Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[DonBradley]

How do you know that JS did not think it worth any further consideration? Is it because no translation was ever published? If JS had lived a full life, the absence of any translation would be solid evidence. However, the Kinderhook plates were discovered in 1843, just one year before Joesph's murder. As a comparison, the mummies & papyri were purchased in 1835 but the first section of the Book of Abraham wasn't published (in the Times & Seasons) until 1842.

And therein lies the most important distinction: in the other case where Joseph intended to translate a book of scripture from a text he encountered, the text was purchased. If we are to judge by precedent--and this is the precedent we have, then if Joseph intended to translate scripture from the Kinderhook plates, they would have been purchased.

They were not.

Thus comparing the two cases suggests Joseph Smith intended no such thing.

Don

[Xander]

Hi Kevin,

I'm saying I think Caswall's account probably has something to it, in the sense that I think Joseph must have commented on the similarity of the psalter to his own Egyptian alphabet documents. I also think, however, that Caswall is probably distorting the content of what Joseph said just like he distorts his grammar--and for the same reason: to discredit him.

BTW, since Joseph's "crack" at the Kinderhook plates, as reported by Clayton, isn't revelatory but (as you'll see) derived from the KEP, I'm not clear on what the Caswall incident is supposed to show.

I think you're right to want to see the data before taking the discussion too far. They should be putting up both a video and a transcript.

Don

I'll wait to see it before commenting further then. I'll just say that wanting to discredit Joseph Smith doesn't preclude Joseph Smith from actually discrediting himself.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[DonBradley]

The question has emerged of how what I've presented relates to Will's presentation from last year.

I believe this depends on just what Will is understood to have presented last year. Clearly Will argued that the Egyptian alphabet materials were an attempt to create a cipher. Did Will argue that the Egyptian alphabet materials were solely and entirely intended as a cipher--i.e., that they were not also a speculative reconstruction of ancient pure language, or anything else? If he did, then I think it would be difficult to square his idea with Joseph using the GAEL to interpret a character from the Kinderhook plates. But if he did not, then his hypothesis might allow the GAEL to have other functions in addition to that of cipher, and thus at least might be consistent with my arguments.

I see the GAEL as having elements of cipher. How heavy those are, and how completely it was intended to serve as a cipher itself is, for me, an open question, as is the issue of what other functions the GAEL was intended to fill.

At this point, I think it would be wrong-headed to assume the GAEL had only a single function or purpose, and I'm not sure what grounds anyone would have (at least yet) for arguing that it had only one function.

So, if Will intended to argue that the GAEL was nothing but a cipher, then, yes, I think my presentation would clash with his, but I'm not convinced he did argue this. And even if he did, I fail to see why his hypothesis would have to be ossified in the form in which it was presented then, rather than being capable of growing and adjusting to new information. If the cipher theory is ever to be simply ruled out, and perhaps it will--I can't predict either way, it will not be because Joseph Smith applied the GAEL to the Kinderhook plates.

Don

[Thinking]

And therein lies the most important distinction: in the other case where Joseph intended to translate a book of scripture from a text he encountered, the text was purchased. If we are to judge by precedent--and this is the precedent we have, then if Joseph intended to translate scripture from the Kinderhook plates, they would have been purchased.

They were not.

Sorry, but I must question your logic. It was necessary to purchase the mummies and the papyri, but the characters from the Kinderhook plates were copied without purchase.

[Xander]

Sorry, but I must question your logic. It was necessary to purchase the mummies and the papyri, but the characters from the Kinderhook plates were copied without purchase.

Good point.

[Xander]

The question has emerged of how what I've presented relates to Will's presentation from last year.

I believe this depends on just what Will is understood to have presented last year. Clearly Will argued that the Egyptian alphabet materials were an attempt to create a cipher. Did Will argue that the Egyptian alphabet materials were solely and entirely intended as a cipher--i.e., that they were not also a speculative reconstruction of ancient pure language, or anything else? If he did, then I think it would be difficult to square his idea with Joseph using the GAEL to interpret a character from the Kinderhook plates. But if he did not, then his hypothesis might allow the GAEL to have other functions in addition to that of cipher, and thus at least might be consistent with my arguments.

I see the GAEL as having elements of cipher. How heavy those are, and how completely it was intended to serve as a cipher itself is, for me, an open question, as is the issue of what other functions the GAEL was intended to fill.

At this point, I think it would be wrong-headed to assume the GAEL had only a single function or purpose, and I'm not sure what grounds anyone would have (at least yet) for arguing that it had only one function.

So, if Will intended to argue that the GAEL was nothing but a cipher, then, yes, I think my presentation would clash with his, but I'm not convinced he did argue this. And even if he did, I fail to see why his hypothesis would have to be ossified in the form in which it was presented then, rather than being capable of growing and adjusting to new information. If the cipher theory is ever to be simply ruled out, and perhaps it will--I can't predict either way, it will not be because Joseph Smith applied the GAEL to the Kinderhook plates.

Don

Don, why is it wrong headed to think a Lexicon used to translate characters believed to be of ancient origin, couldn't also be a book used to encipher revelations? These are some pretty convoluted concepts if you think about it, especially with no present evidence to support it. I think the simplest explanation works best. The GAEL is precisely what Joseph Smith claimed it was and there is no need to reinvent it without evidence. Your presentation fits it perfectly, Will's does not. According to Will, these were not attempts to decipher (translate) languages, but only to encipher data. He emphasized this. He said these people involved with the project picked characters at random from different sources and applied meanings to them as they saw fit.

Now how does it even begin to make sense to think they could take these same symbols with preassigned meanings based on encoded revelation, and use them to decipher what was believed to be an ancient language such as that written on the K-hook plate?

I know you have a big heart and don't like to feel like you're kicking someone when they're down, but at this point this appears to be the necessary consequence of your findings. Given the data you present, there simply is no room for Schryver's cipher theory to breathe, and this is also for other reasons outlined in the other thread I just started discussing the numerous problems.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[Deborah]

Proves my point. My words were speaks for Mormonism, not the Church.

I wouldn't say they even speak for Mormonism so much as against the critics. All an apologist tries to do is counter the negative arguments of those against the church by presenting reasoned arguments that support a different way to interpret the information.

[DonBradley]

Sorry, but I must question your logic. It was necessary to purchase the mummies and the papyri, but the characters from the Kinderhook plates were copied without purchase.

While there were quite a few more papyrus characters than plates characters, it's not clear that the former could not have been copied, or that not enough could have been copied to make it worth sparing the couple thousand dollars required to purchase them.

But I must question your logic. You think Joseph Smith would have been indifferent about whether or not he posssessed the actual plates on which he was to base a translated work of scripture? Such plates would be sacred by definition and would serve as a constant visual reminder and witness of his prophetic claims, showing that records written on metal plates did exist and allowing him to display his abilities as a translator quite dramatically, by showing both the plates and the book he translated from them.

Don

[Nomad]

I am beginning to think it is some kind of a conspiracy to misrepresent Schryver, in order to make it easier to dismiss what he had to say. Why is that? Why not deal with the arguments he DID make?

The question has emerged of how what I've presented relates to Will's presentation from last year.

I believe this depends on just what Will is understood to have presented last year. Clearly Will argued that the Egyptian alphabet materials were an attempt to create a cipher. Did Will argue that the Egyptian alphabet materials were solely and entirely intended as a cipher--i.e., that they were not also a speculative reconstruction of ancient pure language, or anything else? If he did, then I think it would be difficult to square his idea with Joseph using the GAEL to interpret a character from the Kinderhook plates. But if he did not, then his hypothesis might allow the GAEL to have other functions in addition to that of cipher, and thus at least might be consistent with my arguments.

I see the GAEL as having elements of cipher. How heavy those are, and how completely it was intended to serve as a cipher itself is, for me, an open question, as is the issue of what other functions the GAEL was intended to fill.

At this point, I think it would be wrong-headed to assume the GAEL had only a single function or purpose, and I'm not sure what grounds anyone would have (at least yet) for arguing that it had only one function.

So, if Will intended to argue that the GAEL was nothing but a cipher, then, yes, I think my presentation would clash with his, but I'm not convinced he did argue this. And even if he did, I fail to see why his hypothesis would have to be ossified in the form in which it was presented then, rather than being capable of growing and adjusting to new information. If the cipher theory is ever to be simply ruled out, and perhaps it will--I can't predict either way, it will not be because Joseph Smith applied the GAEL to the Kinderhook plates.

Don

[Xander]

I am beginning to think it is some kind of a conspiracy to misrepresent Schryver, in order to make it easier to dismiss what he had to say. Why is that? Why not deal with the arguments he DID make?

Sure Nomad, poor Will is the victim of unwarranted persecution as always. If you have nothing but bald assertion, you're not going to get very far here. You've had multiple opportunities to demonstrate where any of us have "misrepresented" Will, and so far all you have done is reiterate the same accusation. Get with the program and start backing up your claims. Your problem is Will's presentation is available online in both video and text format.

[Xander]

While there were quite a few more papyrus characters than plates characters, it's not clear that the former could not have been copied, or that not enough could have been copied to make it worth sparing the couple thousand dollars required to purchase them.

But I must question your logic. You think Joseph Smith would have been indifferent about whether or not he posssessed the actual plates on which he was to base a translated work of scripture? Such plates would be sacred by definition and would serve as a constant visual reminder and witness of his prophetic claims, showing that records written on metal plates did exist and allowing him to display his abilities as a translator quite dramatically, by showing both the plates and the book he translated from them.

Don

Don, are you saying Joseph Smith believed the Kinderhook Plates represented scripture? I'm not following.

Chandler wasn't about to let anyone make copies of the papyri because that would have defeated his purpose for being there, which was to sell them. He knew that right after Joseph Smith said those were written by Joseph and Abraham, that he had a selling point, and he refused to give up the papyri without selling the entire package, including four mummies. What exactly are you trying to argue here anyway. That Joseph Smith tried to translate the Kinderhook Plates, but at the same time they meant nothing of importance?

Regarding the Greek Psalter, I meant to mention another reason to consider Caswall's account credible. The story of this incident was published in a few places and so everyone was very familiar with it, and yet no one, including Willard Richards and Joseph Smith, denied that the event took place, nor did they challenge Caswall's version. A review by FARMS conceded that the incident took place, but argued that Richards was correct by saying Joseph Smith was imperfect.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[DonBradley]

Don, are you saying Joseph Smith believed the Kinderhook Plates represented scripture? I'm not following.

Chandler wasn't about to let anyone make copies of the papyri because that would have defeated his purpose for being there, which was to sell them. He knew that right after Joseph Smith said those were written by Joseph and Abraham, that he had a selling point, and he refused to give up the papyri without selling the entire package, including four mummies. What exactly are you trying to argue here anyway. That Joseph Smith tried to translate the Kinderhook Plates, but at the same time they meant nothing of importance?

I've been clear, Kevin: Joseph Smith made a foray into translating the plates but did not subsequently act as though they were anything of importance.

If Joseph intended to produce a whole book from the Kinderhook plates, it would have by far made the most sense and been most useful to have retained those plates, as a tangible witness to his ability as translator. In fact, even if Joseph ultimately felt they were genuine, it would have made the most sense to keep them, since they would have demonstrated a central contention of Latter-day Saint faith: that such ancient records buried on metal plates existed. Think of how much apologetic ink has been spilt to document that since, and how the Kinderhook plates were long used as part of such apologia.

Don

[Chris Smith]

In either case, Chris, do you think what happened in the Caswall incident is certain enough to use as a basis for understanding Joseph's known behavior of not purchasing the Kinderhook plates when offered to him for sale?

According to Caswall, Joseph did offer to buy the Greek Psalter (or at least to accept it as a gift), and Caswall refused. So if anything, this actually hurts Kevin's case. But no, I don't think we have enough information to determine the accuracy of what Caswall says on this point. Nor do I think we will ever really know why Joseph didn't buy the Kinderhook Plates.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Chris Smith

[DonBradley]

I am beginning to think it is some kind of a conspiracy to misrepresent Schryver, in order to make it easier to dismiss what he had to say. Why is that? Why not deal with the arguments he DID make?

I think it would be best to elaborate on how Will is being misrepresented. I've taken pains to not pin Will down to a particular interpretation, so his views could speak for themselves.

Also, you asked, why not deal with the arguments he did make? I think those arguments should be dealt with. But I'm unclear on why they should be dealt with in a thread on the Kinderhook plates, since so far as I'm aware, he didn't touch on those in his presentation.

About all I've said about Will's presentation on this Kinderhook plates thread is that I think Will's thesis is consistent with what I've found, unless it is interpreted as saying the GAEL could not have been used as anything but a cipher--which, as I've stated, is not what I believe he said.

Please clarify what he said, since you clearly know it better than I.

Don

[DonBradley]

According to Caswall, Joseph did offer to buy the Greek Psalter, and Caswall refused. So if anything, this actually hurts Kevin's case.

Lol--ah, I guess I need to reread my Caswall!

Don

[Xander]

I've been clear, Kevin: Joseph Smith made a foray into translating the plates but did not subsequently act as though they were anything of importance.

If Joseph intended to produce a whole book from the Kinderhook plates, it would have by far made the most sense and been most useful to have retained those plates, as a tangible witness to his ability as translator. In fact, even if Joseph ultimately felt they were genuine, it would have made the most sense to keep them, since they would have demonstrated a central contention of Latter-day Saint faith: that such ancient records buried on metal plates existed. Think of how much apologetic ink has been spilt to document that since, and how the Kinderhook plates were long used as part of such apologia.

Don

What threw me off was your comment about scripture. OK, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. The Kinderhook plates were extremely tiny, hardly comparable to the Gold Plates. It could also be that Joseph Smith was initially interested during the time he made a translation, but became reluctant to get too deeply involved, especially after being sandbagged by Caswall and his Greek Psalter the year before. I can't help but think he had more important matters on his plate at the time, so these arguments of "if X were true, then he would have done Y" to be fairly weak. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. I'm just curious to know how one derives this translation via academic means. Even with the basic words found in the GAEL, it would seem to me that revelation was the glue that brought it all together into a coherent narrative.

[Chris Smith]

It could also be that Joseph 1) already had the BoA project ongoing, and 2) was more interested in kingdom-building than translating at this point in his career.

But without some actual evidence as to his motives, I don't think we can say one way or another.

[Chris Smith]

I believe this depends on just what Will is understood to have presented last year. Clearly Will argued that the Egyptian alphabet materials were an attempt to create a cipher. Did Will argue that the Egyptian alphabet materials were solely and entirely intended as a cipher--i.e., that they were not also a speculative reconstruction of ancient pure language, or anything else? If he did, then I think it would be difficult to square his idea with Joseph using the GAEL to interpret a character from the Kinderhook plates. But if he did not, then his hypothesis might allow the GAEL to have other functions in addition to that of cipher, and thus at least might be consistent with my arguments.

Here's a selection from the text of Will's paper:

In the mind of Phelps and the others, Egyptian was apparently believed to have somehow avoided the confounding of the languages at the Tower of Babel. “Egyptian” therefore became a term that, for them, was synonymous with “pure language.”

Thus, they see no contradiction entitling as “Egyptian Counting” a document that contains not a single element that is Egyptian; nor do they perceive any contradiction entitling the other documents “Egyptian Alphabet” and “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language,” notwithstanding the fact that most of the characters they “translate” are not Egyptian, nor are the source texts.

Again,

the evidence strongly suggests that the Alphabet and Grammar was never intended nor designed to “decipher” anything

! Quite to the contrary, it was a short-lived attempt to construct an ideographic cipher and lexicon whereby those who produced it took selections of Joseph Smith’s body of revelatory texts, written in English, and assigned to them simple character values. In their minds, the capacity of a single character to represent a word, or a sentence, or even an entire paragraph of over a hundred words, was typical of what they believed to have been the “pure language” of the ancients.

Don’t misunderstand,

I have encountered no evidence to date that they believed they were actually restoring the language of Adam

, although it is possible they believed that some of the characters they produced had come to them through inspiration.

No, it appears they were merely producing their own rendition of what they believed “pure language” would be like

.

In other words, William argued the following:

1) Joseph and the scribes did not think they had produced an alphabet and grammar of actual ancient Egyptian. Rather, they were self-consciously constructing an entirely new language or code that operated on what they perceived to be the same general principles as ancient Egyptian.

2) The EAG materials were never intended to be used for decipherment of ancient Egyptian texts. Rather, they were exclusively designed as tools for encipherment of existing English texts.

It's clear to me that your finding invalidates these claims. I think your generosity to the person who presented them is admirable, but your refusal to repudiate the theory itself IMO just muddies the waters. If some part of Will's theory can be salvaged then I'm all for doing so, but I think we should be clear about which aspects we're salvaging and which we're repudiating. (Personally, I see don't see much at all here that's salvageable. Much more useful is Sam Brown's Church History piece on the quest for the pure language. But I'm open to suggestions.)

Peace,

-Chris

Edited August 7, 2011 by Chris Smith

[grindael]

Why did Smith say he wouldn’t “translate” the plates until the were sent out to be verified? Who knows? But Smith could have told Fugate one thing, and then go and do something else in private. He did this with polygamy.

Why didn't Smith buy them? Who says he didn't try? Who said Fugate wanted to sell them right away? Fact is, there is no evidence either way. But there are some good reasons why Fugate wouldn't have sold them to Smith right away that I can think of. If he sold Smith the originals, and then came out with his humbug, what would stop Smith from conveniently losing them, so they could not be tested and proven fakes? Fugate could also have been holding on to them because he didn't get the right 'offer'. Then as time went by, and Smith got diverted (as he obviously did with the Book of Joseph) and then murdered, it became a non-issue. Didn't Fugate say that he didn't want them to go to Smith right away, but that someone else ‘borrowed’ them and took them to him? Obviously, he had other plans on how to handle the hoax, that we aren't aware of.

As has been pointed out, Smith really didn't need the actual plates to do a translation, they had copies. If Fugate wanted Smith to buy them, why would he let him copy them? Wouldn't it have made his bargaining position stronger to not let them be copied?

And Smith not moving on them ‘right away’. How does this tell us anything? And the Joseph Scroll that he got from Chandler? Why did he not jump on that right away? What was he waiting for there? I don’t think it’s a good argument to say that just because Smith did not get to translating right away, that he had dismissed the plates.

And Charlotte Haven’s statement says that when Smith saw the plates he said that with the help of ‘revelation’, he would be able to translate them. Of course this is second hand, but it is an actual reported statement from the time. Shouldn't this be considered as much as the GAEL theory?

Try as I can, I can’t see how the GAEL evidence is overwhelming, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Smith used the Egyptian Alphabet in the manner stated. I see it as speculation, because there is no way to really know. (unless there is some new evidence I’m not aware of). But Smith’s record for translating ancient documents (that he claimed were scripture) was always with divine help, wasn't it? If one wants to say he ‘studied' reformed egyptian 'out in his mind’ one comes away in confusion. How would one look at an ancient language one had never seen before, and ‘study’ it, to get God to write the words on a stone? What does that have to do with the translation process? Really? I would much rather that one would rely on faith that God would reveal the translation, than to ‘study out’ what would be gibberish and try and translate it in your mind, before getting the translation ‘word for word’ on the stone. What sense does that make? Did God make Smith try and learn reformed Egyptian as he went along, so he could study it out and try his hand and then God yea’d or nea’d it? Then God gave him the words on the stone? What were the 'spectacles' for anyway? Consider this, by Orson Pratt:

“ I had been present many times when the Prophet was revising the [N]ew Testament, and wondered why he did not use the urim and thummim, as in translating the Book of Mormon. While this thought passed through my mind, Joseph, as if he had read my thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the urim and thummim when he was INEXPERIENCED in the Spirit of inspiration. But how that he had ADVANCED so far as to understand the operations of that Spirit, HE DID NOT NEED the assistant of that instrument.” (“Two Days’ Meeting at Brigham City, June 27 and 28, 1874,” Millennial Star 36 [11 August 1874]: 498-499).

Why then, would he need the GAEL? And if the GAEL is a cipher document, or something else, what does it matter? Smith had to have gotten it by ‘revelation’, for that is the only way that the BOA works. It sure isn't a direct translation of the Sen-sen Documents. So if the GAEL was produced by a ‘revelation’ process, wouldn't it have taken ‘revelation’ to verify Smith’s short translation of the KP? (like with the JST)? I mean, Clayton’s journal does not say, President J. thinks he has translated a portion of the plates, or President J. has tried to translate a portion, it says he did translate a portion, and it is affirmed that it was a ‘descendant of Ham’. No hesitation that I can see. And what adds credibility to all that, is the reception of the plates by the authorities of the Church, and the almost stubborn refusal for over a hundred years for many to believe they were fakes.

And what about the Moroni map attributed to Smith? It mentions Kinderhook on it, as a place where Moroni stopped in his travels. Why would that be?

I find the GAEL connection interesting, but it’s nothing new. Wade Englund mentioned it on a discussion board back in 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

"Pres[iden]t J[oseph]. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund- http://www.mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9846&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=42#wrapheader

And Clayton says Smith translated a ‘portion’. Was that just one character? Was it more? How is anyone to really know for sure? The GAEL does give us an idea about it, but was that W.W.Phelps & Smith’s other scribes ‘studying it out’ as many have said, & how does that fit in?

[Thinking]

While there were quite a few more papyrus characters than plates characters, it's not clear that the former could not have been copied, or that not enough could have been copied to make it worth sparing the couple thousand dollars required to purchase them.

Then how is it clear that the act of purchasing is significant?

But I must question your logic. You think Joseph Smith would have been indifferent about whether or not he posssessed the actual plates on which he was to base a translated work of scripture?

I don't know. Perhaps he was indifferent. Perhaps he wasn't. I don't think I opined about that.

Such plates would be sacred by definition and would serve as a constant visual reminder and witness of his prophetic claims, showing that records written on metal plates did exist and allowing him to display his abilities as a translator quite dramatically, by showing both the plates and the book he translated from them.

Would not the actual gold plates be the perfect witness of his abilities as a translator?

[DonBradley]

It could also be that Joseph 1) already had the BoA project ongoing, and 2) was more interested in kingdom-building than translating at this point in his career.

Aren't 1 and 2 somewhat mutually refuting?

But without some actual evidence as to his motives, I don't think we can say one way or another.

Hey Chris,

I thought behavior was evidence of motives, and that we as historians (and simply humans) were in the business of inferring motives from behavior.

If Joseph had bought the plates, would we guess he just wanted it for his collection of fakes? No. We would infer something from that behavior. If Joseph ultimately concluded the Kinderhook plates were genuine, he had excellent reason to want to obtain them--he had built a religion premised on ancient records on metallic plates and on his own ability to translate them, and this find, if genuine, was evidence for the first and potential evidence for the second.

If he intended to translate a book from them, then he had inordinate reason to want to obtain them.

But he didn't. This is not simply irrelevant to understanding his ultimate conclusions on the Kinderhook plates; it is our best clue as to what those conclusions were.

Don

[DonBradley]

Grindael,

You ask a series of questions based on shaky premises.

We don't know that Joseph said he wouldn't translate the plates until they were verified, and, in fact, we know that he did in some sense translate from them without them being verified.

Fugate didn't take the plates to Nauvoo, and I'm not aware of any conversation he had with Joseph Smith (though I'm open to correction on this).

I don't know of anything to verify the supposed Moroni map. Has any historical analysis whatsoever been done on this? And why, if it was made by Joseph Smith, does it show Utah?

Don

[grindael]

This is the link to Wade Englund's post http://www.mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9846&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=42#wrapheader I don't know why it didn't post correctly the first time.

[grindael]

Well it did not work that time either...

[grindael]

Board index » Mormon Discussions » The Terrestrial Forum

All times are UTC - 7 hours

<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">

The Kinderhook Plates: Another Testimony of Smith's Deceptio

I guess if one wants to read this, they can do a google search