Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_honorentheos]

DrW,

You make excellent points as well. I'm sure that very few, if any, active participants are ever swayed by a discussion. Yet I'm sure many lurkers have been on both sides. I think many people are first exposed to problems with the faith through the boards.

Perhaps this is a good time to turn this tangent back to the OP, then.

Personally, I think the use of the Kinderhook Plates fairs poorly by themselves when used as evidence against Joseph Smith's abilities as a seer. This is because I do not think, by itself, the Kinderhook Plates make the argument clear to a person who was not already convinced of Joseph Smith's fraudulent behaviour.

If a person were to ask me why I do not think Joseph Smith was able to translate ancient documents, my first choice would be to point to the PoGP and the facsimiles. in my opinion, the Book of Abraham contains a self-guided tour of just how off Joseph was in his claim to be able to translate the papyri. When this argument comes up, not may apologists stand up, saying "Don't worry, I've got this one." An interesting attempt can be found here, which illustrates how difficult the task is.

The KP are, again in my opinion, best presented as additional information. The weight of the argument from the Book of Abraham, when combined with the question of what Joseph Smith presented by way of translation of the KP, and issues with Book of Mormon geography and archeology form a much stronger argument than the KP possibly can by themselves. In fact, I think attempts to use the KP by themselves can have the unfortunate opposite effect of strengthening a person's beliefs. Similar to how a weak dose of antibiotics can breed resistance in bacteria.

Following the release of Don's paper, I think another question that could be of concern to believers is the attitude of Joseph Smith in relation to his reliance on God. If one considers that the official revelation on polygamy arose the same year we see Joseph Smith attempting a secular translation of a hoax with the perspective of our modern views on polygamy, the bold claims he made of being greater than even Jesus in keeping his church together, the military parades...perhaps this will become another piece in a broader argument regarding Joseph Smith's self-aggrandizement? I think we'll have to wait and see on that.

[_honorentheos]

Perhaps this comment from Ben Franklin has also influenced my thinking. It's from the same chapter of his autobiography as the more famous thirteen virtues. When I first read it, long after reading about the virtues in a school literature book, it had a profound influence on my feelings -

I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and though' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteem'd the essentials of every religion; and, being to be found in all the religions we had in our country, I respected them all, though' with different degrees of respect, as I found them more or less mix'd with other articles, which, without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serv'd principally to divide us, and make us unfriendly to one another. This respect to all, with an opinion that the worst had some good effects, induc'd me to avoid all discourse that might tend to lessen the good opinion another might have of his own religion; and as our province increas'd in people, and new places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary contributions, my mite for such purpose, whatever might be the sect, was never refused.

[Guest]

Perhaps this comment from Ben Franklin has also influenced my thinking. It's from the same chapter of his autobiography as the more famous thirteen virtues. When I first read it, long after reading about the virtues in a school literature book, it had a profound influence on my feelings -

I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and though' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteem'd the essentials of every religion; and, being to be found in all the religions we had in our country, I respected them all, though' with different degrees of respect, as I found them more or less mix'd with other articles, which, without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serv'd principally to divide us, and make us unfriendly to one another. This respect to all, with an opinion that the worst had some good effects, induc'd me to avoid all discourse that might tend to lessen the good opinion another might have of his own religion; and as our province increas'd in people, and new places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary contributions, my mite for such purpose, whatever might be the sect, was never refused.

Great selection of a quotation from a man whose life and work are greatly valued and respected by Americans and others in the world. It was great advice in the 18th century, and probably still valid in the 19th and most of the 20th.

However, in the 21st century, when we have militant religious fundamentalists chipping away at the basic freedoms that Franklin himself helped to embody in the foundational documents of this country, as a demonstrated rational thinker and scientist, I think even Franklin himself would say "enough is enough".

Let's look at a few facts. The LDS Church has some 50,000 missionaries in the field who approach thousands of people every day with a message of unfounded belief. To compound the offense, the most damaging lies, bigotry and intolerance of Mormonism are not described by the missionaries and do not become apparent to the uninitiated until later.

LDS Church leaders have claimed that some vague emotional feeling (the promptings of the spirit) should have primacy over evidence and reason when making decisions in life. They claim to speak directly with God and warn that the membership of the Church should believe what they say as "eternal truth", no matter how often this "truth" shifts and changes and is proven factually wrong.

When the science and technology (which is mainly responsible for what progress we have made in this country since Franklin's time) comes in conflict with the unfounded belief of Church leaders, they denounce, condemn and warn against it.

But the Church does not stop there. In exchange for "full participation" they force from their members tithes and offerings, which many can ill afford. Only the smallest fraction of these funds go back into local wards or to charity. In fact, in total, the Church provides no accountability whatsoever for this money.

Some of it has ended up supporting political campaigns such as Prop8 in an illegal and unethical attempt to breach the separation of Church and State that Franklin and his fellow Founding Fathers took great pains to enshrine in the Constitution.

Sorry, honorentheos, but as I see it, it is high time that secularists and rationalists challenge the myths, lies and irrationality of religion with facts, rationality and reason.

As I have stated before, in a world where the consequences of unfounded belief present a clear and present danger to society, where religionists fly airplanes into buildings and seek to abridge the human rights of women, homosexuals and those of other races, remaining silent in the face of assertion of demonstrably false beliefs, and the actions that often result from them, is not in the best interest of humankind.

[_thews]

Following the release of Don's paper, I think another question that could be of concern to believers is the attitude of Joseph Smith in relation to his reliance on God. If one considers that the official revelation on polygamy arose the same year we see Joseph Smith attempting a secular translation of a hoax with the perspective of our modern views on polygamy, the bold claims he made of being greater than even Jesus in keeping his church together, the military parades...perhaps this will become another piece in a broader argument regarding Joseph Smith's self-aggrandizement? I think we'll have to wait and see on that.

Just to elaborate a bit on this, Joseph Smith still had his seer stones and used them (noted below in 1843). In this instance he claimed he didn't need them to write the revelation, but he wasn't translating anything. We know the seer stones were used to translate the supposed golden plates, so it would stand to reason that these tools could be used to translate the Kinderhook plates.

What strikes me as odd from the apologetic retort is that Joseph Smith sent the Kinderhook plates out to be authenticated. Why would he need to do this? While arguments from silence are often used in LDS reverse engineered explanations, the fact that Joseph Smith didn't just state he couldn't read the plates is nowhere to be found. If Joseph Smith was continuing to receive revelations from God, wouldn't logic dictate that he could either ask God about the Kinderhook plates, or God would simply tell him they were a hoax?

http://20truths.information/Mormon/polygamy.html

"On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, 'If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.' Joseph smiled and remarked, 'You do not know Emma as well as I do.' Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

[_Wiki Wonka]

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?

Good morning Professor,

The primary assertion that required an apologetic response was the fact that William Clayton reported that Joseph Smith had translated a portion of the plates, and then provided us with a summary of that translation. Don's presentation, which was solidly historical and not apologetic in nature, replaced apologetic speculation with substantiated facts.

Before Don's presentation...

Critical assertions:
1) Joseph Smith provided a "translation" from a set of fake plates, thus proving that he had no ability to translate, either by divine means or by secular means.
2) Joseph Smith did not recognize that the plates were fake (a "Hofmann event"), and is therefore not a prophet.

Apologetic responses:
1) William Clayton's account may have been inaccurate due to "much misinformation and hearsay" related to the discussion of the plates in Nauvoo. Perhaps Joseph didn't actually provide the translation to Clayton.
2) Whether or not Clayton was present when Joseph Smith saw the plates was unknown.
3) Joseph was "not fooled" by the fake plates, with the evidence being that no translation beyond the phrase quoted by Clayton was ever produced.

After Don's presentation...
1) It was established that William Clayton spent considerable time in the presence of Joseph Smith at his house on the day the journal entry was made.
2) The Kinderhook Plates were on display at Joseph's house at the time.
3) Sources were provided, at least one of which showed that Joseph employed the "Egyptian Alphabet" in connection with the plates.
4) William Clayton's statement that Joseph Smith "translated a portion" is entirely correct, without ambiguity.
5) The GAEL contains a character whose explanation provides all of the key elements required to account for the translation provided.
6) The most prominent character on any of the Kinderhook Plates, when separated into its component parts, contains the same character found in the GAEL.

This nullifies the apologetic assertion that Clayton misunderstood Joseph, or was repeating "misinformation." It validates Clayton as a reliable source of this information.

This also nullifies a critical argument that Joseph attempted to translate a bogus plate using divine means. Don provided a clear provenance for the translation provided by Joseph.

This does not address the issue of Joseph not recognizing the plates as fake. This, however, has never been the dominant critical assertion - it was the fact that a short phrase of translation was provided that was the major apologetic focus. In fact, Joseph, along with many other Church leaders, likely believed that the plates were real even after they left Nauvoo. Many believed that the plates were real until the 20th century, when one of them was finally tested.

As I recall, Don also noted that the plates were not actually produced for the purpose of fooling Joseph Smith, but were instead a "joke" of some sort.

WW

[_Themis]

After Don's presentation...
1) It was established that William Clayton spent considerable time in the presence of Joseph Smith at his house on the day the journal entry was made.
2) The Kinderhook Plates were on display at Joseph's house at the time.
3) Sources were provided, at least one of which showed that Joseph employed the "Egyptian Alphabet" in connection with the plates.
4) William Clayton's statement that Joseph Smith "translated a portion" is entirely correct, without ambiguity.
5) The GAEL contains a character whose explanation provides all of the key elements required to account for the translation provided.
6) The most prominent character on any of the Kinderhook Plates, when separated into its component parts, contains the same character found in the GAEL.

Thanks WW

Even though Don brought up #1 and #2, many have known this and brought it up many times. It seems most apologists never liked it and tended to ignore this fact. Did he bring up new information about it not known to anyone before?

For #3 I don't remember any sources, but I do remember someone saying Joseph had asked for the Gael in regards to the KP. Any know what source this was?

It's #5 and #6 I am most interested in seeing what he found. Hopefully soon his presentation will be available online.

[Guest]

This also nullifies a critical argument that Joseph attempted to translate a bogus plate using divine means. Don provided a clear provenance for the translation provided by Joseph.

I fail to see how this nullifies a critical argument. Are you claiming that Joseph Smith, a prophet of God who translated the Book of Mormon and the Egyptian papyrus did not use "divine means" to translate the Kinderhook plates, but instead he was "acting as a man" so to speak?

This does not address the issue of Joseph not recognizing the plates as fake. This, however, has never been the dominant critical assertion - it was the fact that a short phrase of translation was provided that was the major apologetic focus.

I'll disagree, as I believe you're misstating the critic's argument. Translation of a known hoax by a prophet of God (by whatever means you claim it was done), would indicate the prophet was not being guided by God. The criticism regarding Joseph Smith's truth claims regarding his ability to translate must then answer the question regarding why he didn't know they were fake, and produced a translation.

In fact, Joseph, along with many other Church leaders, likely believed that the plates were real even after they left Nauvoo. Many believed that the plates were real until the 20th century, when one of them was finally tested.

I think you can remove "likely" from the above. Both John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were involved in the posters proclaiming the "translation" was in process.

[_Fence Sitter]

Now that William Clayton has returned to his seat on the bus, it seems that Joseph Smith's Kinderhook translation attempt defense is left with calling it a secular translation. How do we know that the Book of Abraham is not also a secular translation?

[_jon]

"In response to another poster I opined that my FAIR presentation will be a complete demolition in itself of the critical argument from the Kinderhook plates.

Let readers judge for themselves how given I am to hyperbole.

Don"

Don, this is what you said your presentation was going to achieve.
Why didn't it deliver?

[_Themis]

I fail to see how nullifies a critical argument. Are you claiming that Joseph Smith, a prophet of God who translated the Book of Mormon and the Egyptian papyrus did not use "divine means" to translate the Kinderhook plates, but instead he was "acting as a man" so to speak?

I am not sure we know enough of what Don presented to know this with any certainty. It is odd that Joseph who has translated the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, in addition to Book of Moses and is communicating with God or angels on a regular basis would not seek heavenly knowledge regarding the KP. From the pov that Joseph made it all up, it makes perfect sense that he did not pretend to use divine methods.

He had nothing to worry about with the Book of Mormon because they were non-existence plates. With the Book of Abraham he felt safe that the language was unknown, and that the papyri was the real deal. Egypt was a real place and it was obvious to him the papyri were ancient. This may not have been the case with the KP, and Joseph may have shied away from pretending divine means and went with the gael if he saw something that resembled something he had worked on. He wanted the plates taken to experts, and if they said they were ancient then he may have been more interested in faking another translation.

He wasn't interested enough at that time in finishing the Book of Abraham or even starting the BoJ so I see no reason why he was going to be that interested in the KP. Apologists may cheer a small victory from their pov that Joseph did not try to do a divine translation, but may lose a bigger battle in how this may damage some apologetic arguments about the KEP, which is far more damaging to Joseph claims then the KP could ever be.