Don Bradley And The Kinderhook Plates

[Wiki Wonka]

Maybe Fair should make that clarification that you just made to me, in their article, to avoid confusion.

The page number issue has been corrected in the FAIR Wiki article.

WW

[DonBradley]

Hi Pahoran,

I think your assessment is basically right.

Critics now want to shift the attention to the GAEL, arguing that this solution to the KP issue problematizes the GAEL issue so much that it is a net loss for Mormon apologetics.

I'll try to lay out later tonight why this conclusion is dead wrong.

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

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.

I believe, MM, that Joseph isn't talking about arranging and publishing an Egyptian alphabet until the following November. Am I wrong?

Don

[Mortal Man]

I believe, MM, that Joseph isn't talking about arranging and publishing an Egyptian alphabet until the following November. Am I wrong?

You are correct.

"Wednesday Nov 15 1843 . . . P.M. at the office suggested the Idea of preparing a grammer of the Egyptian language." -- Joseph Smith Diary entry dictated to Willard Richards

I'm assuming he'd been thinking about it at least since March 1842. My reasoning is as follows:

Many of the explanations for Facsimile 2 were taken directly from the GAEL (see Appendix 2 in Brian's book); hence, it essentially represents publication of part of the GAEL (along with other bits in the main text and Facs. 1 & 3).

In July 1842, Parley P. Pratt writes: "The record is now in course of translation... and proves to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph when in Egypt." -- Millennial Star 3/3, 47.

So, if he used the GAEL for the March (and possibly May) 1842 publications, and more translation was on the way, then it's not hard to imagine that he planned to keep using and/or developing it.

Then in Feb. 1843, we get this in the Times and Seasons: "We have given this timely notice that our friends may prepare themselves. We would further state that we had the promise of Br. Joseph, to furnish us with further extracts from the Book of Abraham. These with other articles from his pen, the continuation of his history, and the resources that we have of obtaining interesting matter; together with our humble endeavors, we trust will make the paper sufficiently interesting."

I think the bolded part might refer (at least in part) to the GAEL.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Pahoran]

You are correct.

"Wednesday Nov 15 1843 . . . P.M. at the office suggested the Idea of preparing a grammer of the Egyptian language." -- Joseph Smith Diary entry dictated to Willard Richards

I'm assuming he'd been thinking about it at least since May.

Actually since you previously said that the Kinderhook plates appeared (in April 1843) "in the midst" of his "plans" (which by November of that year had matured all the way to being "suggested" as an "idea" ) then I can only assume that you assume he'd been thinking about it since at least November of the previous year.

So I accept your assumption as satisfying my first CFR. Now for the second: where is the long parade of "visitors" to whom he was regularly "showing off" the GAEL "as a prized achievement?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 8, 2011 by Pahoran

[why me]

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.

I think that as more information is discovered about a range of issues, interpretations and opinions will change. This is quite natural in academic discussion. And it will be quite natural for critics and apologists in any religious field.

For the lds critics, the understanding that Clayton's account was true and Joseph believed the plates were true and this is why he attempted a translation has been proven a possible falsehood. And this is how the critics presented their argument. Don challenged that viewpoint and the crtics will now have to reevalutate such a position.

LDS apologists have been given critics a hard time over the kinderhook plates because the critics have made claims that since clayton's entry is true, Joseph is a fraud. Don proved otherwise. Checkmate.

Why come down hard on Will? Let me put it this way: Will did his research and came up with a very good presentation. Has he been proven wrong? I don't know. But lets say that he has now been proven wrong. I still will give Will a round of applause for taking a stab at it and having the courage to present his research.

[why me]

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.

I don't think that Don proved them all wrong at least not in the terms you are expressing it. Here is what Don did: he gave critics and lds apologists a new understanding of the issue. And this is what research is all about. Now both critics and apologists will reevaluate their understandings and reach new conclusions.

However, I will bet a penny that critics will keep up with the mantra that Joseph was a fraud because of the kinderhook plates. Don's research will not change one critic mind or have the critic reevaluate their position. But lets see what happens.

[robuchan]

Not that my opinion on this matters much, but the more I think about this the more it fits a theme that has already been outlined.

Many LDS seem to be just fine acknowledging the papyri had nothing to do with Abraham, yet Joseph was still able to tap into his prophetic powers and produce an inspired work. He used a peepstone he found on a treasure hunting expedition to translate the Book of Mormon, at least partially without even the plates in the room. He saw and talked to the angel Moroni in a crowded bedroom. He saw a vision in the Kirtland temple while others watched him receive the vision without seeing anything.

When you accept this premise, I see absolutely no issue with a story line like the following: "it didn't matter if the KH plates were a fake, he recognized real ancient writing which helped him tap into prophetic powers to identify with a true story. In fact it's too bad Joseph was otherwise preoccupied the last year of his life, or God could have used these plates to bring us more scripture."

[Jaybear]

However, I will bet a penny that critics will keep up with the mantra that Joseph was a fraud because of the kinderhook plates. Don's research will not change one critic mind or have the critic reevaluate their position. But lets see what happens.

Why should it?

Critics assert that Smith misled his followers by pretending to have the ability to translate ancient languages.

Don's work confirms that Smith was presented with bogus plates and upon inspection of the bogus plates declared that: "they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt ..."

Why then would you expect Don's work to undermine, rather than reinforce critics' belief that Smith was a fraud.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jaybear

[Xander]

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.

No, this is typical Pahoran well-poisoning as usual. I don't "recast pro-Mormon" arguments in any way except the way they are cast by the apologists. Why don't you bother to show where I am wrong instead of falling back on the faithful rhetoric? It isn't my fault you're unfamiliar with the past debates that have taken place on several forums. As to your CFR, here are several examples of apologists pushing this point:

Ben McGuire,

... that particular incident in the Documentary History of the Church is highly suspect. It is a slightly modified excerpt of William Clayton's journal. There is no actual evidence that I know of that Joseph Smith ever tried to translate the K-hook plates....All the evidence available still amounts to heresay. There is no actual evidence that Joseph Smith ever tried to translate the kinderhook plates. No partial translation, no description given by him of their contents, etc...I don't agree with you Kevin. I think that the issue that Clayton's testimony is reliable is far from certain. We can point to several errors in his testimony. I think that it is easy to impeach - and more to the point, his is the only testimony of this happening. There is no corroboration, and no reason to assume that Clayton's recorded journal entry (and he doesn't mention the Kinderhook plates again) represents anything more than hearsay. That is simply all there is to it

Jeff Lindsay,

Critics point to an entry apparently made by Joseph Smith in the official History of the Church dated May 1843, which states that Joseph translated part of the Kinderhook plates and found them to be written by a descendant of Ham and of the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, this statement is actually from the journal of William Clayton. Clayton's journal entry was added to the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" printed in the Deseret News in Utah in 1856, long after the death of Joseph, though it was changed to be in the first person from Joseph's perspective: "I have translated..." instead of "President J. has translated...." It is well known, according to Kimball, "that the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith' consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life 'in his own words.' " Kimball notes that this poor practice was common in that century for biographers. The source of the ideas expressed by Clayton is unknown, but seems consistent with the high level of speculation among many members of the Church about the significance of the Kinderhook find. Some said those plates dealt with Book of Mormon peoples, others said Egyptians. Many spoke of a translation that they hoped would be undertaken. The significant thing is that there is no evidence that Joseph showed any serious interest in them. No translation was undertaken.

Wade Englund,

In summary, there was but a single claim of a "partial translation," which was contradicted by several claims (both LDS and non-LDS) that the translation hadn't take place at the time claimed, but was anticipated to be done later (though from then on there wasn't a chance for a translation to have occurred), and there was marked silence from all quarters where considerable information would be expected--particularly from the one alleged to have done the "translation," the apostles with whom Joseph met with at the time, and various Church publications that had been used extensively in regards to the verifiable translations of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. There is also circumstantial evidence that no translation could have taken place--at least not of a serious and formal kind.

Not only was the single claim about a "partial translation" contradicted by others, but there are other discrepancies between the Clayton account and that given by Pratt and others [7]. This, along with other factors mentioned above, as well as there being no indication that Clayton heard what he wrote in his journal directly from Joseph, strongly suggests that Clayton's journal entry may have been hearsay and based on fallible rumor--though Clayton is known for his accuracy, particularly when his accounts as personal secretary for the prophet had been verified by Joseph, which likely did not occur in this instance. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the alleged translation never happened, and thus the contention outlined above from the critics may be rejected and the hoax finally laid to rest on all sides.

whyme,

All we can conclude from the Clayton account is that there was considerable interest in the plates, a variety of stories concerning them, and anticipation that Joseph might translate, as the conspirators claimed they hoped he would.

Yahoobot,

If the prophet were really undertaking a translation of the Kinderhook plates, then we'd find references elsewhere by people in the know -- like in the president's official journal, for example. But we don't. For instance, we know that Joseph Smith undertook a new translation of the NT because he said so repeatedly as did others.

Bcspace,

Clayton was incorrect on the skeleton, the size of the purported skeleton, burial depth, location of the plates, and the actual size of the plates. Untrustworthy already on this issue without needing to examine the reasons why. Critics seem to latch on to this as if it was their last hope and quite a stretch they make of it too.

Now here is the part where you either ignore the references, pretending you never asked for them, or insist you were asking for something else. I know the drill.

[Xander]

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

There is no vendetta against Will. I have a vendetta against falsehoods, and Will just happens to be a popular purveyor of falsehoods. It is difficult to refute his arguments without mentioning his name, and I see neither you nor anyone else show that my refutations of his arguments are wrong.

Besides, it only shows that Joseph attempted to use the GAEL for a preliminary attempt on the KP's.

Yes, which is a huge win for the critics in light of meme that has dominated BoA apologetics the past year. But as I said, you don't understand this topic well enough to understand the significance of this, and you appear to be revved up in straw man mode already.

It says nothing about how, or even whether, it was used in any part of the Book of Abraham translation.

See what I mean? You're rambling now, talking about something I never said.

So it's a bit of a damp squib for the hate clique. Your calling it "huge win" is a wild exaggeration.

Not when apologists, you included, had shouted from the rooftops a year ago that Schryver's cipher revelation had rendered four decades of critical arguments moot. That he actually told us what the meaning and purpose of the KEP were. If the GAEL was understood as a Lexicon that could be used to translate ancient texts, then this is precisely what the critics have been saying all along and it is contrary to what people were told during Schryvermania of August 2010. FAIR began changin their apologetic articles to reflect the arguments presented by Schryver, and now I see they've already tossed their original K-Hook apologetic and began incorporating Don Bradley's findings.

Don has apparently demonstrated that Clayton's account of Joseph's partial translation was based entirely upon a lexicographical analysis of a single character.

Entirely? I don't think so. Don seems to think that the use of a Lexicon (designed from divine revelation no less!), means that a translation precludes divine revelation and relies "entirely" on an "academic" approach. I think apologists will have a very difficult time trying to divorce relevation from the process. In my recent debates with David Bokovoy he makes a great case that studying things in an academic sense and receiving divine revelation went hand in hand as far as Joseph Smith was concerned. Joseph Smith didn't make that distinction as you have. For instance, in his Sermon on Plurality of God's he references the Hebrew meaning of certain words like elohim. Clearly this is an academic translation, right? But in the same sermon he claims to have it from God, and apologists will insist his doctrine of the divine council is evidence that he receives revelation, despite the fact that he had access and appealed to a Hebrew lexicon.

Whatever the merits of that approach, it is anything but a revelatory one

Again this is a bald assertion based in apologetc necessity. It isn't based on the evidence, otherwise you would have presented some.

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.

But this premise requires more evidence than I think Don is in a position to provide, though I am prepared to be proven wrong. Does he have a signed affidavit saying no revelation was involved? Anyone familiar with the GAEL should see that coherent narratives cannot derive from the hodgepodge of words and phrases therein, without some kind of outside influence dictating the sequence of words, choice of contextual grammar, the historical settings, etc. The GAEL in and of itself provides no "academic" method for formulating such translations. For this Joseph Smith always relied upon revelation to pull it all together in comprehensible translation.

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."

Your problem has always been your failure to discirimnate between "anti-Mormons." For you there is no such thing as a variety, as they all represent the monolithic "the anti-Mormons." Well, I'm willing to accept that some anti-Mormons do this, but which ones? You have a bad habit of invoking scary names like Walter Martin or DJ Nelson, appealing to emotion always, and then inform your audience that they are my "buddies" before finishing your straw man. Incidentally, DJ Nelson was a faithful Latter-Day Saint who was highly recommended by Hugh Nibley before he lost his faith over the Book of Abraham stuff. He only became an evil anti-Mormon the second he realized the Book of Abraham wasn't what the Church claimed it was. The fact that he got a degree from a diploma mill while he was a practicing Mormon, is hardly relevant to anything except your weak attempt to employ the guilt by association fallacy. In fact it is consistent with what the church had done in the distant past by putting a Mormon with a fake doctorate - and using a pseudonym no less - in charge of Book of Abraham apologetics. So if you want to use this to smear Nelson, go ahead and use it to smear the Church too.

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:

And he is right.

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.

Nonsense. You cannot say a translation deriving from a pseudo-lexicon that was created from divine revelation, is "entirely academic" with no revelation involved.

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.

Oh really? And which "standard" dictionary was used in this strict "academic" translation? The Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, which was created not by an Egyptologist who knew the language, but rather from a man who claimed to be a Prophet of God, who claimed to have revealed the information in that book via revelation. I see nothing "standard" or "academic" about this.

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.

Based on what evidence have I and my so-called "clique" rested all our hopes on this? In reality, the K-Hook incident is an interesting sidebar, but corroborates what we already know to be true based on the plethora of evidence from the Book of Abraham, Zelph the Lamanite, his Greek Psalter incident, etc. Joseph Smith could whip up a quick but imaginative narrative at an opportune moment.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Now that this has been shown to describe an entirely non-prophetic process, that argument is toast.

This is de ja vue from last year when you went on a rant insisting Schryver's presentation proved what the KEP were. And now here you are with the same bombastic certitude, insisting things about a conflicting argument to be true without presenting any evidence for them. As I said, apologists will have a difficult time trying to divorce revelation from any translation provided by Joseph Smith. Revelation was always the means by which he presented them. As far as his reliance on the GAEL, how do we not know that he intended for his translation to resemble a character in the GAEL, just so he could later use this as evidence that the GAEL was a legitimate resource for translating ancient languages? and further proof that his calling was divine?

No, that's your straw man.

No, it was whyme's argument. I would never trespass in straw man land. That's your territory.

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

And this is always the standard back up plan, and apologetists would be respected more if they'd' stick to this from the beginning instead of giving us a whirlwind of apologetic riff-raff trying to discredit Clayton and blaming the most reasonble interpretation of history on anti-Mormon bias.

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

Irrelevant, since he put the BoA on the backburner for seven years. Had he not been killed the following year, who can say what he might have done given the time?

nor is there any evidence that he offered as much as "one thin dime" to get possession of the plates.

This is probably because the plates were worthless based on his short translation. They didn't originate with anyone of importance. This is really a silly argument. He didn't buy them, therefore he didn't think they were worth the time? Obviously he felt they were worth the time to engage his GAEL and tell his closest confidant what they were, right? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth now.

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 yet the critics I know feel otherwise. We're absolutely thrilled with Don's presentation. The fact is we have had to change nothing in our arguments, whereas you've been beating this thing around for years now. Will Schryver turned BoA apologetics on its head, and then Don comes along and kicks it into a tail spin. Every time someone tackles it, the apologetic landscape shifts beyond recognition. In reality, Don's presentation has vindicated a number of claims by critics I call friends. His arguments have refuted nothing I have argued, or what anyone else I know has argued. So go dig up Walter Martin or Ed Decker if you're really that desperate, but the fact is I don't give a flying flip what those morons have said on the matter, if they've said anything at all.

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

No it is a simple anecdote based in reality. Some things never change, I guess. You accept eye-witness accounts so long as you think you can make good apologetic use from them, otherwise they're just anti-Mormons relaying hearsay or what not. I know the drill.

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.

Nonsense. The historical evidence proves Joseph Smith was a liar just as much as the next guy. Did you already forget his public denial of polygamy? By your own standard, you should reject Joseph Smith because he was a liar, right? Of course not, because you have a double standard as always. Caswall put Joseph Smith to the test and he failed miserably. Period. Had the incident been based on falsehoods then we'd certainly see something of a denial by Richards or Joseph Smith. Instead, they seemed to let the story circulate while taking the hit, claiming that Prophet's aren't perfect or what not. Caswall's descrption of Richard's defense is standard LDS apologetic whenever Joseph Smith is shown to be wrong on any given matter. It is the no-fault system he established, meaning we have to assume everything he claims via revelation is actually revelation, especially when it is unfalsifiable. But when the rare falsifiable incidents become falsified, suddenly he is a feeble mortal man just like anyone else. Sorry, but this is an insult to critical thought when the guy is speaking as a Prophet on revelatory matters. How could he get the whole Indian-Lamanite connection wrong ( as modern apologists now claim in light of DNA evidence) when it was divine revelation that revealed to him that an Indian skeleton was that of a Lamanite? If he is messing up during the reception of divine revelation, he isn't acting as a fallible man and doesn't pretend to be.

One day he supposedly has the power to silence an entire room of anti-Mormons by simply raising his hand and doing it in the name of Jesus Christ. But sudenly that power escapes him on the day of his death when there are too many non-Mormons around to bear witness to such a miracle. This is how standard Mormon myth evolves and is cultivated through time. When it is unfalsifiable, the most amazing miracles occur. When it is falsifiable, nothing!

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?

You don't "hear" publications, you "hear" stories, and even if you want to believe Joseph Smith never heard these stories about his failure to identify Greek, you still haven't explained why WIllard Richards never denied the incident. It seems clear they were content with the standard apologetic: He is just a man who makes mistakes sometimes. The fact that Caswall mentioned this apologetic is evidence that it is true, since we all can recognize this apologetic as a popular response from LDS members.

[Xander]

Why should it?

Critics assert that Smith misled his followers by pretending to have the ability to translate ancient languages.

Don's work confirms that Smith was presented with bogus plates and upon inspection of the bogus plates declared that: "they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt ..."

Why then would you expect Don's work to undermine, rather than reinforce critics' belief that Smith was a fraud.

The million dollar question that's being obscured with rhetoric.

[Mark Beesley]

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 am curious as to the genesis of that assertion. Who first made it? Who has repeated it? What was their evidence for an assertion about what Jospeh Smith knew, i.e. did he ever say or write anything evidencing that he thought or knew the plates were fraudulent?

[DonBradley]

Hi Kevin,

Given that the entire meaning Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates can be derived, via comparison with the GAEL, from a single, prominent character on the plates, and given that an eyewitness sees Joseph make the match and says that "he will therefore be able to decipher them," there is not only no need to posit revelatory translation, but such would be in opposition to the available evidence.

Am I wrong to think that you would, in other discussions, want to invoke Occam's Razor? Then why not apply it here? If you do, you'll find it lops off the presumed revelation and leaves us only with Joseph Smith's comparison of characters. Then, on top of that, your positing that Joseph also claimed revelation in translating also contradicts the eyewitness who saw Joseph make the comparison and heard him discuss what it meant. Any particular reason you think you're better positioned than the eyewitness to know what Joseph was claiming about how he translated here?

I think, by the way, that ultimately there is going to be less discussion of the Kinderhook plates, since that will simply be settled, and more discussion will be focused on other issues, with some of the attention previously given to the KP now being transferred to the KEP, as you're doing. I also think, however, that there are legitimate and illegitimate ways of relating these discussions.

To be intellectually self-consistent, to say nothing of being objective or fair with others, one who uses the new Kinderhook plates finding to draw implications about the GAEL ought surely to first accept its implications for the Kinderhook plates issue itself. These implications are not unclear: there is no longer any reason to posit that Joseph Smith invoked revelation in translating from the Kinderhook plates, and, in fact, there is reason to believe he did not.

Chris Smith has been honest in acknowledging this, while also believing--as you do--that the find has significant implications for understanding the GAEL: "The traditional 'anti-Mormon' objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the 'revelation' was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic. Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates."

Before rushing to what implications you think the Kinderhook plates find has for the KEP issue, why not first straightforwardly acknowledge the implications that this find on the Kinderhook plates has for the Kinderhook plates?

Don

[wenglund]

It is important that you back up your claims with evidence instead of accusing me of closed-mindedness. I'm not closed-minded to the evidence, but the problem you have is that you have none to offer.

Having reviewed my research from nearly a half century ago, I wasn't able to locate any evidence other than a passing note in Stanely Kimball's 1881 Ensign article: "The plates were apparently in Nauvoo, then, from Saturday the 29th [April, 1843] through Wednesday the 3rd [May, 1843]- a period of five days- and were then taken away." So, I feel obliged to retract my statement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm not sure how the theory could possibly survive such a blow. I suspect Don simply believes that the GAEL has cipher-like qualities rather than that it was intended or used as a cipher, as William argued. I'd be very surprised to hear differently.

This appears to presupposes a single purpose for the EA/GAEL. I happen to think it was intended for multiple purposes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2011 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

Chris Smith has been honest in acknowledging this, while also believing--as you do--that the find has significant implications for understanding the GAEL: "The traditional 'anti-Mormon' objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the 'revelation' was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic. Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates."

Chris fails to note that the "revelation" about the KP was twofold. Smith not only presented a partial translation of the plates, but also stated that the history detailed in the plates was that of the person whose bones were found with the plates.

This pronouncement is similar to the Zelph incident, and implies a revelatory process.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jaybear

[Mortal Man]

I think, by the way, that ultimately there is going to be less discussion of the Kinderhook plates, since that will simply be settled, and more discussion will be focused on other issues, with some of the attention previously given to the KP now being transferred to the KEP, as you're doing.

Yup, the KP are small potatoes compared to the KEP. I think the long-term implications of your findings will be far more important for what they say about the GAEL than for what they say about the KP.

To be intellectually self-consistent, to say nothing of being objective or fair with others, one who uses the new Kinderhook plates finding to draw implications about the GAEL ought surely to first accept its implications for the Kinderhook plates issue itself. These implications are not unclear: there is no longer any reason to posit that Joseph Smith invoked revelation in translating from the Kinderhook plates, and, in fact, there is reason to believe he did not.

That was my impression the instant I read nack's description of your presentation. It fits so well with my view of the GAEL.

Chris Smith has been honest in acknowledging this, while also believing--as you do--that the find has significant implications for understanding the GAEL: "The traditional 'anti-Mormon' objection to the KP incident has been that if Joseph translated a portion of the KP by revelation, then the 'revelation' was based on the false premise that the KP were authentic. Don's paper successfully resolves this problem by showing that no revelation was involved in the translation of the plates."

I think a lot of people are looking at this backwards. Whether or not Joseph believed the KP were authentic is almost a red herring in my book. I think he was more interested in trying out the GAEL on them then he was in producing a translation per se.

Before rushing to what implications you think the Kinderhook plates find has for the KEP issue, why not first straightforwardly acknowledge the implications that this find on the Kinderhook plates has for the Kinderhook plates?

FWIW, I fully acknowledge the implications your find on the KP has for the KP.

Bravo!

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mortal Man

[wenglund]

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.

In my case, your vague recollection is demonstrably false.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

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

I’ll state for the record that I never knew the critics argument had anything to do with a distinction between revelatory translations and secular translations.

I thought the point was that in the cases where Joseph’s talents in translating have been tested (e.g. Kinderhook, BOA facsimiles), that he was proven to be no more than somebody with a proclivity to make up stories.

Focusing only on the Kinderhook plates, the apologists made a gambit by sacrificing a white knight (conceding that Joseph Smith sometimes invented stories and made worthless translations), and in exchange get nothing more than a hopefully stronger defensive position (the claim that Joseph's failure to correctly translate the Kinderhook plates gives no evidence either way about Joseph Smith’s abilities to correctly translate using revelation).

Edited August 8, 2011 by Analytics

[wenglund]

Yup, the KP are small potatoes compared to the KEP. I think the long-term implications of your findings will be far more important for what they say about the GAEL than for what they say about the KP.

I would caution against readng too much into Joseph's use, in this case, of a single character in the GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Why should it?

Critics assert that Smith misled his followers by pretending to have the ability to translate ancient languages.

Don's work confirms that Smith was presented with bogus plates and upon inspection of the bogus plates declared that: "they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt ..."

Why then would you expect Don's work to undermine, rather than reinforce critics' belief that Smith was a fraud.

So, if someone were to produce a fraudulent document written in Hebrew, and were I to use a Hebrew disctionary to translate the fraudulent document, then you would consider me as fraudelent for attempting to translate a fraudulant document, even were I to not know beforehand that the document was fraudulent?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

I would caution against readng too much into Joseph's use, in this case, of a single character in the GAEL.

The number of matches is irrelevant. You wouldn't expect many characters to match when the two sets were made up by different parties. What's important is that Joseph went to the GAEL to help him figure out the characters on the KP. This gives Joseph intellectual ownership of the GAEL and greatly adds to the evidence that he believed the GAEL to be exactly what he entitled it, a grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language.

Don's finding pounds the final nails into the scribes-did-it theory and the cipher theory.

The obvious has become painfully obvious and the improbable has become utterly impossible.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mortal Man

[DonBradley]

I’ll state for the record that I never knew the critics argument had anything to do with a distinction between revelatory translations and secular translations.

FWIW, Analytics, I always saw the primary, and most effective, critical argument being that Joseph Smith made a revelatory translation from fake plates, showing that he was a false revelator. That Joseph Smith could have been taken in by the plates enough to compare them to the characters from the Egyptian papyri is comparatively small potatoes. What critics are left with is the argument that if Joseph Smith were a prophet he shouldn't have even provisionally assumed the plates' antiquity even enough to make such a comparison, which I find extremely weak and which is, in any case, a far cry from him claiming God told him what the fake characters meant.

Don