Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[Pahoran]

Are you sure? Here is the Clayton quote:

Prest J. 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 Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

"They contain the history of the person with whom they were found" qualifies as additional, God-given information over and above the GAEL definition, does it not?

Is that conclusion available on the evidence? Is it any better than the supposition that Joseph simply assumed that the plates were connected to the skeleton, because they were found with it?

Let me note a couple other things: first, he claims Joseph had "translated" a portion. Taking Clayton at his word, this goes beyond interpreting a single character.

But a character is a portion of the plates, just like a hair or a bit of fingernail is a portion of your body. And Don apparently can show that all the information contained in Clayton's summary is derivable from the explanations on the GAEL for the constituents of that character.

Second, what then follows in Clayton's account is a synopsis of what Joseph says they contain, not necessarily the translation in its entirety.

Funny you should say that. I frequently get roundly abused for simply pointing out that Clayton's report is not a verbatim account and should not be treated as such. Thank you for your support.

So it seems quite possible that the actual translation he had started includes details beyond the synopsis he gave Clayton.

While anything is "possible" the only thing available for any "analytics" is the actual evidence before us. Clayton's report is all there is -- there is no other "translation" anywhere. If Joseph had provided more, then it sure is lucky for him that everything Clayton reported is traceable to that one character, isn't it?

Whatever the translation was, it was more than a word-for-word transcription of what the GAEL said--it had to have entailed some sort of creative expansion to make it coherent. Thus, my belief that this translation entailed making up a story. I interpret the character from the GAEL as fodder in this process more than the begining and ending of what was being attempted.

So what you are telling us is this: you imagine Joseph was making stuff up -- therefore he must have been.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but that's hardly a compelling argument.

Giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that he honestly believed that the plates and the GAEL were both authentic. In that scenario, would he have honestly believed that the GAEL was sufficiently complete to allow him to make a full translation of the plates through a purely secular means? I don’t think so—I think that he knew that at best, the GAEL would give him a few clues, and that he would then need revelation to tie it together and fill in the blanks.

In this scenario, “therefore he will be able to interpret them” would mean something to the effect that Joseph’s bosom burned when he saw the character in both places, and he knew that the project wouldn’t die in a stupor of thought.

And yet the established fact is that the project did die.

Did it "die in a stupor of thought?" That's as good an explanation as any.

So your purely fanciful reconstruction of what Joseph "might have" been thinking ends up demonstrating -- nothing at all. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

Explain why he would need revelation to connect dots. You are, I think, well aware that we humans are a pattern-making species. We perceive or infer patterns even where they don't exist and often make very glib inferences. If Joseph were trying to figure out what was on the plates using the GAEL, why would he not try to make coherent sense of the ideas in the GAEL definition? I'm at a loss to see how this is something that only prophets or frauds do, and not something ordinary people do as well.

Let's take a step back. Joseph found that one character in the plates matched a character in the GAEL. Based upon this, it was determined that he would be able to translate the plates in their entirety. The question is, why would one character in the plates also existing in the GAEL convince him that he could translate the whole thing? It seems that anybody would presume, and people who studied both the GAEL and the plates would have known, that most of the characters on the plates were not in the GAEL. Thus, even with the help of the GAEL, everybody should have known that a full secular translation was impossible. Yet the prophet said he could make a full translation.

Thus, I think that Joseph intended to do what you call a revelatory translation in order to finish the project.

Getting back to what he actually did "translate", as opposed to what he intended to translate, he did in fact use a secular methodology. And I think I better understand your point. Regardless of whether or not he intended to do a revelatory translation, the part that we know he did in fact translate was based on a secular methodology. Thus, there is no false revelatory translation that was recorded.

That's a strong defensive position. But I still think my gambit analogy is correct--in order to get to that defensive position, you had to concede that, in this episode at least, his discernment and secular translation skills leave something to be desired.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Analytics

[why me]

You know, when I first started cruising internet message boards I started with the firm conviction that people are mostly reasonably. That is when confronted with very strong evidence contradictory to a deeply held position would discard old views and accept views more likely to reflect reality. My time in message board madness has quickly disabused me of this notion. Of course I claim no immunity in resisting evidence that challenges deeply held views.

Best,

Uncertain

I think that you are correct in your assessment. However I also think that it is quite understandable that critics may not want to change their position. For many of them, they have left the church do to the kinderhook plates among other issues. I have been on the internet boards for a few years and the subject of the kinderhook plates is a usual occurance usually brought up by a critic to claim that JS was a fraud. And over this issue of the kinderhook plates (among others) they have led spouses out of the lds church.

Because of this they will dig in and play custer before they admit defeat or change their view.

[why me]

Thus, I think that Joseph intended to do what you call a revelatory translation in order to finish the project.

We will take this under consideration what you think he intended to do. But unfortunately, we have no idea what he intended to do. But what we do have is a new understanding of the plates and what JS attempted to do with them and what he did with them once he gave it an amatuer try at translation.

[DonBradley]

Yet the prophet said he could make a full translation.

Okay. Are you inferring that he said that because the newspaper correspondent says "he therefore will be able to translate them"?

Thus, I think that Joseph intended to do what you call a revelatory translation in order to finish the project.

If he did, in fact, intend to translate them all, then I presume he would have anticipated doing so with the help of revelation.

Getting back to what he actually did "translate", as opposed to what he intended to translate, he did in fact use a secular methodology. And I think I better understand your point. Regardless of whether or not he intended to do a revelatory translation, the part that we know he did in fact translate was based on a secular methodology. Thus, there is no false revelatory translation that was recorded.

Yes.

That's a strong defensive position. But I still think my gambit analogy is correct--in order to get to that defensive position, you had to concede that, in this episode at least, his discernment and secular translation skills leave something to be desired.

He didn't show any facility with secular translation here--quite true. I believe he did somewhat with Hebrew, but that's a different matter.

And plainly he didn't show perfect discernment--he didn't quickly know that the Kinderhook plates were a forgery.

I don't think these things reflect strongly on his prophetic claims--and certainly not like a false revelatory translation would, but just taking these observations on their own terms, I don't see much to disagree with you about here.

Don

[why me]

Are you sure? Here is the Clayton quote:

Prest J. 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 Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

It is surprising that the originators of the kinderhook fraud did not take this up and play on it. They could have succeeded in duping JS. But they said nothing. In my humble opinion, this kind of statement would be just what the fraudsters were looking for. But nothing came of it. Why? Now if I were one of the fraudsters I would gotten out my 19 century bullhorn and made quite a noise about it.

Also, I can make a guess about what something is and still be wrong in my guess. And what does that prove? That I was wrong in my guess. Should I expect JS to be always right about everything he says or states? And so what is the point of your sentence?

[Analytics]

Okay. Are you inferring that he said that because the newspaper correspondent says "he therefore will be able to translate them"?

Yes.

If he did, in fact, intend to translate them all, then I presume he would have anticipated doing so with the help of revelation.

I’m starting to understand where you are coming from; thanks for bearing with me. Summarizing my thoughts on the matter:

• I’m uncomfortable with dividing Joseph Smith’s translation efforts into secular and revelatory. His ubiquitous approach to translation was to work it out in his own mind as much as possible, and then revelation would fill in the gaps, after all he can do. Thus, even though his translation of this particular character was, in isolation, secular, I still believe it was a part of the general translation strategy he always took when translating Egyptian and Reformed Egyptian.
  I don’t see any polemical value in this nuance—I’m just stating the way I understand Joseph Smith.
  
• From what I’ve heard so far, I don’t think it’s justified to dismiss Joseph’s story regarding the bones as merely a secular inference. But I’ll reconsider this when the paper you and Mark are writing is finished.
  
• When the Kinderhook Plates issue is taken in isolation, I think this is a net gain for the apologists: Claiming that it was a misguided secular translation is less bad than claiming that William Clayton was making up stories.
  
• The light this shines onto the meaning Joseph Smith ascribed to the GAEL is imporant, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of this.

Thanks for the lively discussion.

[Analytics]

It is surprising that the originators of the kinderhook fraud did not take this up and play on it. They could have succeeded in duping JS. But they said nothing. In my humble opinion, this kind of statement would be just what the fraudsters were looking for. But nothing came of it. Why? Now if I were one of the fraudsters I would gotten out my 19 century bullhorn and made quite a noise about it.

Also, I can make a guess about what something is and still be wrong in my guess. And what does that prove? That I was wrong in my guess. Should I expect JS to be always right about everything he says or states? And so what is the point of your sentence?

Don had said, "Also, if Joseph merely used the GAEL definition to "study out" the meaning of the KP character as part of a process of revelatory translation, then we would expect that translation to have additional, God-given information over and above the GAEL definition, but it doesn't."

The point of my setence was that the translation did in fact have additional "God-given" information over and above the GAEL defintion. I'm referring to the story about the bones, which wasn't in the GAEL and wasn't a valid inference. This is in fact evidence that what Joseph Smith said about the plates wasn't entirely secular.

[Jaybear]

I’m starting to understand where you are coming from; thanks for bearing with me. Summarizing my thoughts on the matter:

...

From what I’ve heard so far, I don’t think it’s justified to dismiss Joseph’s story regarding the bones as merely a secular inference. But I’ll reconsider this when the paper you and Mark are writing is finished.

...

Thanks for the lively discussion.

Are you sure you understand where Don is coming from?

Don didn't "dismiss" the story of the bones as a secular inference. He said the story could be "explained" as a simple surmise.

It finally occurred to me that Don's analysis of this issue is not purely academic, its apologetic. If you begin with the premise that Smith was a prophet, and that a true prophet relying on revelation would not have made an erroneous pronouncement regarding the bones, then the statement about the bones is best "explained" as a simple surmise.

Take away that premise, and the explanation ring hollow because:

1. It ignores the actual language used, which is a clear factual assertion, not a mere possibility;

2. It ignores the context, ie the plates were taken to Smith, because of his prophetic status;

3. No competent scholar, without additional evidence, would present such an academic surmise about the bones as fact;

4. Smith was prone to make such "revelatory" observations(Papyrus written by hand of Abraham; Zelph; Adam's alter);

5. Most if not everyone saw this a revelatory statement, and Smith made no apparent effort to correct them of this misconception.

While Don's makes a significant historical contribution on the subject, the apologetic value of his presentation is completely undermined by Smith's comments about the bones.

[Analytics]

Are you sure you understand where Don is coming from?

Don didn't "dismiss" the story of the bones as a secular inference. He said the story could be "explained" as a simple surmise.

It finally occurred to me that Don's analysis of this issue is not purely academic, its apologetic. If you begin with the premise that Smith was a prophet, and that a true prophet relying on revelation would not have made an erroneous pronouncement regarding the bones, then the statement about the bones is best "explained" as a simple surmise.

Take away that premise, and the explanation ring hollow because:

1. It ignores the actual language used, which is a clear factual assertion, not a mere possibility;

2. It ignores the context, ie the plates were taken to Smith, because of his prophetic status;

3. No competent scholar, without additional evidence, would present such an academic surmise about the bones as fact;

4. Smith was prone to make such "revelatory" observations(Papyrus written by hand of Abraham; Zelph; Adam's alter);

5. Most if not everyone saw this a revelatory statement, and Smith made no apparent effort to correct them of this misconception.

While Don's makes a significant historical contribution on the subject, the apologetic value of his presentation is completely undermined by Smith's comments about the bones.

Good points Jaybear. When I look at the whole thing, I see Joseph engaging with the Kinderhook plates in the same way he engaged with other such artifacts—study it out, take your best guess, and creatively fill in some details. What Don has discovered, and the pronouncement about the bones, are both consistent with this view.

On the other hand, the new (to me) concept that there is a bright line between Joseph acting as a secular translator and as a prophetic translator, and that in this instance he was in the purely secular mode is not consistent with what he said about the bones.

That said, Don has said that his forthcoming paper will address the bones in more detail. I’m looking forward to seeing what he has to say.

edited to add...However, it is incorrect to say that the apologetic value of his presentation is completely undermined by the bones detail. Despite the bones, the apologists are clearly in a better position now on this issue than they were before.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Analytics

[wenglund]

I’m uncomfortable with dividing Joseph Smith’s translation efforts into secular and revelatory.

Are you aware that in November of 1835, months after production of the EA/GAEL had begun and was winding down, Joseph had established several schools in Kirtland, in part to learn ancient languages like Greek, Latin, and Hebrew? Oliver was sent to New York to acquire the necessary learning material, and teachers were hired--most notably Rabbi Seixas. And, Joseph actively participated in the lessons, frequently making notations in his journal such as, "attended class as usual," "spent the afternoon studying," "met with my class at Professor Seixas' room and translated the 17th chapter of Genesis."

Clearly, Joseph's translation efforts during the course work was secular or academic, as opposed to when he had previously translated the Book of Mormon and re-translated portions of the Bible "by the gift and power of God".

Does understanding this make you less uncomfortable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

At the end of the day, after all the dust has settled, what we are left with is an unfortunate(and unsuccessful) attemp by Joseph at translation.

A simple...oops may be the best response to the whole affair.

However, I must confess that it causes a small subtle question to linger in my mind; how much of this creative license did Joseph employ in some of his other works of translation?

Don,

As a silly tangent question..

Was the particular symbol that Joseph matched up with the GAEL, a legitimate Egyptian(or otherwise) character?

Edited August 9, 2011 by Senator

[Analytics]

Are you aware that in November of 1835, months after production of the EA/GAEL had begun and was winding down, Joseph had established several schools in Kirtland, in part to learn ancient languages like Greek, Latin, and Hebrew? Oliver was sent to New York to acquire the necessary learning material, and teachers were hired--most notably Rabbi Seixas. And, Joseph actively participated in the lessons, frequently making notations in his journal such as, "attended class as usual," "spent the afternoon studying," "met with my class at Professor Seixas' room and translated the 17th chapter of Genesis."

Clearly, Joseph's translation efforts during the course work was secular or academic, as opposed to when he had previously translated the Book of Mormon and re-translated portions of the Bible "by the gift and power of God".

Does understanding this make you less uncomfortable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I certainly see the distinction when we're talking about translating existing manuscripts written in well-understood languages. That is the special case when “studying it out” is sufficient to make a verifiably complete and accurate translation.

But I think that even with the help of the GAEL, translating the Kinderhook Plates is more like translating Egyptian Papyri than translating Latin.

[wenglund]

If you begin with the premise that Smith was a prophet, and that a true prophet relying on revelation would not have made an erroneous pronouncement regarding the bones, then the statement about the bones is best "explained" as a simple surmise.

Take away that premise, and the explanation ring hollow because:

1. It ignores the actual language used, which is a clear factual assertion, not a mere possibility.

I can appreciate your surmise, even if you ironically stated it as fact, thereby demonstrating the opposite of your assertion. During informal conversations, opinions are often spoken matter-of-fact, though doing so doesn't make them fact.

2. It ignores the context, ie the plates were taken to Smith, because of his prophetic status;

This ignores the context as well, that the plates were sent to Smith by people who didn't believe he was a prophet, but who thought he might be of some help. These same people also sent the plates to the Antiquarian Society for similar purposes. It also ignores the context that the manner of "translation" strongly departed from past revelatory translations (which were done in private with a believing scribe and spiritual impliments), and was remarkably similar to past academic translations, where non-believers and academic implements were involved.

3. No competent scholar, without additional evidence, would present such an academic surmise about the bones as fact;

Again, I appreciate your emphatic and sweeping surmise ironically stated as though it is fact. Perhaps you are un-aquanted with the common practice among scholars in formulating and stating hypothesis, often matter-of-fact. Perhaps you are also un-aquanted with how scholars, in informal settings and for purposes of verbal economy, will oftenstate opinions matter-of-fact.

4. Smith was prone to make such "revelatory" observations(Papyrus written by hand of Abraham; Zelph; Adam's alter);

He, like the rest of us humans, was even more prone to making academic inductions.

5. Most if not everyone saw this a revelatory statement, and Smith made no apparent effort to correct them of this misconception.

CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 9, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

At the end of the day, after all the dust has settled, what we are left with is an unfortunate(and unsuccessful) attemp by Joseph at translation.

A simple...oops may be the best response to the whole affair.

The whole affair, in terms of its importance within the restored gospel, isn't really worthy of attention. A simple, "who cares?" should suffice.

However, I must confess that it causes a small subtle question to linger in my mind; how much of this creative license did Joseph employ in some of his other works of translation?

Again, a simple "who cares?" should suffice.

Don,

As a silly tangent question..

Was the particular symbol that Joseph matched up with the GAEL, a legitimate Egyptian(or otherwise) character?

As I indicated earlier in the thread, the character was taken from the Amenhotep papyri. And, as I recall from earlier studies (linked to earlier in the thread), the symbol also appears in the Egyptian dictionary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

The whole affair, in terms of its importance within the restored gospel, isn't really worthy of attention. A simple, "who cares?" should suffice.

Your opinion of course.

I do not feel to so apathetically dismiss any endeavor of those that have put there minds and effort to something.

Again, a simple "who cares?" should suffice.

I care, obviously, so your dismissive is insufficient for me.

[William Schryver]

Thanks to Don for having forwarded to me the slides to his presentation. I have reviewed the presentation multiple times now, and therefore make the following observations:

• The evidence supporting Bradley’s connection of the “translation” of the single character from one of the Kinderhook Plates to the Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language is, in my judgment, woefully deficient. (I note that, for one of the few times in recorded history, Dan Vogel and I are tending towards agreement on an issue. (See Dan’s comment about the Bradley presentation here.)
  `
  
• 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. 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?
  `
  
• This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.
  

<sigh>

I’m afraid the only thing that comes to mind as I have observed this spectacle over the past few days are the

:

”So, Lonestar, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.”

Incidentally, I have, with this post, made a rather painful exception to my policy to never again participate on these cursed message boards. Know therefore that I will not pursue this discussion. Any further comment I have on this issue will come, if at all, via some other medium.

[wenglund]

Your opinion of course.

I do not feel to so apathetically dismiss any endeavor of those that have put there minds and effort to something.

Here is the emphatic and dismissive statement from you that I was responding to: "At the end of the day, after all the dust has settled, what we are left with is an unfortunate(and unsuccessful) attempt by Joseph at translation. A simple...oops may be the best response to the whole affair."

Have a nice day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I certainly see the distinction when we're talking about translating existing manuscripts written in well-understood languages. That is the special case when “studying it out” is sufficient to make a verifiably complete and accurate translation.

But I think that even with the help of the GAEL, translating the Kinderhook Plates is more like translating Egyptian Papyri than translating Latin.

How about carefully considering the question of why Joseph requested and utilized the GAEl and/or the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries to perform the "translation", presumably in view of non-believers, rather than sitting in a room alone with his scribe with the "seer stone" and in prayerful, sacred, and ponderful communion with God?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Thanks to Don for having forwarded to me the slides to his presentation. I have reviewed the presentation multiple times now, and therefore make the following observations:

• The evidence supporting Bradley’s connection of the “translation” of the single character from one of the Kinderhook Plates to the Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language is, in my judgment, woefully deficient. (I note that, for one of the few times in recorded history, Dan Vogel and I are tending towards agreement on an issue. (See Dan’s comment about the Bradley presentation here.)
  `
  
• 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. 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?
  `
  
• This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.
  

<sigh>

I’m afraid the only thing that comes to mind as I have observed this spectacle over the past few days are the

:

Incidentally, I have, with this post, made a rather painful exception to my policy to never again participate on these cursed message boards. Know therefore that I will not pursue this discussion. Any further comment I have on this issue will come, if at all, via some other medium.

I appreciate and respect your review. I regret, though, that you won't be around to help this "dumb" believer with his understanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Here is the emphatic and dismissive statement from you that I was responding to: "At the end of the day, after all the dust has settled, what we are left with is an unfortunate(and unsuccessful) attempt by Joseph at translation. A simple...oops may be the best response to the whole affair."

My statement was not dismissive, but a rather charitable responce to our human foibles and to a potentially embarrasing blunder.

Who cares?....now that's dismissive.

[wenglund]

My statement was not dismissive, but a rather charitable responce to our human foibles and to a potentially embarrasing blunder.

Who cares?....now that's dismissive.

It wasn't meant to dismiss, but to charitably put things into perspective.

Evidently, what we each intended to be charitable, was interpreted as dismissive. Such is the nature of imperfect verbal communication.

Life goes on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

Thanks to Don for having forwarded to me the slides to his presentation.

You're welcome?

Will, I received no return message from you after sending the presentation or my subsequent e-mail. I'm surprised and disappointed to have this be the first and only thing I hear back, with no discussion with me first about how you were going to use my sending the presentation as a way of attacking it and no acknowledgment of having received it.

I have reviewed the presentation multiple times now, and therefore make the following observations.

The evidence supporting Bradley’s connection of the “translation” of the single character from one of the Kinderhook Plates to the Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language is, in my judgment, woefully deficient. (I note that, for one of the few times in recorded history, Dan Vogel and I are tending towards agreement on an issue. (See Dan’s comment about the Bradley presentation

Will Schryver:

"The evidence supporting Bradley’s connection of the 'translation' of the single character from one of the Kinderhook Plates to the Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language is, in my judgment, woefully deficient"

Dan Vogel:

"Don’s theories often leave me scratching my head, but this time I think he has me saying hummm, that’s interesting. He’s quite possibly right...."

[*]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.

This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode

It changes them completely: no revelatory translation.

and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.

I do not believe--one bit--that this makes the KEP problem unsolvable any more than the Kinderhook plates problem was unsolvable. I don't even think it changes the balance of evidence on BoA issues much at all. We know, for instance, that Joseph quoted the GAEL as Egyptian his November 1843 letter to James Arlington Bennett, just six months after the Kinderhook plates incident. The letter was penned by Phelps, but Phelps--Joseph's journal shows--met with him three times while working on it so Joseph could tell him what to say, have him revise it, and approve it. So, there's already been evidence for Joseph using the GAEL for something other or in addition to ciphering. To see him also doing so with the Kinderhook plates is not a sea change in the evidence but a small addition to a large and complex body of evidence.

That the KEP may have been produced partly as a cipher is, I think, an open possibility. And I think the GAEL's use of Masonic cipher, which you discussed in your presentation, serves as evidence of that.

I can only think that your reaction to this KP finding is based on a sense that it would require the modification or adjustment of the cipher theory as you presented it. However, several people after my presentation, including Dan Peterson, said they could see how my finding may fit with the cipher theory. If we say the KEP are only and nothing but a cipher, then I think there is a clash. Otherwise, I'm not sure why they necessarily need be.

The implicatons of the new finding aren't what you're saying above. I'll lay out on the board, as I have time, just what the implications are--and aren't.

Don

Edited August 9, 2011 by DonBradley

[Pahoran]

Are you sure you understand where Don is coming from?

Don didn't "dismiss" the story of the bones as a secular inference. He said the story could be "explained" as a simple surmise.

It finally occurred to me that Don's analysis of this issue is not purely academic, its apologetic. If you begin with the premise that Smith was a prophet, and that a true prophet relying on revelation would not have made an erroneous pronouncement regarding the bones, then the statement about the bones is best "explained" as a simple surmise.

Take away that premise, and the explanation ring hollow because:

1. It ignores the actual language used, which is a clear factual assertion, not a mere possibility;

And thus we've been jaybeared again.

As Analytics himself rather surprisingly admitted, Clayton's journal entry is not a verbatim quote of anything Joseph said, but Clayton's own "synopsis" or paraphrase thereof. The "language," therefore, is Clayton's, not Joseph's. This means that no argument can be made and no conclusions can legitimately be drawn from the "language" of Clayton's journal entry.

2. It ignores the context, ie the plates were taken to Smith, because of his prophetic status;

So what? Is there a scripture or canonical doctrine somewhere to the effect that if you take a document to a prophet, his prophetic gifts are automatically engaged, or something?

3. No competent scholar, without additional evidence, would present such an academic surmise about the bones as fact;

How would you know what a competent scholar would do? Have you ever asked one?

The fact is that competent scholars, just like everyone else, frequently express their opinions as unqualified assertions, especially in informal discussions with their friends. They do tend to be more cautious when writing for publication, of course; however, since we don't have Joseph's own language, we don't know how unqualified his assertion really was.

4. Smith was prone to make such "revelatory" observations(Papyrus written by hand of Abraham; Zelph; Adam's alter);

Again: so what?

5. Most if not everyone saw this a revelatory statement, and Smith made no apparent effort to correct them of this misconception.

CFR, please.

While Don's makes a significant historical contribution on the subject, the apologetic value of his presentation is completely undermined by Smith's comments about the bones.

You wish.

The fact is that, as BofA critics regularly love to remind us, documents found interred with corpses usually relate to the people they were buried with. The assumption that the plates belonged to the skeleton was a reasonable one in all the circumstances.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

We know, for instance, that Joseph quoted the GAEL as Egyptian his November 1843 letter to James Arlington Bennett, just six months after the Kinderhook plates incident. The letter was penned by Phelps, but Phelps--Joseph's journal shows--met with him three times while working on it so Joseph could tell him what to say, have him revise it, and approve it. So, there's already been evidence for Joseph using the GAEL for something other or in addition to ciphering. To see him also doing so with the Kinderhook plates is not a sea change in the evidence but a small addition to a large and complex body of evidence.

I had thought to mention this, and was searching for the source material, so I am glad you brought it up.

However, as you probably well know, several scholars, like B.H Roberts, attribute the GAEL entry in the letter to Phelps, suggesting that he had a penchant for embellishing Joseph's correspondences with linguistic flourishes like the one you mentioned--not that I can see that it makes much difference to the question one way or the other.

Whatever the case, it would have been nice to see you and Will publicaly reason this together. I respect both of your opinions greatly, and I could have learned much. I suppose, though, that I will have to wait until you both are published (regrettably, I was unable to attend your FAIR presentation because I am caring for my aged and disabled mother).

And, lest anyone should ask, feel free to inform them that I attribute to you my chance discovery of the GAEL/KP connection several years ago. The credit is all yours. I just happened to let your cat out of my bag.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-