Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[DonBradley]

Hi Wade,

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.

Clayton isn't claiming to give Joseph's wording exactly, but all the concepts and even a significant phrase are an easy derivation from the GAEL character. Comparison to the GAEL is simply the best explanation for the derivation of this content. Indeed, I have never heard another explanation for why these specific ideas and words were associated with the Kinderhook plates and it's difficult to imagine what such an explanation might be.

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.

I certainly hope the sake of "one who reigns upon his throne" that he is an individual. Otherwise I'm apt to have to question whether I am--not to mention you!

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.

The GAEL text on this point is what textual critic might call a lectio difficilior("difficult reading"), since it seems to describe a given human being as "ruler of heaven and earth." Such readings tend to get changed into something more palatable, according to textual critics, as they are transmitted. Here we have Joseph using the GAEL text and then it passing through Clayton's filter as well.

The point is not that the GAEL text is slavishly duplicated in Clayton's text but that Clayton's text can readily be derived from the GAEL and that they share a distinctive cluster of content elements that's unlikely to duplicate in other, unrelated sources: 1) king, 2) descendant of Pharaoh, 3) master (ruler/possessor) "of heaven and earth."

So, here we have Clayton saying Joseph got this distinctive content from the Kinderhook plates, and we have a ready way he could derive it very simply and from a document in his possession. (I can document that it was in his possesion if needed.) And we have a witness who describes seeing Joseph compare the Kinderhook plates with such a document of Joseph's, probably this very one, and finding a character match.

The pattern of evidence here is extremely strong.

Don

[Pahoran]

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).

But those "six words" encompass all the main ideas. That's the point.

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.

Having assumed that the KP's related to a specific individual, the rest follows.

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.

Again: having assumed that the KP's related to a specific individual, the rest follows.

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-

A pretty good coincidence, don't you think?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Yes, Pahoran.

"Coincidence" unfortunately doesn't explain anything. It simply leaves the match unexplained. And in addition to explaining the match we have to explain the Clayton journal text in the first place. We can readily explain that text via one early GAEL character being compared to one prominent Kinderhook plates character. Or we can simply leave the specific ideas and words in Clayton's journal without any reason for being and without any reason for matching the GAEL--all while it would be so simple to explain these via a quick comparison to a volume in Joseph's possession.

Don

[David Bokovoy]

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-

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

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

Carry on.

Edited August 11, 2011 by David Bokovoy

[DonBradley]

Hey David,

I appreciate you chiming in.

Another reason why the wording used by Clayton would vary from the wording used in the GAEL is that human beings try to bring coherence to data. As a "translation" of the KP character, the GAEL definition was almost bound to be expressed in coherent, whole sentences, rather than in a jumble of terms. Even if Joseph only expressed it to others as the jumbled words in the GAEL, just by reading the definition, it's likely they would pass it on or record it with somewhat greater coherence. I suspect, though, with you that Joseph himself was the one who coherently conveyed the GAEL content as that of the KP character.

Don

[Chris Smith]

There's also the fact that the GAEL mandates that the translator supply "connecting parts of speech."

[wenglund]

Gentlemen,

You make an excellent case, and almost thou persuadeth me. However, to understand what I am getting at, it helps to look at the difference in English explanations for "Ho e oop ha" throughout each of the GAEL's 5 degrees, keeping in mind that the boat-like character is the same for each):

First degree: "Crown of a prince"

Second degree: "A King"

Third degree: "Kingly power, dominion, right"

Fourth degree: "Kingly possession - right of possession, title, dignity, honor"

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

In addition to Chris' point about the different connecting parts of speech, you will notice that each of the respective degrees speaks to different aspects of royalty--i.e. 1) the item worn by a prince that identifies his royalty, 2) the title used to identify royalty, 3) intangible qualities that identify royalty, 4) tangible and intangible aspects that identify royalty, 4) a specific earthly royal lineage, or a universal reign.

The first question that comes to mind is, since each of these explanations are in relation to the same character, how does one decide which explanation to use when deciphering? The GAEL provides a clue on the first page. One of the ways to tell which degree the character is in, is by counting the connection points. The "Ho e oop hah" character in the GAEL has two connecting points, though the KP character has five (the KP character has additional lines absent from the GAEL character). Another way to tell degrees is by counting the number of lines above or below the character. But, there are no lines above or below the character in the KP. So, if Joseph did use the "Ho e oop character" in the fifth degree, it is anyone's guess as to why.

The second question that comes to mind is, since the explanation in the fifth degree appears to speak to two different royal lineages (one earthly and the other universal--heaven and earth, the one specific to the lineage of Pharaoh and the other presumably general to the lineage of God, the one is a function of birthright, and the other presumably a function of exaltation), if Joseph used this 5th degree explanation to "translate" the character in the KP, why did he use aspects of both royal lineages, while giving the impression of speaking to just one?

Now, I may be way over analyzing this, but when I first saw Don's comparison between the text in the GAEL and that in Clayton's journal, I thought it plausible, but not compelling, in part because of what I understand about the GAEL and what I felt was missing in the GAEL that was found in Clayton's diary (the explicit mention of Ham in particular), though perhaps Bro. Bokovoy has a point.

Anyway, sometime the simple and beautiful explanations ought to be accepted for their simplicity and beauty, and not fouled up by technicalities. So, I am not saying that I disagree with Don's hypothesis. I am simply leaving reasonable options open.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2011 by wenglund

[DonBradley]

The first question that comes to mind is, since each of these explanations are in relation to the same character, how does one decide which explanation to use when deciphering? The GAEL provides a clue on the first page. One of the ways to tell which degree the character is in, is by counting the connection points. The "Ho e oop hah" character in the GAEL has two connecting points, though the KP character has five (the KP character has additional lines absent from the GAEL character). Another way to tell degrees is by counting the number of lines above or below the character. But, there are no lines above or below the character in the KP. So, if Joseph did use the "Ho e oop character" in the fifth degree, it is anyone's guess as to why.

Ah, Wade, you are lobbing me an easy one. On what pages of the GAEL do the respective definitions appear?

The second question that comes to mind is, since the explanation in the fifth degree appears to speak to two different royal lineages (one earthly and the other universal--heaven and earth, the one specific to the lineage of Pharaoh and the other presumably general to the lineage of God, the one is a function of birthright, and the other presumably a function of exaltation), if Joseph used this 5th degree explanation to "translate" the character in the KP, why did he use aspects of both royal lineages, while giving the impression of speaking to just one?

Well, the first answer that comes to mind is yours:

Now, I may be way over analyzing this"

I'm also not sure I see the distinction of which you speak, between human and divine royal lineages. The definition seems to be pretty encompassing, but who knows what they had in mind in Kirtland in coming up with it?

Finally, you're assuming way more effort on Joseph's part than I think is warranted by the data here. The "translation" content we have from him is derivable from one character, and one of the most prominent at that, and would have required him to only go to the second character page in the GAEl in order to derive it. What evidence is there here for extensive translation work, for Joseph trying to sytematically work out all the details? It looks like only a simple character match and then a quick surmise from that. Certainly we needn't assume he did more.

Don

[wenglund]

Ah, Wade, you are lobbing me an easy one. On what pages of the GAEL do the respective definitions appear?

4, 10, 14, 18, and 21.

I'm also not sure I see the distinction of which you speak, between human and divine royal lineages. The definition seems to be pretty encompassing, but who knows what they had in mind in Kirtland in coming up with it?

It is hard to tell whether the commas in the GAEL explanations separate different aspects of the same thing, or separate different connotations. I am starting to look at the possible relationship between the GAEL sounds and their associated explanations, and early on in my research it looks like in some cases it appears that the commas may be separating aspects of the same thing, whereas in other cases, it appears to be different connotations. I get the same impression when looking at the explanations from one degree to the next. I could be wrong, but the 5th degree explanation for "ho e oop hah" appears to be both--two different connotations each with multiple aspects.

Finally, you're assuming way more effort on Joseph's part than I think is warranted by the data here. The "translation" content we have from him is derivable from one character, and one of the most prominent at that, and would have required him to only go to the second character page in the GAEl in order to derive it. What evidence is there here for extensive translation work, for Joseph trying to sytematically work out all the details? It looks like only a simple character match and then a quick surmise from that. Certainly we needn't assume he did more. Don

After pondering what I had written, this is where my thought began to run, and I didn't get a chance to post my edits reflecting this change before you replied. Your simple and beautify explanation is appealing, and ought to be viewed as such, though I am still leaving options open.

Truth is, I am essentially arguing with myself (where is the sense in that?) since I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you after you prompted me several years ago, though I thought the translation may have consisted of multiple characters rather than just one.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2011 by wenglund

[Thinking]

Certainly we needn't assume he did more.

Or less?

As I have been told many times on this board, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The articles in the Times & Seasons, the broadside, the inclusion in the official history of the Church all suggest more than a passing interest in the plates.

[wenglund]

The articles in the Times & Seasons, the broadside, the inclusion in the official history of the Church all suggest more than a passing interest in the plates.

The interest clearly varied from person to person, and can hardly be generalized. Certainly, John Taylor had more than a passing interest in the plates, which explains their mention in the T&S and broadside over which he was editor. Joseph, on the other hand, only once made a slight reference to them in his journal. His horse garnered way more mention and personal interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2011 by wenglund

[DonBradley]

Or less?

As I have been told many times on this board, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This isn't always true. It depends on whether we'd expect evidence. But even if we grant your point, you're still missing mine. I'm not saying the absence of evidence for revelatory translation is evidence that it didn't occur. I'm saying, in the absence of evidence for it, why the h*** would you think it did occur? This seems like a strange belief for you to adopt by a sheer leap of faith.

The articles in the Times & Seasons, the broadside, the inclusion in the official history of the Church all suggest more than a passing interest in the plates.

Sure, people from all around were interested in the plates--which is why you had non-Mormons calling on Joseph to see the plates. This is irrelevant to his intentions for translating them.

The History of the Church was done long after Joseph was dead and was taken from the Clayton journal. So, again, there's no substantive argument to be made from this.

Don

[Thinking]

This isn't always true. It depends on whether we'd expect evidence. But even if we grant your point, you're still missing mine. I'm not saying the absence of evidence for revelatory translation is evidence that it didn't occur. I'm saying, in the absence of evidence for it, why the h*** would you think it did occur? This seems like a strange belief for you to adopt by a sheer leap of faith.

If you think I believe that it occurred, then you haven't read my posts very carefully.

[DonBradley]

4, 10, 14, 18, and 21.

Given the order of the degrees from highest number to lowest number, he'd hit the Fifth first, and find the material in the Clayton journal on the second page of characters (page 4). He wouldn't hit the next definition until page 10--if he bothered to keep going. That Clayton's journal entry doesn't use any distinctive material from after page 4, and that this 5th degree content would explain what he said, suggests that this was a pretty haphazard operation. He went until he found a single match, in the earliest degree in the book, and stopped there. I'm guessing he was excited just to find that single match and didn't feel compelled at that point to go further.

After pondering what I had written, this is where my thought began to run, and I didn't get a chance to post my edits reflecting this change before you replied. Your simple and beautify explanation is appealing, and ought to be viewed as such, though I am still leaving options open.

Truth is, I am essentially arguing with myself (where is the sense in that?) since I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you after you prompted me several years ago, though I thought the translation may have consisted of multiple characters rather than just one.

Ah, okay. Cool, Wade! Enjoy thinking this one out further.

Don

[Thinking]

Joseph, on the other hand, only once made a slight reference to them in his journal. His horse garnered way more mention and personal interest.

"For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me." (History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 408)

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

[DonBradley]

If you think I believe that it occurred, then you haven't read my posts very carefully.

If you think I meant you would believe it was actual revelation, you may need to read mine more carefully. I just think it strange that you'd try to argue that the absence of evidence for Joseph claiming revelatory translation is no reason we shouldn't believe he did. Pointing out what we should believe is the function of evidence.

Don

[Thinking]

I just think it strange that you'd try to argue that the absence of evidence for Joseph claiming revelatory translation is no reason we shouldn't believe he did.

I did nothing of the sort. For the more than a passing interest (which you have interpreted to mean revelatory) in the plates, I noted the Times & Seasons articles, the broadside, and the history of the Church.

[DonBradley]

I did nothing of the sort. For the more than a passing interest (which you have interpreted to mean revelatory) in the plates, I noted the Times & Seasons articles, the broadside, and the history of the Church.

I wasn't referring to that, but to this:

Don:

Certainly we needn't assume he did more.

Thinking:

Or less?

As I have been told many times on this board, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The argument here, if it means anything at all, means that we should believe no "less" than that he translated by revelation despite the "absence of evidence" for it.

If this isn't what you meant, then it's somehow nonetheless what you said, as anyone who reads it can see.

But, to avoid, the endless *** for tat of "you said X," "I didn not," etc., I won't comment further on this. You get the last word.

Have a good night.

Don

[Thinking]

I wasn't referring to that, but to this:

Don:

Certainly we needn't assume he did more.

Thinking:

Or less?

As I have been told many times on this board, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The argument here, if it means anything at all, means that we should believe no "less" than that he translated by revelation despite the "absence of evidence" for it.

If this isn't what you meant, then it's somehow nonetheless what you said, as anyone who reads it can see.

But, to avoid, the endless *** for tat of "you said X," "I didn not," etc., I won't comment further on this. You get the last word.

Have a good night.

Don

My last word is you conveniently left off the last part of my quoted post.

The articles in the Times & Seasons, the broadside, the inclusion in the official history of the Church all suggest more than a passing interest in the plates.

[Chris Smith]

As I have been told many times on this board, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is actually a fallacy. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

A more accurate axiom would be, absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But of course, scholars don't really deal in proof. They deal in probabilities. (Requiring proof before budging from one's position is a common fallacy in arguments on high-salience topics.)

Edited August 11, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Thinking]

This is actually a fallacy. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

A more accurate axiom would be, absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But of course, scholars don't really deal in proof. They deal in probabilities. (Requiring proof before budging from one's position is a common fallacy in arguments on high-salience topics.)

You're correct, which is why in an earlier post I wrote:

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.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Wade,

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

The second question that comes to mind is, since the explanation in the fifth degree appears to speak to two different royal lineages (one earthly and the other universal--heaven and earth, the one specific to the lineage of Pharaoh and the other presumably general to the lineage of God, the one is a function of birthright, and the other presumably a function of exaltation), if Joseph used this 5th degree explanation to "translate" the character in the KP, why did he use aspects of both royal lineages, while giving the impression of speaking to just one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my 2 cents.

Edited August 11, 2011 by David Bokovoy

[LeSellers]

... why the h*** would you think ...

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

Lehi

[grindael]

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

Lehi

Don could have been saying 'heck'. Hmmm. Perhaps a comparison with a good grammar might help? But all kidding aside, crude vulgarity? I don't see it that way.

[DonBradley]

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

Lehi

Just trying out words I found in the Bible?

That one may not have been translated correctly; so I'll refrain from its use in the future.

Don