Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Stanley B. Kimball’s fatal reasoning

Post by Shulem »

Stanley B. Kimball wrote:And this brings us to the other side of the story, for those of us who believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet: Isn’t it natural to expect that he would be guided to understand that these plates were not of value as far as his mission was concerned?

The prophet was terribly busy and his time was spent in other matters. Do you know of any evidence when Joseph Smith revealed the plates were fake? I know of no evidence. All I know is the saints were hopeful that a full translation of the account would one day take place. Your argument, however, is based on nothing. You argue from silence. I just want the facts, please.

Stanley B. Kimball wrote:Joseph Smith needs no defense—he simply did not fall for the scheme.

The evidence says otherwise.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Kinderhook Baseball

Post by Shulem »

When Joseph Smith lost the 116 page manuscript of the Book of Mormon to include all that work it entailed, he was obviously distressed and quite upset. The manuscript was lost and it was the ONLY copy. Why not simply retranslate by the power of God and reproduce the exact same document? There was no way Smith could possibly remember everything he previously translated, especially critical details. It would take God performing a real miracle to perform such a wonder and those who stole the manuscript knew that and dared him to try. They (as well as Joseph) knew full well they could catch him in the act. So, Smith claimed a revelation that God told him not to attempt a retranslation because the thieves will simply disprove his work by showing the differences. The business of altering the words was Smith’s excuse because he knew he couldn’t retell everything as was previously recorded in INK.

The point in bringing this up is that Smith claimed revelations in everything he did and the revelation to not retranslate was based entirely on a spirit of discernment by way of warning. In light of this, the fact that God did not warn Smith of the consequences of attempting to translate/interpret anything regarding the Kinderhook plates is:

Strike One!

The fact that Joseph Smith tendered a partial translation/interpretation to those who recorded his words is:

Strike Two!!

The fact that Joseph Smith promised to someday provide a future translation of the entire account of the former inhabitants of this continent is:

Strike Three!!!

All of Smith’s dealings with the Kinderhook plates was wrong. He was no seer! He was wrong about the past. He was wrong about the present. He was wrong about the future.

You’re OUT!
Marcus
God
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:36 pm
Jeff Lindsay continues his Kinderhook apologetics with this little number:

Jeff Lindsay wrote:So he may have been fooled for a while, enough to try figuring out a character's meaning, but after that there is no evidence that he showed any interest.

May have been fooled for a while? “May have”? Do you think? Oh come on man, he *WAS* fooled for quite a while -- actually for the rest of his life as were all those who believed him. Nobody ever refuted belief in the authenticity of the plates or questioned Smith’s translation. There is no evidence of that, none, whatsoever.

Smith had every interest in translating the Kinderhook plates as well as the Book of Joseph from the papyri as previously promised. But Smith just didn’t have time! He was totally immersed and overrun with the construction of the Nauvoo House and the Nauvoo Temple. Smith’s time was totally consumed with construction projects and managing Nauvoo and he just didn’t have time to translate plates and papyri.

It had nothing to do with lack of interest! It had everything to do with time management!
shulem, i have a thought. Don argues that Smith was translating as a man with the fake kinderhook plates, by matching up the character from the GAEL. the GAEL came from the papyrus, mostly, right? and given the knowledge we have now, Smith ALSO translated the papyrus as a man, or rather, mistranslated. that's two for two, mistranslating.

now, IF the Book of Mormon plates literally existed, what are the odds that Smith didn't do the same thing there, and "translate [incorrectly] as a man"?

it's not logical to argue Smith translated the plates with help from God when every bit of evidence we actually have shows he was not capable of that.

So, the most likely scenarios are:

IF the plates existed, Smith had no divine help.

if the plates didn't exist, Smith perpetuated a fraud.

it's highly unlikely the plates existed, but even if they did, it's not logical to assume something different happened than the known times he "translated as a man."

i apologize if this has already been discussed; i'm new to this!

also, did Smith say some of the GAEL content was based on Book of Mormon plates, or reformed egyptian?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:26 pm
shulem, i have a thought. Don argues that Smith was translating as a man with the fake kinderhook plates, by matching up the character from the GAEL. the GAEL came from the papyrus, mostly, right? and given the knowledge we have now, Smith ALSO translated the papyrus as a man, or rather, mistranslated. that's two for two, mistranslating.

Apologists argue that Smith’s translation/interpretation for the Kinderhook plates was an act of man working through the arm of flesh, independent of the Spirit of God, and without utilizing revelation. However, this is completely foreign to anything Smith ever said about how he translated/interpreted a foreign language from ancient media. Smith never talked like that. He never downplayed his ability to tap into divine revelation and provide the word of God by those means. We know what Smith *SAID* about the Kinderhook plates based on what others wrote he *SAID* about the Kinderhook plates, period. It’s as simple as that. They wrote down what he *SAID*.
Marcus
God
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:55 pm
Marcus wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:26 pm
shulem, i have a thought. Don argues that Smith was translating as a man with the fake kinderhook plates, by matching up the character from the GAEL. the GAEL came from the papyrus, mostly, right? and given the knowledge we have now, Smith ALSO translated the papyrus as a man, or rather, mistranslated. that's two for two, mistranslating.

Apologists argue that Smith’s translation/interpretation for the Kinderhook plates was an act of man working through the arm of flesh, independent of the Spirit of God, and without utilizing revelation. However, this is completely foreign to anything Smith ever said about how he translated/interpreted a foreign language from ancient media. Smith never talked like that. He never downplayed his ability to tap into divine revelation and provide the word of God by those means. We know what Smith *SAID* about the Kinderhook plates based on what others wrote he *SAID* about the Kinderhook plates, period. It’s as simple as that. They wrote down what he *SAID*.
Got it. So, even though he stated it, he failed to get divine revelation, and two of three times we have clear and specific physical evidence. I agree with you he said he had it and didn’t. The apologetic argument seems to be— he didn’t have it because he wasn’t using it.

My point is the apologist version is a scramble which ALSO casts doubt on whether the Book of Mormon translation was divinely inspired. It’s just bad logic for apologists to have to admit the evidence shows he was acting as a man 2 of 3 times, but then try to argue that the ONE time we don’t have physical evidence left behind, he was divinely inspired.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:26 pm
now, IF the Book of Mormon plates literally existed, what are the odds that Smith didn't do the same thing there, and "translate [incorrectly] as a man"?

it's not logical to argue Smith translated the plates with help from God when every bit of evidence we actually have shows he was not capable of that.

So, the most likely scenarios are:

IF the plates existed, Smith had no divine help.

if the plates didn't exist, Smith perpetuated a fraud.

it's highly unlikely the plates existed, but even if they did, it's not logical to assume something different happened than the known times he "translated as a man."

i apologize if this has already been discussed; i'm new to this!

also, did Smith say some of the GAEL content was based on Book of Mormon plates, or reformed egyptian?

Yes, the GAEL is mostly a work using characters taken from the papyrus. A good definition to that project is given by the Joseph Smith Papers. There were also characters taken from the reformed Egyptian copied from the gold plates which can be compared with those on the characters manuscript such as Ahmeos. I find the reformed hieroglyphic script Smith claimed were on the plates a huge waste of space in which repetitive lines and dashes serve no purpose other than to eat away at the precious and expensive golden plate real-estate. It’s just the stupidest thing!

But as you say, there are three different translations in which Smith was involved that featured UNKNOWN languages that require the ability (DIVINE GIFT AND POWER OF GOD) in order to translate an unknown language into English:

  • Gold plates (Book of Mormon)
  • Papyrus (Book of Abraham)
  • Kinderhook plates (Jaredite Egyptians)

As you see, the apologists (including Don Bradley) don’t have a leg to stand on.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Basic nature of Joseph Smith

Post by Shulem »

The wonder and mystique of Mormonism is surrounded in the mystery of Joseph Smith’s continuous ability to tap into revelation on a regular basis in which he often spoke directly for God in the first person. The Doctrine and Covenants contain many such examples when Smith speaks directly for God as if those were the very words uttered from the physical fleshy lips of resurrected Jesus.

The latter-day Saints, especially Smith’s aides, absolutely believed every word Smith said about the Kinderhook plates. They believed that Smith was jacked into a heavenly vibe and that his interpretations and views were in line with what Jesus would say had he come down and said it himself. Clayton and Young didn’t just trace the Kinderhook plate in their journals for no good reason. They traced it because they were convinced they were of ancient antiquity and they wanted to have a part of that in their personal history. Clayton wrote down what Smith had communicated to him and did so accurately and with conviction and we may rightly assume that Joseph Smith *KNEW* that Clayton had traced the plate and wrote down what Smith told him. Yes, indeed, Joseph Smith had to have known and approved that message in its entirety.

This doesn’t bode well for apologists who like to run Clayton over with the modern-Mormon bus -- just run him over and leave him for dead. What the apologists do is brutal! But we know there never was a time and place when Joseph acted on his own by admitting that he was doing something apart or without God when revealing hidden mysteries. It was Smith’s specialty to ALWAYS act as if he was channeling a divine source in providing interpretation or meaning to things he was revealing.
Marcus
God
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:31 pm
Marcus wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:26 pm
now, IF the Book of Mormon plates literally existed, what are the odds that Smith didn't do the same thing there, and "translate [incorrectly] as a man"?

it's not logical to argue Smith translated the plates with help from God when every bit of evidence we actually have shows he was not capable of that.

So, the most likely scenarios are:

IF the plates existed, Smith had no divine help.

if the plates didn't exist, Smith perpetuated a fraud.

it's highly unlikely the plates existed, but even if they did, it's not logical to assume something different happened than the known times he "translated as a man."

i apologize if this has already been discussed; i'm new to this!

also, did Smith say some of the GAEL content was based on Book of Mormon plates, or reformed egyptian?

Yes, the GAEL is mostly a work using characters taken from the papyrus. A good definition to that project is given by the Joseph Smith Papers. There were also characters taken from the reformed Egyptian copied from the gold plates which can be compared with those on the characters manuscript such as Ahmeos. I find the reformed hieroglyphic script Smith claimed were on the plates a huge waste of space in which repetitive lines and dashes serve no purpose other than to eat away at the precious and expensive golden plate real-estate. It’s just the stupidest thing!

But as you say, there are three different translations in which Smith was involved that featured UNKNOWN languages that require the ability (DIVINE GIFT AND POWER OF GOD) in order to translate an unknown language into English:

  • Gold plates (Book of Mormon)
  • Papyrus (Book of Abraham)
  • Kinderhook plates (Jaredite Egyptians)

As you see, the apologists (including Don Bradley) don’t have a leg to stand on.
thanks for your responses and for the references. i have some reading to do!

my take, from a statistician's point of view, is that finding a single match to justify a relationship is nothing more than parallelomania. Bradley is really reaching on this. if his conclusion is that Smith was acting as a human, then that same conclusion must hold regarding the Book of Mormon and "gold plates." you can't have it both ways.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:05 pm
thanks for your responses and for the references. i have some reading to do!

my take, from a statistician's point of view, is that finding a single match to justify a relationship is nothing more than parallelomania. Bradley is really reaching on this. if his conclusion is that Smith was acting as a human, then that same conclusion must hold regarding the Book of Mormon and "gold plates." you can't have it both ways.

When you really think about it, it’s not a real “match” per se because the character on the Kinderhook plate has other defining lines but Bradley excuses that or allows for the differences based on how Smith’s Egyptian Grammar dissects various characters into degrees of meaning. But the fact is, the character Bradley claims is a match is not documented in the journals or in the GAEL itself. I tend to think that the statement alluding to the matching of characters was given in a rather wild and generic sense in that characters seemed to look alike and there was a familiarity to them. I don’t get the impression that it was from a SINGLE character. Smith’s statement of what the Kinderhook plates represented was taken from thematic material of the GAEL, especially from the alleged matched character, I do grant that.

But I think Bradley is wrong and will stand by that. Again, I welcome RFM, Reel, and Shirts to come and prove me wrong using the evidence in a logical and reasonable sequence. But I must warn, if I’m ganged up on and backed up against the wall, I will roar like tiger and show no mercy when I pounce. Just saying.

:D
Marcus
God
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay: His 3rd sentence

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:33 pm
Marcus wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:05 pm
thanks for your responses and for the references. i have some reading to do!

my take, from a statistician's point of view, is that finding a single match to justify a relationship is nothing more than parallelomania. Bradley is really reaching on this. if his conclusion is that Smith was acting as a human, then that same conclusion must hold regarding the Book of Mormon and "gold plates." you can't have it both ways.

When you really think about it, it’s not a real “match” per se because the character on the Kinderhook plate has other defining lines but Bradley excuses that or allows for the differences based on how Smith’s Egyptian Grammar dissects various characters into degrees of meaning. But the fact is, the character Bradley claims is a match is not documented in the journals or in the GAEL itself. I tend to think that the statement alluding to the matching of characters was given in a rather wild and generic sense in that characters seemed to look alike and there was a familiarity to them.
Absolutely. I should have lead with that. The “match” is extremely weak, lending even more credence to the parallelomania theory.
I don’t get the impression that it was from a SINGLE character.
Agree totally. The argument that the plurals in the testimony can be satisfied by a singular match is very, very weak, in my opinion.
Smith’s statement of what the Kinderhook plates represented was taken from thematic material of the GAEL, especially from the alleged matched character, I do grant that.

But I think Bradley is wrong and will stand by that. Again, I welcome RFM, Reel, and Shirts to come and prove me wrong using the evidence in a logical and reasonable sequence. But I must warn, if I’m ganged up on and backed up against the wall, I will roar like tiger and show no mercy when I pounce. Just saying.

:D
:D :D :D Looking forward to the show. I will be there, and will be happy to provide my opinion on the statistical analysis.
Post Reply