Whatever tenants of buffoonery you seem complicit in promulgating, please be advised that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. Let me give to quick examples before I try and catch a wink (gotta love EST).
1) Your understanding surrounding the history of the Rosetta Stone is incorrect. As such, you should stop gulping the erroneous rhetoric of those like Robert Ritner whom haven't the foggiest about what they're talking about. Ignoring Young altogether (whom Franklin, Jefferson, etc. were aware of and first stated Champollion's theory of phonetic alphabetization), Champollion's work was well circulated not only in Europe, but had crossed the pond and was well-disseminated in the States long before Joseph got into 'translating' Egyptian. [P.S. Translation was a very, loose term for Joseph. The Book of Moses is an example: completely a revelation without text, but still a 'translation']. Rittner's claim that "In 1835 in America, there was no one who could read ancient Egyptian. All knowledge of the language had been lost for centuries," Is simply wrong. Champollion's work had surfaced and began a broad distribution in the U.S. by the mid 1820's--published in some of the greatest journals and circulated in papers throughout the U.S. at that time.
What does this mean? First, the germane issue is whether Joseph and friends knew of the nature of Egyptian...not how to translate it. If Joseph, et. al knew about the nature of Egyptian characters (which I am compelled to believe that they did), the idea that the GAEL is illustrative of a on-going translation suggests nonsense and logical incoherence. Why would they treat the text in a manner which was known to be inconsistent with the latest science of the day? However, if the revelation came first--knowing it came from the papyri and believing it was limited to the text--the GAEL was a backdoor attempt to make it fit. A failure of reverse engineering, but an attempt nonetheless.
2) Your understanding of Kinderhook is greatly simplistic. CFR. The singular journal account which you implicitly state as fact is overzealous, and doesn't conclude as you wish it would. Moreover, the newspaper's announcement that Joseph would translate it does little to embarrass his seership without an announcement of subsequent findings. Your conspiracy lacks bite. And originality.
P.S. All: Ignore my spelling conflations and grammatical equivocations. I'm simply to tired (and lazy) to go fix them all.
Edited by PacMan, 11 October 2009 - 09:33 PM.