Doctor Scratch wrote:Hi there, WW. I feel like there is some confusion here, and that someone (perhaps me) is misunderstanding the critics' arguments. So I'm wondering if you could clear something up. I've always understood the critics' main point to be, simply, that Joseph Smith was fooled into thinking that the Kinderhook Plates were legitimate ancient documents, and that he mistakenly attempted to translate them. Can you tell me how D. Bradley's presentation managed to "null out" this basic assertion? Or, barring that, can you explain how my summary of the critics' argument(s) is wrong?
Hello Dr.,
It's an interesting question and should be clarified as it seems the current critical direction in this thread is to go towards a "weak" theory of Joseph Smith being fooled (i.e. - didn't recognize their antiquity) compared to a much stronger theory of Joseph Smith being fooled (i.e. - falsely producing a translation).
The Tanner's, in Answering Mormon Scholars vol. 2, present their argument as this -
Dr. Hamblin is certainly not correct in his statement that Joseph Smith was only mildly interested in the Kinderhook plates. Smith was, in fact, extremely interested in them. He accepted these forged plates without question and even went so far as to "translate" a portion of the fake writing found on the plates. Later the perpetrators of the fraud confessed that the Kinderhook plates were modern forgeries created specifically for the purpose of entrapping Joseph Smith.
In this statement, they suggest the weaker theory is sufficient, but then go on to claim the strong theory is in fact valid -
One Mormon scholar has argued that the "brevity" of Joseph Smith's translation of the Kinderhook plates "precludes the possibility" that Joseph Smith's' abilities as a translator" might be "called into question." We cannot agree with this conclusion. Joseph Smith's work on these fraudulent plates casts serious doubt upon his ability as a translator of Mormon scriptures like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. (emphasis mine)
In order for Smith to derive as much information as he did from the Kinderhook plates it would have been necessary for him to have "translated" a significant number of words. The reader will remember that the History of fhe Church says that he translated "a portion of them." Since Joseph Smith made a false translation of both the Kinderhook plates and the Book of Abraham found in the Pearl of Great Price, it casts a serious shadow of doubt over his work on the Book of Mormon. James D. Bales made this perceptive observation regarding the importance of the Kinderhook episode:
"What does it all add up to? Does it merely mean that one of the 'finds' which the Latter Day Saints believed supported the Book of Mormon does not support it, and that there is no real blow dealt to the prophetship of Joseph Smith? Not at all, for as Charles A. Shook well observed - in a personal letter to the author - 'Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.' Where we can check up on Smith as a translator of plates, he is found guilty of deception. How can we trust him with reference to his claims about the Book of Mormon? If we cannot trust him where we can check him, we cannot trust him where we cannot check his translation... Smith tried to deceive people into thinking that he had translated some of the plates. The plates had no such message as Smith claimed that they had. Smith is thus shown to be willing to deceive people into thinking that he had the power to do something that could not be done." (The Book of Mormon? 1958, pages 98-99)
I would argue that Don Bradley has cast significant doubt on the strong theory as presented above by the Tanners. I also suspect that most arguments regarding the Kinderhook plates in the past (from both sides) were derivatives of or related to the Tanner's work or comments. In that sense Bradley's presentation is, indeed, a game changer.
I have other thoughts on what this may mean for Mormon apologetics, but I haven't heard the actual presentation so I am not sure if they do, still, apply. Of greater interest, in my opinion, is the potential for a stronger fraud theory - that by 1843 Joseph Smith had reached a point that he was "a law unto himself" as it were. Subsequent revelations such as the June 1843 plural marriage revelation seem to bear out that Joseph Smith may have been taking liberties with his claims to be the spokesman for God and was effectively "going it alone". It's worth some additional thought, anyway.
I, too, hope that Don will provide more detail from his presentation on the boards at some point soon.