Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates


Recommended Posts

Perhaps he felt that because he had all these clerks to help him, he could have more time for his horse. Just sayin'

Ah...but the clerks are the one's who kept Joseph's journal. Were the plates as important to Joseph as his horse, he would have had his clerks post more about the plates than his horse in his journal.

Speaking of clerks and scribes, I believe at the time the plates arrived in Kirtland, there were three, and maybe 4 or five, clerks (Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock--assistant to Willard, William Clayton, and possibly James Sloan and at times Warren Parrish.)

Each of the clerks apparently had their own respective duties, but at times they may performed the duties of other clerks. Willard Richard was responsible for keeping Joseph's journal and recording revelations and translations, having been officially called in 1842 as Church Recorder and Historian. William Clayton appears to have been responsible for drafting Joseph's correspondences, and at time recording revelations and writing in Joseph's diaries.

Understanding this, in connection with Clayton's journal entry, is important for several reasons--it may help us assess whether the "translation" was revelatory or academic, and it may help us determine the relative importance of the "translation." Were it to have been a revelatory translation, it is likely that Willard Richards would have been scribe, rather than Clayton, and the translation would have occurred in private with just Joseph and Willard, rather than in a group of people including non-members. And, it would have been transcribed, word-for-word, in manuscript form, read back for correction, and likely mentioned in Joseph's journal, if not also reproduced in the Church history.

Instead, the "translation" was but paraphrased later that day or evening in Clayton's own personal journal, thus suggesting that it wasn't a revelatory translation, and also suggesting that it was of less importance to Joseph than it was to Clayton.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Hello Wade,

I think you're right to keep an open mind on these issues.

It's a good question. To put the following comment in context, here again is the definition of the sign in the fifth degree:

"honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh, possession by birth one who reigns upon his throne universally - possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth"

Of course no one knows exactly what’s going on here, but it seems to me that the fifth degree represents a secular definition of government that the explanation signifies can be used to typify spiritual or religious government. This theory is not without evidence. Note the description of Pharaoh, the descendent of Ham, featured in the Book of Abraham:

“Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations” (1:26)

So Pharaoh’s secular government was but an imitation of religious government, i.e. patriarchal order “established by the fathers in the first generation.” Given this connection, clearly the GAEL sign in the fifth degree could presumably appear in an Egyptian text as a representation of either “honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh, possession by birth” or “one who reigns upon his throne universally” meaning a “possessor of heaven and earth," and "the blessings of the earth,” (which I interpret as secular) since the kingly power by the line of Pharaoh was an “imitation” of the holy order.

According to the Book of Abraham, Noah had blessed Pharaoh with “the blessings of the earth” but cursed him according to the priesthood (1:26), the exact phrase that appears as part of the description of the sign in the fifth degree. Hence, as I read it, "possessor of heaven and earth" is religious authority and "blessings of the earth" refers to temporal gifts. So the definition of the fifth degree moves back and forth between what we might think of as secular versus religious blessings (I'm not convinced that these are completely separate in Joseph's theology; they're probably actually one and the same).

Now, significantly, the Book of Abraham makes a genealogical link between the Canaanites and Egyptians in 1:22:

“From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.”

The only time that the phrase “possessor of heaven and earth” appears in the KJ Bible is Genesis 14:19, 22 in reference to El Elyon, i.e. the Most High God “possessor of heaven and earth.” In addition to the phrase that appears in the GAEL description of the fifth degree, the obvious link between Genesis 14 and the “line of Pharaoh” is the lengthy list of Canaanite kings, i.e. men who, from the perspective of the Book of Abraham, traced their “honor by birth” and “kingly power” (as well as their rights to the blessings of the earth") back to Ham through “the line of Pharaoh.”

So accepting Don's theory, when Joseph was able to identify the sign from the GAEL list, it was easy for him to decipher the plates as writings that contained "the history of the person with whom they were found... a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt... [who] received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Just my 2 cents.

Excellent analysis. It makes sense to me and piqued my interest to look for other layers of meaning, not only within the GAEL explanations, but the Bible and BoA and D&C as well, perhaps to see, among other things, possible hidden correlations between the GAEL and the scriptures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Why, one wonders, did you feel it necessary to resort to crude vulgarity to make an otherwise good point?

Why, one wonders, do you feel the need to fetishize a perfectly good word in such a way as to make it off limits for use in making a perfectly good point?

Words have no inherent moral or magical value. They're simply social conventions that can be used for good or ill.

Edited by Chris Smith
Link to comment

Why, one wonders, do you feel the need to fetishize a perfectly good word in such a way as to make it off limits for use in making a perfectly good point?

Words have no inherent moral or magical value. They're simply social conventions that can be used for good or ill.

I had a few mission comps that always stated "It is in the bible". I had no argument after that. I no longer consider "h***" or "damn" as swear word. One might even get away with a**, even.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Link to comment
Of course no one knows exactly what’s going on here, but it seems to me that the fifth degree represents a secular definition of government that the explanation signifies can be used to typify spiritual or religious government.

In other words, a character or symbols can have both a literal and symbolic meaning. This can work both ways: images of things in heavens can typify things on earth, and vice versa. It is not unlike the image of the Egyptian god Osiris symbolizing Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

David B.,

I hesitate to jump into this discussion, but as I shared with Don after his presentation, in my mind, the added depth to Joseph’s translation of the KP symbol is not simply an example of the principle of lectio brevior in terms of Joseph's original decipherment of the GAEL symbol.

Due to the shape of the sign on the KP, Joseph’s translation needed to include extra words and phrases beyond what appears in the GAEL definition of the symbol in order to account for the additional “theta,” etc. within the KP version of the sign. Hence, I believe the discrepancies between the two interpretations make perfect sense in light of the extra elements that appear within the KP form of "ho e oop hah."

This would imply JS was making things up, not just translating. The extra lines in the KPs character do not have the meanings you need in the GAEL. The character for “a true descendant of Ham” doesn’t fit. If it’s a purely secular translation, it has to fit. Without a match in the GAEL, your explanation seems to require either deception or revelation.

Link to comment

Don,

I’m still troubled by the assumption that the translation was “secular”. On what basis could the Gentile assume that JS could translate the whole of the plates if only one of the characters could be matched to the GAEL? Moreover, on what basis could JS continue his secular translation?

On the other hand, if JS simply compared the characters on the KPs with the BOM characters, the Gentile may have assumed that JS could use the same gift to translate the KPs as well. I haven’t checked but there are probably more points of similarity between the KPs and BOM characters than the GAEL. The Gentile said they are the “same characters.” I don’t see how he could make that plural connection with the GAEL.

Link to comment

Don,

I’m still troubled by the assumption that the translation was “secular”. On what basis could the Gentile assume that JS could translate the whole of the plates if only one of the characters could be matched to the GAEL?

On the basis that he believed others matched. Or perhaps he believed the remaining translation would be revelatory. Does it follow that it would have been?

On the other hand, if JS simply compared the characters on the KPs with the BOM characters, the Gentile may have assumed that JS could use the same gift to translate the KPs as well.

We already know that "A Gentile" believed these were Book of Mormon characters, regardless of whether they actually were.

I've given several reasons above to think that the referenced Egyptian alphabet was the GAEL. The content equivalence between Clayton's journal and the GAEL is, by itself, enough to strongly evidence that the GAEL was consulted, and the ready character match backs this up. So the "Egyptian alphabet" letter is only a supporting source. Given that the GAEL was almost certainly consulted, it's natural to think that the Egyptian alphabet reference is to the GAEL. And Pratt's statement, with reference to the same incident as "A Gentile" describes, that they compared the KP to the papyrus characters adds further evidence for that conclusion.

And I could go on. See above.

I haven’t checked but there are probably more points of similarity between the KPs and BOM characters than the GAEL. The Gentile said they are the “same characters.” I don’t see how he could make that plural connection with the GAEL.

He could conclude that the characters as a whole were the same script even on the basis of a single character. It would be fallacious reasoning, but no worse than we've seen on MDB in the last few days, where people keep wondering how the GAEL character could have gotten on the Kinderhook plates. We habitually underestimate random chances.

Don

Link to comment

David B.,

This would imply JS was making things up, not just translating. The extra lines in the KPs character do not have the meanings you need in the GAEL. The character for “a true descendant of Ham” doesn’t fit. If it’s a purely secular translation, it has to fit. Without a match in the GAEL, your explanation seems to require either deception or revelation.

Or, reasonable extrapolation.

However, one of the extra lines may reasonably be compared with the character for "Ho e oop" (which happens to be the second character above "Ho e oop hah" on the same GAEL page), which is explained as: "a prince of the royal blood, a true descendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the Kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the transgressions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Don,

I’m still troubled by the assumption that the translation was “secular”. On what basis could the Gentile assume that JS could translate the whole of the plates if only one of the characters could be matched to the GAEL? Moreover, on what basis could JS continue his secular translation?

The better questions to me are: In all the revelatory translations in Joseph's then past, how many consisted of him point out to "gentiles" similarities between character on the texts being translated and an Alphabet/Grammar? And, of the various "secular" translation in Joseph's then past (particularly during his school days with professor Siexas), how many consisted of pointing out to "gentiles" similarities between character on texts being translated and an Alphabet/Grammar?

To me, the answers to these questions, among others, makes me troubled that someone wouldn't assume the translation was "secular."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Wade,

The better questions to me are: In all the revelatory translations in Joseph's then past, how many consisted of him point out to "gentiles" similarities between character on the texts being translated and an Alphabet/Grammar? And, of the various "secular" translation in Joseph's then past (particularly during his school days with professor Siexas), how many consisted of pointing out to "gentiles" similarities between character on texts being translated and an Alphabet/Grammar?

Can you name a situation where this could have happened and it didn’t?

To me, the answers to these questions, among others, makes me troubled that someone wouldn't assume the translation was "secular."

You answered can answer this yourself by reading your own post above where you observed that the Gentile only mentions comparing characters and says nothing about translation.

Link to comment

Wade,

Or, reasonable extrapolation.

However, one of the extra lines may reasonably be compared with the character for "Ho e oop" (which happens to be the second character above "Ho e oop hah" on the same GAEL page), which is explained as: "a prince of the royal blood, a true descendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the Kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the transgressions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah."

Sorry, I don’t see any similarity between the extra lines in the character on the KPs and the character in GAEL, which is shaped like a solid square with a horizontal line connecting at the top right.

Link to comment

At the risk of being thread-banned yet again, I thought I'd post my thoughts.

I’ve watched from a distance as this discussion has developed. I don’t really have a dog in this race. Never thought the Kinderhook plates issue was a big deal in the first place. I have checked out the things that Bradley has brought together to make his case. I just have a couple reactions to it:

He has to remove 2/3 of the parts of the character to make it match the one in the GAEL, and I don’t find the reasoning behind his “dissection” to be very strongly justified. He has to do it to force his comparison, but I think it’s justified on shaky grounds. He and Chris Smith would have us believe that this dissection business was all part and parcel of the GAEL, but I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to warrant that conclusion. That kind of thing is only seen with a single character, and I don't think Bradley is justified in taking a character from the Kinderhook plates and then chopping pieces of it away until it matches the one he likes in the GAEL. Especially when you consider that, from what I can see, that character is pretty much the only one on all 8 Kinderhook plates that bears even a remote resemblance to characters from the GAEL.

Also, I can’t quite tell what historical sources Bradley actually cited in his presentation, but the sources listed in this thread don’t seem to strongly connect the episode with the GAEL. Two of them talk about the characters from the plates of the Book of Mormon. When I look at the KPs, I see characters that look a lot more like the Book of Mormon “caractors” than like the ones in the GAEL. So it makes sense to me that that comparison would have been made by people in 1843, most of which were probably familiar with those characters that had been widely published.

I’m not super-impressed with the parallels between the text of the KP “translation” and the explanations for the character in the GAEL. Yes, there are similarities, but the same parallels could be shown for various verses in the text of the Book of Abraham and Book of Genesis. Bradley wants us to view the GAEL as the only possible source for the phrases, but that’s not true. Schryver mentions that character and it’s explanation many times in his presentation, showing how it is dependent on the text of the BoA. What’s interesting is that he also talks about several other characters whose explanations contain just about as much parallel information as the one Bradley selects. “#9 Ho ee oop” (the character doesn't look anything like #11 "Ho ee oop hah") says, in the 5th degree:

A prince of the royal blood

a true descendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the transgressions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah

Abr. 1:26 – 27 says:

1:26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

1:27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Then there’s this from Genesis:

Genesis 14:19;22

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

So, I guess I’m just not very impressed by the fact that they are some similarities between the alleged KP translation and the explanation given for the one character Bradley chooses from the GAEL, especially when the character comparison is not very impressive to begin with, and the textual parallels are not unique.

Besides, I don’t see how it really gives much comfort to faithful LDS to have someone make the argument that Joseph Smith tried to make a “secular” translation of anything. From my viewpoint, that isn’t something JS would have done. At least I don’t see any precedent for it in his history up to this point. He’s all about “inspired translation” or nothing at all, if you ask me.

In any case, that’s my take on it.

I am amused to see that Schryver and Vogel more or less agree about this Bradley argument. That’s got to be a first.

Link to comment

Nomad,

I am amused to see that Schryver and Vogel more or less agree about this Bradley argument. That’s got to be a first.

Funny, Schryver said almost the same thing you said. Wink! Wink! Schryver is highly motivated to agree with me, what’s your excuse? To duplicate his arguments and then to mention me as he did is just too obvious, don’t you think?

Link to comment

Nomad,

Funny, Schryver said almost the same thing you said. Wink! Wink! Schryver is highly motivated to agree with me, what’s your excuse? To duplicate his arguments and then to mention me as he did is just too obvious, don’t you think?

Interesting.

He has to remove 2/3 of the parts of the character to make it match the one in the GAEL, and I don’t find the reasoning behind his “dissection” to be very strongly justified

The only thing that is interesting here is Kevin's responses in this thread. Kevin started another thread were he criticized Will's "They are an identical match" in his cipher theory. because the match was not identical but similar. Kevin accepts this match even though they 2 are really just barely similar. I find that interesting. As such this is one thing about Don's theory that I think is a little lacking is the match is from teh KP to the GAEL. As such I still think Don's theory has some merit to it. Carry on.

Link to comment

Hello Dan,

Long time no chat. Hope you're doing well and that your History of the Church project continues to progress.

David B.,

This would imply JS was making things up, not just translating. The extra lines in the KPs character do not have the meanings you need in the GAEL. The character for “a true descendant of Ham” doesn’t fit. If it’s a purely secular translation, it has to fit. Without a match in the GAEL, your explanation seems to require either deception or revelation.

In terms of his translation efforts using the GAEL, I wouldn't use the expression "making things up." As Don has clearly shown, there is a strong correlation between not only the shape of the two signs, but also the explanations Joseph gave them. Honestly, I can't see how anyone could possibly account for this evidence as mere coincidence.

My point is simply that the additional elements in the KP version of the sign would suggest a need for a more detailed definition than the one provided in the GAEL, which is of course, precisely what Joseph provides.

I'm not suggesting that Joseph actually translated the "theta" etc. within the the KP sign, only that based upon the GAEL definition, Joseph would have had a basic idea of what the sign signified and could have easily interpreted it to mean that the plates contained "the history of the person with whom they were found... a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt... [who] received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

For more on this, see my previous post.

Link to comment

Nomad,

Funny, Schryver said almost the same thing you said. Wink! Wink! Schryver is highly motivated to agree with me, what’s your excuse? To duplicate his arguments and then to mention me as he did is just too obvious, don’t you think?

Yawn …

Whatever, Dan. I don’t deny that I have been influenced by Schryver’s arguments over the years. I have been. I think he makes good ones, for the most part. I think I’m one of the few people he has shared his analysis of the GAEL with. I copied and pasted from it above. I have exchanged emails with him on the topic. I do agree with a lot of what he says. I don’t agree with everything. If you want to play the sockpuppet card along with others, that’s fine. Although I think it’s getting kind of old at this point.

Do you dispute the fact that you and he seem to see things alike on this issue? I don’t think you do. Anyway, I intentionally didn’t say anything at first while I watched things develop. I don’t agree with Will that the Bradley arguments are potentially all that damaging to BoA apologetics, unless people want to make the stretch of saying none of Joseph Smith’s translations were inspired. Critics are going to do that anyway. So I guess you need to reconcile that disagreement with your sockpuppet theory. Other than that, I’ve never been too bothered by people trying to make us the same person. If we are, then it’s pretty amazing we can exist in bodies two time zones apart. It’s almost a miracle.

Link to comment

As Don has clearly shown, there is a strong correlation between ... the shape of the two signs ...

I don't think this has been "clearly shown" at all, and I don't think there is a "strong" correlation.

... but also the explanations Joseph gave them. Honestly, I can't see how anyone could possibly account for this evidence as mere coincidence.

This might be a valid argument if there weren't also "strong" correlations between the KP translation and other sources as well, like the ones I posted above.

I think the whole connection is a stretch and that it falls far short of being anything like a "slam dunk" for Bradley's arguments.

But I also think that most of this is much ado about nothing. I don't think it really addresses the critics arguments about the KP. The one's that have been made over the years, that is. It may also create more questions than it answers, if you ask me.

Anyway, that's pretty much all I have to say about this stuff. I think I'll return to lurking occasionally, and just see how things continue to develeop.

Link to comment
This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.

<sigh>

Besides, I don’t see how it really gives much comfort to faithful LDS to have someone make the argument that Joseph Smith tried to make a “secular” translation of anything.

In analyzing these documents, I would sincerely hope that apologists are not simply trying to create the best ad hoc explanation possible to "comfort" those who embrace traditional views. In my humble opinion, this type of effort will ultimately do little to increase faith.

Edited by David Bokovoy
Link to comment
This might be a valid argument if there weren't also "strong" correlations between the KP translation and other sources as well, like the ones I posted above.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that unlike the parallels that I identified in Genesis 14 and Abraham 1:26, the KP and GAEL also share a symbol in common, as well as historical references to "Egyptian," and the use of a grammar. These are important points.

Link to comment

In analyzing these documents, I would sincerely hope that apologists are not simply trying to create the best ad hoc explanation possible to "comfort" those who embrace traditional views. In my humble opinion, this type of effort will ultimately do little to increase faith.

FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree. Truth is truth. If we have to change our views because of better information, that's a plus not a minus.

Link to comment

FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree. Truth is truth. If we have to change our views because of better information, that's a plus not a minus.

I agree 100%. But truth also ought to be something that can withstand scrutiny. I'm just not sure this latest candidate does.

Link to comment

You seem to have overlooked the fact that unlike the parallels that I identified in Genesis 14 and Abraham 1:26, the KP and GAEL also share a symbol in common, as well as historical references to "Egyptian," and the use of a grammar. These are important points.

OK, one more brief reply, then I need to get busy with real life.

David Bokovoy:

You seem to have overlooked the fact that unlike the parallels that I identified in Genesis 14 and Abraham 1:26 …

You mean the one’s Schryver listed in his FAIR presentation from last year? The one’s I copied and pasted from a document he sent me? Yes, those are very similar parallels to the one’s Bradley talks about. The point being that without the strained connection between the dissimilar characters, one could relate the KP translation to several other possible sources.

… the KP and GAEL also share a symbol in common …

That is the argument. I just don’t find it all that impressive, myself. To my eyes, the symbols are far from being identical. I think this is a case of people seeing what they want to see.

… as well as historical references to "Egyptian," …

References that also very plainly connect the term “Egyptian” to the characters from the plates of the Book of Mormon. It's strange how that little fact keeps getting glossed over.

… and the use of a grammar.

I must have missed that. Where is there a historical reference to the “use of a ‘grammar’”? Are you sure you aren’t adding value to a quote that doesn’t really say what you’re suggesting here?

These are important points.

They might be, if they had more strength behind them.

No offense, but I just don’t consider the case that has been made to be as strong as lots of people are trying to make it out as.

Link to comment

I agree 100%. But truth also ought to be something that can withstand scrutiny. I'm just not sure this latest candidate does.

If Don's arguments can't withstand scrutiny, then by all means, they should be abandoned. My point is simply let's not use the fact that the observation may not "comfort" some traditional believers and that Latter-day saints will be forced to "swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers" as a guide determining whether or not Don's arguments should be rejected. In my mind, the two quotes I cited appear to signify a major difference from the methodology that I personally find most effective.

No hard feelings. Just a difference in opinion.

Link to comment
No offense, but I just don’t consider the case that has been made to be as strong as lots of people are trying to make it out as.

None taken. You may be right. I believe Don has made an impressive case. I look forward to reading all of the arguments from the various players when they are put into print.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...