Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[DonBradley]

...

Edited August 7, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

Grindael,

You seem to have missed the point of the entire discussion. Vague reference to the Kinderhook plates being related to the GAEL is nothing like actually identifying in the GAEL the source of Joseph's reported Kinderhook plates translation.

Also, if you exercise your Google skills a little more carefully you'll find that Wade's speculation about a Kinderhook plates-GAEL connection emerges from discussions I had with him and others on the boards in which I inadvertantly revealed more of my argument than I intended.

Don

[DonBradley]

And Charlotte Haven’s statement says that when Smith saw the plates he said that with the help of ‘revelation’, he would be able to translate them. Of course this is second hand, but it is an actual reported statement from the time. Shouldn't this be considered as much as the GAEL theory?

No. The "GAEL theory" isn't a theory. It is the demonstratble modus operandi of Joseph's reported translation.

Try as I can, I can’t see how the GAEL evidence is overwhelming, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Smith used the Egyptian Alphabet in the manner stated.

Perhaps this is because you don't even know the GAEL evidence itself

I see it as speculation, because there is no way to really know. (unless there is some new evidence I’m not aware of).

The entire thread is about new evidence that you seem, despite having (presumably) read it, to not be aware of. Watch the video when it's put up, and then see what you think.

Don

[Chris Smith]

Aren't 1 and 2 somewhat mutually refuting?

Since he never actually finished the BoA project despite many promises to do so, I'd say they are not. In fact, part of the reason he picked up the BoA project again in 1842 in the first place was that the brethren were bugging him to do so.

I thought behavior was evidence of motives, and that we as historians (and simply humans) were in the business of inferring motives from behavior.

Yes, but when we have multiple equally plausible motives and no way of deciding between them, I don't know that there's much we can do about that.

If he intended to translate a book from them, then he had inordinate reason to want to obtain them.

Is there any reason to believe he intended to translate a book from them?

But he didn't. This is not simply irrelevant to understanding his ultimate conclusions on the Kinderhook plates; it is our best clue as to what those conclusions were.

I think you're assuming a lot, that's all. *shrug*

[grindael]

Don, I was only saying it was attributed to Joseph Smith. (per Michael Ash & others):

A number of years ago LDS scholar H. Donl Petersondiscovered two copies of a hand-drawn map (author unknown) in the LDS Church archives. The maps claim to depict the travels of Moroni. The previous owner of the map claims to have acquired the maps from early Latter-day Saint Robert ****son, who got it from William McBride and Andrew Hamilton, who got it from Joseph Smith... “If the map is genuine and accurately reflects thethinking of early Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith, it supports the theorythat Moroni traveled Northward along what became the El Camino, continuedtraveling north-northwest to Arizona, and then worked his way north throughUtah (where we learn that he dedicated the spot for the Manti Temple as well asother temple sites) and eventually found his way to upstate New York.” http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19862

I'm not saying that it was a definite, or that Ash says so. But it is being bandied about to try and support LGT. If Smith were going to buy the plates, who would he have dealt with? It it that far out of a premise? But Fugate did say that Smith would not translate until they were verified, did he not? Why would he say this, if he didn't have dealings with Fugate in some kind of way? I don't know what the process was, just that they had to interact in some way, whether it was in person, or through intermediaries. Is that not logical?

[DonBradley]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the quotes frow Will's presentation.

As I've said, if it is intrinsic to Will's theory that the GAEL be nothing but a cipher (i.e., for encipherment), then the GAEL's use in interpreting a Kinderhook plates character would clash with that theory. You've quoted Will to the effect--if I'm reading correctly--that the GAEL wasn't used to decipher anything. If this view is intrinsic to Will's theory, then this would be problematic.

But...

1) I don't think it follows that if Will opined that the GAEL was not intended to decipher, this mean that this opinion is integral to the new theory he presented.

2) Ever since Will's presentation there has been argument over what he meant, including frequent comments from Will and more recently from Nomad indicating that the presentation has been misunderstood.

and

3) Will has not yet fully laid out his theory and the data and arguments for it.

Consequently, I would feel more than a bit silly concluding that I know fully what Will intends and is going to say in his future publication(s), and claiming on the basis of my presumed knowledge that this find refutes or undermines Will's theory.

I'm more than willing to give him a chance to fully say what he has to say and clarify his own meaning before I draw solid conclusions on how it fits with other data.

If anything is muddying the waters, it isn't my "refusal" to declare victory in a fight I didn't know I was in; it's that we don't yet have Will's theory fully laid out to be judged. I really, really hope it gets published in the JBMORS or wherever that's going to happen--and relatively soon. Until then, I really don't want to prognosticate. I'm only a clairvoyant when acting as such.

Don

[grindael]

Don, I was referring to Wade Englund's theory. (which I posted), I haven't seen your new 'evidence', that is why I mentioned new evidence, and left it open ended. And I AM aware of the GAEL connection, (I have a complete copy of the KEP and a copy of the KP) and understand what Englund was getting at. Is your premise different than the one that Wade Englund postulated in 2009 (or perhaps he got that from you)?

[DonBradley]

Hi Grindael,

Yes. Fugate must have heard things through someone that he understood to come from Joseph Smith. That is perfectly logical. But Fugate doesn't say how he heard this or through whom, reports it 35 years later, and contradicts what we know was actually going on in Nauvoo--i.e., that Joseph did some sort of "translating" right away.

Note that Fugate doesn't say Joseph didn't translate. He claims to know that Joseph did translate, but that he did so only after the plates had been sent to various antiquarian societies. In fact, Clayton's May 1 journal entry shows that he must have translated shortly after the plates showed up in Nauvoo.

Fugate appears to simply not know what he's talking about and has framed his story to make Joseph look bad: Joseph would only translate when he discovered no one else could--something that is simply false.

As to the Moroni map, if it is merely, and dubiously, claimed to have been written by Joseph Smith, why exactly is it relevant? If my Aunt Louise had a tradition about the Kinderhook plates supposedly handed down from Fugate 150 years ago, would this be worth injecting into the discussion? Before the Moroni map can have any relevance, it needs to be analyzed to see if it's a legitimate historical source.

If we're going to talk about the subject, why not use the sources that are closer to the event and more reliable, rather than appealing to apocryphal maps and shady late accounts?

Don

[grindael]

Hi Grindael,

Yes. Fugate must have heard things through someone that he understood to come from Joseph Smith. That is perfectly logical. But Fugate doesn't say how he heard this or through whom, reports it 35 years later, and contradicts what we know was actually going on in Nauvoo--i.e., that Joseph did some sort of "translating" right away.

Note that Fugate doesn't say Joseph didn't translate. He claims to know that Joseph did translate, but that he did so only after the plates had been sent to various antiquarian societies. In fact, Clayton's May 1 journal entry shows that he must have translated shortly after the plates showed up in Nauvoo.

Fugate appears to simply not know what he's talking about and has framed his story to make Joseph look bad: Joseph would only translate when he discovered no one else could--something that is simply false.

As to the Moroni map, if it is merely, and dubiously, claimed to have been written by Joseph Smith, why exactly is it relevant? If my Aunt Louise had a tradition about the Kinderhook plates supposedly handed down from Fugate 150 years ago, would this be worth injecting into the discussion? Before the Moroni map can have any relevance, it needs to be analyzed to see if it's a legitimate historical source.

If we're going to talk about the subject, why not use the sources that are closer to the event and more reliable, rather than appealing to apocryphal maps and shady late accounts?

Don

Hi back,

Is Michael Ash not doing the same thing? That is where I got the information from. Perhaps you should take that up with him. He seems to be doing for LGT, what you are saying. And I only asked a question about it, no need to bite my head off. Is Charlotte Haven's account reliable? And I DO agree that Smith translated right away. So do you think that Fugate made up the story about Smith telling him to have the Plates sent out? And yes Fugate has problems, but there are a lot of problems with EVERYONE'S accounts, aren't there? And I am sorry about the Wade Englund connection, I missed your comment that he got it from you, I was writing up a reply, and then got caught up after, (but I did ask the question if he did get it from you).

[grindael]

And you may not be aware, but FAIR put this up yesterday, I believe, so I'm not confused about what exactly this discussion is about:

Did Joseph Smith attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Don Bradley presented compelling evidence during his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates. ^[2] Bradley noted that William Clayton's account is likely representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, since evidence indicates that he made his journal entries that day while he was at the Prophet's home. Clayton's account states that

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on the second page of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphbet,) written by W. W.. Phelps. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

http://www.fairwiki.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

[grindael]

And it looks like that symbol is on the 4th page, I didn't see one on the second. Is that correct?

[DonBradley]

And it looks like that symbol is on the 4th page, I didn't see one on the second. Is that correct?

Hi again Grindael,

I appreciate your kindly responses above and apologize if I've been testy.

The symbol is on page 4 of the GAEL, which is the second page of characters on the GAEL, since the first two are "grammatical."

My point there is that if Joseph begins comparing characters on the KP with those on the GAEL, he only has to go a whopping two pages in with his character comparison before he hits a match. Part of what's remarkable about Joseph's reported "translation" from the KP is the utter ease with which it could have been done.

Don

[Chris Smith]

I'm only a clairvoyant when acting as such.

A specious distinction. I've never known you to be wrong, so I must conclude that you act as such on a permanent basis.

As for Will's meaning, I still think you're being overly generous. The insistence by Schryver partisans that his thesis has been misunderstood strikes me as little more than equivocation. But I suppose there's no use in arguing about it. As you say, William will presumably eventually publish his paper and clarify his meaning. And if he doesn't, then it's a non-issue.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Chris Smith

[grindael]

Hi again Grindael,

I appreciate your kindly responses above and apologize if I've been testy.

The symbol is on page 4 of the GAEL, which is the second page of characters on the GAEL, since the first two are "grammatical."

My point there is that if Joseph begins comparing characters on the KP with those on the GAEL, he only has to go a whopping two pages in with his character comparison before he hits a match. Part of what's remarkable about Joseph's reported "translation" from the KP is the utter ease with which it could have been done.

Don

NP. Perhaps your new evidence will be compelling. Maybe Fair should make that clarification that you just made to me, in their article, to avoid confusion. What made me sure, was the description that goes along with the character, which is a no brainer. But some may get confused.

[Pahoran]

Don, let me see if I've understood this correctly.

1) You argue that the "translated a portion" statement recorded in William Clayton's journal matches the GAEL explanation of one character, and that character in turn matches a character shown on the Kinderhook Plates.

2) From this you conclude that Joseph's statement was based upon recognising that character and remembering (or looking up) the recorded meaning from the GAEL.

3) You also point out that this represents a standard secular or "academic" approach to translation, and not a revelatory one.

4) Which means, of course, that Joseph's attempt to translate the KP's says nothing at all about his prophetic claims.

5) It also means that past apologetic arguments to the effect that William Clayton was merely reporting rumours etc. are refuted.

So far, so good?

However, it occurs to me that those past apologetic arguments serve no purpose at all except to blunt the force of the claim that Joseph's attempt to translate the KP's demonstrates his lack of prophetic gifts, and thus is some kind of "smoking gun" for the anti-Mormons.

But if your argument is correct, then it cannot be any kind of "smoking gun" at all, so the "defeated" apologetic arguments are simply not needed anyway.

So, in chess terms, the result of your presentation is to sacrifice a white pawn to capture a black queen.

In which case, I confess myself rather puzzled as to why certain parties are crowing so loudly and triumphantly about the sacrifice of that particular pawn. Can you see where they are coming from?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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. )

Ah, but which Greek Psalter story?

The first one, in which Caswall told Joseph up front (the Joseph with the huge hands and invisible eyes) that the Greek Psalter was a Greek Psalter, then Backwoods Joe contradicted him, rambling on about "them characters" and "Reformed Egyptian," thus showing himself to be an ignoramus and poor scholar? And in which Caswall then changed the subject and asked to see the papyri, even though he had already seen them the previous day? And in which, in the middle of a discussion about one of the characters on the papyri, Joseph abruptly left the room? And then several minutes later when Caswall came out the door, he saw Joseph driving his wagon at breakneck speed, whipping his fine horses to death in a mad panic to avoid telling Caswall what that character meant?

Or did you have one of the other five Psalter stories in mind?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Joseph Antley]

Has anyone yet addressed that if Don is correct, doesn't it follow that Joseph Smith was likely the definite author of the character glosses in the GAEL and the apologetic implications of that?

[Xander]

In which case, I confess myself rather puzzled as to why certain parties are crowing so loudly and triumphantly about the sacrifice of that particular pawn. Can you see where they are coming from?

I'll try to help you understand what critics think, or should think in terms of the significance of Don's presentation. It is hard to escape the reality that Don's work vindicates a number of arguments presented by critics over the years, particularly several made by Brent Metcalfe regarding the validity of Clayton's account. Anyone vaguely familiar with these debates would remember apologists like Ben McGuire and Wade Englund refusing to budge an inch on the position that Clayton's account was not credible and that Joseph Smith never tried to translate anything from the Kinderhook Plates. Don proved otherwise.

But perhaps most importantly is the fact that he reveals the GAEL was used as a Lexicon of sorts, to translate symbols, which again validates the critic's view of their purpose. This is a huge win for the critics, especially in light of recent directions BoA apologetics had been headed. The GAEL had recently been downplayed as an irrelevant attempt to create a cipher, and nothing to do with translating ancient symbols. Will Schryver's much balyhooed presentation from a year ago, is now effectively dead in the water. That's huge.

As far as I can tell, the apologists have only one ray of light provided by Don; that the translation was only an "academic" one. This may or may not be true, and I'm going to wait until I see his presentation before commenting further on this matter. However, I don't see how this in any way changes the fact that apologists have been giving critics an extremely hard time and accusing them of anti-Mormon bias or what not, for simply accepting basic facts that Don revealed to be true.

So contrary to your understanding of the significance of Don's presentation, I'd say he has sacrificed a Queen, Rook and Bishop for the apologists, only to capture a Pawn, as all you're really left with here is the hope that Joseph Smith's translation of the K-Hook plate was strictly academic, and that it had no element of divine revelation whatsoever (your new Pawn). On the flip side, you can no longer insist, as it has been done for years now, that no translation was ever made (your lost Rook). Nor can apologists argue any longer that Joseph Smith's power of discernment prevented him from falling for the hoax, essentially proving he was a true prophet (your lost Bishop). Nor can apologists insist that critics maintained these things because they're a bunch of hateful anti-Mormons who base their conclusions on faulty or incomplete information (your precious Queen). And finally, the recent tendency to characterize the GAEL as a work having nothing to do with deciphering or translating ancient material, is quickly put to rest as a theory that never stood a chance.

So, check and mate.

It is what it is.

Ah, but which Greek Psalter story?

LOL! You're essentially doing what apologists had done with Clayton's version, before Don proved them all wrong. Apologists kept pointing to the various versions of the story regarding the discovery of the plates, as evidence that Clayton's account was not trustworthy. But it doesn't really matter which version of the Psalter story, since Joseph Smith and Willard Richards undoubtedly heard all of them, and yet neither of them ever challenged or denied any of them.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Has anyone yet addressed that if Don is correct, doesn't it follow that Joseph Smith was likely the definite author of the character glosses in the GAEL and the apologetic implications of that?

Touche!

[Pahoran]

I'll try to help you understand what critics think, or should think in terms of the significance of Don's presentation. It is hard to escape the reality that Don's work vindicates a number of arguments presented by critics over the years, particularly several made by Brent Metcalfe regarding the validity of Clayton's account. Anyone vaguely familiar with these debates would remember apologists like Ben McGuire and Wade Englund refusing to budge an inch on the position that Clayton's account was not credible and that Joseph Smith never tried to translate anything from the Kinderhook Plates. Don proved otherwise.

CFR, please.

I'm not disputing that Ben and Wade might have said something. I question the accuracy of your recounting of their arguments. Your track record for recasting pro-Mormon arguments in the way most serviceable to your agenda is long and well-established.

But perhaps most importantly is the fact that he reveals the GAEL was used as a Lexicon of sorts, to translate symbols, which again validates the critic's view of their purpose. This is a huge win for the critics, especially in light of recent directions BoA apologetics had been headed. The GAEL had recently been downplayed as an irrelevant attempt to create a cipher, and nothing to do with translating ancient symbols. Will Schryver's much balyhooed presentation from a year ago, is now effectively dead in the water. That's huge.

It's only as "huge" as your gigantic personal vendetta against Will.

Besides, it only shows that Joseph attempted to use the GAEL for a preliminary attempt on the KP's. It says nothing about how, or even whether, it was used in any part of the Book of Abraham translation. So it's a bit of a damp squib for the hate clique. Your calling it "huge win" is a wild exaggeration.

As far as I can tell, the apologists have only one ray of light provided by Don; that the translation was only an "academic" one. This may or may not be true,

Don has apparently demonstrated that Clayton's account of Joseph's partial translation was based entirely upon a lexicographical analysis of a single character. Whatever the merits of that approach, it is anything but a revelatory one. Thus, if he is right, then the only available explanation for William's report is that Joseph had attempted an academic translation of that one character.

and I'm going to wait until I see his presentation before commenting further on this matter. However, I don't see how this in any way changes the fact that apologists have been giving critics an extremely hard time and accusing them of anti-Mormon bias or what not, for simply accepting basic facts that Don revealed to be true.

Kevin, I'm glad to see that you can try to balance your wild exaggerations with extreme understatements. I am quite sure you are perfectly aware that the anti-Mormons have done far, far more than "simply accepting basic facts that Don revealed to be true." Rather, they have consistently, over a period of years, argued that any attempt by Joseph to translate the KP's can only be based upon his prophetic charisms, and thus any failure to detect the fraud discredits those charisms. For instance, on 30 May 2007, Alf O'Mega, who is (as anti-Mormons go) a rather reasonable, moderate sort of fellow, wrote:

Those two passages [i.e. D&C 131 and the Clayton Journal entry under discussion] are parallel, firsthand reports of prophetic utterances by Joseph Smith. They are cut from the same cloth.

Now Don has shown Joseph comparing a character from the unknown text with one from a pre-existing text, and applying the meaning of the latter to the former. This is an "academic" translation and nothing else.

Joseph's prophetic charisms are nowhere in view, and the KP's no longer provide the attackers with their darling "smoking gun."

So contrary to your understanding of the significance of Don's presentation, I'd say he has sacrificed a Queen, Rook and Bishop for the apologists, only to capture a Pawn, as all you're really left with here is the hope that Joseph Smith's translation of the K-Hook plate was strictly academic, and that it had no element of divine revelation whatsoever (your new Pawn).

On the contrary; if Don's interpretation of the evidence is correct, then that's all it can be. If it's not correct, then it's not correct, and the apologetic pawn you are doing your capon-crowing about is still in play.

On the flip side, you can no longer insist, as it has been done for years now, that no translation was ever made (your lost Rook).

On the contrary; we can still insist that no attempt at an inspired translation was ever made, because the only evidence for any translation attempt of any kind points directly to a standard out-of-the-dictionary lexicographical translation of a single character.

Note that your clique have rested all their hopes of using the KP's as evidence of Joseph faking prophetic gifts upon Clayton's journal entry. Now that this has been shown to describe an entirely non-prophetic process, that argument is toast.

Nor can apologists argue any longer that Joseph Smith's power of discernment prevented him from falling for the hoax, essentially proving he was a true prophet (your lost Bishop).

No, that's your straw man.

Firstly, we have never taken the view that Joseph's discernment was in any way infallible; see, for example, Doctrine and Covenants 10:

37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.

Secondly, it has been established that Joseph recognised and interpreted one character. But the fact remains that he neither attempted nor purported to attempt to begin an attempted translation of the whole; nor is there any evidence that he offered as much as "one thin dime" to get possession of the plates.

The fraud still failed.

Nor can apologists insist that critics maintained these things because they're a bunch of hateful anti-Mormons who base their conclusions on faulty or incomplete information (your precious Queen).

On the contrary, the eagerness of anti-Mormons, whose hatefulness is beyond question, to proclaim the KP's as the "smoking gun" that proves Joseph a false prophet, has left them with egg all over their faces. (A marked improvement, I know.)

And finally, the recent tendency to characterize the GAEL as a work having nothing to do with deciphering or translating ancient material, is quickly put to rest as a theory that never stood a chance.

Which I'm sure is serviceable to your boundless hatred of Will Schryver, but it has no relevance to any question relating to the Book of Abraham.

So, check and mate.

It is what it is.

Namely, a wishful-thinking fantasy on your part.

A capon trying to crow is really rather funny.

LOL! You're essentially doing what apologists had done with Clayton's version, before Don proved them all wrong.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Apologists kept pointing to the various versions of the story regarding the discovery of the plates, as evidence that Clayton's account was not trustworthy.

Even if your characterisation of the argument was accurate (which I doubt) the fact remains that this is a vast unparallel, and you know it. I am not talking about "various versions" supplied by others, as in the case of the "discovery" of the KP's but by Caswall himself, and of the central episode of his story. Caswall emerges as an utterly shameless anti-Mormon liar and intentional fabricator of false accusations.

But it doesn't really matter which version of the Psalter story, since Joseph Smith and Willard Richards undoubtedly heard all of them, and yet neither of them ever challenged or denied any of them.

How could Joseph have "undoubtedly heard all of them" when three of them were not published until after his death? And when all of them were published in England? And the first of them only about a year and a half before his death?

Like Joseph had nothing better to do with his time than refute discredited libels by people who waited until they were safely out of US jurisdiction before publishing them.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 8, 2011 by Pahoran

[MAsh]

I think it's necessary to remember a few important points:

1) Neither critics nor apologists are monolithic voices that speak with one mind. Some apologists argued for one possible theory, others suggested alternative theories. The same thing can be said for critics both in the present and the past.

2) In the studies of early LDS history there is bound to be "give and take" and we should all be thankful for any resolutions that move us forward. Metcalfe was obviously more correct on the particular point of Clayton's journal entry regarding the KP then _some_ apologists. I shouldn't think it necessary, however, to dig through all of Metcalfe's past posts or writings to find examples where he has been wrong and LDS apologists have been right. The same can be said, and undoubtedly will be said again for various arguments from critics and apologists alike. Some critical arguments will, I'm certain, prove to be invalid with future enlightenment, and some popular apologetic positions will undoubtedly fail as new discoveries or information comes forth.

Personally, I'm fine with that. It's happened to me in the past and I'm not going to break a sweat worrying about it, or be embarrassed when I find new information that proves that some of my past (or current) assumptions just don't hold water. I'd hope that critics would feel the same way when they find that some of their positions collapse or weaken with more accurate arguments or data.

I'm aware of my bias, and I'm aware of the bias held by many critics (even if they aren't aware of such biases themselves) and I'm fairly confident that all LDS critical arguments will either eventually fail or will (if accurate) help dispel false assumptions that we LDS have about scripture, prophets, or early LDS history. Either way, it's a win-win situation.

For example, if greater investigation proves that Will is wrong and that Chris Smith is right about the length of the JSP, then wonderful! We will then have a more accurate way of understanding what the original papyri were like and we can move forward from there. Such things don't unsettle my faith and I can't see the point of grasping for straws to salvage something that ultimately has no bearing on my testimony (not saying that Chris as won the debate, but just speaking hypothetically).

I should also point out, however (because I'm sure critics will jump on this post) that I don't absolutely discount the possibility that some discovery could topple my testimony. I've thought of some scenarios that would certainly make me wonder if it was all a fraud (and I don't plan on spelling those out here). It would take a lot, however, because I've had some specific spiritual experiences that would be extremely difficult to simply brush aside as "wishful thinking," "confirmation bias," or "self-deception" (again, I won't spell such experiences out here, but I can say that I've had a few that defy any attempt for alternative explanations even when I've tried to play devil's advocate).

One of the things that really excited me about Don's presentation is that it adds (in my opinion) another important piece to the puzzle about the GAEL. Perhaps someone else, looking at Don's input and what Will will eventually publish (even if he's wrong), will help us all make better sense of what was going on with the GAEL and early Latter-day Saints.

[Mortal Man]

Joseph Smith made a foray into translating the plates but did not subsequently act as though they were anything of importance.

The plates appeared in the midst of Joseph's plans to publish the GAEL. He was very proud of the GAEL, showing it off to visitors as a prized achievement. So it makes perfect sense that upon seeing the KP, he would begin searching for matching characters in an attempt to prove the GAEL's usefulness as a translating tool. I think he lost interest when he was only able to find one match.

I think Joseph would have said a lot more about the KP if the fraudsters had filled them with GAEL characters.

[volgadon]

The plates appeared in the midst of Joseph's plans to publish the GAEL. He was very proud of the GAEL, showing it off to visitors as a prized achievement. So it makes perfect sense that upon seeing the KP, he would begin searching for matching characters in an attempt to prove the GAEL's usefulness as a translating tool. I think he lost interest when he was only able to find one match.

I think that is very preceptive.

[Pahoran]

I think that is very preceptive.

You may well be right.

Preceptive: Of, relating to, or expressing a rule or principle that prescribes a particular course of action or conduct.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The plates appeared in the midst of Joseph's plans to publish the GAEL.

CFR, please.

What plans were those and where can we read about them?

He was very proud of the GAEL, showing it off to visitors as a prized achievement.

CFR, please.

I have read a number of accounts from a number of people who recorded Joseph or his mother showing them the papyri. Who records him "showing off" the GAEL "as a prized achievement?"

So it makes perfect sense that upon seeing the KP, he would begin searching for matching characters in an attempt to prove the GAEL's usefulness as a translating tool.

Interesting that you should say that.

Even if your two previous assertions turn out to be nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, you may be right on this point.

Of course, Joseph would only suppose that the GAEL (with its very small vocabulary of Egyptian characters) would have been useful as a translating tool if he genuinely believed the Book of Abraham (from which it was derived) to be a genuine translation from Egyptian.

I think he lost interest when he was only able to find one match.

I think Joseph would have said a lot more about the KP if the fraudsters had filled them with GAEL characters.

Maybe. The lovely thing about unfulfilled conditions is that everyone is free to speculate about them as much as they like.

"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a cart."

Regards,

Pahoran