Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
David T

Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

Recommended Posts

Bradley's presentation just ended at FAIR.

He just showed how Joseph matched a prominent symbol from the forged Kinderhook plates to a very similar symbol in the GAEL, which happens to list the exact explanation Joseph is related as presenting for the source of the plates. Joseph suggested he was going to attempt to work out a translation using the rest of the GAEL. It wasn't professed or claimed as an attempt at a revealed translation, it was trying to work it out from the previously created grammar document.

Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting, so it is an idea that he was trying to make a secular translation?

Share this post


Link to post

Don did an awesome job sleuthing this out. And he packaged his findings in a very informative and amusing presentation to boot. (Kudos, also to Mark Ashurst-McGee.)

Share this post


Link to post

Wow.

Don, you elicited a one-word response, "Wow," from the usually-cyber-loquacious Kevin Graham, and then you shut him up! (If memory serves, he crowed rather loudly here on the days leading up to the conference about how the buildup wouldn't match your actual presentation, leaving us all [well, some of us, anway] underwhelmed.) For that reason alone, you should be heartily lauded! Congratulations! :D

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post

Don is not only one of the most pleasant individuals I have had the opportunity of coming into contact with lately, but he is also one of the most brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post

Could someone please offer a more thorough analysis of his argument and the evidence presented?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post

Can any one go into more detail on this? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Don, you elicited a one-word response, "Wow," from the usually-cyber-loquacious Kevin Graham, and then you shut him up! (If memory serves, he crowed rather loudly here on the days leading up to the conference about how the buildup wouldn't match your actual presentation, leaving us all [well, some of us, anway] underwhelmed.) For that reason alone, you should be heartily lauded! Congratulations! :D

CFR?

I spoke with Don about his presentation a couple months ago. What I remember challenging was the belief that Don's presentation would serve to further an apologetic argument. From what I can tell, it does no such thing. In fact, it pretty much refutes the bulk of last year's presentation that argued the GAEL was all about creating a cipher as well as the numerous claims that Joseph Smith never tried to engage in a "secular" or "academic" form of translation. But I'd like to hear more about his presentation before making too many assumptions or conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post

CFR?

I spoke with Don about his presentation a couple months ago. What I remember challenging was the belief that Don's presentation would serve to further an apologetic argument. From what I can tell, it does no such thing. In fact, it pretty much refutes the bulk of last year's presentation that argued the GAEL was all about creating a cipher as well as the numerous claims that Joseph Smith never tried to engage in a "secular" or "academic" form of translation. But I'd like to hear more about his presentation before making too many assumptions or conclusions.

Just for kicks and giggles how many presentations last year proposed the GAEL was created as a cipher?

Share this post


Link to post

CFR?

I spoke with Don about his presentation a couple months ago. What I remember challenging was the belief that Don's presentation would serve to further an apologetic argument. From what I can tell, it does no such thing. In fact, it pretty much refutes the bulk of last year's presentation that argued the GAEL was all about creating a cipher as well as the numerous claims that Joseph Smith never tried to engage in a "secular" or "academic" form of translation. But I'd like to hear more about his presentation before making too many assumptions or conclusions.

CFR for what, that you're cyber-loquacious? ;):D

Share this post


Link to post

CFR?

I spoke with Don about his presentation a couple months ago. What I remember challenging was the belief that Don's presentation would serve to further an apologetic argument. From what I can tell, it does no such thing. In fact, it pretty much refutes the bulk of last year's presentation that argued the GAEL was all about creating a cipher as well as the numerous claims that Joseph Smith never tried to engage in a "secular" or "academic" form of translation. But I'd like to hear more about his presentation before making too many assumptions or conclusions.

It does sound intriguing. Is there any reason to think this has an impact on what the grammar document is? I agree with kevin, it kind of sounds like it might.

Share this post


Link to post

Just for kicks and giggles how many presentations last year proposed the GAEL was created as a cipher?

I didn't say the GALE was "created as a cipher."

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't say the GALE was "created as a cipher."

Sorry,

Here is what you said.

t pretty much refutes the bulk of last year's presentation that argued the GAEL was all about creating a cipher

So for kicks and giggles how many presentations last year postulated that "the GAEL was all about creating a cipher".

Share this post


Link to post

It does sound intriguing. Is there any reason to think this has an impact on what the grammar document is? I agree with kevin, it kind of sounds like it might.

Well I am still waiting for more information, but it sounds like he believed the symbols found within both the GAEL and the Kinderhook plates, represented genuine, ancient symbols that could be translated (by whatever means, secular or divine, either way it flies in the face of popular apologetic belief). If not, it still doesn't make sense why he would try to connect characters in the GAEL with what was believed at the time to be an artifact of ancient origin... unless of course he also believed the characters in the GAEL were of ancient origin as well. According to Schryver, because none of the characters weren't legitimate Egyptian characters (in the counting document) then this proves they were never really understood as Egyptian by Joseph Smith! That they were just symbols he chose to use for a cipher. It would seem Bradley disagrees with that argument.

Share this post


Link to post

It would seem Bradley disagrees with that argument.

It does? I am not following you here.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry,

Here is what you said.

So for kicks and giggles how many presentations last year postulated that "the GAEL was all about creating a cipher".

At least one that I know of. Are you sure you really want to continue to exhibit your lack of familiarity with your apologists? Schryver argued that they were trying to encipher information, and that explains the mess that constitutes the GAEL. None of them really believed they were actually translating Egyptian, because none of the symbols were Egyptian.

Share this post


Link to post

It does? I am not following you here.

I know.

Share this post


Link to post

Don is not only one of the most pleasant individuals I have had the opportunity of coming into contact with lately, but he is also one of the most brilliant.

His hair alone has experienced more than any lesser man's body.

His words carry weight that would break a less interesting man's jaw.

He is the life of parties he has never attended.

Sharks have a week dedicated to him.

If he were to punch you in the face, you'd have to fight the urge to thank him.

When in Rome, they do as he does.

He was once bitten by a rattle snake. And after two weeks of agonizing pain, the snake died.

He is quite simply, the most interesting man in the world.

ive-seen-things.jpg

Edited by Xander
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

At least one that I know of. Are you sure you really want to continue to exhibit your lack of familiarity with your apologists? Schryver argued that they were trying to encipher information, and that explains the mess that constitutes the GAEL. None of them really believed they were actually translating Egyptian, because none of the symbols were Egyptian.

I am aware of one presentation last year that postulated the above. And it is Will's presentation. That is a far cry from what you stated earlier. Of course I might have misunderstood you and thought you were talking about a bulk of the presentations vs the bulk of one presentation. And it should be noted again that Will's thesis primarily dealt with the AEG being developed from a primary source text. The cipher if proven false is 2ndary and has no bearing on his primary thesis.

Kevin, why do you talk down to me? You come across as a real a$$. I confessed to not being real familiar with some of this stuff and you treat me like a complete fool. Even though you might have a valid point, some were, I would not give you the time of day because you are so rude.

Can you cut the crap out of your posts? In case you are wondering I have put it in bold for you.

I am well aware of what Will argued. If anything it is you that seem to forget his primary reason and his primary argument. The cipher has and always will be 2ndary.

Share this post


Link to post

I know.

You never connected the dots. I know mind reading is big among you and your kind but it is not something that most people I know do.

Share this post


Link to post
He was once bitten by a rattle snake. And after two weeks of agonizing pain, the snake died.

This, BTW, is a very old joke. A similar one is even found in the Talmud.

Share this post


Link to post

Don is not only one of the most pleasant individuals I have had the opportunity of coming into contact with lately, but he is also one of the most brilliant.

He definitely does seem that.

Share this post


Link to post

CFR?

I spoke with Don about his presentation a couple months ago. What I remember challenging was the belief that Don's presentation would serve to further an apologetic argument. From what I can tell, it does no such thing. In fact, it pretty much refutes the bulk of last year's presentation that argued the GAEL was all about creating a cipher as well as the numerous claims that Joseph Smith never tried to engage in a "secular" or "academic" form of translation. But I'd like to hear more about his presentation before making too many assumptions or conclusions.

It might not further apologetic arguments for the KEP along the lines of Schryver's presentation, but it sounds like it certainly would do so for the Kinderhook Plates.

Share this post


Link to post
I am aware of one presentation last year that postulated the above. And it is Will's presentation. That is a far cry from what you stated earlier. Of course I might have misunderstood you and thought you were talking about a bulk of the presentations vs the bulk of one presentation.

No, it isn't a far cry from it, and yes you must have misunderstood what I said if you think it is.

And it should be noted again that Will's thesis primarily dealt with the AEG being developed from a primary source text.

Irrelevant to the fact that his cipher theory is most likely undermined by Bradley's presentation.

The cipher if proven false is 2ndary and has no bearing on his primary thesis.

His primary thesis is even weaker than his cipher theory, but as far as "secondary" theories go, this one really took up most of his time and represented the finale of his presentation. You seem to interpret "secondary" to mean not really important if it turns out to be wrong. I don't know why you guys keep pounding this home as if it makes any difference to anything I've said. Who cares which theory was professed to be primary or secondary? They're both horrible arguments that do not stand the test of scrutiny.

Kevin, why do you talk down to me? You come across as a real a$$.

Oh really? And what were you coming across as when you insinuated that I misrepresented Will's argument, just before you said you may have misunderstood me?

I confessed to not being real familiar with some of this stuff and you treat me like a complete fool.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that you really don't want to continue with this insinuatio that I was misrepresenting Will's argument.

Even though you might have a valid point, some were, I would not give you the time of day because you are so rude.

I'm not asking for the time. In fact, I don't recall asking anything from you. If you don't like me, then don't come at me the way you have. Do this, and we'll get along just fine.

I am well aware of what Will argued. If anything it is you that seem to forget his primary reason and his primary argument. The cipher has and always will be 2ndary.

You're repeating Pahoran's red herring. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...