Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[DonBradley]

Oh, thanks Wade!

Phelps did write the letter. But the journal shows, as mentioned, that the letter was Joseph's idea and that he met with Phelps to tell him what to say, that Phelps drafted a letter and then took it to Joseph, who made revisions and expressed himself as very pleased with it, and that Joseph then gave it final approval. While this is a less direct use of the GAEL than if Joseph had composed the letter all on his own, it does show Joseph willing to make use of the GAEL for something other than ciphering.

So, the new Kinderhook plates find, whatever Kevin and Will--in ironic agreement--want to say, does not introduce a sea change in the evidence, but only one more twist.

Don

[Mortal Man]

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:

Welcome back William! We missed you!

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.

Here we see Don arriving at the FAIR conference in his new set of wheels.

Here we see Don pretty much killing, burying and nailing the coffin shut on the idea that the KEP are some sort of cipher.

Here we see Don throwing the coffin into Mount Doom.

And finally, here we see Don's method for dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates.

[why me]

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.

You seem to be bitter about something. If so, I hope that whatever bitterness you may have will leave your soul and you will again discover peace in your soul.

[Mortal Man]

You seem to be bitter about something. If so, I hope that whatever bitterness you may have will leave your soul and you will again discover peace in your soul.

Well Dan has essentially apologized. Now if Paul Hoskisson will make good on his promise to Will and quit holding up the JotBoMaORS we could finally rectify this miscarriage of justice.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well Dan has essentially apologized. Now if Paul Hoskisson will make good on his promise to Will and quit holding up the JotBoMaORS we could finally rectify this miscarriage of justice.

What? You are speaking in code.

[why me]

Well Dan has essentially apologized. Now if Paul Hoskisson will make good on his promise to Will and quit holding up the JotBoMaORS we could finally rectify this miscarriage of justice.

In academia, one can always find hard feelings about research and research findings. Discussion or debate can create bad feelings. It is all a part of the game actually. But in this case, people should take it for what it is and not take it personal.

Sometimes the kitchen gets hot but that is just the way it is. Anytime that one gives a presentation one can get challenged in the academic world. I just look upon it as a learning opportunity. My premise: everything can be questioned and considered carefully when dealing with evidence, facts, opinions etc.

[DonBradley]

What? You are speaking in code.

Cipher!

[DonBradley]

BTW, Mola, I wasn't calling you a cipher...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BTW, Mola, I wasn't calling you a cipher...

If you were that would be really funny.

[Xander]

Don, I decided not to comment further until I've seen your entire presentation and I won't have time to respond until this weekend anyway. But I will say that Schryver's attack on your argument is great news for you. I'd be worried if he agreed with you. And I wouldn't say he and I agree either. I believe he is disagreeing with your entire presentation whereas I disagree with only one point, and we disagree for entirely different reasons based on what he has said.

[DonBradley]

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

Edited August 9, 2011 by DonBradley

[Mortal Man]

What? You are speaking in code.

Mola,

I am not speaking in code.

There you go again,

Hypothesising

Regarding

Erroneous

Whatnot.

What

I'd

Like you to do is

Look at my writing.

Ultimately,

Nothing does a greater

Disservice to

Everyone than

Running off at the mouth.

Bill Hamblin himself wouldn't

Undermine his writing with such

Silliness

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

I am not speaking in code.

There you go again,

Hypothesising

Regarding

Erroneous

Whatnot.

What

I'd

Like you to do is

Look at my writing.

Ultimately,

Nothing does a greater

Disservice to

Everyone than

Running off at the mouth.

Bill Hamblin himself wouldn't

Undermine his writing with such

Silliness

You forgot the word "the".

It would not by chance be that horse bus thing would it?

[wenglund]

Welcome back William! We missed you!

Here we see Don arriving at the FAIR conference in his new set of wheels.

Here we see Don pretty much killing, burying and nailing the coffin shut on the idea that the KEP are some sort of cipher.

Here we see Don throwing the coffin into Mount Doom.

And finally, here we see Don's method for dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates.

I may not always agree with you, Andreww, but you are one funny guy. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

What? You are speaking in code.

Don't you mean he is speaking cipher? (Oops, I just notice that Don beart me to the joke)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 10, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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:

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

Don, this is all very interesting. However, Clayton's journal entry was for May 1st, 6 days before the "gentlemen" came to visit Joseph. In other words, Clayton's journal entry predates the evidence for the use of the GAEL. How do you reconcile this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

Don, this is all very interesting. However, Clayton's journal entry was for May 1st, 6 days before the "gentlemen" came to visit Joseph. In other words, Clayton's journal entry predates the evidence for the use of the GAEL. How do you reconcile this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, Joseph must make the initial GAEL connection pretty quickly after obtaining the plates on (I believe) April 29. What he does at the gathering of "gentiles" a week later is show them the connection he'd made. Hence he apparently sends for the GAEL so he can make the connection. (The plates are kept for display in his house; the GAEL ordinarily resides in his office.)

April 29 or 30 or May 1 is translation time.

May 7 is show and tell.

Don

Edited August 10, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

Don, I see you are online. Hurry up and say something so I can go back to work.

Only just noticed this, Kevin--four days later. Sorry to keep you waiting, and I hope you didn't get fired!

Don

[wenglund]

Yes, Joseph must make the initial GAEL connection pretty quickly after obtaining the plates on (I believe) April 29. What he does at the gathering of "gentiles" a week later is show them the connection he'd made. Hence he apparently sends for the GAEL so he can make the connection. (The plates are kept for display in his house; the GAEL ordinarily resides in his office.)

April 29 or 30 or May 1 is translation time.

May 7 is show and tell. Don

That seems reasonable except that the "show" appears to have consisted of comparing characters rather than translations, and the "tell" seems suggested to occur in the then future ("he will be able to decipher them") rather than in the past "he has deciphered them," not that this necessary nullifies your hypothesis.

Also, in terms of what was sent for, does it have to be either/or? Could it be that the Hebrew bible and lexicon were sent for as well as the GAEL?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

That seems reasonable except that the "show" appears to have consisted of comparing characters rather than translations, and the "tell" seems suggested to occur in the then future ("he will be able to decipher them") rather than in the past "he has deciphered them," not that this necessary nullifies your hypothesis.

Wade,

He hadn't already deciphered them. He'd only deciphered one character. That gave him reason to believe that he would be able to actually translate the plates in the future.

I don't see Don as arguing that Joseph had actually attempted to translate the KP's at that point. (Or, indeed, ever.) Only that he had interpreted one character.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Wade,

He hadn't already deciphered them. He'd only deciphered one character. That gave him reason to believe that he would be able to actually translate the plates in the future.

I don't see Don as arguing that Joseph had actually attempted to translate the KP's at that point. (Or, indeed, ever.) Only that he had interpreted one character.

Regards, Pahoran

That is, in part, what I understood as well.

My point, however, is that because the May 7th evidence only speaks of comparing GAEL/KP characters, and doesn't mention interpretations or translations, then the presumed interpretation/translation of May 1 (mentioned in Clayton's journal) being derived from the GAEL, is speculation, as is also determination of which of the GAEL character(s) may have been used in the presumed interpretation/translation by Joseph. This doesn't mean that Don's hypothesis is wrong. It just means that belief in it takes several leaps of faith.

As such, and unfortunately, it leaves the door open to continued debate over the Kinderhook plates.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 10, 2011 by wenglund

[DonBradley]

Wade,

He hadn't already deciphered them. He'd only deciphered one character. That gave him reason to believe that he would be able to actually translate the plates in the future.

I don't see Don as arguing that Joseph had actually attempted to translate the KP's at that point. (Or, indeed, ever.) Only that he had interpreted one character.

I'm saying this was the "translation" referenced by Clayton--merely the interpretation-by-matching of this character.

Don

[DonBradley]

That is, in part, what I understood as well.

My point, however, is that because the May 7th evidence only speaks of comparing GAEL/KP characters, and doesn't mention interpretations or translations, then the presumed interpretation/translation of May 1 (mentioned in Clayton's journal) being derived from the GAEL, is speculation, as is also determination of which of the GAEL character(s) may have been used in the presumed interpretation/translation by Joseph. This doesn't mean that Don's hypothesis is wrong. It just means that belief in it takes several leaps of faith.

As such, and unfortunately, it leaves the door open to continued debate over the Kinderhook plates.

Not at all, Wade. I'd suggest you go back through the evidence. How did the definition of Ho-e-oop-hah leap from the GAEL into the Clayton journal's description of Joseph's translation without the GAEL itself being consulted? And if you look more carefully at the May 7 letter, you'll find that based on the match "A Gentile" says they were the "same" characters, indicating he was shown at least one match. He also says that based on this match he believed Joseph would be able to translate the whole set of plates. Why believe that unless the match would enable interpretation? And a match to the GAEL character would also provide the GAEL's character gloss--i.e., an "interpretation" for the Kinderhook plates character matched to it. "A Gentile" is concluding that because Joseph could make a match, and thus give the GAEL definition as an interpretation, he would be able to do that for the plates as a whole. His statement doesn't contradict Clayton in the least. And Clayton, as my full presentation which you have not seen shows, was in an extremely good position to know.

But, to go back to my first point, how is the definition assigned to "Ho-e-oop-hah" in the GAEL migrating into Clayton's journal the day he examines the Kinderhook plates in Joseph's house and has supper with him? He says Joseph gave that content: "Prest. J. has translated a portion and says...".

Don

[wenglund]

Not at all, Wade. I'd suggest you go back through the evidence. How did the definition of Ho-e-oop-hah leap from the GAEL into the Clayton journal's description of Joseph's translation without the GAEL itself being consulted? And if you look more carefully at the May 7 letter, you'll find that based on the match "A Gentile" says they were the "same" characters, indicating he was shown at least one match. He also says that based on this match he believed Joseph would be able to translate the whole set of plates. Why believe that unless the match would enable interpretation? And a match to the GAEL character would also provide the GAEL's character gloss--i.e., an "interpretation" for the Kinderhook plates character matched to it. "A Gentile" is concluding that because Joseph could make a match, and thus give the GAEL definition as an interpretation, he would be able to do that for the plates as a whole. His statement doesn't contradict Clayton in the least. And Clayton, as my full presentation which you have not seen shows, was in an extremely good position to know.

But, to go back to my first point, how is the definition assigned to "Ho-e-oop-hah" in the GAEL migrating into Clayton's journal the day he examines the Kinderhook plates in Joseph's house and has supper with him? He says Joseph gave that content: "Prest. J. has translated a portion and says...".

Don

Your question presupposes a migration. This presupposition is, itself, still an open question. Granted, there are 6 of about 27 words in common (king, of Pharaoh, heaven and earth). However, there are some key differences. First, the Clayton account describes a particular individual, whereas "ho e oop hah" is a noun with different connotations that may or may not apply to a given individual. Second, with the former, the individual in question received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth, whereas with the later, he is the possessor of heaven and earth. The former speaks of a person who is a descendant of Pharaoh, whereas the later speaks to things that are a matter of birthright--honor, possessions, and Kingly power.

To me, these key differences, while not nullifying your hypothesis, may give some people reasonable cause to doubt the correlation is much more than coincidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

I'm saying this was the "translation" referenced by Clayton--merely the interpretation-by-matching of this character.

Don

Yes, that's what I thought you were saying. It seems that the "Gentile" was opining that, since Joseph had already managed to "decipher" one character, he was expecting to subsequently be able to "decipher" the rest, and so produce a translation of the whole.

Regards,

Pahoran