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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

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

Post by _wenglund »

Sethbag wrote:
harmony wrote:How does anyone translate a fake?
Well, according to Wade, they refer back to a fake dictionary and a fake grammar.


Ironically, these are fake words that Sethbag has put into my mouth, which shouldn't surprise anyone since he has long participated here using a fake name and fake picture of himself :eek: .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

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

Post by _harmony »

wenglund wrote:Ironically, these are fake words that Sethbag has put into my mouth, which shouldn't surprise anyone since he has long participated here using a fake name and fake picture of himself :eek: .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


But Wade... how does a person translate a fake?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

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

Post by _wenglund »

harmony wrote:But Wade... how does a person translate a fake?


Were I to create my own fake plates, but instead of etching "hieroglyphics" as R. Wiley claimed to have done with the KHP (where he may have copied the symbols from is anyone's guess), I etched the words "Felice Navidad" on them, do you suppose someone who spoke Spanish could translate my fake plates?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_zzyzx
_Emeritus
Posts: 1042
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:31 pm

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

Post by _zzyzx »

"I etched the words "Felice Navidad" on them, do you suppose someone who spoke Spanish could translate my fake plates?"

Not if they couldn't read spanish.

Joseph, the highest ranking General in the US, the King of the Universe and would-be President suffered from delusions of grandeur. Stealing other mens wives even as he sent some away on church missions, 'translating' by reading words appearing in the air above a stone in a hat... how many other lies does LDS, Inc expect folks to believe?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

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

Post by _harmony »

wenglund wrote:
harmony wrote:But Wade... how does a person translate a fake?


Were I to create my own fake plates, but instead of etching "hieroglyphics" as R. Wiley claimed to have done with the KHP (where he may have copied the symbols from is anyone's guess), I etched the words "Felice Navidad" on them, do you suppose someone who spoke Spanish could translate my fake plates?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


1.They weren't in Spanish; they were in a fake language.
2. Joseph couldn't read Spanish... or the fake language.

So... my question still stands: how does a person... a prophet even... translate a fake?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

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

Post by _wenglund »

harmony wrote:1.They weren't in Spanish


Obviously. That goes without saying.

they were in a fake language.


According to R. Wiley, one of the co-conspirators in the hoax, the plates were etched in "hieroglyphics", which suggests the intent to use a real, though at that point dead language. Evidently, Wiley got at least two of the Egyptian hieroglyphics right.

2. Joseph couldn't read Spanish... or the fake language.


Evidently, he could read the two Egyptian hieroglyphics.

So... my question still stands: how does a person... a prophet even... translate a fake?


It was adequately answered as asked, at least for those with the mental capacity to grasp the point of my analogy. It has now been adequately answer as expanded, at least for those with the mental capacity to understand the nature of language and inductive reasoning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

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

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

wenglund wrote:[...]
Evidently, he could read the two Egyptian hieroglyphics.
[...]

Hi Wade,

What were the two glyphs, and do they mean "Ham" and "Pharaoh"?

-Stu
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

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

Post by _wenglund »

Doctor Steuss wrote:Hi Wade,

What were the two glyphs, and do they mean "Ham" and "Pharaoh"? -Stu


Hi Stu,

I posted the following on another thread, but I will post it here for your benefit. As mentioned on the other thread, some of the links are currently broken, and I don't have the time right now to chase them down. I hope this helps.

Even if one wishes to grant the possibility of a "partial translation," the question may be raised as to the nature of the alleged "partial translation". Was it a formal translation (using either supernatural or secular means), or an informal translation or off-hand surmising based on rumor, and was it done in earnest or in jest?

Perhaps the answer to these questions may be found by examining the Egyptian Alphabet used by Joseph Smith at the time in translating the Book of Abraham from papyra (see: Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers--JSEP--pp. 1 - 15), along with the Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, and compare the characters found therein with the characters and symbols etched onto the Kinderhook plates (photos of the facsimilies may be viewed HERE).

From my own cursory glance, there wasn't much that matched up. I did, though, find two characters that could possibly fit. First, there was a character that consisted of a circle that had a dot in the center (actually, there were several of these characters). And, as I understand it, this character in Egyptian represents the sun, or light, or depending upon its placement in relation to other characters, it could refer to seasons, or God, or ruler, etc.

More interesting, though, was an oval shape that looks like the Egyptian hieroglypic for the letter "r" (click HERE).

On page 4 of the JSEP (see the link above), that character is described as follows: "Kah tou mun: a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept." (Emphasis added)

With these two characters in mind (and the only two characters that appear to me--a non-Egyptologist--to remotely resemble Egyptian), let's quote Clayton's description of the "partial translation":

"Pres[iden]t J[oseph]. has translated a portion and says 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."

Is it possible that Joseph, who had been acquainted with the Egyptian alphabet since 1835 (8 years prior to the Kinderhook event), pointed out these two characters to those gathered around, and explained what they meant, and this may be what Clayton had in mind when he spoke of a "partial translation"? If so, then there may have been an informal translation of a portion of the plates.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

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

Post by _harmony »

wenglund wrote:"Pres[iden]t J[oseph]. has translated a portion and says 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."


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

How does a person translate that which is fake???? The correct answer is: it can't be done. That Joseph tried to pass something off as a translation of a fake is a manifestation of both his ego and his attitude, and the gullibiity of his followers.

As for the heirglyphs... I can't read or write Japanese, but occasionally I can draw what looks like a Japanese character. I can't read it, I have no frame of reference for it, so while it may look like a Japanese character, it's not. Without the context surrounding it, it's just a pretty drawing.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

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

Post by _DonBradley »

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

Sethbag, you wrote:
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.


Then you will very much enjoy reading my paper, Seth! ;-)

Actually, I can understand your puzzlement quite well.

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.

But, as Chris indicated, I'm disinclined to elaborate until the published work comes out.

I would ask for everyone's patience, and an open mind, until Mark and I can publish our paper in the Journal of Mormon History. I can't give you an ETA on it yet, but will as this becomes clearer.

Don
Post Reply