Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[MAsh]

So, I think it is probably safe to say that the whole "Joseph Smith knew the Kinderhook Plates were fraudulent, which is why he never tried to translate them" assertion, is now effectively blown out of the water.

I haven't read through this entire thread so maybe this has been dealt with, but this was not the only apologetic used in the Kinderhook controversy. In SFS (published 2008) I included several possible explanations for the dilemma including:

The Saints, and very likely Joseph, believed

that the truth of the Book of Mormon might be proved by those things

which would spring from the Earth, and in their zeal they tried to reconcile

the discoveries of their day with what they believed about the

Book of Mormon. Joseph may have studied the plates, formulated some

theories and speculations—he may have “stud[ied] it out” in his “mind”

(D&C 9:—but never received revelatory confirmation. (p. 212.)

This seems to be the best explanation of what happened based on Bradley's research.

The fact remains that JS didn't claim that his "translation" came via revelation. The arguments that seem to be blown out of the water are:

1. JS didn't try to translate the KP because he knew they were fraudulent.

2. Clayton was relying on rumors rather than first hand knowledge of what JS said about the the KP.

2. JS is a fraud because he prophetically translated bogus plates.

[David T]

I believe it was the 5-6th page of text, and only the 2nd page of characters, if that makes sense.

4th page of the GAEL, second page of the characters, I think is what was said.

And I believe the image Bradley referenced was the top central character on the bottom right image here:

Edited August 6, 2011 by nackhadlow

[MAsh]

4th page of the GAEL, second page of the characters, I think is what was said.

And I believe the image Bradley referenced was the top central character on the bottom right image here:

Yes. It was the one that looks like a boat (or perhaps 1/2 a watermelon).

[why me]

Unsophisticated newbie popping in this thread...

Can someone explain the basis for calling Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhooks a "non-revelatory" or "academic" translation as opposed to the other kinds of translations he made?

I think that what happens is that critics think that everything JS did must have been during prophetic moments. But this is not true. With the kinderhook plates, it seems that he did a non-revelatory process where God played no role. I would also go as far to say that he did not do an academic translation either since he was not an academic. But he did take a stab at it but gave it up. I would assume that he had a suspicion that everything may not have been on the up and up. The mouse trap did not catch the mouse.

However, if JS were a fraudster, I would be surprised that he even gave these plates any thought at all since the plates are a play on his own 'fraud'. By this time in his life, he would have experienced the wiles of many of enemies and this would have sent a red light in his direction.

[why me]

The fact remains that JS didn't claim that his "translation" came via revelation. The arguments that seem to be blown out of the water are:

1. JS didn't try to translate the KP because he knew they were fraudulent.

But he were a fraudster he certainly would have assumed that this was a likeminded fraud and he would have sent the plates packing with instructions for the fraudsters to take these plates to a learned man.

[Xander]

But he were a fraudster he certainly would have assumed that this was a likeminded fraud and he would have sent the plates packing with instructions for the fraudsters to take these plates to a learned man.

You have repeated this claim for at least two years now. But it is pure speculation on your part and makes no sense to me how you leap to this conclusion. Just because Joseph Smith made up the story about gold plates doesn't mean he would never accept other claimed discoveries, especially when they were willing to show the discovery to just anyone. Joseph Smith hid the plates from virtually everyone.

[Daniel Peterson]

But he were a fraudster he certainly would have assumed that this was a likeminded fraud and he would have sent the plates packing with instructions for the fraudsters to take these plates to a learned man.

A good point, I think.

[Deborah]

But he were a fraudster he certainly would have assumed that this was a likeminded fraud and he would have sent the plates packing with instructions for the fraudsters to take these plates to a learned man.

I believe Don made the point that Joseph put it aside because he wanted to do some further study but then apparently never thought it was important enough to get back to or other things intervened.

He also provided some evidence that the creators never intended as a fraud but as a practical joke due to all the interest of the local members in this kind of thing. The point is there was never anything further done with the plates that we know of and the fact that Joseph didn't feel any imperative to follow up on them indicates to me he didn't think they were anything of importance except maybe as a hobby, unlike his translation of the BOA or the revision of the Bible.

[Xander]

He also provided some evidence that the creators never intended as a fraud but as a practical joke due to all the interest of the local members in this kind of thing. The point is there was never anything further done with the plates that we know of and the fact that Joseph didn't feel any imperative to follow up on them indicates to me he didn't think they were anything of importance except maybe as a hobby, unlike his translation of the BOA or the revision of the Bible

This isn't unlike the BOA translations at all. It took seven years before he got around to finally finishing the translation and publishing something.

[DonBradley]

Hi Kevin,

Not buying the document is a significant difference.

I've just finished FAIR and am helping out for a day with Sunstone, all in the midst of trying to get my book done. So I should minimize my participation here. But I'll try to get back on the board to clarify a bit what I presented. Of course, the ideal thing will be when the presentation is online. Then you can see the data for yourself.

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't had time even to glance at this thread, but I do wish to extend my hearty congratulations to Don Bradley for a fascinating and compelling presentation at the FAIR Conference on the Kinderhook Plates. From my perspective, it seems certain to change the complexion of apologetics on this subject from this point on.

And Don, I also was interested your presentation in St. George at MHA -- what I could hear of it. I had to stand in the door way and listen, as the room was so crowded.

[thews]

I think that what happens is that critics think that everything JS did must have been during prophetic moments. But this is not true. With the kinderhook plates, it seems that he did a non-revelatory process where God played no role.

How do you rationalize this? At what point does Joseph Smith, who talked to God, translate something where God has "no role" as you claim? Does this make sense to you?

I would also go as far to say that he did not do an academic translation either since he was not an academic. But he did take a stab at it but gave it up. I would assume that he had a suspicion that everything may not have been on the up and up. The mouse trap did not catch the mouse.

Wouldn't this logic dictate that he claimed to have no knowledge of what the Kinderhook plates said? Did he claim this?

However, if JS were a fraudster, I would be surprised that he even gave these plates any thought at all since the plates are a play on his own 'fraud'. By this time in his life, he would have experienced the wiles of many of enemies and this would have sent a red light in his direction.

You continue to inject what would have happened (in your opinion) if Joseph Smith were a "fraudster". Again, why wouldn't God just tell him the Kiderhook plates were bogus? Why wouldn't he just state he didn't know what they said? Why would he need to have them authenticated?

[Nomad]

I would like to actually read Bradley's paper before making any comments on it, but my initial impression is that if Bradley's argument is correct, then it undermines previous apologetic arguments concerning the KEP. But I will wait to read his paper before coming to a definite conclusion.

[Chris Smith]

I'm very glad that Don has finally presented this paper. I've been bugging him to do so for a couple years now, so I could cite his findings. It was sheer torture to have to bite my tongue through all those agonizing discussions of the cipher theory, when I knew there was a silver bullet that could put the issue to rest.

Kind of funny to see the resistance to recognizing the implications of Don's finding for past apologetic arguments. As Kevin noted above, Don has shown that Joseph not only viewed the GAEL as an accurate and authentic grammar of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, but also actually used it as such for the purpose of translation. Don has also shown that Joseph did think the Kinderhook Plates were authentic, and did attempt a non-revelatory translation. I suppose I can understand the embarrassment about having to surrender past apologetic arguments to the contrary, especially since those arguments were advanced so forcefully. But there's no need to compound the embarrassment by refusing to give those arguments up. What Joseph thought about the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates is ultimately fairly immaterial to the truth of Mormonism, and as far as the GAEL is concerned, you can always fall back on the standard "they were just naturalistically working it out in their minds" argument. So, what's the big deal?

[Chris Smith]

This isn't unlike the BOA translations at all. It took seven years before he got around to finally finishing the translation and publishing something.

Actually, he never did finish the translation.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Chris Smith

[MAsh]

I'm very glad that Don has finally presented this paper. I've been bugging him to do so for a couple years now, so I could cite his findings. It was sheer torture to have to bite my tongue through all those agonizing discussions of the cipher theory, when I knew there was a silver bullet that could put the issue to rest.

I'll let Don respond when he has time, but according to a post-presentation conversation I had with him, he doesn't view this as a "silver bullet" that destroys any cipher theory.

I suppose I can understand the embarrassment about having to surrender past apologetic arguments to the contrary, especially since those arguments were advanced so forcefully. But there's no need to compound the embarrassment by refusing to give those arguments up.

Please see my previous post that not all apologetic arguments "forcefully" maintained the position under discussion.

I'm never embarrassed to give up incorrect assumptions... and, of course, we should remember that critics have had to give up incorrect assumptions in the past as well. And, like LDS apologists, not all critics necessarily had the same incorrect assumptions as other critics.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would like to actually read Bradley's paper before making any comments on it, but my initial impression is that if Bradley's argument is correct, then it undermines previous apologetic arguments concerning the KEP. But I will wait to read his paper before coming to a definite conclusion.

If you're referring to Stanley Kimball's theory, Don's paper revisits it, finds it lacking, and proposes something more compelling in its place. Its in the spirit of Hegel's triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In this instance the synthesis provides us with something more intellectually satisfying without in any way denying Joseph Smith's claim to being a prophet of God.

I say, Bravo!

[Chris Smith]

I'll let Don respond when he has time, but according to a post-presentation conversation I had with him, he doesn't view this as a "silver bullet" that destroys any cipher theory.

I'm not sure how the theory could possibly survive such a blow. I suspect Don simply believes that the GAEL has cipher-like qualities rather than that it was intended or used as a cipher, as William argued. I'd be very surprised to hear differently.

Please see my previous post that not all apologetic arguments "forcefully" maintained the position under discussion.

I'm never embarrassed to give up incorrect assumptions... and, of course, we should remember that critics have had to give up incorrect assumptions in the past as well. And, like LDS apologists, not all critics necessarily had the same incorrect assumptions as other critics.

If this is intended as a rebuttal to my post above, then I think you misunderstood me. I'm in full agreement with you. I wasn't implying that the act of giving up arguments somehow vindicates the critics or proves all apologetics false. Quite the opposite: I was saying that backing off of incorrect arguments is a normal part of academic discourse, so there's no need to dig one's heels in the sand as some participants on this thread seem to be doing.

[Chris Smith]

If you're referring to Stanley Kimball's theory, Don's paper revisits it, finds it lacking, and proposes something more compelling in its place.

I'd love to hear more about this portion of the paper.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm very glad that Don has finally presented this paper. I've been bugging him to do so for a couple years now, so I could cite his findings. It was sheer torture to have to bite my tongue through all those agonizing discussions of the cipher theory, when I knew there was a silver bullet that could put the issue to rest.

At the end of his presentation, Don essentially denied having put that issue to rest.

And I'm not at all convinced that his argument does.

Kind of funny to see the resistance to recognizing the implications of Don's finding for past apologetic arguments. As Kevin noted above, Don has shown that Joseph not only viewed the GAEL as an accurate and authentic grammar of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs,

I'll have to see Don's fleshed-out written argument and compare it to Will Schryver's fleshed-out written argument (which I hope will ultimately appear, and preferably in the not-ridiculously-distant future), but, pending that, I'm not absolutely certain that they're mutually incompatible. Perhaps they are. I think, though, that I can see a way in which the two can be reconciled, but I won't commit myself to it until I've had the opportunity to study them side by side. Which means that Will has to be allowed to speak.

I suppose I can understand the embarrassment about having to surrender past apologetic arguments to the contrary, especially since those arguments were advanced so forcefully. But there's no need to compound the embarrassment by refusing to give those arguments up.

Don't take the victory lap just yet.

I, at least, am not convinced that you've won.

[Nenahnezad]

What Joseph thought about the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates is ultimately fairly immaterial to the truth of Mormonism, and as far as the GAEL is concerned, you can always fall back on the standard "they were just naturalistically working it out in their minds" argument. So, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that it affects LDS Apologetics who claim they speak for Mormonism. When apologetics claim, as was quoted earlier: "I think that what happens is that critics think that everything JS did must have been during prophetic moments. But this is not true."

As if LDS Apologetics have the authority to say when the Prophet was acting or speaking during prophetic moments; the Prophet was or wasn't depending on whether his words support the apologetics' particular arguments at the time.

This is pulled out of the hat - a "we get home free" card.

[Joseph Antley]

Chris, I agree that if Don's thesis is correct, it discredits understanding the KEP as an intended cipher. I think it supports Nibley's original understanding of the KEP.

And though Don didn't completely discredit the cipher theory when it was specifically mentioned at the end of his presentation, I thought he sounded reluctant to give it much credence. Hopefully he can give us more info here when he is less busy. In my opinion, yes, the KEP is a cipher in that it contains character glosses, but that is an almost inevitable consequence of someone(s) trying to create (or recreate) an actual language and not super consequential in itself.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Joseph Antley

[Daniel Peterson]

The big deal is that it affects LDS Apologetics who claim they speak for Mormonism.

I couldn't possibly agree more strongly.

All of the Mormon apologists who claim to speak for Mormonism have been utterly discredited.

[Nenahnezad]

I couldn't possibly agree more strongly.

All of the Mormon apologists who claim to speak for Mormonism have been utterly discredited.

Did I say All?

[Daniel Peterson]

Did I say All?

I did. Every single one of the apologists who claim to speak for the Church has been discredited.

I'm taking your word for it that such apologists exist. I've never actually met one, myself.