Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_onandagus]

Equality,

I appreciate you laying out your respectful disagreement in detail. As you might guess, I believe I could lay out my respectful counter-disagreement with equal clarity and even more cogent logic. To do so would probably take a post as lengthy as yours, and I am starting to wind down my participation here.

I do want to make some parting comments sometime in the next couple days, laying out what I think the larger implications of this find are--and aren't. But for now I'll leave you with the last word on the issues you raised.

The published piece will cover most of the issues you raise. That will probably be a little ways off. But when it's published, I'll be sure to announce it here; and if you're interested enough, you can pick it up and check it out then.

Cheers,

Don

[_RayAgostini]

Congratulations to Don. I have not watched the presentation, but knowing his work I am sure it was a huge success. I am glad that Don was able to show that Joseph Smith used the GAEL in order to translate a bit of the Kinderhook plates. It seems quite likely that he figured out that something was up, hence he did not buy them. Still, I am left very confused by this GAEL and KEP business. Obviously, Joseph thought they were of some worth, but beyond that it all appears murky to me.

Daniel seems to think there is some room in there for a cipher of some kind, but then one wonders why it is Joseph would approach a document he thought might be ancient with a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language that was really a cipher. Did he think that these gentlemen knew the secret code that he and his friends had manufactured from the Book of Abraham to conceal it from the Gentiles? I really don't get it. Well, there is one out of the way possibility that I could almost see: he assumed they were fellow Masons, and figured out soon enough that they were not.

In the end, however, I feel like we are all involved in some kind of abstruse and esoteric theological discussion, when so many good people really only care whether the Book of Abraham was ancient or not. In short, no it is not. These findings, wonderful as they are, do not change that. What we should ask ourselves is why people care whether it is "really ancient" or not. The answer to that question is that popular religious thought has been steamrolled by scientific discourse, and theologians only have themselves to blame for that. If only people could give up their unrealistic expectations, then we could leave these dumb questions behind.

I couldn't agree more, Dr. Kish. It's essentially like arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, and whether they were "true" arrangements, or "fraudulent" arrangements. This "discourse" needs to go about ten levels higher than it currently is. My apologies if I offend, but much of the apologetic/critic discourse seems like mere back-patting and victorious cheering and cheer-leading rather than truth-seeking. While it may be true that both you and I have arrived at what we believe to be firm conclusions, I am still not seeing substantial debate by apologists in the most crucial areas, such as the absolutely anachronistic nature of the "historical" Book of Mormon, and how this applies to "literalism" and a Church that, in their view (and some critics), completely stands or falls on such definitions. I respect Don as a person, and always have, but I am a bit concerned that in the euphoria of being a born-again Mormon, and no doubt having marvelous "spiritual experiences" (not meant sarcastically), he may be placing too much weight on winning critics by arguments and defenses that have almost NO meaning to people like me, because they do not address far more significant problems, which still remain unanswered in regard, particularly, to whether the Book of Mormon is historical. There's little point batting for Joseph on the KP while greater problems remain unanswered. As one example, would anyone like to issue Professor David Wright an invitation to this non-debate? Or are we going to be satisfied with shooting fish in bowls to "answer" "RFM anti-Mormons"?

It's a joke.

[_grindael]

The Kinderhook plates were found (around) the 16th of April 1843. On May 1st Clayton wrote:

“I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County ... President Joseph has translated a portion and says “they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth.” (An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, ed. George D. Smith, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1991, p. 100; emphasis added).

On May 2nd Charlotte Haven wrote:

We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore, who passes through that place and this in his monthly zigzag tours through the State, traveling horseback. His last call on us was last Saturday and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of brass, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like writing, and strange figures like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them. So a sequel to that holy book may soon be expected.” (“A Girl's Letters From Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly, Dec. 1890, p. 630)

I was curious, so I got out a calander from 1843. May 2nd, was on a Tuesday, and the first was on a Monday. The Saturday before Miss Haven’s letter (when Joshua Moore showed the plates to Charlotte) would have been on April 29th. Doesn’t that mean that Mr. Moore had shown the plates to Smith before the 29th, since Miss Haven reports the conversation he had with Smith? So then Moore leaves them, and a few days later, Smith ‘translates a portion’ in the presence of William Clayton (Monday the 1st). And this account (Haven's) does not mention the GAEL, or the lexicon, but it does say they were similar to the Book of Mormon characters. So how did Smith translate a portion, and how did he know that the skeleton was the person he said it was?

On May 7th Parley P. Pratt wrote:

Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.” … “A large number of Citizens have seen them (the Kinderhook Plates) and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” (The Ensign, August 1981, p. 73).

This is pretty explicit. This says that he compared the characters with those ON the Egyptian papyrus, not a copy of them from the Grammar. (I don’t know how one could be positive that it was the Grammar from this). The papyrus was readily available, for Lucy Smith was showing it to people for a fee.

On May 7th ‘A Gentile’ wrote:

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

This statement says that he compared them with the “Egyptian alphabet”, the one from the Book of Mormon PLATES, and that they are the same characters that were found on the Book of Mormon PLATES, as Charlotte Haven stated. Were they both confused? How can this statement be definitely linked to the GAEL, when it says that the characters were the same one as on the Book of Mormon plates, not on the Book of Abraham documents.

And as to those ‘caracters’ being in the possession of David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery. If they were, and no one had access to them, then how was a broadside of them printed in 1844, and again in ‘The Prophet’ in December of the same year? Where did they get a copy of them, to print the broadside? Unless there was more than one copy? Or someone had access to Whitmer’s copy? Perhaps the original Anthon Transcript was in Nauvoo, and got lost?

On May 7th, Smith wrote in his diary,

" Forenoon visited by several gentlemen concerning the plates which were dug out [of] a mound near Qunig [Qunicy]. Sent by W[illia]m Smith to the office for Hebrew Bible and Lexicon.” (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.19, p.384)

Here we have Smith sending William for his HEBREW Bible and LEXICON. Was the GAEL ever called a lexicon? Kevin L Barney once wrote,

“On lexical grounds Joseph Smith understood bara the second word of hebrew Genesis 1:1 (translated created in the King James version) as meaning to organize and a good argument can be made that this interpretation is correct.” (BYU studies 39, no. 3 2000, page 108)

And it does say in the KFD that Smith ‘referred to the Old Bible’, and that though he did so, he also added,

“I thank God I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

This just shows that with Smith, the two went hand in hand. In 1846 Dan Jones wrote:

“We remember one remarkable occasion that came to our attention while we were there, as an example, to prove what has been said, and to show the irrationality and power of prejudice. On the 16th of April, 1843, a man by the name of Robert Wiley, a merchant in Kinderhook, Pike County, state of Illinois, dreamt that there were some treasures hidden in a hillock known to him in the neighborhood; and after digging for about thirteen feet from the surface, he found six brass plates, four inches long, an inch-and three-quarters wide at one end, and two-and-three-quarter inches wide at the other end; four lists of letters (hieroglyphics) on each side of them. On one of the plates is the picture of three skulls, the largest in the middle, surrounded by rays similar to those one sees surrounding the head of our Savior in the pictures that are made of him now. Underneath the two smaller ones is the picture of two trees, and their branches; on one of the plates is thepicture of a large head, and the picture of two hands pointing to it. We saw those plates, and the case was publicized through the newspapers, and I did not hear that anyone disbelieved it; but if the one who found them were to utter a word that angels had anything to do with the matter, we do not think that he would be believed about this, any more than Joseph Smith is believed that he received gold plates. Thus the prejudice is so strong against angels, that people would rather believe the testimony of this professed deist, than the other godly man. There is every sign that these plates had been hidden there for many an age, for trees two-and-a-half feet thick were growing on top of those artificial mounds. The wise men of the world have imagined a great deal about the origin of those mounds, and many other remains of the buildings of the ancients; but their history and their makers, and everything else that pertains to them, are entirely unknown to the world; only what is shown on the plates is revealed from time to time. And is not the discovery of the one that is generally accepted (and if anyone should doubt, he can see the pictures of them here), an admission of the other? And is not the fact that this uneducated Joseph Smith has translated the one set of plates, while knowledge of the hieroglyphics has been lost to the world, almost since the time immemorial, apart from a few letters, proof that he also translated correctly the others that were given to him through angelic ministry? No doubt these, in addition to the many others that could be noted, are incontrovertible facts in the eyes of every reasonable man.” (Dan Jones, Prophet of the Jubliee, pages 37-38)

Here, Jones seems to link the translation to revelation, as he compares the KP with the way the Book of Mormon was translated, as an 'uneducated' man. Jones said he was there and saw the plates.

[_onandagus]

Hi Grindael,

You've certainly put in some research. Kudos for that.

We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore, who passes through that place and this in his monthly zigzag tours through the State, traveling horseback. His last call on us was last Saturday and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of brass, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like writing, and strange figures like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them. So a sequel to that holy book may soon be expected.” (“A Girl's Letters From Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly, Dec. 1890, p. 630)

The account has by this point passed through Moore and Haven. I'm not sure I'd expect fine distinctions to be made as to the book mentioned.

However, you'll note that Haven's account says this is what happened when Moore showed the plates to Joseph, not after Joseph made comparisons to a document. So your attempt to connect this to the statement by "A Gentile" falls flat. If Joseph Smith did say that the characters were like those of the Book of Mormon when he was first shown them, it doesn't follow that the document to which he is later comparing them is a Book of Mormon characters document--particularly not when the other evidence is factored in.

So how did Smith translate a portion, and how did he know that the skeleton was the person he said it was

??

On May 7th Parley P. Pratt wrote:
Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.” … “A large number of Citizens have seen them (the Kinderhook Plates) and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” (The Ensign, August 1981, p. 73).
This is pretty explicit. This says that he compared the characters with those ON the Egyptian papyrus, not a copy of them from the Grammar.

To refer to the "those on the Egyptian papyrus" is to identify the characters as being the ones that appear on the Egyptian papyrus, not to identify the papyrus as the document used.

“He compared them in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet, which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and they are evidently the same characters.”
This statement says that he compared them with the “Egyptian alphabet”, the one from the Book of Mormon PLATES, and that they are the same characters that were found on the Book of Mormon PLATES, as Charlotte Haven stated. Were they both confused? How can this statement be definitely linked to the GAEL, when it says that the characters were the same one as on the Book of Mormon plates, not on the Book of Abraham documents.

Haven and "A Gentile" are talking about entirely different things. Haven is reporting, secondhand, what Joseph said on first seeing the plates; "A Gentile" is reporting on what they were compared to.

If you'd like a more detailed treatment of this issue, see my posts on it on the main MD thread.

And as to those ‘caracters’ being in the possession of David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery. If they were, and no one had access to them, then how was a broadside of them printed in 1844, and again in ‘The Prophet’ in December of the same year? Where did they get a copy of them, to print the broadside? Unless there was more than one copy? Or someone had access to Whitmer’s copy? Perhaps the original Anthon Transcript was in Nauvoo, and got lost?

The Anthon transcript isn't mentioned after 1828, and almost certainly disappeared with the lost 116 pages, as I explain in my current book in progress on the 116 pages.

We don't know how the characters published in 1844 are obtained. But other sources don't mention Joseph Smith displaying the Book of Mormon characters, and we don't have a manuscript of these from him. We have only the Cowdery-Whitmer manuscript.

Also, when is the "Caractors" document referred to as "an alphabet"? Far from being an alphabet, it contains repeating characters, indicating that represents actual text excerpted from the plates, rather than an alphabet.

Was the GAEL ever called a lexicon?

I have no idea. And my argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether "lexicon" was a term they used for the GAEL. It has, rather, to do with how easily Richards could have confused hearing that Joseph sent for one translation tool with hearing that he sent for another.

Here, Jones seems to link the translation to revelation, as he compares the KP with the way the Book of Mormon was translated, as an 'uneducated' man. Jones said he was there and saw the plates.

If only Dan Jones having seen the Kinderhook plates and seeming to think Joseph had translated them by revelation could overcome all the evidence to the contrary.
If you're really doubtful on the derivation of the KP translation from the GAEL, check out the comparison I made in the thread on the source of the KP translation, on MD.

I believe it's getting to be time for me to leave this discusion and return to writing my book on the lost 116 pages.

I would like to making at least one more big post on what I see as the implications of this KP find. But beyond that I'm not going to plan to respond to the several posts that will pop up here. There will be an extensive published version of this research which should answer any significant questions. And if it doesn't, you can write to the editor of the Journal of Mormon History with your criticisms.

Cheers,

Don

[_jon]

Apologies if I am playing catch up here, but as yet I do not have a clear understanding of how closely the character on the KP compares with the character on the GAEL.
Earlier in the thred Don intimated that it was an 'exact' match.
Grindael in a post seemed to suggest that it was a resemblance rather than a match.

I think this is an important point to understand for the discussion on this thread. So...


Is it an exact match?
For example - the character 'E' on the KP matches the character 'E' on the Gael.

Is it a resemblance?
For example - the character 'F' on the KP resembles the character 'E' on the Gael.

Or is it something more tenuous?
For example - the character 'B' on the KP can tenuously be said to match the character 'l' on the Gael if you remove a lot of the lines.


Anyone know which scenario it is?
Don?


As a follow up question for Don because I haven't seen it answered anywhere. Apparently you were discussing this character 'match' with Wade Eglund several years ago, why has it taken you so long to present it?

[_onandagus]

Hey Jon,

As a follow up question for Don because I haven't seen it answered anywhere. Apparently you were discussing this character 'match' with Wade Eglund several years ago, why has it taken you so long to present it?

You ask this as though there must be some nefarious reason. How about...because I have dozens of projects, not enough time to do them, and I procrastinate (e.g., spending time on message boards).

There is, indeed, an exact match. You'll see it when the video is up or when I get around to posting the relevant images.

Cheers,

Don

[_jon]

Hey Jon,

You ask this as though there must be some nefarious reason. How about...because I have dozens of projects, not enough time to do them, and I procrastinate (e.g., spending time on message boards).

There is, indeed, an exact match. You'll see it when the video is up or when I get around to posting the relevant images.

Cheers,

Don

No, not 'nefarious' (Adjective: of an action or activity; Wicked or criminal).
But I did wonder why you would procrastinate on a real 'game changing' item of discovery.

For the record I did not mean to imply anything 'dodgy' by the timescale, I actually just wondered if it was non-coincidental to your foray back into being a Mormon and if you would have presented it had you not regained your testimony. Or was it indeed, instrumental in helping you to regain your testimony of Mormonism.

I look forward to seeing the end of your procrastination on posting the images.
(Said with tongue slightly in cheek so please don't take umbridge)

[_Kishkumen]

I couldn't agree more, Dr. Kish. It's essentially like arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, and whether they were "true" arrangements, or "fraudulent" arrangements. This "discourse" needs to go about ten levels higher than it currently is. My apologies if I offend, but much of the apologetic/critic discourse seems like mere back-patting and victorious cheering and cheer-leading rather than truth-seeking. While it may be true that both you and I have arrived at what we believe to be firm conclusions, I am still not seeing substantial debate by apologists in the most crucial areas, such as the absolutely anachronistic nature of the "historical" Book of Mormon, and how this applies to "literalism" and a Church that, in their view (and some critics), completely stands or falls on such definitions. I respect Don as a person, and always have, but I am a bit concerned that in the euphoria of being a born-again Mormon, and no doubt having marvelous "spiritual experiences" (not meant sarcastically), he may be placing too much weight on winning critics by arguments and defenses that have almost NO meaning to people like me, because they do not address far more significant problems, which still remain unanswered in regard, particularly, to whether the Book of Mormon is historical. There's little point batting for Joseph on the KP while greater problems remain unanswered. As one example, would anyone like to issue Professor David Wright an invitation to this non-debate? Or are we going to be satisfied with shooting fish in bowls to "answer" "RFM anti-Mormons"?

It's a joke.

Excellent thoughts, Ray A. Let me offer my perspective. Don is in every way a genuine believer in Mormonism as well as a top notch historian. I see him bringing his historical talents to bear on a small issue that has been mired in a misunderstanding driven by the agendas of both apologists and critics. As it turns out, the legitimate historical conclusions offer something to both sides because both apologists and critics will make of it what they will. Apologists will sigh a sigh of relief at learning that Joseph did not peer into a seer stone and see the translation of phony Kinderhook plates. That is one problem they can put behind them. Critics will rejoice to see that Joseph obviously took the GAEL seriously, and the implications of that are problematic for Will Schryver's cipher theory.

But, there are some problems yet. One is that the catalyst theory is now exposed to new questions. Phony Kinderhook plates were not a problem for an inspired revelation of some ancient material a la Book of Abraham. Also, if Joseph was breaking out this GAEL and taking it seriously in applying it to the Kinderhook plates, that strongly suggests that he genuinely bought into what they were doing with these documents. Now we are in messy territory indeed. So, this makes Joseph Smith look more "sincere" in an odd way, but then perhaps also sincerely engaged in some wacky activities that few people outside of today's wizards would take all that seriously. The short term gains for apologists seem to be rather limited.

In the long run, however, we stand to gain a better historical grasp of what it was Joseph Smith was doing. I like that, but I am not sure it is all that helpful to Mormon belief as currently constructed. There I think we will be left exactly where we were at the beginning, with little to support the contention that any of these endeavors of translation had much to do with things that actually occurred in ancient civilizations, but with no definitive proof that revelation was not involved (because there really can't be). Don has a testimony of the revelatory nature of Joseph's scriptural productions. His historical work sheds light on how these things came to be. There is yet precious little to lend credence to the classic Nibley approach, however.

For the critics, I think it is fair to say that they can take pleasure in the fact that the cipher theory appears even more unlikely than before. Also, they will like the fact that these discoveries make Joseph and company look like even bigger oddballs, who were engaged in activities that seem to bear little relation to people's popular notions of what it is a prophet of God does. The line between wacky pseudo-intellectual noodling and revelation seems to be more blurry than ever. Clearly, if you don't think anything of value can come of the former, it makes the latter more incredible than ever.

[_Themis]

To refer to the "those on the Egyptian papyrus" is to identify the characters as being the ones that appear on the Egyptian papyrus, not to identify the papyrus as the document used.

Not that it matters much, but his statement is fairly clear that it is the papyrus itself. You need to read again the whole statement that mentions a large number of citizens that are comparing characters to those ON the papyrus which is in the city. This makes sense that they would compare it to the papyrus which is available to view. This of course doesn't mention Joseph specifically, but a large group of people.

[_Socrates]

This is pretty explicit. This says that he compared the characters with those ON the Egyptian papyrus, not a copy of them from the Grammar. (I don’t know how one could be positive that it was the Grammar from this). The papyrus was readily available, for Lucy Smith was showing it to people for a fee.

Doesn't it just give you a burning in your bosom when you think about God's prophet allowing Momma Smith to use sacred, ancient text supposedly containing the story of Father Abraham to charge people a fee to look at it?

Did someone say that Mormonism was not a concocted fraud? Really?