DiscussMormonism.com

I have noticed how the apologists/TBM's defend the kinderhook incident from the viewpoint that Joseph Smith didn't really make a translation. There are no scriptures based on the kinderhook plates, there were no revelations, etc. The reason for doing so, of course, is because the kinderhook plates were a fraud - they weren't real. Let me rephrase that, they were real, but they didn't have 'writings of scripture'.

So lets turn to the Book of Abraham. The 'missing scroll' theory is all but dead. We know Joseph Smith 'translated' the Book of Abraham from papyri that are unrelated to the text of the Book of Abraham.

In other words, in terms of the text of the papyri vs. the text of the Book of Abraham - the papyri were 'frauds' in the same sense that the kinderhook plates were frauds - neither of them contained writings of scripture.

However, I sense that if a piece of scripture were suddenly discovered today, that Joseph Smith had translated from the kinderhook plates, then a lot of TBM's would have a problem with this. But this is not so with the Book of Abraham - even though the basic issues are the same. The Book of Abraham would get a pass, while the kinderhook translation would not - even though they are basically the same issue.

But who knows, maybe not. Maybe TBM's would just turn to some 'catalyst theory' for the kinderhook plates.

Who Knows wrote: Maybe TBM's would just turn to some 'catalyst theory' for the kinderhook plates.

If Joseph Smith had completed a new book based on the Kinderhook Plates, that would just mean one more item they would have to defend over at MAD. They are already overburdened, so it is just as well that only "a wee bit o' the translating" was attempted. Of course if it had been completed, who knows how things may have been different for the Church? They may have adopted a stance toward the LDS Canon, more like that of the Community of Christ.

I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. Joseph Smith could have "translated" a box of jelly donuts, and via the catalyst theory, or the "pure revelation theory", come up with the most beautiful book of new scripture imaginable, and that would be just fine by LDS apologists. That's the beauty of the "pure revelation theory" - it doesn't actually require any genuine source material. If source material is there, but isn't genuine, that's fine. If source material isn't there, that's fine too.

So, IMHO, if a work of previously-unpublished scripture in Joseph Smith's own hand were found, and verified by document experts and whatnot, that was based on the Kinderhook plates, I think Mormon apologists would immediately turn to the pure revelation theory, and all would be well again. Sure, it would annoy them, but don't Joseph Smith's polygamy, the Book of Abraham, etc. already annoy them in terms of conflict with critics? It would just add another cupful to the bucket of problematic material they're constantly in a defensive posture about.

Sethbag wrote:I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. Joseph Smith could have "translated" a box of jelly donuts, and via the catalyst theory, or the "pure revelation theory", come up with the most beautiful book of new scripture imaginable, and that would be just fine by LDS apologists. That's the beauty of the "pure revelation theory" - it doesn't actually require any genuine source material. If source material is there, but isn't genuine, that's fine. If source material isn't there, that's fine too.

Ha, yeah, I guess that's what I was going for. That's what I was trying to point out - that using the papyri to translate the Book of Abraham is about as ridiculous as if he had used a 'box of jelly donuts'.

Yet, I'd bet you'd hear some TBM's say 'well, that would just be ridiculous'. But at the same time, they're defending their Book of Abraham catalyst theory.

Doesn't make sense. Either you should hold the opinion that Joseph Smith translating ancient scripture from a box of donuts is as equally valid as if he translated from the papyri (a la revelation theory), or you need to ditch the revelation theory. However, if you do that, you're not left with much (in terms of the Book of Abraham).

I can argue with my own explanations though, from a faux TBM point of view. It goes something like this. Joseph Smith thought the papyrus really were from Abraham, so he inquired of the Lord and received the revelation. Joseph Smith wouldn't think a box of jelly donuts contained scripture from Abraham, however, so he'd never inquire of the Lord about it and receive the revelation. In other words, it's all about what Joseph Smith thinks he's doing, not what he's actually doing, that makes the difference.

Which brings us back to The Dude's whole "Rain man, calendar idiot" reference. It's a strange picture of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that he could go blithely along thinking he was translating things when he wasn't at all, and the Lord was just letting him think he was, and feeding him direct revelation instead. We might even start calling Joseph Smith the "Accidental Prophet". :-)

Speculating about what ifs in the case of the Kinderhook Plates seems entirely fruitless. Anyone can wonder what it'd be like if their bowel movements produced gold (would it lead to inflation? Would they be held prisoner on a diet of Ex-lax?). But the thing is that it didn't happen the way you imagine. I don't know the circumstances, but I don't see why Joseph Smith didn't have ample opportunity to have made a translation of the KP as he did with the Book of Abraham. Indeed, why not use the KP over the Book of Moses? That he didn't seems significant although perhaps only in a minor way.

As to the theories behind the Book of Abraham, I don't really understand them. I really don't have the expertise so I don't care for that game at all. I find weird philosophical / theological questions much more amusing and much easier to annoy someone with as it relies more on one's core understanding of doctrine rather than the say-so of a bunch of scholars. I mean come on. Who hasn't wondered when the earth is going to get hitched, have kids, get her endowment, and be baptized for dead earths if indeed she was baptized. Heck, why does the earth need baptism while the mentally handicapped and also other creatures do not? Hmmmmm.

Who Knows wrote:I have noticed how the apologists/TBM's defend the kinderhook incident from the viewpoint that Joseph Smith didn't really make a translation. There are no scriptures based on the kinderhook plates, there were no revelations, etc. The reason for doing so, of course, is because the kinderhook plates were a fraud - they weren't real. Let me rephrase that, they were real, but they didn't have 'writings of scripture'.

So lets turn to the Book of Abraham. The 'missing scroll' theory is all but dead. We know Joseph Smith 'translated' the Book of Abraham from papyri that are unrelated to the text of the Book of Abraham.

In other words, in terms of the text of the papyri vs. the text of the Book of Abraham - the papyri were 'frauds' in the same sense that the kinderhook plates were frauds - neither of them contained writings of scripture.

However, I sense that if a piece of scripture were suddenly discovered today, that Joseph Smith had translated from the kinderhook plates, then a lot of TBM's would have a problem with this. But this is not so with the Book of Abraham - even though the basic issues are the same. The Book of Abraham would get a pass, while the kinderhook translation would not - even though they are basically the same issue.

But who knows, maybe not. Maybe TBM's would just turn to some 'catalyst theory' for the kinderhook plates.

The apologists only defend the absurd as far as they need to. If a translation of the Kinderhook plates was discovered in Joseph Smith's handwriting, the apologists would be forced to come up with some explanation similar to their Book of Abraham defenses. Since no transaltion exists, they can breathe a sigh of relief and dismiss it as a fraud.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:The apologists only defend the absurd as far as they need to. If a translation of the Kinderhook plates was discovered in Joseph Smith's handwriting, the apologists would be forced to come up with some explanation similar to their Book of Abraham defenses. Since no transaltion exists, they can breathe a sigh of relief and dismiss it as a fraud.

And here I thought critics were always accusing TBMs of living in a fantasy world. Nobody knows what we'd do in this magical critic kingdom. Heck, as long as y'all are fantacising you may as will suppose that all the TBMs also immediately leave the fold for a life of heavy drinking . . . of coffee and tea.

Maybe decaf at first.

Or maybe we'll go straight for the big one. Maybe the TBMs will all decide to pass the sacrament in blue shirts and use their left hands while the men have all sport beards.

ABMan - you're missing my point.

My point is that the KP and BOB papyri are both totally irrelevant in terms of Mormonism - they can both be considered 'frauds' in the sense that neither are 'scripture from god'.

However - the LDS approach to the 2 are totally different. On the Book of Abraham side, you've got apologists saying that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham through revelation.

On the KP side, you've got the apologists saying that Joseph Smith never really translated anything - BECAUSE they were fraudulent. In other words - the goal is to distance Joseph Smith from translating the KP, because, I assume, this would obviously point to Joseph Smith's fraud.

However, in my mind, they're the same issue.

Does that make sense?

Who Knows wrote:Does that make sense?

I suppose, but one significant difference between the two situations is that the Kinderhook Plates was an intentional fraud played against Joseph Smith while the Book of Abraham papyri were not sold to him by those lying in wait. That we don't have a translation of the fraud seems to be in favor of Joseph's divine calling.

As for the catalyst theory or other Book of Abraham theories, I admit to being lost.