Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[David Bokovoy]

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.

Thanks, Mike. And in my opinion, this is the only way to produce effective "apologetic" work.

Best,

--DB

[wenglund]

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

No.

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

I had in mind the May 1st translation, which I induce was a precursor to the May 7th character comparison.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, 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.

But, the "ho e oop" character consists primarily of a "horizontal line."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

One of the criticisms of Don's hypothesis is that the presumed compared characters don't perfectly match. The character in the KP has additional lines not found in the GAEL character. This criticism is reasonable, and can legitimately give one pause.

On the other hand, I don't see the criticism as nullifying. While the two characters aren't exact matches, there are important similarities. Think of it like the non-exact, though reasonable similarities between these two characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nomad]

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.

I do not personally agree with Will about the possible implications of the Bradley arguments. I don’t see how they very much threaten “traditional believers” (whatever those are—I’m not really sure what you mean by that term).

But I also think it is incomplete and unfair of you to suggest that the only objection to Bradley’s arguments has been that they might have a negative effect on what you regard as “traditional” viewpoints. That’s just not true. People on both sides of the believer/critic line have raised similar objections to the Bradley arguments on the basis of specific items of his case. I think you should spend more time addressing those arguments (start with Vogel) instead of trying to make this into some kind of battle between “traditional” and “progressive” perspectives on the origins of restoration scripture.

[Nomad]

One of the criticisms of Don's hypothesis is that the presumed compared characters don't perfectly match. The character in the KP has additional lines not found in the GAEL character. This criticism is reasonable, and can legitimately give one pause.

On the other hand, I don't see the criticism as nullifying. While the two characters aren't exact matches, there are important similarities. Think of it like the non-exact, though reasonable similarities between these two characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think this is a good analogy. The only reason we make a connection between the two styles of "E" you show is because we know, by experience with the variants, that these are really the same character, but one is a very stylized script of the other, and I don't believe anyone not already familiar with English and modern style scripts would conclude these are the same character.

That is not the case with the characters Bradley is comparing. He made a connection between the two only because he felt he recognized in the GAEL epxlanation for "ho ee oop hah" language that was similar to the William Clayton journal entry. Using the logic he applies to "dissecting" the character from the K-plates in order to match the one in the GAEL, then we could also say that these characters in the English alphabet are all "identical":

E, L, I, and F

G, C, and O

V and W

P, R, and B

etc.

Is the 5th degree explanation for "ho ee oop hah" the only possible palce one could look for the language found in the Clayton journal entry? Obviously the answer is no.

I also find it very curious that the independent accounts written by "A Gentile" and Charlotte Haven both make specific reference to the KP characters being compared to the characters from the plates of the Book of Mormon, rather than the Book of Abraham or the GAEL. I'm just saying that Bradley has to work really hard, and stretch his sources a long way in order to reach the conclusions he does. Is there some basis for his conclusions? Sure. Is it the "slam dunk" case he and others would have us believe it is? I sure don't think so. I think it's downright threadbare in places, and that people without some other motivations to believe a certain way would look at the evidence and find it wanting in many respects.

[Xander]

Pahoran,

The subject under discussion, Kevin, is the Kinderhook Plates. Not the Book of Abraham; not the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language; not any other part of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers; just the Kinderhook Plates.

So the title of this thread which says, "Kinderhook + KEP" was just a joke?

And of course, with your inadequate understanding of the overall debate regarding Joseph Smith's translations, you're positive that there is no overlap whatsoever, right?

As far as the Kinderhook Plates are concerned, the GAEL is a pre-existing document. To that extent, its provenance is essentially irrelevant. All that matters is that it was a pre-existing document and Joseph trusted it enough to consult it. Whether it was derived entirely, partly or not at all by some revelatory process is an open question, and we are not about to be bullied into accepting that it was merely to stop you from shouting at us and calling us liars.

I'm sorry your confrontation with the factual evidence makes you feel "bullied" but I can assure you I never tried to "bully" anyone by simply stating the critical argument as it exists, and not as it exists at the board room of your straw man manufacturing facility. Maybe if you weren't so automatically repelled by facts that challenge your presuppositions, you wouldn't feel "bullied" by them. I see you're back to the rhetoric as usual, refusing to offer anything by way of evidence of substantive analysis.

But just to save time, let us pretend, for the purposes of the Kinderhook Plates discussion only, that this question has been settled in your favour. The fact still remains that there is not one shred of evidence that he sought, much less obtained, revelation on the subject of the KP's.

There is plenty of evidence. For starters, the fact that he was a "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" who had a documented history of relying on revelation to translate documents, is pretty solid evidence in and of itself. In fact, apologists have been pounding this meme relentlessly for the past decade: critics don't understand that Joseph Smith never translated anything via academic means, it was always by revelation, which means they had a very different concept of the word "translate." This argument allowed them to imagine some kind of "out" for the trainwreck that is the Book of Abraham. Apologists start thinking and arguing that maybe translation doesn't really mean translation! This is certainly the direction Will Schryver's "game changer" was headed just last year when he repeated the assertion no less than three times, that Joseph Smith did not engage in academic translations. And now suddenly you're forced to do a complete 180, and assert that in this case, for whatsoever reason, the Prophet decided to rely strictly on academic means. This is as strange as saying a linguist relies strictly on divine revelation to translate a document in a language for which he is an expert.

And thus, the standard anti-Mormon exploitation of the Kinderhook hoax has the legs cut out from under it.

How is it an "anti-Mormon exploitation" to let the apologists make their own case regarding Joseph Smith's method and concept of translation? As I stated, much of my reasoning is grounded in the well argued points by David Bokovoy. He is hardly a font for anti-Mormon venom. He argued that there was really no distinction between academic and revelatory translations as Joseph Smith frequently used both and considered them two sides of the same coin. What Don suggests is unprecedented, and the unprecedented nature of an "academic" translation was the best evidence apologists had when they forwarded their mysterious concept of "translation" that constantly dodged being falsified; just as it was designed to.

As I said: not one shred of evidence. All you've provided is your own assumption as to what would, should or could have happened.

I've already provided the evidence, and all you have done is pretend I haven't. Your method here is very much the way you approach teh scribal problem. For you, the scribes could have been behind the entire thing, therefore that is good enough. I mean, it is possible right? You always seem to think that as long as you can establish some technical possibility, then the burden of "proof" is then thrown upon the critics. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You have to back up your assertions with evidence and stop pretending you can just make other evidence disaappear just because it conflicts with whatever apologetic flavor of the moth you happen to be testing.

Oh, and did Joseph actually "accept the challenge?" Well no; he didn't. He interpreted one character and left it at that.

Not that it matters, but all you know is that he never got around to doing more. This is consistent with the way he treated other materials, such as the Egyptian papyri, which took seven years before he decided to finish the translation and publish segments. But there is no reason to believe he should have put the K-Hook translation at the top of his priorities. Unlike the Book of Abraham, K-Hook wasn't authored by a famous biblical character, and no chance of ever carrying the authority of scripture. What you don't seem to understand, is that the critics don't need Joseph Smith to have finished the translation. The fact that he believed they contained an authentic history is the evidence they use to discredit his prophetic claims. Whether you feel this isn't a valid argument is beside the point, since obviously they do. So it is silly to keep insinuating that Don has destroyed the critical argument. If this were true, then you wouldn't have to keep recreating the critical argument to suit your straw man.

Excuse me, Kevin. I don't believe that the evidence Don has presented actually shows that.

Don probably didn't mention this as an implication, but he hasn't denied the possibility. What you haven't explained is why the GAEL was to be used at all, to translate something that was a hoax. Neither you nor Don have addressed the point I made in my initial argument, which is the fact that the GAEL was based in revelation. It is not an "academic" text in any sense of the word. Therefore, one cannot argue that a translation using the GAEL was strictly academic. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith was using the K-Hook to validate his GAEL project.

I believe that the evidence shows that Joseph tried to use the GAEL to help him interpret a character on the KP's.

Yes, and this doesn't contradict what I said.

The notion that he was "trying to use a hoax to validate the GAEL" seems to be an assumption of your own

A well grounded one at that. Again, for the tenth time, why would he use the GAEL to translate K-Hook if he didn't believe the GAEL would yield a valid translation?

furthermore, it seems to be the most hostile assumption possible on the evidence before us.

There is nothing hostile about it. When I say he was trying to use a hoax, I'm not saying he believed it was a hoax. Obviously, Joseph Smith was convinced that K-Hook represented a genuine record of some ancient origin. But K-Hook turned out to be a hoax, much to the chagrin of some Church authors who once thought it vindicated Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

"A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders" (Welby W. Ricks, "The Kinderhook Plates," Improvement Era, Sept. 1962)

"The event would go very far towards confirming the idea that in very ancient times, there was intercourse between the eastern and western hemispheres; and the statement of the prophet would mean that the remains were Egyptian. The fair implication, also, from the prophet's words is that this descendant of the Pharaohs possessed a kingdom in the new world; and this circumstance may account for the evidence of a dash of Egyptian civilization in our American antiquities. The whole account of the finding of the plates, together with the testimony of eight witnesses, besides Mr. Wiley, who were acquainted with the finding of the relics, as also the statement from the prophet's history, is found in the Millennial Star, vol. 21: pp. 40-44." (Improvement Era. Vol. VII. March 1904. No. 5.)

Yes, once again he trusted that people were acting in good faith; as people generally do, when they themselves habitually act in good faith.

Irrelevant. The fact is he claimed to be divinely called as a genuine prophet with numerous gifts and abilities, not least of which is the ability to translate ancient documents and discern the things of God. He failed on both counts here and this is why so many of your "anti-Mormon" ministries believe this incident disproves his claims. Joseph Smith once said, "Be virtuous and pure; be men of integrity and truth; keep the commandments of God; and then you will be able more perfectly to understand the difference between right and wrong - between the things of God and the things of men." Spirituality and teh power of discernment is a constant theme in LDS lit. By his own logic, he was not a spiritual man of integrity. As far as mistakes go, this was a whammer.

1) According to the views of most actual scholars I am aware of, most of the work of translating the Book of Abraham was done in Kirtland. The only bit that went "on the backburner"[sic] was the publication thereof.

This is the argument by LDS apologists, but it is a bald assertion based in necessity, not evidence. We know that virtually everything after Abr 2:18 was translated in 1842, based on Joseph Smith's own statement. This is conveniently ignored by folks like John Gee, who instead twist the statement to say he only made editorial changes to a preexisting translation.

2) Unfulfilled conditions, while they seem to give anti-Mormons carte blanche to speculate about what "might have" happened, are not evidence

But this is the typical apologetic reasoning. "We don't know all the facts" and "that's at least plausible" etc. Do I really need to cite how many times apologists have tried to invoke plausibility mixed with an appeal to ignorance, to establish their argument? All I have said here is you cannot assert, as if it has been established fact, that Joseph Smith had no intention of translating further than one character. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Either way it is irrelevant since his attempt to translate one character is all the "anti-Mormons" need to establish their point.

This is just PR spin, and you know it. The fact is that the standard anti-Mormon argument from the KP's is dead in the water.

That Joseph Smith though a plate later shown to be a hoax, contained an genuinely ancient record? No, I don't think Don ever pretended to address this. Apologists are simply left with their usual backdoor evacuation method, which is to invoke the "prophets aren't perfect" red herring. Everything he claims to do is to be taken as evidence of his prophethood, until he gets stuff wrong, and then even this is twisted by apologists to be understood as evidence of his prophethood, since, after all, prophets are humans too. The fact is you guys were trying tod istance Joseph Smith from any translation at all and you were dragging Clayton under the bus in the process. Now you're forced to accept the "anti-Mormon" contention that Clayton was in fact a credible witness to an actual translation. Your only hope of salvaging any apologetic value from this is to establish that Joseph Smith's translation of K-Hook involved zero revelation whatsoever. So far, no one has been able to do anything more than assert this to be true.

There; fixed it for you.

Now, at least, it is factually accurate.

Based on what evidence? You have none. you don't even have any denials by Joseph Smith or Willard Richards. You have nothing. You don't get to dismiss historical evidence just because the source is biased. That isn't how historians operate. You haven't even begun to address the evidence supporting Caswall's account:

1) How do you explain the fact that this incident was never denied by Willard Richards or Joseph Smith?

2) How do you explain the fact that Joseph Smith's purported response to Caswall matches exactly what we find in the BoA manuscripts of the KEP?

3) How do you explain the fact that Richard's purported response is exactly the thing LDS defenders say whenever their Prophet makes errors?

Again, you address none of this. All you do is offer hand-waving dismissals and anti-Mormon paranoia.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Mola,

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.

What are you implying?

I demonstrated Will's agenda-driven perspective by pointing out that two sybols bearing clsoe resemblance, he describes as "slight" resemblance, while at the same time two symbols bearing a slight resemblance he calls "identical." My point was that Will is driving the evidence to meet his conclusion, not driving his conclusion to conform to the evidence.

Also, Don has certainly made a connection between the symbol in K-Hook and that found in the GAEL. He provides several points of similarity not in how they appear, but in how they translate. That's the difference.

What I find more interesting is Will/Nomad's contention that the similarities between Joseph Smith's translation of K-Hook and that found in the GAEL, were mere coincidence, even though there is no other place in the recorded writings, translations or sayings where all four elements are presented in this way, especially back to back. However, for Schryver, the preexistence of a scripture referring to all three kingdoms of God (Celestial, Terrestial, Telestial) constitutes "compelling evidence" of a connection between this scripture and the data found in the GAEL; a connection he needs in order to establish his cipher theory. Schryver's objection to Bradley has more to do with damaged pride, not a sound analysis or coherent evidence-based rebuttal.

To be clear, I agree with just about everything Don has said thus far. The only exception is his conclusion that revelation could not have had anything to do with the translation he produced. I've laid out my reasons for this, and I haven't seen anyone address them.

[Thinking]

Do I understand this correctly?

Don Bradley claims that Joseph Smith did attempt an initial translation of the KP, but it was not by revelation because he used the GAEL.

However,

Joseph's use of the GAEL verifies his belief that it was a accurate tool for translating the Egyptian language.

The GAEL was developed in connection with the translation of the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham was translated by revelation so anything that was developed in connection with it is therefore also a result of that revelation.

This makes the attempted translation revelatory in nature because JS was using a unique tool (GAEL) which was developed in connection with his revelatory translation of the Book of Abraham.

This raises the question, "Is the GAEL an accurate tool for translating the Egyptian language?"

[DonBradley]

One of the criticisms of Don's hypothesis is that the presumed compared characters don't perfectly match. The character in the KP has additional lines not found in the GAEL character. This criticism is reasonable, and can legitimately give one pause.

Hi Wade,

You helpfully posted (on the other KP discussion on the board) part of the page before this character appears in the GAEL. Had Joseph looked at page 3 prior to page 4, he would have seen the system of character dissection advocated by the GAEL. In that system a given papyrus character was broken down into all its component parts and each of these was treated as an independent character. Under that system, there would be no distinction between the two semicircle-shaped characters, the one on the KP and the one on the GAEL, since the other elements would be removed by dissection. It is only if one rejects the system of character dissection advocated by the source I'm arguing Joseph used, the GAEL, that the compared characters "don't perfectly match." If the GAEL system is accepted, then match is perfect.

Don

[DonBradley]

To be clear, I agree with just about everything Don has said thus far. The only exception is his conclusion that revelation could not have had anything to do with the translation he produced. I've laid out my reasons for this, and I haven't seen anyone address them.

Hi Kevin,

My point regarding revelatory vs. non-revelatory translation is not that "revelation could not have had anything to do with the translation," but only that revelation would have been unnecessary and therefore redundant. So I simply don't see why we would posit it.

Don

[DonBradley]

Nomad,

Thanks for your critique.

See my comments below.

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.

I'll repost my responses to this below and would be interested in your critique of their specifics.

Using the logic he applies to "dissecting" the character from the K-plates in order to match the one in the GAEL, then we could also say that these characters in the English alphabet are all "identical"

English dictionaries don't have a character dissection rule. The GAEL does. Therefore, in appyling the GAEL to a document, one would, in fact, dissect characters. The character dissection rule isn't ad hoc--Joseph would have encountered it the page before the character itself.

The primary shape of the KP character--the semicircle--is identical to the shape of the GAEL character, and the visual equivalence has been clear to everyone else to whom I've showed this.

Is the 5th degree explanation for "ho ee oop hah" the only possible palce one could look for the language found in the Clayton journal entry? Obviously the answer is no.

While it may not be the only possible place, I have yet to be shown any other passage or brief text that contains: 1) kingship; 2) descent from Pharaoh; and 3) the idea and phrasing of the master "of heaven and earth." If you know of such a passage elsewhere, please let me know so I can include it in my published piece.

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.

Ah, cool--thanks for that observation.

Don

[DonBradley]

My previous responses to the argument the "Egyptian alphabet" mentioned by "A Gentile" is a Book of Mormon character transcript rather than the GAEL:

______________

Will:

[*]Among several other tenuous evidentiary elements, the citation from “A Gentile” cannot be reasonably interpreted to say what Bradley wants us to believe it says. Rather, it quite explicitly states that, to the extent any relationship was observed between the Kinderhook Plates and something else, that “something else” was the characters from the “plates” of the Book of Mormon.

That the "Egyptian alphabet" reference could be to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language is more than reasonable. That these were seen as Egyptian "alphabet" materials is stated in the document's internal name. And that the document was either labeled Egyptian Alphabet already at this time or known as such by insiders early after the exodus to Utah (and therefore likely also in Nauvoo) is clear from the spine.

And further evidence makes it more than merely reasonable, but also extremely probable that the "Egyptian alphabet" reference was to the GAEL. First, we know that the Kinderhook plates characters were being compared to the Egyptian characters because Parley Pratt, writing on the same day as "A Gentile" and evidently with reference to the same incident, says that they were. And, second, the content Clayton says Joseph got from the Kinderhook plates--for which no other specific explanation has been offered by anyone--is easily derivable from a single GAEL character. If this doesn't indicate that he had compared the KP characters with those on the GAEL, what exactly would it indicate?

Indeed, I think a valid argument can be made that there is some similarity between the characters observed on the Kinderhook Plates and the so-called "Anthon Transcript." Perhaps the former were fashioned using the latter as a guide?

How? The forgers were non-Mormons living in Kinderhook, and the Anthon transcript characters had not yet been published.

Do we even know that Joseph Smith had a copy of the "Caractors" document at this time, given that the extant copy was then in the hands of Oliver Cowdery or the Whitmers?

If Joseph Smith was, in fact, comparing the characters on the Kinderhook plates with those on the Caractors document, or some other transcript of Book of Mormon characters, then "A Gentile's" statement "he will therefore be able to translate them" would mean what--translate them how? By revelation--just like the Book of Mormon. But the evidence doesn't support this--at all.

_______________

_______________

It just occurred to me that there is more evidence to identify the "Egyptian alphabet" mentioned by "A Gentile" as the GAEL rather than a Book of Mormon character transcript.

Check these out:

Joseph Smith's journal, kept by Willard Richards, entry for May 7, 1843: “visited by several gentlemen concerning the plates which were dug out [of] a mound near Quincy."

Parley P. Pratt letter to John Van Cott, May 7, 1843: “A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city,” and the plates are “filled with engravings in Egyptian language.”

“A Gentile” to the New York Herald, May 7, 1843: Joseph Smith compared the Kinderhook plates characters “in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet…and they are evidently the same characters. He will therefore be able to decipher them.”

What do these documents have in common?

First, they were all written on May 7.

Second, they all refer to non-Mormons visiting Joseph about the Kinderhook plates. Richards refers to "gentlemen," a term he elsewhere employs in Joseph's journal for friendly non-Mormons. Pratt refers to "citizens," which also seems to connote Gentiles rather than fellow saints. And, "A Gentile," well, he just makes it obvious!

So, what happened on this day?

A number of non-Mormons called on Joseph about the Kinderhook plates. He displayed the plates to them, and, according to Pratt, allowed them to compare them with "the characters on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city." Pratt omits any comparison with Book of Mormon characters, which would one think more significant than comparison with the papyrus characters.

And note that Pratt doesn't say they were compared directly to the papyrus but to the characters that are on the papyrus--which characters are also on the GAEL. One of these men, "A Gentile," says Joseph showed him how the Kinderhook plates characters compare to those on his "Egyptian alphabet," a more than plausible reference to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, which was then or not long later labeled on the spine "Egyptian Alphabet." Richards refers to Joseph sending for his "Hebrew Bible and lexicon." But given that Richards is keeping the journal for Joseph and thus hears some of the journalized events by word of mouth, it's not unlikely he could confuse reports of Joseph sending for the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" with Joseph sending for his Hebrew lexicon.

Given that we know via Pratt that the Kinderhook plates were being compared to the Egyptian characters from the papyri, why would we conclude that the "Egyptian alphabet" in question is a document associated with the Book of Mormon, rather than the papyri? And given the obvious relationship of what Joseph reportedly translated from the KP to the GAEL, why would we think he wasn't comparing it with the GAEL? Indeed, how did the GAEL definition get associated with the Kinderhook plates without the GAEL being consulted?

To connect the GAEL with the "Egyptian alphabet" that was compared to the Kinderhook plates and with Joseph Smith's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not only reasonable, it is the logical conclusion.

Don

________________________________________

I'll add that "A Gentile" identifies himself as a friendly non-Mormon resident of Nauvoo. His letter is dated the same day that Joseph is known from other sources to have shown the Kinderhook plates to a number of non-Mormon citizens. And the next sentence after what Dan quotes is, I believe, "He will therefore be able to decipher them."

A non-Mormon could easily be confused over what the GAEL is, associating it with the well known Book of Mormon rather than the relatively obscure Book of Abraham. And the title on the spine of the GAEL is "Egyptian Alphabet," indicating that it was known by the same name "A Gentile" uses for the GAEL.

Coupling that with the easy derivation from the GAEL of the content Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates we have Joseph using the GAEL to interpret the Kinderhook plates character. By reference to this one matching character, we can explain the "translated" content; and "A Gentile" confirms the character matching: he sees Joseph make a match--hence his comment "they are evidently the same characters." And it is based on this match to the "Egyptian alphabet" that he concludes that Joseph will "therefore be able to translate them."

_______________________________________

I responded more fully to the Egyptian alphabet criticism on the other board. But here are some summary points:

It's obvious from Clayton's journal that the GAEL and the KPs were compared.

PPP says the KP characters were compared to those on the papyri--with evident reference to the same occasion on which "A Gentile" saw Joseph Smith compare the KP characters to those on his "Egyptian alphabet."

"Egyptian alphabet" is not the most plausible reference to a Book of Mormon character transcript like the extant one, in which we don't have an alphabetic collection but simply a sample of text. Calling this an "Egyptian alphabet" would be only as plausible as calling the papyri an "Egyptian alphabet." Who does that?

However, "Egyptian alphabet" is a more than plausible reference to the GAEL, which has those words in its internal title, and then or later had them added to the spine, indicating a common name for the document, and does attempt to create a sort of alphabet of characters.

_______________________________________

So, these are my arguments thus far that "A Gentile's" May 7 reference to the "Egyptian alphabet" is to the known Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language and not to an otherwise unknown alphabet of Book of Mormon characters extant in 1843 Nauvoo. I would welcome substantive critique.

Don

Edited August 14, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

One of the criticisms of Don's hypothesis is that the presumed compared characters don't perfectly match. The character in the KP has additional lines not found in the GAEL character. This criticism is reasonable, and can legitimately give one pause.

On the other hand, I don't see the criticism as nullifying. While the two characters aren't exact matches, there are important similarities. Think of it like the non-exact, though reasonable similarities between these two characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

BTW, Wade, interesting analogy.

I was just thinking: the main thing that gives these characters equivalence is that they are part of a larger symbolic system that defines them as equivalent. Under the GAEL system--the one posited as the source of the Kinderhook plates translation--the character for ho-e-oop-hah and the character at the top of the Kinderhook plate are equivalent, since under that system the additional elements, the bisecting line and the internal "theta," would be removed.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: the semicircle in Kinderhook plates character is equivalent to the GAEL character under the very system of character interpretation advocated by the GAEL itself.

Obviously we can't assess whether the GAEL was used without looking at what the GAEL actually says about itself and how it is to be used. And when we do so, we find that if Joseph Smith matched the two characters I've compared, he would have done so in perfect accordance with the rules of the GAEL itself. To argue that the characters are not the same because one has additional elements that under the GAEL system would be separated out is simply to refuse to take the GAEL system on its own terms, substituting one's own method of visual analysis for the GAEL's system.

Don

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

So the title of this thread which says, "Kinderhook + KEP" was just a joke?

Nice try, Kevin.

I shall make one more effort to explain it to you.

The standard anti-Mormon argument from the Kinderhook Plates goes like this:

1. Joseph Smith claimed that the Kinderhook Plates contained specific information relating to the ancient world.
   
2. Joseph Smith's claim implies that he received this information by revelation.
   
3. Since the Kinderhook Plates are a hoax, it follows that Joseph's opinion of their contents was false.
   
4. Ergo, since he claimed to have revealed information that cannot possibly be true, it follows that he was a false prophet.
   

Don's evidence eviscerates this argument because it shows that point 2 is not true, and therefore the conclusion at point 4 is false.

The point is that your attempt to somehow leverage the KP's to discredit Joseph's prophetic claims by mere association, on the argument that he consulted a document that (may or may not have) originated in his prophetic charisms, is as close as I ever expect to see you come to admitting that there is no longer any way to directly impugn his claims thereby.

Because if there was such a way, you wouldn't need to resort to such transparent shell-games to try to find something polemically useful, would you?

Your attempt to salvage something from the wreckage by saying that since the GAEL contains revealed information there is still revelation somehow associated with the KP's looks desperate, in the way that only disappointed malice can.

And of course, with your inadequate understanding of the overall debate regarding Joseph Smith's translations, you're positive that there is no overlap whatsoever, right?

"Inadequate understanding" = Grahamese for "Pahoran disagrees with Kevin." Got it.

I don't have to be "positive" about anything. You forget: the "False prophet" school are the accusers. They have to support their accusation, preferably with some actual evidence.

I'm sorry your confrontation with the factual evidence makes you feel "bullied" but I can assure you I never tried to "bully" anyone by simply stating the critical argument as it exists, and not as it exists at the board room of your straw man manufacturing facility.

No, you try to bully people by shouting at them and calling them liars if they don't merely capitulate to your arrogant assertions.

And if you deny that the anti-Mormon argument exists as I have stated it above, then it is clearly not I who has difficulty with the facts.

Maybe if you weren't so automatically repelled by facts that challenge your presuppositions,

You should try to avoid making such brazenly and consciously counterfactual assertions, Kevin. They do nothing whatsoever for your credibility.

There is plenty of evidence. For starters, the fact that he was a "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" who had a documented history of relying on revelation to translate documents, is pretty solid evidence in and of itself. In fact, apologists have been pounding this meme relentlessly for the past decade: critics don't understand that Joseph Smith never translated anything via academic means, it was always by revelation, which means they had a very different concept of the word "translate." This argument allowed them to imagine some kind of "out" for the trainwreck that is the Book of Abraham. Apologists start thinking and arguing that maybe translation doesn't really mean translation! This is certainly the direction Will Schryver's "game changer" was headed just last year when he repeated the assertion no less than three times, that Joseph Smith did not engage in academic translations. And now suddenly you're forced to do a complete 180, and assert that in this case, for whatsoever reason, the Prophet decided to rely strictly on academic means. This is as strange as saying a linguist relies strictly on divine revelation to translate a document in a language for which he is an expert.

Your conclusions, if I may dignify that rant in such a way, proceed from no evidence. The point you are deftly dodging is that Joseph produced no translation. The most he did, according to Don, was glance at the plates, recognise the shape of one character, consult the GAEL and report what it said.

I agree with those who have argued that, had Joseph proceeded with any serious attempt to translate the KP's, he would have relied upon revelation to do so. But no such attempt was made. Therefore, the fact that Joseph did not make academic translations, while important in other contexts, is irrelevant here.

Snip rant.

Not that it matters, but all you know is that he never got around to doing more. This is consistent with the way he treated other materials, such as the Egyptian papyri, which took seven years before he decided to finish the translation and publish segments. But there is no reason to believe he should have put the K-Hook translation at the top of his priorities. Unlike the Book of Abraham, K-Hook wasn't authored by a famous biblical character, and no chance of ever carrying the authority of scripture. What you don't seem to understand, is that the critics don't need Joseph Smith to have finished the translation. The fact that he believed they contained an authentic history is the evidence they use to discredit his prophetic claims. Whether you feel this isn't a valid argument is beside the point, since obviously they do. So it is silly to keep insinuating that Don has destroyed the critical argument. If this were true, then you wouldn't have to keep recreating the critical argument to suit your straw man.

As you perfectly well know, I have done no such thing.

Don probably didn't mention this as an implication, but he hasn't denied the possibility. What you haven't explained is why the GAEL was to be used at all, to translate something that was a hoax. Neither you nor Don have addressed the point I made in my initial argument, which is the fact that the GAEL was based in revelation. It is not an "academic" text in any sense of the word. Therefore, one cannot argue that a translation using the GAEL was strictly academic. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith was using the K-Hook to validate his GAEL project.

Kevin, you have never demonstrated that you have the slightest notion of what a reasonable assumption regarding Joseph Smith would even look like.

But thank you for admitting that your bald and unqualified assertion, from which you tried to argue as though it had been established, was merely an unsupported assumption of your own.

A well grounded one at that. Again, for the tenth time, why would he use the GAEL to translate K-Hook if he didn't believe the GAEL would yield a valid translation?

Again, for the umpteenth time, according to Don, Joseph didn't "translate K-Hook." He recognised one character, looked it up where he'd seen it last, and reported what he had found.

There is nothing hostile about it. When I say he was trying to use a hoax, I'm not saying he believed it was a hoax. Obviously, Joseph Smith was convinced that K-Hook represented a genuine record of some ancient origin. But K-Hook turned out to be a hoax, much to the chagrin of some Church authors who once thought it vindicated Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

Yes, and you can capon-crow about that just as triumphantly as your boundless malice dictates. Especially if it helps you get over the fact that a popular anti-Mormon myth has been exploded in the process.

Snip more capon-crowing.

Irrelevant. The fact is he claimed to be divinely called as a genuine prophet with numerous gifts and abilities, not least of which is the ability to translate ancient documents and discern the things of God. He failed on both counts here and this is why so many of your "anti-Mormon" ministries believe this incident disproves his claims. Joseph Smith once said, "Be virtuous and pure; be men of integrity and truth; keep the commandments of God; and then you will be able more perfectly to understand the difference between right and wrong - between the things of God and the things of men." Spirituality and teh power of discernment is a constant theme in LDS lit. By his own logic, he was not a spiritual man of integrity.

Kevin, since you clearly know what a non sequitur is, it follows that your deliberate construction and use of one here is as intentional as it is dishonest. Put another way: the highlighted portion is a deliberate, conscious lie, of the kind in which you delight the most: a false accusation.

In case anyone else might be wondering about the non sequitur in view: Kevin quoted Joseph Smith saying something that means, in effect, "If you do A, you will be able to do B more perfectly." Not infallibly, just "more perfectly." Kevin then argues that the fact that Joseph apparently failed to do B infallibly and at first glance means that he did not do A. But that, of course, does not follow at all. And Kevin, of course, knows that perfectly well.

As far as mistakes go, this was a whammer.

Your false accusation certainly was.

This is the argument by LDS apologists, but it is a bald assertion based in necessity, not evidence. We know that virtually everything after Abr 2:18 was translated in 1842, based on Joseph Smith's own statement.

CFR, please; what exactly is "Joseph Smith's own statement" in question?

Since nobody with any sense relies upon your representations of such things.

This is conveniently ignored by folks like John Gee, who instead twist the statement to say he only made editorial changes to a preexisting translation.

I love this! First you drag in the names of other Latter-day Saints whom you hate with a toxic hatred, and then you associate me with them.

Let's see now. Who would I rather be assocated with: people like Nibley, Gee, Tvedtnes, Nibley et al, or Kevin Graham and his herd of fellow-haters?

That Joseph Smith though a plate later shown to be a hoax, contained an genuinely ancient record? No, I don't think Don ever pretended to address this. Apologists are simply left with their usual backdoor evacuation method, which is to invoke the "prophets aren't perfect" red herring. Everything he claims to do is to be taken as evidence of his prophethood, until he gets stuff wrong, and then even this is twisted by apologists to be understood as evidence of his prophethood, since, after all, prophets are humans too. The fact is you guys were trying tod istance Joseph Smith from any translation at all and you were dragging Clayton under the bus in the process. Now you're forced to accept the "anti-Mormon" contention that Clayton was in fact a credible witness to an actual translation. Your only hope of salvaging any apologetic value from this is to establish that Joseph Smith's translation of K-Hook involved zero revelation whatsoever. So far, no one has been able to do anything more than assert this to be true.

That's false, and you know it.

As you perfectly well know, Don has shown that all Joseph had to do to come up with that material was open the GAEL and look at what it said about a charater of similar appearance.

As you perfectly well know, no inspiration or revelation is required for such an activity, which is exactly parallel to what bored schoolkids do every day.

I shall address the Caswall saga in another thread. For the purposes of this one, I shall simply note that you zealously defend him -- after all, his one claim to fame is his false accusations against the Prophet Joseph, so of course you can relate -- and so we can, in that new thread, describe him as your "client."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Xander]

Nice try, Kevin.

I shall make one more effort to explain it to you

You're not in any position to offer explanations because you just complained that I would discuss the KEP in a thread that explicitly refers to the KEP. Now you're trying to squirm your way out of this mess with rhetoric, as usual. But I don't know how you could hope to achieve different results by reproducing the same deficient method of debate. You must be a glutton for punishment. Case in point:

The standard anti-Mormon argument from the Kinderhook Plates goes like this

Joseph Smith claimed that the Kinderhook Plates contained specific information relating to the ancient world.

Joseph Smith's claim implies that he received this information by revelation.

Stop right there and back up your claim with references. This should be rather easy for you to do since, according to you, it is the "standard" argument. Last week you produced five examples of the "anti-Mormon" argument using obscure citations from various Evangelical anti-Mormons. Yet, none of them support your straw man about translation via "revelation." In fact, their overall gripe, based on the citations you provided, was that Joseph Smith's belief that a hoax contained a legitimate record, made him untrustworthy as a translator. Which is what I always said!

So I call a straw man foul on this one. This morning I looked over some of the more popular anti-Mormon sources to see what they concluded on this subject. The Tannners wrote thousands of words in their critique and said nothing about "revelation." Mormon Research Ministry wrote a piece by McKeever that went into detail, and again, said absolutely nothing about translation via revelation. The title of their article was called, "Fooling the Prophet with the Kinderhook Plates." Then there is the piece written by MormonThink, which again says nothing about translation via revelation. The only time it mentions revelation is when it says revelation should have prevented him from being fooled:

Why did it take finding evidence that proved the KP were fake to have the church change their mind on their authenticity? The church only seems to change their beliefs (like the limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, location of Hill Cumorah, American Indians are the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, etc.) when contradictory evidence disproves their recorded history. This seems inconsistent with a church run by modern-day prophets with modern revelation.

The article concludes by summarizing the overall argument: "Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates." Luke Wilson concludes his article with, "The Kinderhook Plates are a known hoax. Joseph Smith identified them as ancient artifacts and claimed to translate a portion of them."

So, it seems the evidence supports me, as usual. The general anti-Mormon complaint is that Joseph Smith was fooled by a trickster. Period. Don did nothing but reinforce this point by knocking a few legs from underneath the standard apologetic response: discrediting the Clayton account. All this riff-raff over the technical details of how a translation was produced, whether by divine or "academic" means, is really something of your own creation and does not pertain to the "standard" anti-Mormon argument. I suspect that Don would have provided numerous examples of this "standard" anti-Mormon criticism, if this is really what he thought he was refuting. So far you've provided nothing to support this claim.

Since the Kinderhook Plates are a hoax, it follows that Joseph's opinion of their contents was false.

Indeed.

Ergo, since he claimed to have revealed information that cannot possibly be true, it follows that he was a false prophet.

Except you haven't been able to produce a single example of this argument, anywhere. But don't let that stop you from calling it the "standard" OK?

They generally complain because he translated it, thinking a hoax was genuine. They don't generally comment on how Joseph Smith purported to translate it because they believe he was just making it all up anyway. You need this to be crucial to the "standard" anti-Mormon argument because that is the only way Don's presentation could be said to have apologetic value. I'm not saying this specific criticism doesn't exist somewhere. I'm only saying it isn't the primary or the "standard" argument as you need it to be, otherwise you'd be able to provide more examples than zero. A failure to provide a single example seriously undermines whatever apologetic value that you have tried to squeeze out of Don's presentation.

The point is that your attempt to somehow leverage the KP's to discredit Joseph's prophetic claims by mere association, on the argument that he consulted a document that (may or may not have) originated in his prophetic charisms, is as close as I ever expect to see you come to admitting that there is no longer any way to directly impugn his claims thereby.

Because if there was such a way, you wouldn't need to resort to such transparent shell-games to try to find something polemically useful, would you?

I am not the one engaged in shell games. Just look at what you've been reduced to in thiis thread. You insist on tearing down straw man arguments while complaining to me because I don't agree with your caricatures of our positions.

Your attempt to salvage something from the wreckage by saying that since the GAEL contains revealed information there is still revelation somehow associated with the KP's looks desperate, in the way that only disappointed malice can.

There is nothing for me to "salvage," as evidenced by the fact that we're not the ones desperately trying to give our argument a complete overhaul. The only "wreckage" I see here is what Don left for Schryver and the latest wave of KEP apologetics. And of course, you're upset because I raise the issue. You want to confine discussion to K-Hook alone, for obvious reasons. It is the only way for you to create this impression that you've scored a point. But the broader consequences of Don's findings are beyond your understanding, and so you absolutely refuse to deal with them. That isn't my fault.

As far as K-Hook goes, it seems perfectly clear to me that the Tanners, the McKeevers and the Wilson's of the anti-Mormon community will need to alter absolutely nothing in thier traditional treatments of this subject. The only thing I can see them doing is editing their existing articles to include Don's devastating evidence that, contrary to years of apologetic denial, Joseph Smith did in fact believe K-Hook contained a legitimate ancient record, and thus, far from being "eviscerated," their primary criticism is strengthened ; because for them, "only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

"Inadequate understanding" = Grahamese for "Pahoran disagrees with Kevin." Got it.

No you don't get it. You do not understand the KEP issues well enough to understand how Don's presentation essentially vindicates a number of critical arguments which the vanguard of BoA apologists have been denying. This is why you want to limit the scope of this discussion to your preferred straw man..

I don't have to be "positive" about anything. You forget: the "False prophet" school are the accusers. They have to support their accusation, preferably with some actual evidence.

Their accusation, as I have demonstrated numerous times now, is that Joseph Smith was fooled. According to their paradigm, this makes him a false prophet. Whether you agree with their premise (that a true prophet would never be tricked in such a way) is irrelevant to the fact that this is precisely what their argument entails. The best evidence they have for this argument is now found in Don's presentation. All the other evidence they used, Don used as well (i.e. Clayton's journal). All you have done so far is beat a straw man while complaining about the fact that you can't "bully" me into accepting an argument I never made. And calling me a liar is typical of those who have no where else to run (i.e. towards evidence supporting their position).

I'll refute the rest of your desperation and educate you with more references later on. The forum was on the fritz during most of my free time so it may have to wait until next weekend.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xander

[robuchan]

I think Don Bradley's argument here that the quotes from William Clayton, the Gentile, etc, are references to Joseph matching up the Kinderhook Plates character to the GAEL character is pretty much a slam dunk. Extreme kudo's to DB for this find.

The part about quickly dismissing the criticism towards Joseph by using the non-relevatory translation excuse has been done quickly and sloppily.

I see at least a few hurdles for this.

1. Joseph adds information that can't be derived strictly from non-relevatory means. The man's bones found were the same man referred to with the GAEL character.

2. The absurdity of matching a generic looking character (boat or half circle) with a super specific meaning (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.) Compounded by the fact that the GAEL logic allows for inexact matches, or a base symbol with added detail. This implies Joseph had a relevatory confirmation.

3. Joseph's confidence in this matter. He's never successfully used the GAEL to translate anything. But he's produced relevatory translations many times. He's very direct, blatant, and confident in this matter. All he's got is a partial match on one character. None of the other characters seem to match. Yet he's really sticking his neck out here. There is no doubt. This is completely irrational if he's truly separating his academic scholar abilities from his prophet abilities.

4. Joseph's history of making random declarations of historical nature which always seems to be attributed to his prophetic role and done so through revelation.

[Xander]

No, you try to bully people by shouting at them and calling them liars if they don't merely capitulate to your arrogant assertions.

Call for references.

Of course we both know you cannot demonstrate where i have done this. And since you have been reduced to name-calling and accusing me of lying in this same thread, the only logical conclusion here is that you're projecting.

And if you deny that the anti-Mormon argument exists as I have stated it above, then it is clearly not I who has difficulty with the facts

"Facts" which you assert without evidence? Yes, I have difficulty with those kinds of "facts," as should anyone else who claims to be interested in reality.

You should try to avoid making such brazenly and consciously counterfactual assertions, Kevin. They do nothing whatsoever for your credibility.

My credibility isn't in danger here, but I suspect you're projecting again. I've adequately demonstrated that you have little to zero interest in the facts that undermine your presuppositions. You want to avoid them at all costs while trying to dictate the confines of the discussion to suit your straw man arguments. You've never demonstrated the capacity to debate your arguments effectively. All you're ever left with is rhetoric and logical fallacies. So when you're accusing me of being bitter, screaming, or accusing others of lying, we both know you're projecting.

Your conclusions, if I may dignify that rant in such a way, proceed from no evidence.

See what I mean? My "rant" detailed the evidence you refuse to address, but you think you can overcome this deficiency in your argument by calling it a rant and reassert that it isn't evidence.

The point you are deftly dodging is that Joseph produced no translation.

Oh really Pahoran, is this why I said to Don three days ago:

I'd also like to point out that we have no official translation. All we have is Clayton's brief description of a translation. For all we know Joseph Smith's translation consisted of more than what Clayton remembered. He could have very well been reading the GAEL and used that as a reminder as to what the details were. After all, he remembered all the four main points. But my point is that we do not know if this is all Joseph Smith provided. We know this is all William Clayton provided, but we do not know that this was the extent of Joseph Smith's translation. As I pointed out a couple days ago, it is unlikely that anyone could just string along words or concepts found in any given GAEL definition. You need historical context and all the connecting verbs, nouns, propositions, etc in order to come up with a coherent translation. Obviously there is no "academic" or "secular" means to do this using Joseph Smith's method. The only thing left is revelation.

Where is the evidence that I have "dodged" this? That was never the point, because technically it simply isn't true, so there is no reason to think I've "dodged" anything. Joseph Smith provided a translation. Whether he actually produced a translation involving pen, paper and scribe, has never been the issue and no one ever said he did. The fact is he believed the K-Hook was genuine and produced a short translation from a portion, that is enough to prove he was fooled and believed the hoax was legit.

The most he did, according to Don, was glance at the plates, recognise the shape of one character, consult the GAEL and report what it said.

No, according to Clayton, whom Don has deemed credible, Joseph Smith provided a short translation. He produced a translation using the revelation-based GAEL, which he considered to be a valid lexicon.

I agree with those who have argued that, had Joseph proceeded with any serious attempt to translate the KP's, he would have relied upon revelation to do so. But no such attempt was made. Therefore, the fact that Joseph did not make academic translations, while important in other contexts, is irrelevant here.

It is entirely relevant because it bears on the veracity of the argument claiming a prophet who had a history of relying strictly on revelation in the past, suddenly decided to pull a 180 and rely on "academic" means alone.

Your argument relies on two weak assumptions that fly in the face of the evidence:

1. That the GAEL was an "academic" lexicon.

2. That the translation was word for word, exactly as Clayton described it.

Apologists dismissed Clayton's account for years, insisting it was hearsay and probably based in rumor. He couldn't tell the story right because it conflicted with other accounts. Now, suddenly, when it is apologetically expedient, Clayton's memory is impeccable. Funny how that works.

You want to dismiss this as irrelevant because you need to. And yet the fact is you still cannot address the fact that the GAEL, which was used to translate K-Hook, doesn't allow one to simply connect dots between characters to string along a coherent translation. As far as I can tell, no one, Don included, has addressed this point.

Snip rant.

Meaning, the usual Pahoran method of weeding out pertinent evidence that he is in no position to address.

As you perfectly well know, I have done no such thing.

Yes you have, as I have demonstrated. You have no properly represented the "standard" anti-Mormon argument. All you did was apply it to your preferred straw man. Nothing more.

But thank you for admitting that your bald and unqualified assertion, from which you tried to argue as though it had been established, was merely an unsupported assumption of your own.

I never once stated that this was "established." I see your propensity for recreating your opponent's argument has taken over, again. What's amazing is that you apparently think your audience is gullible enough to believe this. As if the documentation refuting your claims isn't slapping everyone in the face as you continue to rant to the contrary. Please, show me where i have ever said that it has been "established" that he was using K-Hook to validate the GAEL. All I said was that it was a reasonable assumption to make. I admit it is merely an assumption and you jump on it to say I admit to doing nothing but offer "bald and unqualified assertions."

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Again, for the umpteenth time, according to Don, Joseph didn't "translate K-Hook." He recognised one character, looked it up where he'd seen it last, and reported what he had found.

I haven't seen the presentation, but I am pretty sure he has argued that Joseph Smith did in fact translate K-Hook. It was an "academic" translation, remember? But a translation nonetheless. You want to recreate Don's presentation to suit your own apologetic needs. If you think you're going to be able to help Joseph Smith squirm his way out of his attempt to translate the hoax, then you're more desperate than I imagined. Evidence seems to be nothing but a nuisance to you.

Yes, and you can capon-crow about that just as triumphantly as your boundless malice dictates. Especially if it helps you get over the fact that a popular anti-Mormon myth has been exploded in the process.

Do you have any intention of establishing this "myth" exists, to begin with? You've had a week to do so, but so far all you have done is assert it to be true. I've already knocked out the most popular anti-Mormon sources, and they contradict your claims. So good luck trying to vindicate your straw man.

Snip more capon-crowing.

Meaning, more devestating analysis based in evidence you'd rather not acknowledge.

Kevin, since you clearly know what a non sequitur is, it follows that your deliberate construction and use of one here is as intentional as it is dishonest. Put another way: the highlighted portion is a deliberate, conscious lie, of the kind in which you delight the most: a false accusation.

In case anyone else might be wondering about the non sequitur in view: Kevin quoted Joseph Smith saying something that means, in effect, "If you do A, you will be able to do B more perfectly." Not infallibly, just "more perfectly." Kevin then argues that the fact that Joseph apparently failed to do B infallibly and at first glance means that he did not do A. But that, of course, does not follow at all. And Kevin, of course, knows that perfectly well.

Nice try, but I never said anything about infallibility, as that isn't the issue. The issue is whether he could "more perfectly" discern these things. No, it doesn't mean infallibility, but I doubt it means being swindled by tricksters either.

At the very least he should have been skeptical enough to pray about the situation, especially after the Greek Psalter incident. I mean isn't the prophet a spiritual man who prays daily? The power of discernment among LDS leaders is a common theme in LDS thought. The higher your position in the Church, the better your discernment is supposed to be, based on your spirituality. There is a direct correlation assumed, between one's status in the Church and his/her level of spirituality, which of course corresponds to one's power of discernment. I've been a member of the Church long enough to know this. I saw it at every level of the Church, from Bishop to Mission President. Of course whenever they failed, the cop out was that they are not infallible, but it was also taken for granted that they were lacking in the spiritual dept. They weren't faithful enough, didn't pray enough, didn't obey enough, etc.

Your rant about infallibility is a desperate attempt to get away from the obvious fact that by LDS standards, Joseph Smith was sorely lacking in integrity and spirituality, otherwise he would have had a "more perfect" discernment between the things of man and God. Calling me a liar isn't helping your argument.

CFR, please; what exactly is "Joseph Smith's own statement" in question?

The BOA was published in the TS in two installments:

Times and Seasons, 1 March 1842. Issue #9. Abraham 1:1-2:18.

Times and Seasons, 15 March 1842. Issue #10. Abraham 2:19-5:21.

Joseph Smith dictated the text for issue #10 on March 8-9, 1842. Willard Richards wrote in the Book of the Law of the Lord for March 8, 1842: "Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham, for 10 No of the Times and Seasons" [and for March 9, 1842:] "in the afternoon continued the Translation of the Book of Abraham."

According too John Gee this refers to editorial changes only, because for Gee, the entire Book of Abraham had to have been translated a long time ago.

Since nobody with any sense relies upon your representations of such things.

Is this your way of thanking me for educating you on so many issues? Your CFRs are plenty, and I always back up my claims. What you do in response is usually run away and pretend you never wanted to reference to begin with. I suspect you'll do the same here, because you never want to admit or face up to the fact that a critic knows more than you. That completely disrupts your worldview, where LDS apologists are honest with the data whereas the critics are a bunch of liars. The reason you can't stand me is because I show why the opposite is usually true.

I love this! First you drag in the names of other Latter-day Saints whom you hate with a toxic hatred, and then you associate me with them.

Uh, I merely pointed out how apologists have dealth with this problem. Instead of trying to find a way to deal with it in an effective way, all you want to do is complain because I mention an obvious point of embarrassment for you and your ilk. And for someone who has recently tried to associate me with Martin, Nelson and Decker, you're hardly in an position to complain because I mentioned a relevant point about the only person who has tried to resolve this problem for your side. He did so by misrepresenting the data. This is an indisputable fact. Can you deal with it, or do you just want to keep complaining about the fact that I bring it up?

As you perfectly well know, Don has shown that all Joseph had to do to come up with that material was open the GAEL and look at what it said about a charater of similar appearance.

Don doesn't even have the translation he produced. All he has is a brief description of the translation as given by Clayton. That's it. So no, Don has not shown that this was "all" he did.

As you perfectly well know, no inspiration or revelation is required for such an activity, which is exactly parallel to what bored schoolkids do every day.

Revelation was required to produce the GAEL, which is a thorn in your side since you are continuously dodging the point and are forced to keep reiterating the same run-around apologetic. Bored school kids use legitimate lexicons, not divine inspired books produced by Prophets who have no academic expertise in the language being translated.

I shall address the Caswall saga in another thread.

Hopefully, you'll move beyond the rhetoric, get over your infatuation with the straw man and actually address my points; instead of quoting me as "snip rant" for the purposes of avoiding valid arguments based in evidence.

For the purposes of this one, I shall simply note that you zealously defend him

Nonsense. I never "defended him." I simply judged his account credible based on the evidence. You have tor eject his account because it proves embarrassing to the man you revere. Yes, there is an extreme bias at work here, but it isn't with Caswall. He knew Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed, and he put him to the test. Joseph Smith failed it, miserably. Just because this incident isn't found in the documented sanitized history of the Church, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xander

[grindael]

Don writes,

“A Gentile” to the New York Herald, May 7, 1843:Joseph Smith compared the Kinderhook plates characters “in my presence with hisEgyptian alphabet…and they are evidently the same characters. He will thereforebe able to decipher them.”

But leaves out important information. “A Gentile”said:

“He compared them in my presence with his Egyptianalphabet, which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon wastranslated, and they are evidently THE SAME CHARACTERS. "Hewill therefore be able to decipher them."”

And does anyone have 'A Gentiles' ENTIRE statement? Without any omissions? The above is what I have pieced together from these discussions. I would really like to have a copy and reference to the whole statement. (It's only fair, isn't it)?

He is saying that they are evidently the samecharacters from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Nothing about theGAEL. The only thing that COULD link this to the GAEL is the term, “EgyptianAlphabet”, but that was also used in relation to the ‘caracters’, as Lucy Smithwrites:

“…soon It soon became necessary to take Not somemeasure to accomplish the translation of the record into English but he was instructedto take off a facsimile of the alphabetEgyptian characters <composing the alphabetwhich were called reformed egyptian> Alphabetically and send them to all thelearned men that he could find and ask them for the translation of the … (DanVogel, Early Mormon Documents, Vol.1, page 343.)

I find it hard to believe that one can just droppart of “A Gentile’s” statement, and virtually ignore it. Don applies Pratt’sstatement in favor of his GAEL theory. Pratt said:

“A large number of Citizens have seen them (theKinderhook Plates) and compared the characters with those on theEgyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” (The Ensign, August 1981,p. 73).

Here is what Don SAYS that Pratt & Richards said:

And note that Pratt doesn't say they were compareddirectly to the papyrus but to the characters that are on thepapyrus--which characters are also on the GAEL. One of these men, "AGentile," says Joseph showed him how the Kinderhook plates characterscompare to those on his "Egyptian alphabet," a more than plausiblereference to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language,which was then or not long later labeled on the spine "EgyptianAlphabet." Richards refers to Joseph sending for his "Hebrew Bibleand lexicon." But given that Richards is keeping the journal for Josephand thus hears some of the journalized events by word of mouth, it's notunlikely he could confuse reports of Joseph sending for the "Grammar andAlphabet of the Egyptian Language" with Joseph sending for his Hebrewlexicon.

Don says that Pratt DOESN'T say they were compareddirectly to the papyrus but to the characters that are on the papyrus… (Could not Smith have had a copy of the BOM 'caracters' in his Hebrew Bible?) Of course that is speculation on my part.

But what does Pratt say?

“A large number of Citizens have seen them (theKinderhook Plates) and compared the characters [the KinderhookPlates characters] with those ON the Egyptian papyrus WHICH IS NOW INTHIS CITY.” (The Ensign, August 1981, p. 73).

Did a 'large number of citizens' have direct access to the GAEL? And if one reads this, if the characters here referred to are the GAEL, it would read, A large number of Citizens have seen the KP and compared the characters from the GAEL with those on the Egyptian Papyrus which is now in the city. ... That doesn't make much sense to me.

I don’t see at all, how this says that Pratt saidthe GAEL is referred to here. This is really stretching. It's a very simple statement, that one doesn't need to read into, to get it's meaning. I think EVERYONE was interested in the KP matching SOMETHING, and were investigating possible connections. But Smith says, (by two sources, that it is the BOM characters that the KP are similar to). Also, Richards getting HEBREWBible and lexicon, out of EGYPTIAN Alphabet and Grammar, or Egyptian Grammar?That also, is pure conjecture, for Richards actually wrote what he wrote, and Ireally don’t see it. (This reminds me of the arguments about Clayton's reliability as a witness that have been bandied about for years). So for all this, we have one shaky reference to anEgyptian Alphabet, that could or could not be the GAEL, but just as easilycould be the characters from the BOM, (which ‘A Gentile” actually SAYS theyare) and a character from the GAEL that has to be taken apart to match. But we do have that matching character, and I have some thoughts on that, especially when the KP are divided between text and PICTURES, (notice the top portion is pictures and the bottom is characters, a line drawn between all the plates to separate them) and if you read Mormon sources on them, they talk about them and make comments that they are the sun, Jesus, with rays ... and why would not Smith see the Picture as a BOAT, instead of a dissecting it and matching it to the GAEL? A boat is a very good similarity to the BOM, since they came to the American Continent by boat. When I look at that, I really do see a boat.

As for the Anthon Transcript, How in the world didthey get copies of the ‘caracters’ to print in two publications in 1844, ifthey weren’t in the city? The problem I see here, is that we have TWO accountssaying that the KP characters are similiar, (one actually saying they are 'evidently the SAME characters) to the BOM characters, and that Joseph saidso, and we have none that show he said the same about the GAEL. I don’t knowhow you can be POSITIVE in all this.

I am currently writing up a paper on this, and Ido have more information to support the BOM connection, which I will have donein a few weeks. I think it will add further light to the statement from “AGentile”, the part which says, ‘whichhe took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated,and they are evidently the same characters’.

Respectfully,

grindael

[grindael]

Xander,

I think that 'patterns' of behavior in relation to Joseph are very worth looking into, (I know what Don has said about this - but I respectfully disagree), and I feel the Greek Psalter incident is relevant. As for the Book of Abraham. Xander's comments reminded me of this that I read some time ago, and it may actually bolster Don's argument, (or mine - depending how you look at it) but I thought I would share it.

“Shortlyafter publication of the Book of Mormon in March 1830, Smith's second canonicalproject was to correct errors and omissions in the Bible. His initial effortsprovided the majority of textual "restorations." These changesdemonstrated Smith's belief in a primordial Christianity first revealed by Godto Adam and reflected an effort to legitimize the Book of Mormon and Smith'sown prophetic vocation. But this ambitious undertaking soon dwindled to littlemore than minor corrections.

Smithdeclared that many more ancient records would come to light as part of the"restoration of all things." For example, he promised that OliverCowdery would translate "records that contain much of [the]gospel"--those parts of the "scriptures which have been hiddenbecause of iniquity" (D&C 6:26; cf. 8:1; 9:2). He announced thatWarren Parrish would "see much of [the Lord's] ancient records, and shallknow of hiden things, and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hiden languages." The enthusiasm with which Smith welcomed the arrival of Michael Chandler andhis mummies and papyri in Kirtland, Ohio, the Reverend Caswall with his GreekPsalter in Nauvoo, Illinois, and the Kinderhook plates, also in Nauvoo, reflectSmith's promises and early Mormons' consequent anticipation of more and more ofGod's ancient records coming to light.

But he produced little. Oliver Cowdery wrote in the December 1835Messenger and Advocate that Smith's third translation project, an exposition ofthe contents of Egyptian papyri, which contained the book of ancient Abraham, couldresult in large volumes. But the project was virtually abandoned by 1836, andSmith's vocation changed from restorer of God's ancient records to builder ofGod's kingdom on earth. Thereafter he spent only a day and a half producingancient scripture even though his followers' enthusiasm to receive more ofGod's hidden truths remained high. He decided that it would be too much toproduce another book and opted instead to publish installments of hisinterpretations of ancient papyri. Three installments appeared in Nauvoo in theTimes and Seasons in 1842. Smithpromised to publish more from time to time, but he never did.” (George D. Smith, Faithful History, Chapter 16, Historiography of the Canon, EdwardH. Ashment, Page 282).

I see this as going two ways. Smith wanted to publish more to 'bolster' the BOM AND the BOA. I think he saw the KP as a means to do this. But which one? How about both? He said the KP Characters matched the BOM, but 'translated' information that was contained in the BOA. So did he go to the GAEL, (which was probably 'fresh' in his mind at this time) or did he go to the 'caractors'? (To find a means to support the BOM, which he had also written about extensively in the T&S in 1842? Remember that in 1842 when Smith was editing the Times and Seasons, we see two things emerge, the translation of the BOA AND many articles on Ancient America that seemed to support the BOM.

Respectfully,

grindael

[jmordecai]

As an EV myself, I would like to echo Kevin's statement. EV's don't believe that Smith or any LDS Prophet, Seer, and Revelator possesses such power to begin with. That Smith got Kinderhook wrong is just another in a string (i.e. Mark Hoffman forgeries, Book of Abraham papyri, Anthon script, Greek Psalter, Inspired Version, etc.) that confirms for us that they didn't know what they were doing. That apologists now admit Smith wasn't inspired only confirms what we've already known.

[wenglund]

As an EV myself, I would like to echo Kevin's statement. EV's don't believe that Smith or any LDS Prophet, Seer, and Revelator possesses such power to begin with. That Smith got Kinderhook wrong is just another in a string (i.e. Mark Hoffman forgeries, Book of Abraham papyri, Anthon script, Greek Psalter, Inspired Version, etc.) that confirms for us that they didn't know what they were doing. That apologists now admit Smith wasn't inspired only confirms what we've already known.

We LDS agree that that there are things that the prophets have done which were not inspired. Joseph Smith once ate some bad meat and got violently ill for a time. Clearly, he wasn't inspired in that case. There are countless instances like this in each of the daily lives of the ancient and modern prophets.

What you, as an EV may not know, but Kevin certainly would, is that we LDS don't view our prophets as constantly in a state of divine revelation and having perfect insights into all things. We don't view our prophets as infallible, but prone to making the mistakes of men. Our concern isn't with the presumed mistakes that prophets have made in matters that are inconsequential to the intents and purpose of the restored gospel (like the Kinderhook plates), but regarding those things that will enable us to progress in salvific and exalting faith to become like Christ. In that regard, we have no complaints.

In short, the fact that the disbelievers focus on non-prophetic matters, and use non-godly means, to assess certain men's claims of being prophets of God, while we LDS do the opposite, merely explains, in part, why the difference in belief and unbelief.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

As an EV myself, I would like to echo Kevin's statement. EV's don't believe that Smith or any LDS Prophet, Seer, and Revelator possesses such power to begin with. That Smith got Kinderhook wrong is just another in a string (i.e. Mark Hoffman forgeries, Book of Abraham papyri, Anthon script, Greek Psalter, Inspired Version, etc.) that confirms for us that they didn't know what they were doing. That apologists now admit Smith wasn't inspired only confirms what we've already known.

Isn't it interesting that you would consider lds prophets and other GAs in the lds church perfect. But why would you believe that any human being could be perfect as an EV? In the EV faith should a prophet be perfect and live life in a religious trance?

Now what do mormons have? They have a book called the book of mormon. Perhaps you can tell us your theory about this book and make sure you include the 11 witnesses in the picture, plus Emma Smith, JS's sisters and mother. All would need to be duped into believing the book or in on the fraud.

Is your pastor perfect? And if not, do you believe the apostle Paul to be perfect?

[why me]

Smithdeclared that many more ancient records would come to light as part of the"restoration of all things." For example, he promised that OliverCowdery would translate "records that contain much of [the]gospel"--those parts of the "scriptures which have been hiddenbecause of iniquity" (D&C 6:26; cf. 8:1; 9:2). He announced thatWarren Parrish would "see much of [the Lord's] ancient records, and shallknow of hiden things, and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hiden languages." The enthusiasm with which Smith welcomed the arrival of Michael Chandler andhis mummies and papyri in Kirtland, Ohio, the Reverend Caswall with his GreekPsalter in Nauvoo, Illinois, and the Kinderhook plates, also in Nauvoo, reflectSmith's promises and early Mormons' consequent anticipation of more and more ofGod's ancient records coming to light.

And maybe he was right. However, after the reception of the book of mormon and how that book was received the american people were not ready for more scripture. Nor were they ready for more marvelous works and wonders. Smith did not show undo thrills about the kinderhook plates after the initial reception to my mind. But perhaps I am wrong.

Lets look at it this way: after the persecution that the mormons received because of the book of mormon do you really believe that they would have been more receptive to additional scripture or would this additional scripture would have caused more persecution and harrassment?