Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Posted: Sat May 14, 2022 9:24 am
Don,
I've read your paper entitled Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook Plates and am prepared to give some thoughts on the subject matter. Rather than start at the beginning or pick apart elements within your presentation, I elect to go straight to your conclusion and bullet a few key points which seems to sum the matter up from your point of view.
Don, your well written article weighs and interprets various evidences and testimonies from two opposing points of view in which the faithful must save/defend Smith's actions and the critics use reason to determine Smith committed fraud:
Faithful vs. Critical
You conclude with suppositional reasoning that seems to go either way depending on how one looks at things and where one’s allegiances may lie: For or against!
Therefore, I feel impressed to comment on your article in a manner you least expect and will take you on a ride. To do this, we must define things according to the definitions and mindset of Joseph Smith. We have to get into the mind of Joseph Smith and understand how he thought! Okay? So, I need to collect my thoughts. There is no rush. We have all the time in the world. I think you and I can have a wonderful discussion and explore this subject in a new way. But as I say, there is no rush.
Welcome to the Celestial Forum!
I've read your paper entitled Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook Plates and am prepared to give some thoughts on the subject matter. Rather than start at the beginning or pick apart elements within your presentation, I elect to go straight to your conclusion and bullet a few key points which seems to sum the matter up from your point of view.
- Taken together, these sources indicate that Joseph Smith was attempting to translate the Kinderhook plates by ordinary methods of traditional translation.
- However, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith believed he had experienced a revealed translation or that he led others to believe he had.
- Yet a closer examination of the relevant historical sources reveals Joseph Smith acting neither as an inspired prophet nor as a fraudulent imposter. Instead, it reveals an enthusiastic, yet amateur, linguist.
Don, your well written article weighs and interprets various evidences and testimonies from two opposing points of view in which the faithful must save/defend Smith's actions and the critics use reason to determine Smith committed fraud:
Faithful vs. Critical
You conclude with suppositional reasoning that seems to go either way depending on how one looks at things and where one’s allegiances may lie: For or against!
Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee wrote:Many arguments for and against Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims, upon closer examination, turn out to be much more complex than originally framed, or simply fall apart, because they are based on assumptions that turn out to be incorrect. A careful and historically grounded approach is best in evaluating such arguments.
Therefore, I feel impressed to comment on your article in a manner you least expect and will take you on a ride. To do this, we must define things according to the definitions and mindset of Joseph Smith. We have to get into the mind of Joseph Smith and understand how he thought! Okay? So, I need to collect my thoughts. There is no rush. We have all the time in the world. I think you and I can have a wonderful discussion and explore this subject in a new way. But as I say, there is no rush.
Welcome to the Celestial Forum!