Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[DonBradley]

A reasonable explanation is that the various witnesses merely conflated the two things in their minds. The Book of Mormon was a well-known, widely published book, the first thing that most of Joseph's contemporaries would have associated with him and the Church. Furthermore, it was translated from a script its authors called "reformed Egyptian." Someone describing himself as "A Gentile" would reasonably be expected to have heard of the BofM and know considerably more about it than the (as yet unpublished) Book of Abraham.

OTOH, Parley P. Pratt, who as an apostle could reasonably be expected to know something about the Book of Abraham project, does not conflate the two things.

This, for what it's worth, is substantially how I see the matter.

I suspect that the Haven report is probably correct that Joseph initially spots characters similar to those he recalled from the Book of Mormon. But I think the best reconstruction of what happens on May 7, given Clayton's diary and all three May 7 sources, is that Joseph displays for his guests the Kinderhook plates and the GAEL, and compares the two. Does he show the papyri as well? Perhaps he does. But if so, this would dovetail with, rather than contradict, his making use of the papyrus-connected GAEL on the same occasion. The character the GAEL calls "ho-e-oop-hah" was, of course, from the papyri; so he may have shown the match between this and the boat-shaped character. But then how would he have used this match to interpret the character? By turning to his Egyptian alphabet, the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language," which provided a ready-made interpretation.

Comparison of the KPs to the GAEL provides a tight interpretation of all the data unless we assume that an onlooking Gentile is necessarily correct in making the one reference to Joseph having a Book of Mormon character transcript or "Egyptian alphabet" during the 1829-1843 timeframe.

Don

[DonBradley]

Ack! Just realizing, I did not really give you the "last word," Grindael!

I hope, though, that I can be excused for that since I posted primarily to say, "OK, I get it now. While I don't agree with this particular argument you're making, it appears to be part of a larger, valid endeavor in which I wish you luck."

Don

[jmordecai]

I disagree. To me, and I trust most believing LDS, the KP is as inconsequential to the verity and intents/purpose of the gospel and Joseph's calling as a prophet of God as the bad meat. It is also outside the means God has availed us for determining whether Joseph was a prophet of God.

Non-believers are free to make it of utmost importance, and they sometimes "spin it" that way. And, they are free to rely on this man-made (arm of flesh) mode of assessment to judge the things of God.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You deem the KP inconsequential since you live on the side of history that concludes they are bogus. That wasn't the same buzz back then...

Ancient Records

Circumstances are daily transpiring which give additional testimony to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon... The following letter and certificate, will, perhaps have a tendency to convince the sceptical, that such things have been used, and that even the obnoxious Book of Mormon, may be true; and as the people of Columbus' day were obliged to believe that there was such a place as America; so will the people in this day be obliged to believe, however reluctantly, that there may have been such plates as those from which the Book of Mormon was translated...

It will be seen by the annexed statement of the Quincy Whig, that there are more dreamers and money diggers, than Joseph Smith, in the world, and the worthy editor is obliged to acknowledge that this circumstance will go a good way to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon...

Times & Seasons 4:185-186

The plates above alluded to, were exhibited in this city last week, and are now, we understand, in Nauvoo, subject to the inspection of the Mormon Prophet. The public curiosity is greatly excited, and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will do more towards throwing light on the early history of this continent, than any man now living.

Quincy Whig, vol. 6, No. 2

Why does the circumstance of the plates recently found in a mound in Pike county, Ill., by Mr. Wiley, together with ethmology and a thousand other things, go to prove the Book of Mormon true?—Ans. Because it is true!

Times & Seasons 5:406

These plates were found about eleven feet under the surface of a long mound in the vicinity of Kinderhook, Pike County, Illinois. On removing the dust that had collected about them, hieroglyphics were found engraved, the meaning of which no one was able to divine. They were sent to Jo. Smith, in order to get his opinion of their meaning. Jo has a fac simile taken, and engraved on wood, and it now appears... that he is busy in translating them. The new work which Jo. is about to issue as a translation of these plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon.

The Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844

A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders...

The plates are now back in their original category of genuine... Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well."

Welby W. Ricks, BYU Archaeological Society President, Improvement Era, Sept. 1962

[why me]

You deem the KP inconsequential since you live on the side of history that concludes they are bogus. That wasn't the same buzz back then...

Of course the plates would have made some noise back then and why not? We are dealing with believers in the book of mormon and the discovery of plates that contained the book of mormon. Ans so, anything that would be similiar would create quite a stir. However, what is overlooked is Joseph Smith and his reaction to them. I think that he gave the plates a listen, attempted to give a translation and then put them on the shelf. Why? My guess is that he may have smelled a rat or did not feel comfortable with them. Maybe he got a bad feeling from them. That does happen too. The point is: if he were a conman who enlisted 13 people who were in on the original fraud, one doesn't succumb to a copycat fraud. By Joseph attempting a translation shows a man who has good faith that they were real until experience told him to hold off.

Edited August 16, 2011 by why me

[wenglund]

You deem the KP inconsequential since you live on the side of history that concludes they are bogus. That wasn't the same buzz back then...

I am not sure how much of a "buzz" is implied in a smattering of newspaper articles from across 140 years of Church history. But, a "buzz" among some of the members and leaders and press does not make it consequential to Joseph Smith or the Church. The fact that it may have only been a "buzz", and not included in church curriculum material or scripture or preached across the pulpit then and over time, ought to clue you in that it is inconsequential except to critics and those who don't correctly understand what is truly important within the plan of salvation and what methods God has bestowed, as opposed to man's, for determining God's spiritual truths.

Again, you are free to make it of utmost importance in your worldview. To each their own

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Nomad,

How nice of you to show up to cheerlead critics whose biases overlap yours. But I'm disappointed that you've haven't arrived with any substance, like that passage from some source that's going to show how Joseph Smith derived the distinctive constellation of kingship, descent from Pharaoh, and master "of heaven and earth" from somewhere besides the GAEL.

Don

'

LOL!

Don, meet the Nomad we've all come to know and love.

You know something is messed up in Schryver land when Don is the "trojan horse" and the openly professing critics are suddenly apologetic allies.

[Xander]

Pahoran,

You are consciously misrepresenting the discussion, as you habitually do.

No, I just refuse to let you dictate the terms of the discussion and I call you out for your straw man. The implications Don’s presentation has for understanding the KEP is completely within the confines of this discussion. You want to exclude it for obvious reasons.

You previously tried to argue that since Joseph's interpretation of one KP character was based upon the GAEL, and since it was a "fact" that the GAEL was revelatory in nature, it followed that Joseph's KP interpretation was somehow also revelatory, as if revelation has some kind of transitive property. I rebutted that wishful-thinking fantasy by pointing out that any exploration of how Joseph interpreted that KP character had to be based on how he interpreted that character, and not the source of any pre-existing materials he used. When I said "the subject under discussion" I was not referring to the entire thread, as I rather suspect you know.

But as I said, you don’t get to dictate to us what the subject is. So it doesn’t matter what you had in mind; we’re all free to discuss the subject matter as it pertains to the topic of this thread.

Your manners are as bad as ever. You throw out these peremptory commands and then blow your top when I point out your bullying tactics.

For my references, I refer you to post no. 228 of this thread.

If a CFR is evidence of “buillying” then this makes you one of the biggest bullies this forum has ever known. Post 228 doesn’t provide anything to substantiate your thesis, and I think you knew that, which is why you only referenced a post number instead of the actual content. No one else is going to go digging through the thread just to see that your claim is bogus.

Try again? And try to pay close attention to your original and repeated claim that the “standard” anti-Mormon argument is that Joseph Smith translated the K-Hook via “revelation.” Nothing in post 228 says this, and I already referenced your five anti-Mormon sources and explained why they do not corroborate your claim. All you’ve done is repeat the same erroneous statement as if this is going to save your argument.

And that is a pathetic scrap to salvage from what used to be widely touted as burying Joseph's prophetic claims.

LOL! So now you’re moving the goal posts again, saying only that it “used to be” a “widely touted” anti-Mormon claim. DOes this mean you concede the point I made that this is not the “standard” anti-Mormon argument, and thuse Don’s presentation refutes nothing of consequence for the apologists? Not that I expect you to admit being wrong on this point. And since you’re so fond of the CFR. let’s see you demonstrate how this “used to be widely touted.” That’s a CFR, if I wasn’t clear enough.

Pity you're not the umpire.

Pity for you, the umpires consists of your audience. This isn’t your finest moment.

EXACTLY.

And how is that conclusion reached, Kevin? What "logic" leads uttery worthless haters to that triumphalistic pronouncement?

Becase he was fooled? If you actually read their arguments you’d understand this. For these Evangelical critics, a man called by God to perform a certain duty would not be fooled by deceivers, because God wouldn’t allow it.

The "logic" that Joseph's prophetic gifts must somehow have been engaged. That's what.

So now you’re trying to go back to what I already refuted? If having the spirit of discernment is considered a “prophetic gift,” then yes. But this doesn’t require a translation via “revelation” as you have repeated with bombastic certitude over the past few days.

The fact that the unprincipled deceivers you are championing prefer not to spell out their logic so that people won't see the holes in it is not my fault.

I’m “championing” deceivers? Yes, this is what you’ve been reduced to, which means you lose the debate. As usual. You claimed over and over that the “standard” anti-Mormon argument was XYZ. I demonstrate that you cannot substantiate this claim whatsoever, and every account mentioned by the “anti-Mormons” contradicts your straw man. Now all you’re left with is complaining because they didn’t make it clear enough that you’re able to read their minds and dictate to teh world what they’re really arguing. How pathetic.

I’m going to wait to see if you can produce evidence that this was ever a “widely touted” claim too. I suspect you’ll ignore the request and flee the scene as you have done so often in the past.

And now that Don has shown what that actually means, the "criticism" falls into the category of petty nit-picking.

On the contrary, Don’s argument requires that the Prophet be fooled on the matter, which is poetic vindication for a number of critical claims. That you refuse to accept the obvious, and try to spin it as some kind of slam dunk for the apologists, is hardly surprising. As I said before, they have to alter absolutely nothing in their arguments, whereas the apologists have already started taking evasive maneuvers, rewriting one apologetic article after another in order to incorporate Don’s findings. The FAIR wiki article that once argued against Clayton’s account, has been nuked from the web.

I agree that anti-Mormons are usually knee-jerk bigots who evaluate Joseph's honesty by projecting their own total lack thereof upon him.

Rhetoric won’t save you Pahoran in your time of embarrassment. It never has.

The statement that beautifully sums up the standard anti-Mormon argument, and proves that those who deny it are lying. But now they have to grapple with the fact that Joseph's interaction with the KP's was cursory and did not entail any prophetic activity. Comparing two characters to each other is not "acting as such."

Ah, we’re all lying for refusing to accept your straw man, which you have yet to substantiate from a single anti-Mormon source. So you want to go out with a blaze of glory I see. So be it.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

No, I just refuse to let you dictate the terms of the discussion and I call you out for your straw man.

I have presented no straw man.

Snip sniping.

If a CFR is evidence of “buillying” then this makes you one of the biggest bullies this forum has ever known.

As you perfectly well know, I did not say that a CFR is evidence of bullying.

Here is an example of a polite CFR:

"Call for references, please. Where and when..."

Here is how a bully does it:

"Stop right there and back up your claim with references." The tone is arrogant, peremptory and overbearing.

Post 228 doesn’t provide anything to substantiate your thesis, and I think you knew that, which is why you only referenced a post number instead of the actual content. No one else is going to go digging through the thread just to see that your claim is bogus.

You are projecting, as usual. I cited the post number because your arrogant, peremptory and overbearing demand deserves no better courtesy. And my post provides a number of examples of anti-Mormons claiming that the KP's call Joseph's prophetic gifts into question.

Try again? And try to pay close attention to your original and repeated claim that the “standard” anti-Mormon argument is that Joseph Smith translated the K-Hook via “revelation.” Nothing in post 228 says this, and I already referenced your five anti-Mormon sources and explained why they do not corroborate your claim. All you’ve done is repeat the same erroneous statement as if this is going to save your argument.

I don't need to try again. It has always been the standard anti-Mormon argument. And besides, you provided all the support necessary, when you twice quoted a notorious anti-Mormon saying: "Only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

Becase he was fooled? If you actually read their arguments you’d understand this. For these Evangelical critics, a man called by God to perform a certain duty would not be fooled by deceivers, because God wouldn’t allow it.

Clearly, those EV's either don't read the Bible, or don't believe what they read. But apart from that, how would that work, Xander? How would God prevent the prophet being deceived, Xander?

Here's a hint, just for you, Xander: eleven letters. Starts with "I".

Snip enraged ranting.

Ah, we’re all lying for refusing to accept your straw man, which you have yet to substantiate from a single anti-Mormon source.

Well, you count as an anti-Mormon source, and you said:

"only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

I think that's what's called an "own goal."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Fifth Columnist]

I haven't followed this thread religiously, but it appears from some of the earlier sources that the KP were understood primarily in the context of the Book of Mormon. The following is from the Times and Seasons:

So when the Book of Mormon first made its appearance among men, it was looked upon by many as a wild speculation, and that it was dangerous to the interest and happiness of the religious world; but when it was found to teach virtue, honesty, integrity, and pure religion, this objection was laid aside, as being untenable. We were then told that the inhabitants of this continent were, and always had been, a rude barbarous race, uncouth, unlettered, and without civilization. But when they were told of the various relics that have been found indicative of civilization, intelligence and learning; when they were told of the wealth, architecture and splendor of ancient Mexico; when recent developments proved beyond a doubt, that there was ancient ruins in Central America, which, in point of magnificence, beauty, strength and architectural design, would vie with any of the most splendid ruins on the Asiatic continent; when they could trace the fine delineations of the sculptor's chisel, on the beautiful statue, the mysterious hieroglyphic, and; the unknown character, they begun In believe that a wise, powerful, intelligent and scientific race had inhabited this continent; but still it was improbable, nay, almost impossible—notwithstanding the testimony of history to the contrary, that anything like plates [referring to the gold plates] could have been used anciently; particularly among this people. The following letter and certificate [describing the Kinderhook plates], will, perhaps have a tendency to convince the skeptical, that such things have been used, and that even the obnoxious Book of Mormon, may be true; and as the people in Columbus' day were obliged to believe that there was such a place as America; so will the people in this day be obliged to believe, however reluctantly, that there may have been such plates as those from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

We learn there was a Mormon present when the [Kinderhook] plates were found, who it is said, leaped for joy at the discovery, and remarked that it would go to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon—which it undoubted!v will.

[grindael]

Pahoran,

I don’t find conflation very convincing.

Don,

Thanks for the kind replies, and the PM’s. I meantto reply to you yesterday, but I wasn't feeling well. (I've had 2 major surgeries in the last year and a half - due to a work related accident). I really think that Joseph was comparing the KP with the Book of Mormon characters, (and I have good reason to think so) BUT, I think he did use info from the GAEL. I'm not certain when he did this, but the striking similarities of the GAEL definitions & Clayton's diary entry, are very compelling.

My whole approach to this had not been to discredit your connection, but to try and find a reasonable way to work it into the existing data. I really do see problems with Charlotte Haven’s statements,and those by “A Gentile”, which I don’t see matching up with your timeline. I’m extremely troubled by ‘A Gentile’s’ statement and it’s reference to the BOM, especially, if it was made by a Mormon, as I suspect. (see below). And nothing I’m postulating is definite, I’m only sharing my thoughts on where your research has led me.

And until I see your presentation, that is where I stand. How it all played out, and the conclusions drawn from this, are things I'm still researching. (AND, your presentation will most likely shed valuable light on some of these things.)

I certainly hope some will look more closely at 'A Gentile'. I know the letter you cite, is not the only one he wrote to the NYH. The ones I could look at, gave me an impression of who this might be, based on some of his expressions and a flattering description of a certain Dr. in Nauvoo:

“We have a physician here, a graduate of Dartmouth College, who, to use his own phrase, always straightens them out whenever he is called. It has been maliciously intimated that he must possess magic, which renders him so successful, as he is never known to have any other kind of medicine but calomel and Dover's powders; but I expect that is a libel on his medicine chest.” (Oct 22, 1842)

Unfortunately, Dale B. does not have the rest o f the NYH issues up on his site (including the one that you reference). I would love to see the whole letter, (HINT, HINT at ANYONE who has access to it), and read more of his observations. For example, 'A Gentile' wrote, on October 22, of 1842:

“The Prophet is absent at present on account of the oppressive arm of Missouri held in terrorum over his head.Mrs. Emma, the highly gifted and accomplished wife of the Prophet, has been very ill, but is now convalescent; her returning health is hailed with unspeakable joy by a very large circle of warm and admiring friends, and he who is in exile must receive the unwelcome tidings with that feeling which can befelt only by a fond and doting husband.”

His descriptions are so flattering to the Mormons, I’m convinced this was written by an LDS insider, and Robert D. Foster came to mind. “A Gentile”also wrote:

“Now these are stern rules, and if there are no exceptions to these rules, then our laws are no better adapted to our circumstances than the ancient laws ofthe Medes and Persians would be.”(Oct 22, 1842)

Compare this with Foster’s rhetoric during a “PLEASURE PARTY AND DINNER AT THE NAUVOO MANSION” in October of 1843:

Resolved, 5th. Nauvoo Charter, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, an unalterable decree by a patriotic band of wise legislators for the protection of the innocent. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.42)

Foster, from the ‘Party’, on Oct 3,

“Resolved, 3rd. Nauvoo, the great emporium of the West, the center of all centers, a city of three years' growth, a population of 15,000 souls congregated from the fourquarters of the globe, embracing the intelligence of all nations, with industry, frugality, economy, virtue, and brotherly love, unsurpassed by any age in the world,—a suitable home for the Saints.

‘A Gentile’, on Sept. 5, 1842:

“By the concentrated efforts of an energetic community, an imposing city is rising in the Western horizon, which soon will vie with your seaboard emporiums, and reflectthe glory of the rising Sun from the spires of her Colossal Temples…”

The terminology in “A Gentile’s” letters isstriking: “our modern Jerusalem”, “an imposing city is rising in the Western horizon, which soon will vie with your seaboard emporiums, and reflect the glory of the rising Sun from the spires of her Colossal Temples,” and “The Prophet is again among us, gladdening the hearts of his friends with his presence.” (Sept. 5,1842)

During that ‘Party’ on 3 October 1843 (in which Foster is appointed chairman for evening); we read a resolution that stated in part, "Resolved, [that] General Joseph Smith, whether we view him as a Prophet at the head of the Church, a General at the head of the Legion, a Mayor at the head of the City Council, or as a landlord at the head of his table, if he has equals, he has no superiors."

While “A Gentile” writes:

“ In relation to Joseph Smith, I can say that I esteem to be an entertaining and useful citizen -- a warm and devoted friend-- courteous and affable in his intercourse with all -- a bold and high toned declaimer, his speeches being well charged with attic salt and Promethian fire-- his character such a combination of faculties as generally possess theelements of success. In his private character I have never seen anything tocondemn, but much to admire, the disclosures of Gen. Bennett to the contrary nothwithstanding.” (Sept. 5, 1842)

“A Gentile” also writes:

“The public buildings are going up rapidly, the associations for manufacturing and agricultural purposes are flourishing, as also those for benevolent and charitable uses; all present visible evidence of prosperity and success, with one exception, and that the most important of all, the University -- the only evidence of its usefulness that I can find, is the degrees which it has already conferred; perhaps it is on account of the departure of that distinguished scholar, the Chancellor.” (Sept. 5, 1842)

Foster served as a regent of the University of Nauvoo, member of the Nauvoo Agricultural and Manufacturing Association, county magistrate of Hancock County, Illinois, (read some of 'A Gentile's' comments about court proceedings) and surgeon-in-chief (Emma's sickness) and brevetbrigadier-general of the Nauvoo Legion.

“A Gentile’s” comments sure seem to coincide with things that Foster was involved with, (along with very similar terminology) and he was definitely one of Joseph’s intimates during this period. And to send a letter anon. to the NYH, as “a Gentile”, is an interesting strategy, to deflect the sting of J.C. Bennett's inflammatory disclosures against Joseph.

Respectfully,

grindael

Edited August 17, 2011 by grindael

[DonBradley]

I haven't followed this thread religiously, but it appears from some of the earlier sources that the KP were understood primarily in the context of the Book of Mormon. The following is from the Times and Seasons:

Good point, Fifth.

I hope Grindael will continue to follow up on such contextual interpretation of the Kinderhook plates find.

Don

[DonBradley]

Absolutely fascinating, Grindael.

You are quite possibly right that "A Gentile" is an insider, and particularly Robert D. Foster.

Should this prove to be the case, it would undermine the identity of the referenced "Egyptian alphabet" with the GAEL. I don't believe it would refute it, since there is other evidence for comparison to the GAEL, the presence of a BoM-derived Egyptian alphabet is not otherwise documented, etc. A Latter-day Saint could also have been confused about just what the GAEL was, particularly since the GAEL was not something with which most of the Saints would have been familiar and many (like Foster) didn't join the Church till sometime after the Kirtland period when it was created. That said, establishing the probable identity of "A Gentile" with Robert Foster would, indeed, significantly weaken the identity of the two documents.

The word usage parallels are intriguing, but not yet, I think, entirely convincing. How rare or common a term was "emporium" and how idiosyncratic would its application to Nauvoo have been? The reference to "the laws of the Medes and Persians" seems quite striking, but less so when it is understood as a biblical term and a proverbial way of referring to unalterable laws:

Daniel 6:8 Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

More impressive so far, I think, are the references to Nauvoo's agriculture, manufacturing, and university. Sheesh. That sure looks like a giveaway of Foster's identity. I don't want to prematurely adopt this view, but am very impressed.

Do we know, by the way, anything about Foster's activities at this time?

BTW, how on earth did you think of Foster?

You've done quite a bit of sleuthing and searching, and are to be commended. I look forward to what you come up with next.

Don

[DonBradley]

This might be worth setting out, with some added emphasis, for certain migratory or nomadic posters who may wander through this thread:

"I really think that Joseph was comparing the KP with the Book of Mormon characters, (and I have good reason to think so) BUT, I think he did use info from the GAEL. I'm not certain when he did this, but the striking similarities of the GAEL definitions & Clayton's diary entry, are very compelling."

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

Oh, the flattering reference to Foster is great too!

Message me on whatever board you can, and I can send you the newspaper article for your further sleuthing.

Don

[Pahoran]

Grindael,

One factor that degrades the readability of your posts is the way some words jam together. What browser are you using? I'm wondering if you have a small edit window and the browser is stripping trailing spaces from wrapped lines.

Pahoran,

I don’t find conflation very convincing.

Oh, well, that settles it then.

I certainly hope some will look more closely at 'A Gentile'. I know the letter you cite, is not the only one he wrote to the NYH. The ones I could look at, gave me an impression of who this might be, based on some of his expressions and a flattering description of a certain Dr. in Nauvoo:

“We have a physician here, a graduate of Dartmouth College, who, to use his own phrase, always straightens them out whenever he is called. It has been maliciously intimated that he must possess magic, which renders him so successful, as he is never known to have any other kind of medicine but calomel and Dover's powders; but I expect that is a libel on his medicine chest.” (Oct 22, 1842)

Unfortunately, Dale B. does not have the rest of the NYH issues up on his site (including the one that you reference). I would love to see the whole letter, (HINT, HINT at ANYONE who has access to it), and read more of his observations. For example, 'A Gentile' wrote, on October 22, of 1842:

“The Prophet is absent at present on account of the oppressive arm of Missouri held in terrorum over his head. Mrs. Emma, the highly gifted and accomplished wife of the Prophet, has been very ill, but is now convalescent; her returning health is hailed with unspeakable joy by a very large circle of warm and admiring friends, and he who is in exile must receive the unwelcome tidings with that feeling which can be felt only by a fond and doting husband.”

His descriptions are so flattering to the Mormons, I’m convinced this was written by an LDS insider, and Robert D. Foster came to mind. “A Gentile” also wrote:

“Now these are stern rules, and if there are no exceptions to these rules, then our laws are no better adapted to our circumstances than the ancient laws of the Medes and Persians would be.”(Oct 22, 1842)

Compare this with Foster’s rhetoric during a “PLEASURE PARTY AND DINNER AT THE NAUVOO MANSION” in October of 1843:

Resolved, 5th. Nauvoo Charter, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, an unalterable decree by a patriotic band of wise legislators for the protection of the innocent. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.42)

That's interesting. Of course, Old Testament references like that were commonplace in the 19th, although I don't know how often the laws of the Medes and Persians were referred to. However, you should note that "A Gentile" cites those laws disapprovingly, while Foster admires them. Of course, this may be contextual rather than representing overarching views.

Foster, from the ‘Party’, on Oct 3,

“Resolved, 3rd. Nauvoo, the great emporium of the West, the center of all centers, a city of three years' growth, a population of 15,000 souls congregated from the four quarters of the globe, embracing the intelligence of all nations, with industry, frugality, economy, virtue, and brotherly love, unsurpassed by any age in the world,—a suitable home for the Saints.

‘A Gentile’, on Sept. 5, 1842:

“By the concentrated efforts of an energetic community, an imposing city is rising in the Western horizon, which soon will vie with your seaboard emporiums, and reflect the glory of the rising Sun from the spires of her Colossal Temples…”

The term "emporium" for a centre, especially of trade, was a popular one at the time. Hong Kong was being established at about this time, and everyone agreed that it would function as the emporium of the trade between England and China.

The terminology in “A Gentile’s” letters is striking: “our modern Jerusalem”, “an imposing city is rising in the Western horizon, which soon will vie with your seaboard emporiums, and reflect the glory of the rising Sun from the spires of her Colossal Temples,” and “The Prophet is again among us, gladdening the hearts of his friends with his presence.” (Sept. 5,1842)

During that ‘Party’ on 3 October 1843 (in which Foster is appointed chairman for evening); we read a resolution that stated in part, "Resolved, [that] General Joseph Smith, whether we view him as a Prophet at the head of the Church, a General at the head of the Legion, a Mayor at the head of the City Council, or as a landlord at the head of his table, if he has equals, he has no superiors."

While “A Gentile” writes:

“In relation to Joseph Smith, I can say thatI esteem to be an entertaining and useful citizen -- a warm and devoted friend-- courteous and affable in his intercourse with all -- a bold and high toned declaimer, his speeches being well charged with attic salt and Promethian fire-- his character such a combination of faculties as generally possess the elements of success. In his private character I have never seen anything to condemn, but much to admire, the disclosures of Gen. Bennett to the contrary nothwithstanding.” (Sept. 5, 1842)

I don't see that much of a parallel here. But I agree that "A Gentile" certainly sounds like a Mormon to me.

“A Gentile” also writes:

“The public buildings are going up rapidly, the associations for manufacturing and agricultural purposes are flourishing, as also those for benevolent and charitable uses; all present visible evidence of prosperity and success, with one exception, and that the most important of all, the University -- the only evidence of its usefulness that I can find, is the degrees which it has already conferred; perhaps it is on account of the departure of that distinguished scholar, the Chancellor.” (Sept. 5, 1842)

Foster served as a regent of the University of Nauvoo, member of the Nauvoo Agricultural and Manufacturing Association, county magistrate of Hancock County, Illinois, (read some of 'A Gentile's' comments about court proceedings) and surgeon-in-chief (Emma's sickness) and brevet brigadier-general of the Nauvoo Legion.

“A Gentile’s” comments sure seem to coincide with things that Foster was involved with, (along with very similar terminology) and he was definitely one of Joseph’s intimates during this period. And to send a letter anon. to the NYH, as “a Gentile”, is an interesting strategy, to deflect the sting of J.C. Bennett's inflammatory disclosures against Joseph.

I think you have an interesting line of inquiry going here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Grindael,

I've been thinking.

The Foster connections--particularly the flattery of the good doctor, the court connection, and the connections the university and the manufacturing and agricultural society--are pretty compelling. I'm adopting your identification of "A Gentile" as Robert D. Foster as my provisional working hypothesis. Of course, if further research shows that Foster wasn't around when some of these letters were written, etc. or otherwise calls that identification into question, we'll have to go back to square one. But so far I'm so impressed with the "A Gentile"-Robert D. Foster connection that I just have to smile at the puzzle work you've done.

What are the implications of this connection, should it continue to be borne out? I think the best identification of the "Egyptian alphabet" is still the GAEL, for reasons I'll summarize here. But that identification now needs, I think, to be qualified. In making it, it's necessary to argue that Robert Foster wouldn't have been familiar with the GAEL and could have confused it for a product of Book of Mormon transcription and translation. Absent evidence for his familiarity with a document that was never published, not widely discussed, and kept in Joseph's office, I think this is probable, particularly since Foster didn't join the church till 1839, some four years after the GAEL work was done.

Why equate this "Egyptian alphabet" with the GAEL?

I'm sure some of the reasons I've given above will slip my mind, but here's a summary view of some:

1. Textual evidence in William Clayton's diary compellingly indicates that Joseph Smith had compared the Kinderhook plates with the GAEL by the afternoon of May 1, 1843.

2. Parley P. Pratt, with apparent reference to the group visit to Joseph on May 7, says the Kinderhook plates characters were compared with those that are on the papyrus, which are the same characters as on the GAEL. I know you read this statement as saying they had to see the characters on the papyrus, but there is nothing in the statement that grammatically limits it that meaning. The intent is to identify the characters shown, that they are the characters on the papyrus, not the medium on which they were shown.

3. Joseph Smith's personal possession of a Book of Mormon character transcript at this time is not otherwise documented. Yes, one is published in Nauvoo the following year, but what is published matches a known transcription in possession of the Whitmers, which could have been copied, is not said to be in Joseph's possession, and follows a 16-year gap in which it appears that everyone fails to mention that Joseph has in his possession characters he'd copied from the plates.

4. Joseph Smith's personal possession of the GAEL is well known. It was kept in his office at the Red Brick Store.

5. "Egyptian alphabet" is a natural term for the GAEL, as shown by its internal name (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language), its contents, and its popular name as indicated by the label on its spine: "Egyptian Alphabet."

6. Having "translated" with apparent success from the Kinderhook plates using the GAEL would have given Joseph Smith incentive to show the Kinderhook plates-GAEL match when, as in this instance, he displayed the plates.

You've shown a pattern of data connecting Robert D. Foster with "A Gentile." I can show one connecting the Grammar and Alphabet of the English Language with the "Egyptian alphabet" and the Kinderhook plates. While it isn't as obvious that the pseudo-Gentile Foster would be ignorant of the GAEL as it is that an actual "Gentile" would be, it's not much, if any, stretch to believe he was unfamiliar with this unpublished and apparently not-much-discussed work from before he entered Mormonism.

Historians employ a type of reasoning sometimes called inference to the best explanation. And the best explanation for "A Gentile's" description of Joseph Smith comparing the Kinderhook plates with an "Egyptian alphabet" remains that he displayed for his guests the match he had found that enabled him to "translate" from the Kinderhook plates using the GAEL.

I hope you'll continue your searches. And I hope also that further unanticipated evidence like "A Gentile's" letter turns up to make Joseph Smith's engagement with the Kinderhook plates even clearer.

Kudos,

Don

[grindael]

Absolutely fascinating, Grindael.

You are quite possibly right that "A Gentile" is an insider, and particularly Robert D. Foster.

Should this prove to be the case, it would undermine the identity of the referenced "Egyptian alphabet" with the GAEL. I don't believe it would refute it, since there is other evidence for comparison to the GAEL, the presence of a BoM-derived Egyptian alphabet is not otherwise documented, etc. A Latter-day Saint could also have been confused about just what the GAEL was, particularly since the GAEL was not something with which most of the Saints would have been familiar and many (like Foster) didn't join the Church till sometime after the Kirtland period when it was created. That said, establishing the probable identity of "A Gentile" with Robert Foster would, indeed, significantly weaken the identity of the two documents.

The word usage parallels are intriguing, but not yet, I think, entirely convincing. How rare or common a term was "emporium" and how idiosyncratic would its application to Nauvoo have been? The reference to "the laws of the Medes and Persians" seems quite striking, but less so when it is understood as a biblical term and a proverbial way of referring to unalterable laws:

Daniel 6:8 Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

More impressive so far, I think, are the references to Nauvoo's agriculture, manufacturing, and university. Sheesh. That sure looks like a giveaway of Foster's identity. I don't want to prematurely adopt this view, but am very impressed.

Do we know, by the way, anything about Foster's activities at this time?

BTW, how on earth did you think of Foster?

You've done quite a bit of sleuthing and searching, and are to be commended. I look forward to what you come up with next.

Don

Don,

I'm agreeing with you here:

"Should this prove to be the case, it would undermine the identity of the referenced "Egyptian alphabet" with the GAEL."

I think it does, but it doesn't take away from the GAEL CONNECTION, at all. I don't see how that CAN be undermined, (and I haven't seen your presentation yet). It goes to common sense, and that is hard to refute. I'm really trying to make sense of the BOM comments. They just don't fit. This is just one avenue to make sense out of them. I identified with Foster, because of the rather blatant compliment of a Dr. by "A Gentile". I then looked up Foster, (who was the only really prominent Dr. who was very intimate with the Smiths), and came across this:

FOSTER, Robert D. (1811-1878), physician; born at Braunston, Northampton, England. Converted to Mormonism, 1839. Accompanied Joseph Smith to Washington, D.C. on Missouri redress issue, 1839-40. He served as a regent of the University of Nauvoo, member of the Nauvoo Agricultural and Manufacturing Association, county magistrate of Hancock County, Illinois, and surgeon-in-chief and brevet brigadier-general of the Nauvoo Legion. He joined dissidents against Joseph Smith, and was excommunicated in 1844. He assisted in publication of the Nauvoo Expositor. Practicing medicine at Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York by 1850, and later at Loda, Iroquois County, Illinois, where he died. [PJSv2]

FOSTER, Robert D. Son of John and Jane Foster. Born 14 March 1811, in Braunston, Northampton County, England. Married Sarah (born 1812 in Massachusetts). Two known children: Nicodin and Adaline. Licensed physician. Baptized before October 1839. Ordained elder 6 October 1839. Traveled to Washington, D.C., and back to Nauvoo with Joseph Smith 1 November 1839 4 March 1840. With others appointed 7 April 1840 to draft resolutions pursuant to report of Senate Committee of Judiciary, who heard Mormon memorial on Missouri persecutions. Resolutions presented to Church conference 8 April 1840. Received patriarchal blessing from Joseph Smith, Sr., 20 July 1840. Called before Nauvoo high council 13 December and 20 December 1840 for "lying, profane swearing, and slandering the authorities of the Church." Acquitted 20 December 1840. Appointed one of regents of University of Nauvoo 3 February 1841. Member of Nauvoo Agricultural and Manufacturing Association 23 February 1841. Appointed county magistrate for Hancock County, Illinois. Appointed surgeon-in-chief and brevet brigadier-general of Nauvoo Legion. Purchased land for speculation in Nauvoo. Traveled to New York City with wife 1842, arriving 30 August. Returned to Nauvoo by January 1843. Appointed to take mission with Jonathan Allen to Tioga County, New York, 10 April 1843. Sworn in as school commissioner at Carthage, Illinois, 12 August 1843. Attended opening festivities of the Nauvoo Mansion 3 October 1843. Appointed chairman for evening; read resolution that stated in part, "Resolved, [that] General Joseph Smith, whether we view him as a Prophet at the head of the Church, a General at the head of the Legion, a Mayor at the head of the City Council, or as a landlord at the head of his table, if he has equals, he has no superiors." Joined dissident Mormons in Nauvoo during winter of 1843-44. Fined for gambling in Nauvoo April 1844. Excommunicated 18 April 1844 for adultery and apostasy. Chosen apostle in schismatic group headed by William Law 28 April 1844. Court-martialed for conduct unbecoming an officer 10 May 1844. Charges sustained. Assisted in writing and printing of Nauvoo Expositor 7 June 1844. Reported to have been accessory to murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith 27 June 1844. Residing in Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York, by 1850; there practicing medicine. Later settled at Loda, Iroquois County, lllinois. [Cook]

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Resources/BioAlpha/MBRegisterF.aspx

I got riveted by the same thing you did, the Agricultural and Manufacturing comments. (He would have been proud of those accomplishments). That led me to compare some of "A Gentile's" word usage and statements with Dr. Foster's. I found the comparisons compelling. I think the above will give you a good idea of where Dr. Foster was during the period in question. He may have been in Nauvoo during the Kinderhook incident. I see he was appointed to take a mission on 10 of April, but I don't know if he left. I did find this in the History of the Church for April: Saturday, 22.—The cohorts of the legion were in exercise this day. My staff came out with me, and spent the day in riding, exercising, and organizing, and sitting in court-martial, to ascertain to what staff Robert D. Foster, Surgeon-General, Hugh McFall, Adjudant-General, and Daniel H. Wells, Commissary-General, belonged.

So he was in the City on April 22. I know he left Nauvoo and returned on 29th of June. (Woodruff Journals & Smith diary) But I can't find when he left. I did find a reference to Allen, which says he left in May:

In May 1843 Jonathan Allen was sent with others on a Mission to TiogaCo., NY and on 22 May 1843 he and Charlotte were sealed in the NauvooTemple. http://home.comcast.net/~kaeh/Histories/jacob1.htm

Was this after May 7th? Maybe. I don't know what the 'mission' was, or what it entailed. It must not have been long, if Allen was back in Nauvoo by the 23rd. Foster, may have stayed and returned on the 29th of June. I do feel strongly that 'A Gentile' was LDS. Just the way he expresses things. It's worth looking into though. Perhaps the letter you have, would give further clues. Care to post it? Or send it to me? I'd love to read it, in any case. So with what I've found, Foster isn't ruled out, but it's not definite either. But it's been interesting. I will be able to PM here, after 25 posts. This, I believe is 23 or 24.

[grindael]

Oh, well, that settles it then.

Pahoran,

I'm not saying I'm right, I just don't find conflation compelling, that is all. I could see it with one account, but we have two. Did both of them make the same mistake? What are the odds of that? And I have other evidence (that I haven't shown yet) to link the KP with the BOM. What I am really waiting for, is Don's presentation, so I can see all of his evidence and sift through it. The link to the GAEL is very compelling. My common sense tells me Don's right about it. But I don't think it's the whole story. But, like with other things, we may never know.

Regards,

grindael

I guess you can't edit until your 25th post. I can now edit. I use word and cut and paste. It has been doing weird things. But now I can fix that, after I post. Hopefully, this won't be a problem in the future.

Edited August 17, 2011 by grindael

[DonBradley]

Hey Grindael,

No mention of Dartmouth in Foster's bios? There were other doctors. Wasn't Willard Richards a doctor?

Albert Carrington was Dartmouth-educated. Was he LDS yet?

There's an LDS guy who's done a ton of research on Mormonism and Dartmouth: Richard Behrens. He would know.

Perhaps Foster was merely paying a compliment to a colleague? Or possibly the author was a close associate of Foster and this other doctor? I'll admit the university, agricultural, and manufacturing connections make it look like Foster was the author, but at this point I'd say it's still open.

Don

[DonBradley]

Did both of them make the same mistake? What are the odds of that?

Who? Are you referring to Haven and "A Gentile"?

If so, please recall that they're talking about two different things--Haven about what Joseph said on first sight of the KP characters and "A Gentile" about what characters Joseph actually compared to them on a given occasion, apparently on May 7. So, no, they wouldn't have made the "same mistake." Haven could be right (or wrong for that matter) about Joseph's April 29 response, and this is just a different thing than what Joseph does on May 7.

Don

[Pahoran]

I guess you can't edit until your 25th post. I can now edit. I use word and cut and paste. It has been doing weird things. But now I can fix that, after I post. Hopefully, this won't be a problem in the future.

Something that might be a little less work: from Word, cut and paste your post into Notepad. Check the formatting, then copy from Notepad in two or more chunks. That should lose any Word peculiarities.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Oh, well, that settles it then.

Was this a response to me? I'm not claiming to have settled anything. But the best explanation of the "Egyptian alphabet" comment remains the same to me. The "Egyptian alphabet"-Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language connection doesn't rest on the one who mentions it being non-LDS. The connection is a natural one for several reasons, as laid out above. The non-Mormon status of the one mentioning it and equating it to Book of Mormon characters would have decreased the weight of his judgment, but it's a judgment I believe would still be overwhelmed by other evidence if the letter writer is Robert D. Foster.

Now, if the letter writer turns out to be W. W. Phelps (which it doesn't seem his style) or someone else demonstrably in the know about the GAEL, that would change my mind.

In fact, wasn't Willard Richards a doctor? Richards appears to have had charge of the GAEL in the office and was Joseph's scribe for the Nauvoo BoA printer's manuscript, and for the Facsimile 2 description, which correlate closely to GAEL material.

If the letter writer turns out to be Richards--which I think should be explored, I'll eat my words: he would know the GAEL from a Book of Mormon character transcript.

Don

[Pahoran]

Was this a response to me?

No, he was quoting me. He said, "I don’t find conflation very convincing."

I then replied, "Oh, well, that settles it then. "

He quoted that without using the quote feature, which caused your confusion. I'm sure we'll get him dialled in on using the quote feature in due course. One tutorial at a time...

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

The reference to "the laws of the Medes and Persians" seems quite striking, but less so when it is understood as a biblical term and a proverbial way of referring to unalterable laws:

A stroll down google books will indeed show it to have been a proverbial expression for an unalterable decree.

[grindael]

Who? Are you referring to Haven and "A Gentile"?

If so, please recall that they're talking about two different things--Haven about what Joseph said on first sight of the KP characters and "A Gentile" about what characters Joseph actually compared to them on a given occasion, apparently on May 7. So, no, they wouldn't have made the "same mistake." Haven could be right (or wrong for that matter) about Joseph's April 29 response, and this is just a different thing than what Joseph does on May 7.

Don

I see your point Don. But both accounts link the KP characters to the BOM characters.

When he showed them to Joseph, the latter saidthat the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written,

“He compared them in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet, which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and they are evidently the same characters.”

Yes, one is a visual 'recollection', and the other a comparison. But in both, they are said to be similar to the BOM characters. Joseph knew the difference between them and the Egyptian Papyri, of course. Did he make the same mistake here twice, or did two different people make the same mistake, or did two people conflate them? I'm sure not convinced of that. But I do understand that they are two different things. One a visual recollection, one an actual comparison to SOMETHING. And "A Gentile's" account uses the plural. Not just one Character, but the same 'characters'. (And I may be reading this wrong, not having the whole account - so forgive me if I am).

Respectfully,

grindael

Edited August 17, 2011 by grindael