Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
An apologetic article defending the Church from the Kinderhook dilemma is given by Don Bradly a member of our board. I’ve not read it but will put it on my things to do list. It looks interesting.
Cool, Shulem! It will be interesting to hear your thoughts when you've read it.
The aim of the paper was to provide a comprehensive analysis of all the sources on Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook plates and to figure out what actually happened. That analysis certainly can be used for apologetic purposes, and I guess Mark and I opened the door to that use by how we framed our conclusion. But the chapter itself was written as part of an academic conference and published as part of a book on Joseph Smith's translation projects by the University of Utah Press--i.e., a non-church academic press. It also won the Mormon History Association's 2021 "Best Article" award, having been selected from among hundreds of articles published every year on Mormon history. This--of course--doesn't mean its conclusions are correct. But it does suggest that it has been received as Mark Ashurst-McGee and I intended--as an academic piece.
Although, I’ve not read the article, I’m therefore not qualified to critique it by any means or offer an opinion on the content but permit me if I may to comment on the last part of the article. I think it ties in nicely with Facsimile No. 3 and perhaps Don Bradley will weigh in and give us his thoughts on the matter. Who can say? I don’t know.
Maybe!
Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee wrote:Taken together, these sources indicate that Joseph Smith was attempting to translate the Kinderhook plates by ordinary methods of traditional translation.
Joseph Smith is hardly on record for using ordinary means to determine anything.
Joseph Smith studied Hebrew, German, and Greek and attempted to put this secular knowledge of language to use in various ways. This is a good part of what our chapter is about. And it's also a good part of what the larger book it appears in is about--documenting Joseph Smith's various uses of language, both revelatory and secular.
Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Yes, he was mistaken. Again and again, he was mistaken. Could it be that he was also mistaken into thinking that the papyri were genuine rolls penned by Abraham & Joseph?
Yes.
Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Could that have been a mistake too? Although he was correct in identifying the characters as hieroglyphic as found on coffins and tombs in ancient Egypt, we know he was not correct in translating those characters. Facsimile No. 3 provides prime examples in showing how he was mistaken. Right?
I agree that Facsimile 3 shows examples of characters for which Joseph Smith rendered meanings that are not the actual Egyptian meanings of those characters.
That said, Book of Abraham discussion has become a giant battle between two different "sides," which is not something that appeals to me. and not (at least as of yet) one where I've given sufficient research that I would want to become part of the larger discussion even if I liked doing my work in a war zone. However, I'm glad there are others who look into it deeply. For instance, I think your discovery re: the snout is an absolute gem.
When it comes to understanding Mormon history, I don't perceive there to be different "sides." As far as I'm concerned, anyone doing research that sheds any light on the subject is ultimately on the same "side" as everyone else, helping to hash out what will ultimately come to be understood on these various questions. This is how science works: even those who advance mistaken ideas are part of the overall process of sifting through the possibilities and making sure they get adequately tested.
Johnny and I had fantastic discussions--here, by email, and by phone--which I miss, about the Kinderhook plates, polygamy, and all kinds of things.
And I've found your own interpretive work on the Book of Abraham interesting all the way from your old myegyptology days to the present. So, regardless of whether we end up agreeing on the Kinderhook plates 'll be genuinely interested in any observations you have when you read the chapter.
Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Have you any evidence to show that Smith claimed to do-it-alone without the Spirit and tender a translation without God’s help?
Yep!
Shulem wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Is that what you’re suggesting? When did Smith ever do anything outside of revelation? I guess I need to read your article to find out.
Yep. =)
Post your thoughts when you do! Just realize that I don't spend a lot of time on the boards these days, since time spent here is time taken away from writing projects, so I may not engage in the discussion as much as I used to.
Don