Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[Xander]

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

[livy111us]

He's not paying attention because he just walked passed me.

[wenglund]

Interesting, so it is an idea that he was trying to make a secular translation?

From what I can tell, yes, though I might use the word "academic" instead of "secular". The GAEL was created academically, and likely for both secular and religious purposes. What exactly those purposes may have been, is still open for reasoned debate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

From what I can tell, yes, though I might use the word "academic" instead of "secular". The GAEL was created academically, and likely for both secular and religious purposes. What exactly those purposes may have been, is still open for reasoned debate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade.

[wenglund]

Could someone please offer a more thorough analysis of his argument and the evidence presented?

Thanks in advance.

I would be interested in this as well. My curiosity is piqued to learn how closely Don's findings match what I posted several years back on the FAIR board during a discussion Don and I were having on the topic. I also subsequently posted it to my now defunct apologetic web site.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[morgan.deane]

For all the huffing and puffing on this thread I didn't see a detailed description of the presentation. I listened to it online and thought the evidence was impressive.

He first examined William Law's journal account from May 7th 1843. He made several arguments that showed why it is trustworthy and shouldn't be discounted because it disagrees with the Pratt account.

He showed another journal entry which showed that Smith requested a Hebrew Bible and Lexicon to commence with a non revelatory translation. He seems to argue that this entry was incorrrect in the details and he instead requested the "GAEL". In the question afterwards he acknowledge this also had cipher like qualities in addition to be used as an alphabet in this instance. He suggested that reconciling the two is a fruitful avenue for further research.

He then showed how one of the pictures on the plates absolutely matching a character in the GAEL and the brief translation recorded by Law. As recorded by the Law the Smith translation of this character discussed how this was connnected to Egypt and concerned descendents of Ham. The character that matches the picture on the Kinderhook plates matches the character on the second page of the GAEL, and the explanation describes several Egyptian ideas.

Finally he showed a New York Times letter from "a gentile" that described many of the above things. So he found three primary sources that describe a non revelatory translation on May 7th 1843.

This is all from memory, and since I watched this online I had really really really really annoying commercials that interupted the presentation at key moments. (I payed for this service so you think I could get the commercial free premium version) So this is a very rough summation but I think I got all the major points. I hope this helps you discuss the substance of his presentation and not get into silly and stupid arguments or last year's presentation.

[Xander]

So, I think it is probably safe to say that the whole "Joseph Smith knew the Kinderhook Plates were fraudulent, which is why he never tried to translate them" assertion, is now effectively blown out of the water.

[morgan.deane]

So, I think it is probably safe to say that the whole "Joseph Smith knew the Kinderhook Plates were fraudulent, which is why he never tried to translate them" assertion, is now effectively blown out of the water.

Based on the presentation that is safe to say.

[why me]

So, I think it is probably safe to say that the whole "Joseph Smith knew the Kinderhook Plates were fraudulent, which is why he never tried to translate them" assertion, is now effectively blown out of the water.

I don't think so. But since it was a non revelatory translation we can assume that he may not have considered it from god but found by man. He also may have wanted to gear up on his language skills. And I am sure that he attempted a translation but stopped the translation and went on to better things. Something went wrong.

What is true is that the fraudsters thought that no hay was made by JS and they went on their way to better things also.

[wenglund]

So, I think it is probably safe to say that the whole "Joseph Smith knew the Kinderhook Plates were fraudulent, which is why he never tried to translate them" assertion, is now effectively blown out of the water.

I don't know about blowing it out of the water, though it does render it moot.

By the way, is this an argument you used to proffer while a believer and apologists? I ask because it isn';t one I am familiar with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

There really was no need to act like a jerk to Mola.

[why me]

I have always claimed that if JS were a fraudster, he would not have fallen for such a trick. He would have known better than to fall for this trick with the kinderhook plates which was somewhat similiar to the book of mormon being found on plates. But if he weren't a fraudster, he may have given it a try and than moved on to better things once he smelled a fish or thought the better of it.

[Xander]

I don't know about blowing it out of the water, though it does render it moot.

By the way, is this an argument you used to proffer while a believer and apologists? I ask because it isn';t one I am familiar with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually I'm pretty sure it was whyme who argued this on the other forum.

But the fact is apologists have been arguing profusely that Joseph Smith never attempted to translate the plates. They've pretty much had to drag William Clayton under the bus in order to do so, since his journal entry specifically references a translation from those plates. From what I hear today, Don has pretty much shown that Joseph Smith believed the plates were genuinely ancient and that he even tried to translate a portion of them. He also tied them to the GAEl which throws a huge question mark over William's cipher theory.

But I already know how the apologists are going to tackle this. They're probably going to say it doesn't matter because it was merely an "academic" translation and Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect. The goal posts are always on the move. This is interesting because last year Will argued specifically that "Thereis no evidence that he attempted any sort of what we would term an academic translation of Egyptian papyri."

Now we know Joseph Smith had no problem whatsoever doing "academic" translations.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

If one is looking for arguments that way have been "blown out of the water," I would think that various arguments of certain critics might prove more productive--such as,the Kinderhook translation proves that Joseph Smith isn't a prophet of God.

I would be interested to learn how closely Laws journal entry fit Clayton's journal entry. It seemed to me as though certain critics viewed the Clayton account as a dictation, if not also beyond question. Could these perceptions have been "blown out of the water" as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

You can always hope, wade.

But I doubt it. I'm not sure Law's and Clayton's journal were talking about the same thing. It sounds like Law was discussing a specific character as it relates to the GAEL. Clayton's was a general translation from an unspecific portion. But I'll leave it to Don to explicate this further.

[Nevo]

He first examined William Law's journal account from May 7th 1843. He made several arguments that showed why it is trustworthy and shouldn't be discounted because it disagrees with the Pratt account.

I didn't think there was a William Law journal for 1843.

[morgan.deane]

I didn't think there was a William Law journal for 1843.

I was reciting his presentation from memory. I could have mistaken it for William Clayton's journal.

[wenglund]

Actually I'm pretty sure it was whyme who argued this on the other forum.

But the fact is apologists have been arguing profusely that Joseph Smith never attempted to translate the plates. They've pretty much had to drag William Clayton under the bus in order to do so, since his journal entry specifically references a translation from those plates.

I can't speak for any apologist but myself, but prior to figuring out several years ago the possible connection between characters in the GAEL and the Kinderhook Plates and the GAEL English translation and what was written in Clayton's Journal, I was open to the plausibility of an informal translation--either as a possible joke or a preliminary work-up.

Part of the reason that some apologists may have doubted tha there was a translation was because an historical account of one of the non-members at the time (I don't recall off hand the lady's name), who said that Joseph refused to translate the plates until they had been verified by the Society of Antiquities. The plates were later sent to the Society, and not returned to Joseph or Kirtland thereafter.

From what I hear today, Don has pretty much shown that Joseph Smith believed the plates were genuinely ancient and that he even tried to translate a portion of them.

From what I can tell, it sounds like Joseph wasn't certain one way or the other about the plates, but perhaps he affected an academic translation as a means for shedding some light on the question. Even still, as mentioned above, at least one historical account suggests that Joseph had his doubts about the plates authenticity, but reserved judgement and formal translation until after the plates were sent to the experts.

He also tied them to the GAEl which throws a huge question mark over William's cipher theory.

It is certainly something to open-mindedly look into.

[deleted speculative well poisoning]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

at least one historical account suggests that Joseph had his doubts about the plates authenticity

Which would be?

[T-Shirt]

Which would be?

Wilbur Fugate. In a letter dated April 8, 1878 he states, "We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages, but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England."

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 6, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Deborah]

He also tied them to the GAEl which throws a huge question mark over William's cipher theory.

Actually, Don was asked about this and said there are elements of a cipher in the GAEL. The point was that there was a recognizable translated symbol and Joseph wanted to do some more research before going further. As I recall, Will never said there weren't actual Egyptian symbols but there were other symbols which called into question that it was an Egyptian alphabet per se, but he'll have to address that.

[David T]

I was reciting his presentation from memory. I could have mistaken it for William Clayton's journal.

The Clayton journal was one, I'm not sure of the source of the second one which quoted Pratt, and the third was a newspaper article, which specifically mentioned Joseph requesting and using the Alphabet and Grammar. Bradley spent a considerable amount of time explaining Clayton's day around Joseph (officiating at a plural marriage for him, having supper with him, making several journal entries at the house during the day, etc), and doing a very good job of pointing out that the assertion made by some that Clayton was just reporting some rumor, and not getting the material directly from Joseph, was pretty much indefensible.

[Xander]

Wilbur Fugate. In a letter dated April 8, 1878 he states, "We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages, but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England."

A statement recorded nearly four decades later, but an admitted forger who said in the same breath that Joseph Smith did a translation.

But you omitted that part:

"We understood Jo Smith said they [i.e., the Kinderhook plates] would / make a book of 1200 pages but he would not / agree to translate them until they were sent / to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia / France, and England, they were sent and / the answer was that there were no such / Hyeroglyphics known and if there ever had / been they had long since passed away / then Smith began his translation[.]"

If apologists want to consider Fugate's statement credible then they have to take all of it, not just the first half.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

The Clayton journal was one, I'm not sure of the source of the second one which quoted Pratt, and the third was a newspaper article, which specifically mentioned Joseph requesting and using the Alphabet and Grammar. Bradley spent a considerable amount of time explaining Clayton's day around Joseph (officiating at a plural marriage for him, having supper with him, making several journal entries at the house during the day, etc), and doing a very good job of pointing out that the assertion made by some that Clayton was just reporting some rumor, and not getting the material directly from Joseph, was pretty much indefensible.

OK that makes more sense. I heard William Law and was like, what?

[T-Shirt]

A statement recorded nearly four decades later, but an admitted forger who said in the same breath that Joseph Smith did a translation.

But you omitted that part:

"We understood Jo Smith said they [i.e., the Kinderhook plates] would / make a book of 1200 pages but he would not / agree to translate them until they were sent / to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia / France, and England, they were sent and / the answer was that there were no such / Hyeroglyphics known and if there ever had / been they had long since passed away / then Smith began his translation[.]"

If apologists want to consider Fugate's statement credible then they have to take all of it, not just the first half.

Kevin, I don't know where you got your quote, but it is a combination of two statements separated by more than thirty years. I did use all of the statement, your source fudged by combining two quotes and made it appear as though they were one. In addition, the last part of your quote, which you, erroneously, claimed to be, "all of it", could not have been accurate as the plates were never returned to Nauvoo after they were allegedly sent to the Antiquarian Society.

All the best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 6, 2011 by T-Shirt