, and we are not about to be bullied into accepting that it was merely to stop you from shouting at us and calling us liars.

But just to save time, let us pretend, for the purposes of the Kinderhook Plates discussion only, that this question has been settled in your favour. The fact still remains that there is not one shred of evidence that he sought, much less obtained, revelation on the subject of the KP's.

And thus, the standard anti-Mormon exploitation of the Kinderhook hoax has the legs cut out from under it.

I believe I am. A man claiming to be a Prophet, a divine revelator who can translate by the power of God, is challenged to produce a translation from an ancient source and he accepts the challenge by engaging in an "academic" translation? This defeats the purpose of being able to translate by the power of God.

As I said: not one shred of evidence. All you've provided is your own assumption as to what would, should or could have happened.

Oh, and did Joseph actually "accept the challenge?" Well no; he didn't. He interpreted one character and left it at that.

But now that you mention it: maybe, after interpreting that character based upon the appearance of a similar character in the GAEL, he did in fact seek revelation on the subject of the KP's.

And having sought it, perhaps he obtained it.

And having sought and obtained it, he never bothered with them again.

Hmmmmmm...

Snip.

What will be settled? There is still the huge problem of Joseph Smith trying to use a hoax to validate the GAEL, which he derived via revelation.

Excuse me, Kevin. I don't believe that the evidence Don has presented actually shows that. I believe that the evidence shows that Joseph tried to use the GAEL to help him interpret a character on the KP's. The notion that he was "trying to use a hoax to validate the GAEL" seems to be an assumption of your own; furthermore, it seems to be the most hostile assumption possible on the evidence before us.

So why, Kevin? Why do you so effortlessly leap to the most hostile assumption available to you?

Never mind; the question really answers itself, doesn't it?

I don't see that you've addressed this at all. Joseph Smith believed a hoax contained genuinely ancient material, which is what critics have been arguing ever since Fugate.

Yes, once again he trusted that people were acting in good faith; as people generally do, when they themselves habitually act in good faith. Which reminds me of something else that "critics" have been doing since Fugate: they overlook the fact that the only fraud or deception in view was perpetrated by their fellow anti-Mormons, against Joseph Smith.

But then -- why should that matter?

Snip to end.

Regards,

Pahoran

[robuchan]

So do I have the apologist argument straight?

BoA: translated through revelatory process. Papyri may or not be from Abraham.

KEP--GAEL: academic process to back fit the Egyptian symbols to the revealed word. Not ordained of God, but a good, college try.

Kinderhook: used the GAEL and got a false positive, but since he didn't pursue it further, no big deal.

And then this is the critical argument?

BoA: complete fabrication, taking Book of Breathing material and falsely produced Book of Abraham

KEP--GAEL: the work product of the BoA translation, showed the prophet's thought process while translating, demonstrated how deep the dementia/fraud

Kinderhook: tried to use it to prove/justify GAEL, likely would have gotten himself into a lot of trouble but for some reason (untimely death?) he didn't follow through

[Pahoran]

Snip a lot of spiteful ranting and personal abuse.

Irrelevant, since he put the BoA on the backburner for seven years. Had he not been killed the following year, who can say what he might have done given the time?

Two points:

1) According to the views of most actual scholars I am aware of, most of the work of translating the Book of Abraham was done in Kirtland. The only bit that went "on the backburner"[sic] was the publication thereof.

2) Unfulfilled conditions, while they seem to give anti-Mormons carte blanche to speculate about what "might have" happened, are not evidence.

Snip

And yet the critics I know feel otherwise. We're absolutely thrilled with Don's presentation. The fact is we have had to change nothing in our arguments,

This is just PR spin, and you know it. The fact is that the standard anti-Mormon argument from the KP's is dead in the water.

Nonsense. The historical evidence proves Joseph Smith was a liar just as much as the next guy.

Not quite. The historical evidence shows that Joseph Smith told fewer lies in his entire lifetime than you do in an average anti-Mormon rant. And Joseph's lies (if indeed they were lies) were told without malice, unlike every single one of yours.

Caswall tried to put Joseph Smith to the test and he [i.e. Caswall] failed miserably. Period.

There; fixed it for you.

Now, at least, it is factually accurate.

I recommend you stop relying upon the gratuitous fabrications of the worthless Caswall. Alternatively, if you think so much of his credibility, perhaps we should start a new thread about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

As far as the Kinderhook Plates are concerned, the GAEL is a pre-existing document. To that extent, its provenance is essentially irrelevant. All that matters is that it was a pre-existing document and Joseph trusted it enough to consult it. Whether it was derived entirely, partly or not at all by some revelatory process is an open question...

I would concur. The translation of the Kinderhook plates is its own issue. If it has implications for BoA issues, so be it and let those be hashed out in scholarly discussion on the BoA. But, and this is something that several critics on both boards seem either not to "get" or not to be willing to acknowledge, the BoA and the Kinderhook plates remain distinct issues even if one has implications for the other. I can understand critics wanting to use the KP now in discussing the BoA, but it doesn't follow that the problem of Kinderhook plates translation is unsolved because the BoA issues are not all resolved. The primary and only substantive critical argument based on the Kinderhook plates episode--that Joseph Smith (supposedly) claimed God gave him the translation of what we know are fake plates--is undone since its premise of revelatory translation is false.

Don

[volgadon]

What are some of the best available material on these subjects? I'd like to have better sources than random internet boards.

Seconded.

[Analytics]

Hi Analytics,

Please read the posts I've made, on both boards now, showing exactly what the eyewitness understood from his encounter with Joseph and the Kinderhook plates.

You are referring to the following, right?

The eyewitness who sees Joseph compare the characters and find a match reports that "he will therefore be able to decipher them"--i.e., his understanding from what he saw and heard from Joseph was that the claim to translation was based simply on the character match and not on additional revelation.

Touche.

Also, if Joseph merely used the GAEL definition to "study out" the meaning of the KP character as part of a process of revelatory translation, then we would expect that translation to have additional, God-given information over and above the GAEL definition, but it doesn't.

Are you sure? Here is the Clayton quote:

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

"They contain the history of the person with whom they were found" qualifies as additional, God-given information over and above the GAEL definition, does it not?

Let me note a couple other things: first, he claims Joseph had "translated" a portion. Taking Clayton at his word, this goes beyond interpreting a single character.

Second, what then follows in Clayton's account is a synopsis of what Joseph says they contain, not necessarily the translation in its entirety. So it seems quite possible that the actual translation he had started includes details beyond the synopsis he gave Clayton.

Whatever the translation was, it was more than a word-for-word transcription of what the GAEL said--it had to have entailed some sort of creative expansion to make it coherent. Thus, my belief that this translation entailed making up a story. I interpret the character from the GAEL as fodder in this process more than the begining and ending of what was being attempted.

Giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that he honestly believed that the plates and the GAEL were both authentic. In that scenario, would he have honestly believed that the GAEL was sufficiently complete to allow him to make a full translation of the plates through a purely secular means? I don’t think so—I think that he knew that at best, the GAEL would give him a few clues, and that he would then need revelation to tie it together and fill in the blanks.

In this scenario, “therefore he will be able to interpret them” would mean something to the effect that Joseph’s bosom burned when he saw the character in both places, and he knew that the project wouldn’t die in a stupor of thought.

[wenglund]

I posted this on another thread, but I think it has relevance here:

As a point of interest, the GAEL character with the sound "Kah tou mun," to which Joseph is alleged to have appealed in "translating" the single character in the KP, evolved over time.

From what I can tell, it first appears in a notebook in Phelps' handwriting, and then in another notebook in Cowdery's handwriting. Both are purposrt to translate the characters presumabely from the Amenhotep papyri that were once a part of the set of papyri held by Joseph. Chris Smith has provided images and personal commentatry of the relevant sections of those notebooks HERE.

The character and sound next shows up in the EA's, where there appears to be some indecision as to the shape of the character--JS has several characters associated with the sound, whereas WWP and OP agree on a single character. The English explanation given to this character in the EA's, Part 1 of the 1st degree, was: "Tthe name of a royal family - The female line."

The character chosen by Phelps and Cowdery made its way into Phelp's GAEL, where it was given different English explanation for the different degrees:

1. "The name of a Royal family in the female line"

2. "a distinction of royal female lineage."

3. "descent from her by whom Egypt was discovered while it was under wate."

4. "A lineage, a daughter of Ham."

5. "a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept."

To me, the evolution of the English explanation for this character as well as the indecision about the characters on Joseph's part, and the use in the GAEL of the character chosen by Phelps rather than Joseph, may be suggestive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

Hi Analytics,

Interesting thoughts, and I think this a healthy discussion of possibilities and fine points.

Here is the Clayton quote:

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

"They contain the history of the person with whom they were found" qualifies as additional, God-given information over and above the GAEL definition, does it not?

That's easily explained as a simple surmise, but Mark and I will explain it more systematically in our joint paper.

Let me note a couple other things: first, he claims Joseph had "translated" a portion. Taking Clayton at his word, this goes beyond interpreting a single character.

Why? Where is the arbitrary boundary that marks off what is and isn't "a portion"? A portion is simply a part of something. A single glyph from the plates text constitutes, by definition, a portion of that text.

Second, what then follows in Clayton's account is a synopsis of what Joseph says they contain, not necessarily the translation in its entirety. So it seems quite possible that the actual translation he had started includes details beyond the synopsis he gave Clayton.

Sure it's possible. But what reason is there to believe that? And good a basis for criticism of LDS faith claims are provided by the possibility that Joseph translated things by revelation in addition to what he translated by character matching? If this is what the critics are going to be falling back on, o how the mighty are fallen--what a weak substitute for the "definite" revelatory translation (as it was supposed) of this content about Pharaoh and all that.

Whatever the translation was, it was more than a word-for-word transcription of what the GAEL said--it had to have entailed some sort of creative expansion to make it coherent. Thus, my belief that this translation entailed making up a story. I interpret the character from the GAEL as fodder in this process more than the begining and ending of what was being attempted.

Oh, okay, that's what you mean by making up a story--connecting the GAEL definition with the guy the plates were found with. Again, I think this can be explained as simple surmise, with no maliciousness or dishonest intended; and Mark and I will cover this using things he's pieced together, and which I should therefore save for our joint paper.

Giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that he honestly believed that the plates and the GAEL were both authentic. In that scenario, would he have honestly believed that the GAEL was sufficiently complete to allow him to make a full translation of the plates through a purely secular means? I don’t think so—I think that he knew that at best, the GAEL would give him a few clues, and that he would then need revelation to tie it together and fill in the blanks.

Explain why he would need revelation to connect dots. You are, I think, well aware that we humans are a pattern-making species. We perceive or infer patterns even where they don't exist and often make very glib inferences. If Joseph were trying to figure out what was on the plates using the GAEL, why would he not try to make coherent sense of the ideas in the GAEL definition? I'm at a loss to see how this is something that only prophets or frauds do, and not something ordinary people do as well.

In this scenario, “therefore he will be able to interpret them” would mean something to the effect that Joseph’s bosom burned when he saw the character in both places, and he knew that the project wouldn’t die in a stupor of thought.

The writer of the letter connected that phrase back to characters being "the same," and not to any revelation on Joseph's part. Whatever Joseph Smith was saying about the process, this guy heard it; we didn't. So I just don't see why we wouldn't be safest following his cue. Do you?

Don