Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _honorentheos »

Jon,

I think the critical issue is to attempt to understand this from a believer's perspective. I'll make my best attempt, shown below -

jon wrote:1. Joseph attempted at translation of the Kinderhook Plates

We knew that and Dons presentation doesn't change that.

But if he used the GAEL, it doesn't tell us anything about how he translated the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham.

2. The Kiderhook plates are forgeries

I don't think this is disputed in Dons presentation.

If Joseph recognized a symbol on them that was consistent with the GAEL/Egyptian papyri symbols, then he could be excused from initially not making this connection. That he did not complete the translation may tell us he came to suspect the forgery only as he began to match the GAEL to the rest of the plates.

3. Joseph wasn't using divine inspiration

Hardly a surprise.

Only in the sense that he wasn't attempting a pure translation of the plates. But he was drawing from his past revelations. There is a lot of speculation regarding the GAEL's meaning now, but in essence, it's use could be explained as Joseph was working a secular translation out in his mind, and the revelation came later when he realized he should stop.

Again, Don's presentation seems interesting because it gave us more information to consider. The effect is has on the arguments is tangential in that respect, but seems to require a reassessment of the old arguments on both sides.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_jon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _jon »

Pardon my ignorance but what is GAEL?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
_Aristotle Smith
_Emeritus
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Aristotle Smith »

Doesn't the alleged fact that Joseph wanted to used the GAEL to translate the Kinderhook Plates kill the "the scribes did it" apologetic? If the scribes were just messing around, why call for the GAEL to assist in translation? If the GAEL was useful for translation, doesn't that put Joseph involved in the production of the GAEL?
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

honorentheos wrote:Again, I am only inferring information from what has been posted online so far. But if I understand the presentation correctly, it serves to show two things:

First, that the limited information translated from the plates was related to a symbol the plates held in common with the GAEL. This fact, by itself, could be sufficient for a faithful LDS person to feel that Joseph Smith was not deceived into believing the plates were ancient - he had reason because of the antiquity of at least one symbol on them.


Huh? I was under the impression that the symbols on the GAEL were *incorrectly* translated. And even if the symbol was on the Kinderhook Plates, how does this show that Joseph Smith "was not deceived"? If anything, doesn't it show that he was duped precisely because the symbol was there?

Second, if again Joseph Smith's translation is limited to what can be explained by use of the GAEL, it weakens a critical argument that the false translation of the Kinderhook plates shows Joseph Smith's translation of other material is made of the same cloth, as suggested in one of the quotes I shared.


I'm really not following you here. How is it "not of the same cloth" if he's applying the same techniques/knowledge that he used w/ the GAEL

Now, Dr., I am not declaring a victory for LDS apologetics here. I'm simply giving Don his due.


Oh, I know. I'm just trying to puzzle out what the "game changer" is here.

His presentation will force change in how both critics and believers discuss the significance of the Kinderhook Plates. My opinion is that a person's view of the GAEL will decide how to take Don's explainations.


I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this....
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _honorentheos »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
honorentheos wrote:His presentation will force change in how both critics and believers discuss the significance of the Kinderhook Plates. My opinion is that a person's view of the GAEL will decide how to take Don's explanations.


I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this....
Right now, I feel it would be nice to see what was actually presented. As you commented above, along with AS's comment, there is a lot of overlap between Will's presentation from last year and Don's argument that need to be sorted out. I suspect that the apologetic community will need to agitate for a while before it settles onto to something that they feel resolves the most important questions. Is the KP defense that Don offered, for example, worth reopening the questions on the GAEL/KEP authorship and Joseph Smith's role in their production? It's hard to say what they'll choose. in my opinion, both arguments are obfuscations of a much simpler problem that the facsimile translations present. The fact a person can open up a Pearl of Great Price, turn to the facsimiles, and see first hand that Joseph Smith's suggested translation does not correspond to the Egyptian accomplishes the aim of the strong KP critical argument and is not reasonably explained by any believing argument that I've seen.

Beyond the GAEL issue, the debate around the KP was historically pinned to William Clayton's journal account. Since both sides can now accept that it is reasonably accurate, it shifts the debate to other details. My personal concern with focusing on the question of recognizing fraud is that it relies on a person's acceptance of Joseph Smith as a fraudster at it's core. To the believer, the fact no final translation was produced leaves them free to see Joseph Smith as seeing through the fraud, if not initially for reasons outlined above in other posts. To the critic who wishes to make this the hinge point, s/he must assert the cause for why no official translation was produced to clearly demonstrate that Joseph Smith was duped beyond what God might allow. In my mind, there are too many hypotheticals a believer would throw out to prevent this from becoming a productive path for debate.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Simon Belmont

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Analytics: why did you refer to it as a "bomb?" Are you trying to be a jerk?
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _thews »

Wiki Wonka wrote:
From my recollection of the presentation, this explanation is correct. The data that Don presented supersedes and nulls out any previous critical and apologetic arguments related to the subject. Joseph did "translate" a portion of the plates just as William Clayton said, and he did so by non-revelatory means that were already available to him. Don backed this up with a number of sources.

WW

We know Joseph Smith translated a portion of the Kinderhook plates, and we know the Kinderhook plates were a hoax. Exactly what do you mean by "non-revelatory means" WW? Was Joseph Smith, after speaking with God, going out on his own? He had the seer stones he used to translate the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, did they fail him this time, but were correct before?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _thews »

Simon Belmont wrote:Analytics: why did you refer to it as a "bomb?" Are you trying to be a jerk?

He was referring to the supposed hype Simon. This "game changer" is anything but, but rather just more evidence that Joseph Smith was a verifiable fraud.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_onandagus
_Emeritus
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:06 am

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _onandagus »

thews wrote:Exactly what do you mean by "non-revelatory means" WW?


Please read the thread above.

Don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb

Post by _DrW »

Simon Belmont wrote:Analytics: why did you refer to it as a "bomb?" Are you trying to be a jerk?

I think Analytics was trying to underscore a few simple facts is all.

Following this thread is a surreal experience. Here we have grown men who are pretending to engage in research and scholarship. They speculate about and discuss new evidence or recent findings related to a proven hoax and the responses of a proven liar and fraud to that hoax.

These individuals claim that some incidental insight related to the whole sorry saga is a "game changer".

When one ascends from the weeds, the facts are these:

    1. The Kinderhook plates were forged with the express purpose of showing Joseph Smith to be a fraud.

    2. Joseph Smith took the bait, and according to William Clayton "-- 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

    3. The LDS Church itself was taken in by the forgers and maintained that the Kinderhook plates were ancient records until it was proven that they were not.

Where is the game changer?

Are the Kinderhook plates not longer forgeries?

Has it been shown that Joseph Smith was other than a transparent fraud or that he could translate anything from Egyptian or any other ancient language?

Has the LDS Church reverted to its former assertion that the plates were genuine and contained the information that Joseph Smith claimed?

Has any skeptic been provided with any evidence that could possibly make them re-evaluate their view of the whole Kinderhook plates debacle?

Unbelievable.

Titling the thread "Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb" was a true act of kindness.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Post Reply