Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd love to hear more about this portion of the paper.

I take it, then, that you were not present at the conference yesterday.

Back in the '60s, Kimball concluded that William Clayton was merely reporting rumor when he wrote of Joseph Smith translating a portion of the Kinderhook plates.

Don showed through documentation how unlikely that is, given Clayton's close association with and proximity to the Prophet during the time in question.

What Don proposed in place of Kimball's theory is that Joseph attempted a translation of the Kinderhook plates, unaided by divine revelation, relying instead on his own very limited understanding of ancient languages. Unsurprisingly, he didn't get far in this, because, of course, the Kinderhook plates were a fraud.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

What does GAEL mean?

[Scott Lloyd]

What does GAEL mean?

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

[Duncan]

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

aha! thanks!

[Nenahnezad]

I did. Every single one of the apologists who claim to speak for the Church has been discredited.

I'm taking your word for it that such apologists exist. I've never actually met one, myself.

Proves my point. My words were speaks for Mormonism, not the Church.

I've heard of LDS apologists who twist word meanings. But I've never met one. Have you?

[Robert F. Smith]

aha! thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

"Gael" is also used for modern Irish or Scottish Celts.

[Duncan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

"Gael" is also used for modern Irish or Scottish Celts.

That is exactley what I was thinking but was confused by the ensuing discourse so I wanted to clear things up!

[Robert F. Smith]

That is exactley what I was thinking but was confused by the ensuing discourse so I wanted to clear things up!

Duncan -- isn't that a gaelic name?

[Duncan]

Duncan -- isn't that a gaelic name?

oh, probably! I actually don't even know why I picked it! Other then a great-uncle who died before I was born I don't actually know anyone with the name. I was thinking maybe I should change my screen name to "Gilchrist" which is Gaelic for Servant of Christ-but I don't want to lose any of my posting numbers or privileges!

Edited August 7, 2011 by Duncan

[jmordecai]

I think that what happens is that critics think that everything JS did must have been during prophetic moments. But this is not true. With the kinderhook plates, it seems that he did a non-revelatory process where God played no role...

I would like to echo Thew's question to you... how do you reach this conclusion?

I am under the impression that Smith was given a supernatural gift in January 1841, prior to the Kinderhook episode, of being a Seer (D&C 124:125), one who can translate ancient records (Mosiah 8:13).

That Smith's translation results in the plates containing ancient content is consistent here. Otherwise, that Smith went ahead and did a translation without his Seer powers... how does he derive what he did from the fraudulent plates?

[Scott Lloyd]

I would like to echo Thew's question to you... how do you reach this conclusion?

I am under the impression that Smith was given a supernatural gift in January 1841, prior to the Kinderhook episode, of being a Seer (D&C 124:125), one who can translate ancient records (Mosiah 8:13).

What is there in either of those passages that binds Why Me or anyone else to accept your assumption that such a gift would be in operation 24/7, whether or not it served any divine purpose?

That Smith's translation results in the plates containing ancient content is consistent here. Otherwise, that Smith went ahead and did a translation without his Seer powers... how does he derive what he did from the fraudulent plates?

This has already been explained. He recognized a single character in the fraudulent plates that conveyed a meaning from which he derived his attempted translation.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

oh, probably! I actually don't even know why I picked it! Other then a great-uncle who died before I was born I don't actually know anyone with the name. I was thinking maybe I should change my screen name to "Gilchrist" which is Gaelic for Servant of Christ-but I don't want to lose any of my posting numbers or privileges!

The mods in the past have been able to change posters' names, you could pm them and ask them if they would mind doing so (assuming they still can after the upgrades of the board).

[Scott Lloyd]

Don, you elicited a one-word response, "Wow," from the usually-cyber-loquacious Kevin Graham, and then you shut him up! (If memory serves, he crowed rather loudly here on the days leading up to the conference about how the buildup wouldn't match your actual presentation, leaving us all [well, some of us, anway] underwhelmed.) For that reason alone, you should be heartily lauded! Congratulations!

So Xander is Graham? I suspected as much.

[why me]

The big deal is that it affects LDS Apologetics who claim they speak for Mormonism. When apologetics claim, as was quoted earlier: "I think that what happens is that critics think that everything JS did must have been during prophetic moments. But this is not true."

As if LDS Apologetics have the authority to say when the Prophet was acting or speaking during prophetic moments; the Prophet was or wasn't depending on whether his words support the apologetics' particular arguments at the time.

This is pulled out of the hat - a "we get home free" card.

I don't know if you have realized this but lds apologists are just men and women engaged in defending the lds church from its enemies and crtics. Apologetics is not a full time job with a salary of half a million a year. For most, it is a hobby and an interest. Nothing more. And so, what apologists do do is research problematic cases in the lds church to come up with answers for crtics and interested members to digest. And this is the case with Don who once was a member of the lds church who became a critic and who now has become a member again. And to my knowledge no apologist today was alive at the time of JS. And so, apologists only have tidbits to digest and hope to come up with a good answers for all concerned. And the same goes for the critics. And this 'battle royal' continues like a hamster wheel with a hamster in it with an ocassional rest as people also attempt to make a living.

[why me]

You have repeated this claim for at least two years now. But it is pure speculation on your part and makes no sense to me how you leap to this conclusion. Just because Joseph Smith made up the story about gold plates doesn't mean he would never accept other claimed discoveries, especially when they were willing to show the discovery to just anyone. Joseph Smith hid the plates from virtually everyone.

In this case kevin it was so clear an imitation of JS's 'fraud' if he were a fraudster that any fraudster who made a similiar fraud would have given the original fraudster a chuckle under his or her breath with the plates in hand. However, he would have been much more open to possibilities if he weren't a fraudster. And I don't believe that he would have called upon god to conduct the same process as with the book of mormon. By this time he would have been around the block a few times and not be too blue eyed. But he would have given it a try with book in hand to attempt a translation based on his own limited knowledge.

At least this is what I would have done in the same situation.

[why me]

A good point, I think.

And as a fraudster if challenged about this, he would have told the fraudsters that the message came from god to take the plates to a learned man based on his fervent prayer over the matter. That would have worked quite nicely.

[why me]

I believe Don made the point that Joseph put it aside because he wanted to do some further study but then apparently never thought it was important enough to get back to or other things intervened.

He also provided some evidence that the creators never intended as a fraud but as a practical joke due to all the interest of the local members in this kind of thing. The point is there was never anything further done with the plates that we know of and the fact that Joseph didn't feel any imperative to follow up on them indicates to me he didn't think they were anything of importance except maybe as a hobby, unlike his translation of the BOA or the revision of the Bible.

I don't think that this was a practical joke at all except if it were a practical joke with evil intent. Because the fact is that if JS would have translated these plates and give the plates a name based on his prophethood, the fraudsters would have come out with the truth and down would go the lds church like a house of cards.

The point however is that JS did not think it worth any further consideration. Why? And in that we can only make some assumptions unless we have a statement from JS.

[Chris Smith]

Back in the '60s, Kimball concluded that William Clayton was merely reporting rumor when he wrote of Joseph Smith translating a portion of the Kinderhook plates.

Don showed through documentation how unlikely that is, given Clayton's close association with and proximity to the Prophet during the time in question.

What Don proposed in place of Kimball's theory is that Joseph attempted a translation of the Kinderhook plates, unaided by divine revelation, relying instead on his own very limited understanding of ancient languages. Unsurprisingly, he didn't get far in this, because, of course, the Kinderhook plates were a fraud.

Oh, OK. Sorry, I was confused as to which Stan Kimball argument you were referencing.

[Xander]

Hi Kevin,

Not buying the document is a significant difference.

I've just finished FAIR and am helping out for a day with Sunstone, all in the midst of trying to get my book done. So I should minimize my participation here. But I'll try to get back on the board to clarify a bit what I presented. Of course, the ideal thing will be when the presentation is online. Then you can see the data for yourself.

Don

Hi Don,

It is true Joseph Smith didn't purchase the plates, but then again why would he need to? Unlike the BoA papyri, these plates were not inscribed by prominent biblical figures so their projected value was minimal at best.

Also, these plates were easily copied and the Church published them in their entirety making it easy for future translation projects.

So if Joseph Smith showed little interest in completing a full translation then this probably has to do with their relative insignificance by comparison to papyri written by the biblical Abraham. The Kinderhook Plates were also "discovered" a year before the Prophet was killed, so to say he had more important matters on his plate at the time is probably an understatement. So what did he do? He provided a quick off the cuff explanation as to what the plates were. This is consistent with previous instances when he was asked to comment on something ancient. He quickly explained that the papyri were from Abraham and Joseph, he quickly explained that an Indian skeleton belonged to a Lamanite freedom fighter named Zelph, and he quickly explained that the Greek Psalter was a dictionary of Hieroglyphics. Joseph Smith claimed that the Psalter contained Egyptian symbols which were followed by their corresponding translation into Reformed Egyptian. He didn't offer to purchase this book either. Caswall's account is supported by the fact that this is precisely how the Book of Abraham manuscripts had been arranged, with an Egyptian character followed by their corresponding translation.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[DonBradley]

Hi Kevin,

I agree that if Joseph had intended to do more with the Kinderhook plates he may have simply not had time.

I disagree that his actions suggest he had any such intention. On your argument, Joseph intended to produce a book of scripture that would back up the Book of Mormon (a Jaredite record) but was indifferent about possessing the plates that would back up that book of scripture itself. But this would have been far better than having mere witness testimonies--he could have displayed the actual plates!

Thus despite his initial openness to the Kinderhook plates, indicating by his comparing them to the Egyptian alphabet materials, Joseph's behavior is simply not what we would expect if he ultimately accepted the Kinderhook plates as genuine and intended to base new scripture on them.

BTW, using Caswall's Greek psalter story, which we don't know happened as he tells it, to interpret Joseph Smith's known behavior with regard to the Kinderhook plates--working with them but not buying them--seems both logically and tactically flawed. The only people who are going to be convinced by such an argument are those already inclined to swallow Caswall's story whole and uncritically--i.e., those who believe Joseph Smith could not translate. Also, while I'm aware of plenty of critics who accept Caswall's complete accuracy, I'm not aware of historians who do the same. Are you? Finally, to reason from Joseph's behavior as narrated by Caswall in order to understand his known behavior regarding the Kinderhook plates is to use the less certain and perhaps partly imaginary case as a basis for understanding the more solid and documented case, which seems methodologically backward.

Don

Edited August 7, 2011 by DonBradley

[Chris Smith]

I don't know about complete accuracy, but I've found Caswall's accounts of viewing the papyri to be generally reliable, and I think the Greek Psalter story has much to commend its historicity, as well. (Maybe that opinion disqualifies me as a historian, though. )

[DonBradley]

I don't know about complete accuracy, but I've found Caswall's accounts of viewing the papyri to be generally reliable, and I think the Greek Psalter story has much to commend its historicity, as well. (Maybe that opinion disqualifies me as a historian, though. )

I don't have all the details in the forefront of my mind. But, as I recall, I've found the Caswall story to have too much accurate data in it to be simply dismissed and too much of what looks like BS to simply be swallowed (unless one enjoys swallowing such things). Caswall's bias and motives are also evident in other stories and comments he offers about Nauvoo. But this is a topic for another time. To make Caswall the center of discussion here would be a tangent.

In either case, Chris, do you think what happened in the Caswall incident is certain enough to use as a basis for understanding Joseph's known behavior of not purchasing the Kinderhook plates when offered to him for sale?

Don

[Xander]

Don,

I agree that Caswall was biased and most likely viewed Joseph Smith as a fraud, but that doesn't mean everything he says can be dismissed as a lie. His description of Joseph Smith's poor manner of speaking was probably an exaggeration. However, this isn't enough to prove he was lying about this incident. It isn't unusual for ministers to carry around religious material like a Greek Psalter, so given his skepticism we'd most certainly expect Caswall to do exactly what he said he did, which was to see if Joseph Smith could take a crack at it. I know that is exactly something I would do too. You say only those who believe Joseph Smith was a fraud would believe his story, but that isn't necessarily true.

I think there is a valid reason to consider Caswall's account, and what really does it for me is the way Caswall described Joseph Smith's explanation, which is exactly how the Book of Abraham manuscripts are set up: one Egyptian character to the left, followed by translated text to the right. So is this just some wild coincidence? After all, Caswall was unfamiliar with the KEP documents.

Anyway, I really want to read or listen to your presentation in its entirety before getting too deeply into this. Do you have some idea when and where it will be available?

In either case, Chris, do you think what happened in the Caswall incident is certain enough to use as a basis for understanding Joseph's known behavior of not purchasing the Kinderhook plates when offered to him for sale?

Just to be clear, I didn't mention this for the purpose of explaining his behavior with the Kinderhook Plates. I only mentioned it because it is one of several examples where Joseph Smith was presented with "ancient" material and asked to take a crack at it. Caswall's version of the incident is consistent with the others in that Joseph Smith took a crack at it via revelation, for the purpose of offering a quick explanation.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[Thinking]

The point however is that JS did not think it worth any further consideration.

How do you know that JS did not think it worth any further consideration? Is it because no translation was ever published? 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.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Thinking

[DonBradley]

Hi Kevin,

I'm saying I think Caswall's account probably has something to it, in the sense that I think Joseph must have commented on the similarity of the psalter to his own Egyptian alphabet documents. I also think, however, that Caswall is probably distorting the content of what Joseph said just like he distorts his grammar--and for the same reason: to discredit him.

BTW, since Joseph's "crack" at the Kinderhook plates, as reported by Clayton, isn't revelatory but (as you'll see) derived from the KEP, I'm not clear on what the Caswall incident is supposed to show.

I think you're right to want to see the data before taking the discussion too far. They should be putting up both a video and a transcript.

Don