Don Bradley, what do you mean by "secular translation"?

[_wenglund]

What part of the word "fake" is so difficult for you to understand, Wade? The plates were fake... not the real thing... deceptive... pretend.

Never mind, harmony. If you are unable to grasp the simple and obvious point of my analogy, even when I provided you with an even more simple and obvious explanation, then nothing I can say will have any hope of extricating you from your entrenched ignorance on this minor point. I am content with leaving you stuck on stupid.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_dblagent007]

The thesis that Joseph Smith attempted a secular (i.e., non-revelatory, translated [however well or poorly] by "normal" means) was first advanced by my friend Mark Ashurst-McGee. I was interested in Mark's idea but couldn't see how Joseph Smith could have presumed to derive the content he reportedly did except by revelatory means. So, I rejected Mark's hypothesis--that is, until I found the "smoking gun," and then the eye witness! I can identify precisely how Joseph Smith derived the content he did from the Kinderhook plates and show from eye witness testimony that this is how he did it. So, Mark and I are collaborating on a paper that will lay all this out.

I think, for what it's worth, that you'll be quite impressed--and convinced. The explanation is not an "apologetic" one, or at least not intentionally so: there was no apologetic intent behind my findings, even if they do solve a problem that plagues Mormon apologetics.

You've definitely piqued my interest. Here's hoping your paper comes out sooner rather than later.

[_harmony]

I am content with leaving you stuck on stupid.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In other words, you have no answer. 'Nuff said.

[_msnobody]

Many thanks to MsNobody (did I get your onscreen name right?) for alerting me to this thread.

Yes, I'm happy to see that Stake President [board post ranking] Bradley answers his pages. Now, speaking of pages, I/we need some to read.