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

[_Sethbag]

If it is true that Joseph Smith said that "they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." I am wondering how this can be a "secular" translation.

The plates obviously didn't actually contain what Joseph Smith said they contained. What "secular" process could possibly have led Joseph Smith to believe that they did? How is the above statement any different than the apparently seerific (so we are left to believe) pronouncement about the contents of the Egyptian papyri?

I am having a very hard time understanding what you intend by saying that Joseph indeed did some translating of the KHP, but that it was secular in nature, not intended to be prophetic.

[_Doctor Steuss]

For any curious, here is the old MA&D thread/posts wherein Don gave the initial teaser for this theory:

But, apologist that I am, I have uncovered the method of translation employed by Joseph Smith--it was not claimed to be revelatory. This finding confirms a hypothesis set out by Mark Ashurst-McGee at the 1996 MHA; and Mark and I may yet publish a collaborative paper on this. I'm not going to spill the beans here; but the evidence is quite definite--Joseph did produce a putative translation, but did so through "secular" means, and not as a prophet.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208166172

The evidence so decidedly favors Joseph Smith having translated from the Kinderhook plates that is laughable how many have deceived themselves, or allowed others to deceive them, into believing he did not.

Recognizing the weight of the evidence for translation, my friend Mark Ashurst-McGee, who now works for the church on the Joseph Smith Papers project, developed the hypothesis that Joseph Smith attempted, not a revelatory translation, but a secular one. Mark identified evidence that Joseph Smith looked for Hebrew characters on the plates. Frankly, I doubted Mark's hypothesis. But I later independently identified the source Joseph Smith employed in performing his translation of the Kinderhook plates.

Even without this source, I find the evidence for Joseph Smith's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates overwhelming. But I think the source nails it down with certainty, and also gets Joseph Smith off the hook of having received false revelation on the contents of fake plates.

As a nonbeliever, I have no particular reason to look for evidence refuting criticisms of the church. But in this case, that's just the way the evidence goes.

Don

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208166428

[_Sethbag]

How do you get from "searching for Hebrew characters" to "this guy was a King, from the loins of Ham, who received his kingdom from the God of Heaven and Earth".

That's my point, really. Since the Kinderhook Plates do not say anything about a King from the loins of Ham, who received his Kingdom from God, exactly what "secular" process could have lead Joseph Smith to think that they did?

Are we considering "making stuff up" to be a secular process? What about random guessing? Seriously, what "secular" process leads to such an obviously incorrect translation?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Sethbag,

I had never given the implications (regarding the claimed translation[s] given) upon the secular translation theory all that much thought. I guess it would all depend on whether the translation given was actually from Joseph, or just what he had heard Joseph said (which I think would be hard to hold to since I recall Clayton was with Joseph the very day the entry was made [I believe for a plural marriage] -- If I recall correctly, of course).

Hopefully Don hasn’t sworn off MB’s again and will stumble upon this thread.

Thanks for causing me to go back to a somewhat solidified opinion and consider that I might be wrong (gotta love learning),
Stu

[_dblagent007]

It seems that the most favorable interpretation of the secular translation theory is that Joseph Smith genuinely believed that he translated a portion of the plates, when in fact he was completely mistaken. In other words, Joseph Smith was incompetent, but not fraudulent.

Is there another more favorable interpretation of the secular translation theory?

[_CaliforniaKid]

It is doubtful that Don will explain himself here, since as far as I know he's still planning on publishing on this subject.

[_wenglund]

I can't speak for Don, but I gave you my explanation on the other Kinderhook thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_truth dancer]

Hey DB...

It seems that the most favorable interpretation of the secular translation theory is that Joseph Smith genuinely believed that he translated a portion of the plates, when in fact he was completely mistaken. In other words, Joseph Smith was incompetent, but not fraudulent.

Is there another more favorable interpretation of the secular translation theory?

In other words, "secular translation" = evidence of delusion disorder, grandiosity type.

It is what I have been saying for years!

~td~

Grandiose: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.

Delusion Disorder

[_harmony]

How does anyone translate a fake?

[_Sethbag]

How does anyone translate a fake?

Well, according to Wade, they refer back to a fake dictionary and a fake grammar.