Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[grindael]

I'm working on that Pahoran. (using the quote feature)

Edited August 17, 2011 by grindael

[grindael]

I don't think you'll have to eat anything Don. I personally don't see this as Dr. Richards. I can see it, in Foster, making an undercover compliment to himself. And what's all that about the ladies? Didn't Foster have problems there also? Would Richards have been praising Eliza Snow quite like that? I think it's out of character, but not for Dr. Foster. Just my thoughts.

r,

grindael

[DonBradley]

font="Arial, sans-serif"]Yes, one is a visual 'recollection', and the other a comparison. But in both, they are said to be similar to the BOM characters. Joseph knew the difference between them and the Egyptian Papyri, of course. Did he make the same mistake here twice, or did two different people make the same mistake, or did two people conflate them? I'm sure not convinced of that.

Grindael,

If you're not convinced that both Haven and the NY Herald correspondent made a conflation or mistake, join the club. I don't believe that either.

While I have no reason to be certain that Haven's secondhand report is correct that when Joseph looked at the Kinderhook plates he said some looked similar to Book of Mormon characters, I believe he did. So, no, I don't think Haven was "mistaken" or conflating. When Joseph first saw the Kinderhook plates on April 29 he apparently thought they looked similar to BoM characters and said so.

Then, within the next two days, he apparently also thought they looked similar to the BoA papyrus/GAEL characters and compared them, the fruit of which comparison we see in his private clerk's May 1 journal entry.

Finally, on May 7 Joseph displays the Kinderhook plates to a group of visitors and shows off the curious match he's made between the Kinderhook plates and the GAEL. (Why wouldn't he?) But most of the visitors, probably including Robert Foster, have very little context for what the GAEL is. Thus Foster (presumably) takes it for a Book of Mormon-linked document.

How many errors or conflations do we have here? One--Foster's.

So, again, I agree that Foster and Haven didn't make the same error or conflation.

Don

Edited August 17, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

And "A Gentile's" account uses the plural. Not just one Character, but the same 'characters'.

The question is, what's the basis for the judgment?

While I haven't searched, I'm pretty certain that among the 400-500 Kinderhook plates characters one has a number that are similar to GAEL characters.

But when the correspondent says they are "evidently the same characters"; he's saying he believes them to be the same character sets, not that he has visually equated a number of individual characters. He could base such a judgment on a single match, particularly if the match was made by Joseph and provided an impressive "translation" via the GAEL.

Would one have to be easily impressed in order to make such a leap? Yes. But human beings are notoriously bad at understanding how common random connections are and reading undue significance into them.

Exhibit A: The several posters on MDB who, in some cases multiple times, have asked--on the basis of the single character match they've heard described--how on earth the Kinderhook plates forgers got hold of the GAEL!

Don

Edited August 17, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

Hey G,

I still can't find the Foster-Dartmouth connection. Any leads on your end?

Don

[grindael]

Don,

Nothing yet.

How would I send you a couple of pictures, privately Don. I have something to show you. I can't do it on this board. You will find them interesting.

Respectfully,

grindael

Edited August 17, 2011 by grindael

[grindael]

Don,

I just noticed you sent me a PM by email. I've sent my pictures to you in a reply. Thanks.

Respectfully,

grindael

Edited August 17, 2011 by grindael

[DonBradley]

Very interesting, Grindael. Per my e-mail, I definitely think you have something to pursue.

Don

[DonBradley]

From the Joseph Smith Papers website:

Weld, John Fuller

Biography

11 Dec. 1809–28 July 1892. Physician, surgeon; born in Berkshire, Franklin Co., Vermont. Son of Daniel Weld and Lydia Fuller. Moved to Cornish, Cheshire Co., New Hampshire, by 1810. Moved to Sonora Township, Hancock Co., Illinois, 1827. Attended Dartmouth Medical School, at Hanover, Grafton Co., New Hampshire, 1833. Attended Castleton Medical College, at Castleton, Rutland Co., Vermont, 1835. Moved to St. Mary’s, St. Mary’s Township, Hancock Co., 1837. Moved to Nauvoo, Hancock Co. Reportedly friendly to Latter-day Saints, but no record of his baptism into LDS church. Appointed surgeon in Nauvoo Legion, Mar. 1841. Member of Nauvoo Masonic Lodge. Married first Frances Emiline Hibbard White, 4 July 1845, in Nauvoo. Married second Ruth Elizabeth Collins Rowe, 7 Apr. 1855, in Hancock Co. Moved to Sonora Township, by 1880. Died in Sonora Township.

__________________

John Fuller Weld thus appears to have been a Dartmouth-trained non-Mormon physician in Nauvoo.

Googling, or GoogleBooksing, "John Fuller Weld" shows him to have been quite a letter writer. And a number of his letters are extant and thus could be compared with "A Gentile's." They pertain to Nauvoo events, politics, and his medical practice.

Robert D. Foster seems likely, for reasons spelled out above, to be "A Gentile." But if we're taking the flattery of a certain Dartmouth-trained physician as a good clue, this non-Mormon doctor and avid correspondent seems like someone to explore further...

Don

[grindael]

Don,

I'm more interested in Weld. I've sent you the relevant research on him by PM. He was also a member of the Nauvoo Agricultural, and Manufacturing Association. This really ties in nicely with A.Gentile's letters.

r,

grindael

[Xander]

I have presented no straw man.

You have. And now you're trying to trick us into thinking your argument was something else all along. This is an insult to everyone reading this thread. As I said, rhetoric won't save you. I won't let it.

You are projecting, as usual. I cited the post number because your arrogant, peremptory and overbearing demand deserves no better courtesy. And my post provides a number of examples of anti-Mormons claiming that the KP's call Joseph's prophetic gifts into question.

Which was never the argument, as you well know. Your argument was that Don's presentation destroys the "standard" anti-Mormon claim that Joseph Smith translated K-Hook via "revelation." I told you that wasn't the standard anti-Mormon argument. You said I was lying. I then asked you to provide an example. You attempted five. I showed that none of your examples supported your claim. You then tried to obfuscate further by complaining about my posting style. I kept pressing the point that you haven't supplied us with a valid reference supporting your claim. You then backed away from it gradually, stating that this "used to be" the standard argument. I told you that you needed to support this claim as well. So far you refuse to do so, and instead want to change your argument and hope no one notices. I've effectively undressed you so everyone can see how unreasonable you really are. You refuse to concede anything, even when it is so obvious you have lost the point.

The reason I'm pressing this is because you arrogantly insisted the critics are the ones suffering from Don's presentation and questioned my integrity for daring to disagree with this. What I have done here is show that Don's presentation has refuted nothing of consequence. Nothing. The only thing it refutes, turned out to be something we never argued to begin with. So you're left with nothing. Apologists have been scrambling to edit, update and rewrite previous apologetic articles to accommodate Don's findings, precisely because they had been arguing for years things Don refutes. Namely, that Clayton's account wasn't credible and that no translation ever took place.

I don't need to try again

Then you should admit you were wrong and retract your initial statement. But we both know this is beyond reasonable expectations. When have you ever done such a thing?

It has always been the standard anti-Mormon argument.

You're not going to be able to assert your way out of this mess. But I give you an A for effort.

And besides, you provided all the support necessary, when you twice quoted a notorious anti-Mormon saying: "Only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

Which doesn't even begin to support your original claim. I stated from the beginning that the argument is that Joseph Smith is a false prohet because he was fooled. Anti-Mormons think this is enough to prove he was a fraud. You said no, that it was because he translated K-Hook using "revelation." Everything that has been presented as evidence since then supports my claim, not yours. "Only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates" requires no translation "via revelation." It only requires that he be fooled into thinking they were of ancient origin. Period.

Clearly, those EV's either don't read the Bible, or don't believe what they read. But apart from that, how would that work, Xander? How would God prevent the prophet being deceived, Xander?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if their concept of a prophet is biblically sound. What matters is that you've been reduced to misrepresenting their argument, and now you've misrepresented your own. You can't even admit this either. Pathetic.

Your problem, as usual, is that you spoke without knowledge. You dug your own hole here, and I have no sympathy for you, mainly because of the manner in which you arrogantly used your ignorance to attack the entire community of critics.

[Pahoran]

You have. And now you're trying to trick us into thinking your argument was something else all along.

I regret that I have no valid reason to think that you have a good faith basis to believe what you assert.

This is an insult to everyone reading this thread.

Says the most insulting poster in this forum.

As I said, rhetoric won't save you. I won't let it.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Which was never the argument, as you well know. Your argument was that Don's presentation destroys the "standard" anti-Mormon claim that Joseph Smith translated K-Hook via "revelation."

Point of clarification here: I know perfectly well and have always known perfectly well that no anti-Mormons believed Joseph received actual revelation. Anti-Mormons almost always regard Joseph as a "bogus prophet," i.e. one who only claimed to receive revelation. The standard anti-Mormon argument, alluded to above, is that Joseph's alleged "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates discredits his prophetic claims because any such translation must have been "bogus" and undoubtedly involved him doing whatever it was he "really" did when he translated the Book of Mormon.

Snip.

Which doesn't even begin to support your original claim.

Doesn't it?

I refer you to my first post in this thread, wherein I said:

However, it occurs to me that those past apologetic arguments serve no purpose at all except to blunt the force of the claim that Joseph's attempt to translate the KP's demonstrates his lack of prophetic gifts, and thus is some kind of "smoking gun" for the anti-Mormons.

This isn't "rhetoric," this is a fact.

That is my "original claim."

Now, what did you quote Luke Wilson as saying?

"Only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

You have supported my "original claim."

Now, given that you seem to have a deep emotional attachment to having the last word, I will bow out and let you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This isn't "rhetoric," this is a fact.

That is my "original claim."

Now, what did you quote Luke Wilson as saying?

"Only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

You have supported my "original claim."

Now, given that you seem to have a deep emotional attachment to having the last word, I will bow out and let you.

Regards,

Pahoran

You won this one dude. Kevin will never see it this way but you won this debate.

[Xander]

I regret that I have no valid reason to think that you have a good faith basis to believe what you assert.

I see you're becoming more creative in your insinuations that I am lying. Too bad you have no evidence aside from your anti-Mormon xenophobia.

Says the most insulting poster in this forum.

Want to take a poll? I wouldn't recommend it.

I don't mind insulting people with an honest presentation of the facts, if that is the natural consequence to their ridiculous claims. By contrast, you have no evidence. You choose to insult with rhetoric.

Point of clarification here: I know perfectly well and have always known perfectly well that no anti-Mormons believed Joseph received actual revelation.

Their "standard" argument was never that he to have translated it via revelation. Meaning, of course, that he alleged to have done so via revelation. Of course they don't believe he received revelation. You're getting desperate, eh?

Anti-Mormons almost always regard Joseph as a "bogus prophet," i.e. one who only claimed to receive revelation. The standard anti-Mormon argument, alluded to above, is that Joseph's alleged "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates discredits his prophetic claims because any such translation must have been "bogus" and undoubtedly involved him doing whatever it was he "really" did when he translated the Book of Mormon.

Argument via ssertion. You have yet to supply us with a single anti-Mormon reference saying such a thing. And even if you could, you'd still be a long way from establishing it as the "standard," as if there is some anti-Mormon committee that dictates to the anti-Mormon community what standard arguments they must employ.

Doesn't it?

I refer you to my first post in this thread, wherein I said:

Ah, but this isn't what you referenced as the "standard" anti-Mormon argument. Do I really need to quote you, or can you at least admit this?

Mola,

You won this one dude. Kevin will never see it this way but you won this debate.

I'll take this as a compliment. Whenever Pahoran's posts become smaller and smaller, his cheerleaders become more vocal, and he bows out entirely, well, this is a clear indication that he has won nothing.

Again, to summarize, he asserted with bombastic certitutde that the "standard" anti-Mormon argument was that Joseph Smith was a fraud because he claimed to have translated K-Hook via "revelation."

This is important for Pahoran because it would be the only thing Don's presentation could refute. But i pointed out that this wasn't teh "standard" anti-Mormon argument. Pahoran accused me of lying. I asked him to back up his claims. He realized he couldn't, so he started complaining about silly stuff, such as my posting style and my lack of kindness in my requests. LOL!

He eventually had to come right out and revamp his argument by saying it "used to be" the standard argument. Then he decided he'd try to equate this argument with a vague unspecific reference to "prophetic gifts."

I have shown that the most popular anti-Mormon websites on the web have never argued what Pahoran called the "standard" anti-Mormon argument.

The conclusions are easily deduced:

1. Pahoran was wrong.

2. Don''s presentation does not refute a "standard" anti-Mormon claim.

In which corner of the universe does this show Pahoran "won the debate"?

On this forum, that's where.

[Xander]

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.

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.

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.

The standard anti-Mormon argument from the Kinderhook Plates goes like this: Joseph Smith claimed that the Kinderhook Plates contained specific information relating to the ancient world. Joseph Smith's claim implies that he received this information by revelation. Since the Kinderhook Plates are a hoax, it follows that Joseph's opinion of their contents was false. Ergo, since he claimed to have revealed information that cannot possibly be true, it follows that he was a false prophet. Don's evidence eviscerates this argument because it shows that point 2 is not true, and therefore the conclusion at point 4 is false.

The statement that beautifully sums up the standard anti-Mormon argument, and proves that those who deny it are lying.

It has always been the standard anti-Mormon argument. And besides, you provided all the support necessary, when you twice quoted a notorious anti-Mormon saying: "Only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

Ultimately Pahoran was left with only one hope of salvaging his argument, and he had to rely on the naivete of his audience. The last statement he made asserts that the "only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates" proves his claim because according to Pahoran, this is referring to "prophetic gifts" used while engaging the translation. But teh context of this statement says no such a thing. It was simply a long argument stating that God wouldn't allow a true prophet to be fooled in this manner. So for Pahoran, this is enough to establish "prophetic gifts," and he needed this to further apply this to the translation itself. But the evidence doesn't support his misuse of the arguments.

Instead of simply taking the humble approach and admitting he either misspoke or misunderstood the critical argument, he decided to constantly assert that I was lying, and that any critic who denied this was effectively being dishonest.

[wenglund]

Several other Dr.'s that were around at the time and deserve looking into were Frederick G. Williams, Isaac Galland, and John C. Bennett (of all people)--he was Mayor of Nauvoo in May of 1842.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Kevin,

I said you could have the last word, knowing how important it is to you. I expected a considerable amount of strutting about and capon-crowing. I didn't say I would stand by while you vented your boundless malice in two separate posts.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my posts don't get shorter because I'm running out of arguments; they get shorter because I have no interest in merely reiterating points I've already made several times. Likewise, I don't "flee the scene," as if anyone could possibly be afraid of you; I bow out of a discussion because it is going in circles and there is nothing new to be said.

I did not "subtly back away" from anything; far less have I "revamped" any arguments. I have merely reiterated what I previously said, but in different words. If you find my various statements to mean different things, it is not because my intent has changed, but because your maximum-hostile interpretation was significantly wrong. As usual.

That you may have no further excuse to pretend to not understand my acutal position: If Don Bradley's analysis of the evidence is correct, then Joseph did not attempt a revelatory translation of the Kinderhook plates. He merely glanced at them, compared some of the characters with the GAEL, and reported a visual match. Since Joseph himself taught that "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such," and since comparing characters in two different sources is not by any stretch of the imagination "acting as such," it follows that everything he did regarding the KP's can be accounted for without engaging any of his prophetic claims.

In which case his prophetic claims are not impacted thereby.

And if there are anti-Mormons anywhere whose smug "arguments" from the Kinderhook hoax don't have to be adjusted at all, then they clearly weren't arguing anything of any significance; but those who did argue that it somehow impacted Joseph's prophetic claims -- such as Luke Wilson, whom you quoted, apparently failing to realise that his argument supports me -- have now had the ground cut out from under their feet.

The question of whether a particular anti-Mormon argument is described with perfect accuracy as the anti-Mormon himself would describe it, is ultimately irrelevant. (Unless, of course, the sole point of the discussion is for you to strut and preen and show off your skill at one-upmanship.) The fact remains that the only way to argue that someone is a "false prophet" is to show that they do not possess the prophetic charisms they claim. If Joseph's interaction with the KP's is as Don says it was, then Joseph's prophetic charisms are not in view, and there is no argument from the KP's that can therefore impact them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[grindael]

Several other Dr.'s that were around at the time and deserve looking into were Frederick G. Williams, Isaac Galland, and John C. Bennett (of all people)--he was Mayor of Nauvoo in May of 1842.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

JC Bennett is def. out. A. Gentile was writing against him in the fall of '42. I don't think it could be Williams, he died in '42 and A. Gentile was still writing to the Herald in mid '43. (that would be a good trick if Williams could have pulled that off) And Isaac Galland, Hmm. I believe he had some real problems, including not being in Nauvoo in May of 1843 (he was in St. Louis I believe). Interesting group Mr. Englund, but J. F. Weld still looks like the best candidate in my humble. Thanks, and Lyndon Cook published a very good article on Galland. Most interesting reading.

respectfully,

grindael

[Xander]

I said you could have the last word, knowing how important it is to you. I expected a considerable amount of strutting about and capon-crowing. I didn't say I would stand by while you vented your boundless malice in two separate posts.

Of course everyone who refutes you must have nothing but malice in mind, right? That about completes the picture for you, I know. The evil anti-Mormon and the meek and humble Saint of God.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my posts don't get shorter because I'm running out of arguments

They get shorter because you are responding to fewer points that I make. Like wade, you seem to think that if you ignore points, that they'll miraculously disappear. And if you're really lucky like wade, you can get the thread closed.

hey get shorter because I have no interest in merely reiterating points I've already made several times.

Strange, because that is all you have done is reiterate your straw man and your refusal to admit being wrong.

Likewise, I don't "flee the scene," as if anyone could possibly be afraid of you; I bow out of a discussion because it is going in circles and there is nothing new to be said.

Not true. You have the opportunity to do yourself a tremendous credit by admitting you were wrong and retract your allegations. Maybe even apologize for accusing me of lying for stating what the evidence ended up proving all along. Is this really too much to ask?

I did not "subtly back away" from anything; far less have I "revamped" any arguments. I have merely reiterated what I previously said, but in different words.

Uh, It "is the standard argument" and "it used to be" are two different things.

If you find my various statements to mean different things, it is not because my intent has changed, but because your maximum-hostile interpretation was significantly wrong. As usual.

Yes of course, because I'm hostile! That's gotta be it. Kinda like how the critical views we're all dishonest for not stating the arguments in a way that confirmed your straw man suspicion. You're never wrong Pahoran. Don't ever let anyone convince you otherwise.

That you may have no further excuse to pretend to not understand my acutal position: If Don Bradley's analysis of the evidence is correct, then Joseph did not attempt a revelatory translation of the Kinderhook plates.

I understand your position perfectly. You think it is the "standard argument" by critics that Joseph Smith attempted to Translate K-hook using revelation or his "prophetic gifts". Unfortunately, you've never been able to provide a single example where anyone ever claimed this.

He merely glanced at them

He obviously made a conscious effort to compare the plates to the GAEL, which flies in the face of your attempt to downplay his involvement to a mere "glance."

compared some of the characters with the GAEL, and reported a visual match.

And you forgot to mention his translation, which Don concedes he did. Did you exclude this on purpose? Joseph Smith said the plates contain a history of the person who was burined with them. This information is not translated from the single character that corresponds to the GAEL, therefore your entire argument is moot. He obviously obtained this via revelation, which is consistent with how he has treated ancient documents in the past.

Since Joseph himself taught that "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such," and since comparing characters in two different sources is not by any stretch of the imagination "acting as such," it follows that everything he did regarding the KP's can be accounted for without engaging any of his prophetic claims.

Only when you keep ignoring pertinent points that undermine your assumptions. Again, how did Joseph Smith know the plates detailed a history of this person? And of course, you haven't dealt with the fact that the GAEL itself was a product of revelation.

And if there are anti-Mormons anywhere whose smug "arguments" from the Kinderhook hoax don't have to be adjusted at all, then they clearly weren't arguing anything of any significance

Uh huh, then how do you explain the apologetic hysteria that led to denials of any translation and dismissals of Clayton's account? Obviously these arguments weighed heavily on the minds of apologists, otherwise they would have left the matter alone.

but those who did argue that it somehow impacted Joseph's prophetic claims -- such as Luke Wilson, whom you quoted, apparently failing to realise that his argument supports me -- have now had the ground cut out from under their feet.

Uh no, his argument doesn't support you, but even if it did, that leaves you with a single example, which is far from establishing it as the "standard."

The question of whether a particular anti-Mormon argument is described with perfect accuracy as the anti-Mormon himself would describe it, is ultimately irrelevant.

Yes of course, only LDS apologists have the right to make their own arguments. Anti-Mormons are at the mercy of straw man engineers.

The fact remains that the only way to argue that someone is a "false prophet" is to show that they do not possess the prophetic charisms they claim.

Yes, such as the spirit of discernment. Joseph Smith was fooled, which makes him a fool in the eyes of most Evangelical critics.

If Joseph's interaction with the KP's is as Don says it was, then Joseph's prophetic charisms are not in view, and there is no argument from the KP's that can therefore impact them.

Don doesn't deny that it is possible Joseph Smith relied on revelation. His argument is strictly based on what we know for sure - that he used the GAEL. He can't tell us whether Joseph Smith provided more, because there is no official translation by which to compare. He also cannot tell us that knowledge about the plates containing "the history" of skeleton, derived strictly from the interpretation of one character. It is just an assumption. A fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. What is also an important and reasonable assumption is that Joseph Smith stuck with what worked for him, and didn't suddenly decide to abandon his prophetic charisms for translating ancient documents. This doesn't even begin to make sense, and ou haven't dealt with this at all except to ignore the point and reiterate your assertion that no revelation was involved.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Xander

[DonBradley]

Hi Kevin,

In the absence of a definitive source that says "Brother Joseph did not claim any revelation affirming or translating the Kinderhook plates" I don't see how it would be possible to demonstrate that Joseph Smith didn't claim any revelation on them. What it is quite possible to show is that what he is known to have said about them needn't have required any revelation. Thus the burden of proof is on the idea that he received or claimed revelation that isn't necessary to explain his reported translation.

One can certainly assert that its possible that Joseph claimed additional revelation in interpreting from the Kinderhook plates, but what sort of conclusion does such a possibility premise lead to? A possibility conclusion, i.e.:

1. It's possible that Joseph Smith claimed to derive by revelation from the Kinderhook plates translation content that is not extant and that we have no record of.

2. The Kinderhook plates are a forgery; their characters mean nothing.

Therefore, its possible that Joseph Smith claimed revelation assigning a meaning to something meaningless.

Therefore, its also possible that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

But didn't we know that this was logically possible before even encountering the argument? Such an "argument" adds nothing to our knowledge and is therefore worthless.

You can't build an effective critical argument against Joseph Smith based on the possibility that he claimed unreported revelation on them.

So, the demonstrable derivation via the GAEL of the Kinderhook plates translation content that is reported moots the critical argument that this translation content shows him to be a false revelatory translator.

Don

[Jaybear]

What it is quite possible to show is that what he is known to have said about them needn't have required any revelation.

...

So, the demonstrable derivation via the GAEL of the Kinderhook plates translation content that is reported moots the critical argument that this translation content shows him to be a false revelatory translator.

That can't be the standard, because as a critic, I am quite comfortable saying that nothing Smith said, or wrote "required any revelation." All he required was a creative imagination.

I am trying to figure out why can't seem to communicate on this point. My best explanation is that you seem to think of a false prophet narrowly as one has "revelations" that are false.

Whereas, I think a better, broader, more accurate view of a false prophet is one who causes or allows others to mistakenly believe he speaks to or for God.

The more appropriate question then, as I see it, is whether, in this instance, Smith led or allowed his followers to believe that he translated the KP through revelatory means.

I would say that if you want to provide a scholarly historical rebuttal of the critics position, you need to examine not only what Smith said and did, but how his pronouncement was presented and received by the Mormon community. Was the partial translation presented and seen as a validation of Smith's prophetic skills, or merely an academic exercise by Smith as you suggest.

If presented and viewed as the latter, then you are correct.

[wenglund]

I would say that if you want to provide a scholarly historical rebuttal of the critics position, you need to examine not only what Smith said and did, but how his pronouncement was presented and received by the Mormon community. Was the partial translation presented and seen as a validation of Smith's prophetic skills, or merely an academic exercise by Smith as you suggest. If presented and viewed as the latter, then you are correct.

Even though many critics don't believe that Joseph received divine revelation, nevertheless some of them argue that he translated the KP under the guise of revelation.

And, since members of the Church aren't any more immune at times to jumping to the wrong conclusions about whether the prophet was acting in his capacity as a prophet or as a man, all Don needs to rebut the mistaken conclusions of both critic and Saints in this instance is to show that the KP translation was academic and not revelatory.

I believe he has done so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Even though many critics don't believe that Joseph received divine revelation, nevertheless some of them argue that he translated the KP under the guise of revelation.

And, since members of the Church aren't any more immune at times to jumping to the wrong conclusions about whether the prophet was acting in his capacity as a prophet or as a man, all Don needs to rebut the mistaken conclusions of both critic and Saints in this instance is to show that the KP translation was academic and not revelatory.

I believe he has done so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don’t know why they have such are hard time. It’s quite easy. When apologists determine that he was right, he was acting as a prophet; and when they say he was wrong, he was acting as a man. Wink! Wink!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don’t know why they have such are hard time. It’s quite easy. When apologists determine that he was right, he was acting as a prophet; and when they say he was wrong, he was acting as a man. Wink! Wink!

That does not seem to be the case with the evidence presented and the way this thread has played out. In fact I have not seen that phrase thrown out very much in this thread.

Oh well. Back to eating corn.

[Pahoran]

That can't be the standard, because as a critic, I am quite comfortable saying that nothing Smith said, or wrote "required any revelation." All he required was a creative imagination.

I am trying to figure out why can't seem to communicate on this point. My best explanation is that you seem to think of a false prophet narrowly as one has "revelations" that are false.

Or one who uses a "creative imagination" (i.e. makes stuff up) and tries to pass it off as revelation.

Whereas, I think a better, broader, more accurate view of a false prophet is one who causes or allows others to mistakenly believe he speaks to or for God.

The more appropriate question then, as I see it, is whether, in this instance, Smith led or allowed his followers to believe that he translated the KP through revelatory means.

Don't tell Kevin that. Because that is quite close enough to my description of the standard anti-Mormon exploitation of the hoax for me to feel perfectly comfortable citing it.

I would say that if you want to provide a scholarly historical rebuttal of the critics position, you need to examine not only what Smith said and did, but how his pronouncement was presented and received by the Mormon community. Was the partial translation presented and seen as a validation of Smith's prophetic skills, or merely an academic exercise by Smith as you suggest.

If presented and viewed as the latter, then you are correct.

There was no "pronouncement" and nothing was "presented." There is only a short entry in William Clayton's diary.

Yet again: if Don is right, then Joseph glanced at the KP's, recognised one of the characters, compared that character to the GAEL and reported the meaning of that symbol as recorded in that document, along with his surmise that the plates related to the bones with which they were found. (Note to self: double-check in case I've left out some detail which might enable some hypercritical hypocrite to pounce on it an manufacture an accusation.) It was a preliminary exercise only. Some months later, there is still some talk in Nauvoo about a yet future translation of the KP's. Why yet future? Because Joseph hadn't yet provided one, of course.

Regards,

Pahoran