Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_Dan Vogel]

Don,

To continue our discussion on another board:

There is also an assumption that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to translate the Kinderhook plates and that it was completely secular. As I mentioned in my previous post, the passage in the GAEL doesn’t contain all the elements in Clayton’s journal and the character in the Kinderhook plates is more complex than the one in the GAEL. One might therefore postulate that the GAEL provided only part of the translation and that the remainder was done by revelation. I haven’t seen all your evidence, but it seems your theory would demand that you be able to explain the additional elements in the Clayton passage in the same manner. You should also be able to explain the additional markings within the character in the same manner for you to be able to claim a secular translation. Can you do that? If you can’t, you might want tone down the rhetoric about demolishing the critic’s position. Just my observation.

Your response was that I haven’t seen all the evidence. So be it. But I would like to pursue the assumption that Joseph Smith’s use of the GAEL means it was a purely secular translation and not divine—or as stated in the newspaper that Joseph Smith wasn’t acting as a prophet. I bring these items up as issues that you might want to address either here or in your published presentation, without committing myself to any position until I can review your complete presentation.

There is also a general consensus that Joseph Smith used the KJV of the Bible as an aid in translating the gold plates, should we also regard the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon as a secular translation? Or, rather, regard the variant readings as evidence that the Bible was only an aid and that it was nevertheless a product of inspired translation by a prophet. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense that someone with such a gift would resort solely to the GAEL in the hope of finding a translation in an unrelated document. Rather, it seems more likely that he referred to it for support and to show similarity, not as a replacement for the prophetic gift. The statement in New York Herald that Joseph Smith “will be able to decipher them” raises the problem of trying to perform that task using only the GAEL—which would be impossible. This statement, it seems, implies that Joseph Smith’s discussion included more than a comparison of single character. The implication is that he was able to translate the papyri (which contain similar characters) through divine gift and therefore he will be able to perform the task of translating the Kinderhook plates through the same means.

“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.” -- New York Herald for 30 May 1843

To this I commented on the other board:

This letter is dated “Nauvoo, Ill., May 7, 1843,” and signed “A Gentile”. A question arises with regard to the wording of this statement since the GAEL isn’t from the Book of Mormon. However, the transcription of Book of Mormon characters has been referred to as an alphabet. Lucy Smith said Joseph Smith “was instructed to take off a fac simile of the … characters <composing the alphabet which were called reformed Egyptian> Alphabetically and send them to all the learned …” (EMD 1:343). Perhaps Joseph Smith compared the Kinderhook plates to the Book of Mormon characters just as he had done with the Egyptian papyri. Or perhaps the Gentile was confused about the origin of the GAEL.

Use of the term “alphabet” in the Herald doesn’t necessarily mean that it was each letter of the alphabet in order (i.e., ABCDEFG …), but alphabet could simply mean characters. Note also that there is no mention of a translation having been done—either prior to (when Clayton made his entry) or at the time. There is only a mention of comparing characters. If Joseph Smith was making comparison with the GAEL, it seems likely that translation or meaning would have been discussed—not just translation in the future. However, if the plates were being compared to similar characters from the Book of Mormon (with no translation next to them), then it is more understandable why the Gentile didn’t mention a translation.

These are issues that need addressing before a victory is declared, although I have never been enthusiastic about the Kinderhook-plates episode. Some anti-Mormons will undoubtedly say—“Only a bogus prophet uses a bogus translation to translate bogus plates."

[_grindael]

Don,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. You said

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.

Let’s look a Charlotte Haven’s account again, cause I’m not following you. She says

Joshua Moore relates news from Quincy because he passes through there from time to time. Last Saturday, (April 29th 1843) he calls on Charlotte Haven Moore has in his possession the KP. He show them to Haven, who handles them and writes a description. Moore tells Haven that ‘when he showed them to Joseph” Joseph said that “the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written” and that with the ‘help of revelation’ he thought he could translate them

How could you not expect ‘fine distinctions’ to be made. You are taking as authentic an anonymous source from a newspaper, yet you discount Charlotte Haven’s very precise and descriptive account. Have you read ALL of her accounts. She is extremely accurate and impartial towards the Mormons. I would put her down as a very credible witness. And she says specifically that Joseph said the characters were similar to the Book of Mormon characters, NOT the Book of Abraham hieroglyphics.

You said:

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.

How so? Here is ‘a Gentile’s’ account again:

“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.”

“A Gentile calls the Egyptian Alphabet the one he took from the plates of the Book of Mormon, not from the papyrus scrolls. Has anyone read any of A Gentiles other accounts? I have, and I suspect this person was really a Mormon. I think that is worth looking in to. If they were, they would know the difference. But you can’t get around the black and white description here, ‘A Gentile’ says this ‘Egyptian Alphabet’ (and the Book of Mormon language was called REFORMED EGYPTIAN) was similar to the Book of Mormon. You are making a connection that the description does not specifically say here.

You said:

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.

How do you get that? It says, “and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” Again this explicitly says what it says. It says nothing about the GAEL. It says they compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in the city. You are stretching when you say it is the GAEL. It doesn’t say that at all.

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.

Yes, but reformed Egyptian is an alphabet, and if one were to reference a character from the plates, one would have to go to the document that had them, which was the “caractor’ sheet. I also said I am open to the possibility of ‘A Gentile’ being confused, but there is still that ‘which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated” part of the statement, which does specifically agree with what Charlotte Haven stated. And of course Dan's insightful comments above. Obviously, the difference was known, between the two, for Pratt wrote:

“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.”

I’m not convinced that you can shrug off the connection between Haven’s and ‘A Gentiles” comments so easily. You wrote:

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.

But that would be speculation on your part, for it is not what Richards wrote. how would you confuse Hebrew Bible and Lexicon, with Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar? That’s a pretty big stretch.

Far from blowing all this out of the water, (as far as I can see, and you have revealed here), it only raises more questions, and you do not adequately address the inconsistencies in the statements.

Thank you though, for the very informative and detailed replies. I am very grateful you took the time out of your busy schedule to reply here, in advance of the video coming out. And as for doing my research, I read Dan's books, among other things.

[Guest]

Dan, thanks for the reference to the Reformed Egyptian Characters being described as an alphabet by Lucy Smith. For those who don't know EMD is Early Mormon Documents, Vol.1.

[_consiglieri]

How about...because I have dozens of projects, not enough time to do them, and I procrastinate (e.g., spending time on message boards).

May I respectfully suggest one project in particular that cries out for your immediate attention . . . ?



*ahem*

[_onandagus]

As advertised, Grindael, I'm winding down my participation here.

If you read the future Journal of Mormon History article, where all this--including Haven--will be laid out in detail, and still disagree, post your criticism here. Or, better, write a letter to the editor so your critique can be read by those who've read the article.

Cheers,

Don

[_onandagus]

Hey Dan,

Thanks for your further critique.

I responded more fully to the Egyptian alphabet criticism on the other board. But here are some summary points:

It's obvious from Clayton's journal that the GAEL and the KPs were compared.

PPP says the KP characters were compared to those on the papyri--with evident reference to the same occasion on which "A Gentile" saw Joseph Smith compare the KP characters to those on his "Egyptian alphabet."

"Egyptian alphabet" is not the most plausible reference to a Book of Mormon character transcript like the extant one, in which we don't have an alphabetic collection but simply a sample of text. Calling this an "Egyptian alphabet" would be only as plausible as calling the papyri an "Egyptian alphabet." Who does that?

However, "Egyptian alphabet" is a more than plausible reference to the GAEL, which has those words in its internal title, and then or later had them added to the spine, indicating a common name for the document, and does attempt to create a sort of alphabet of characters.

Regarding revelatory translation, I've addressed this on MD, showing how the entire translation reported by Clayton could come from that single character. That they were the record of the man with whom they were buried could not have been "translated" from the record, since the author would not have written that he was burying himself in a mound with this record. And the connection of the record with the person it was buried with is a simple surmise. Given that the "translated" text could be derived simply from a single GAEL character, there would be nothing for revelatory translation to add.

I'm not saying revelatory translation is ruled out. If people want to believe withuot evidence that revelation was invoked in order to explain...nothing...in the text, they are certainly free to do so. If you have further critique on this, give it about 18 months and send them as a letter to the editor of JMH.

Cheers,

Don

[Guest]

I look forward to reading the article and hope it answers my questions about other secular or academic sources for the interpretation of the character pronounced "ho e oop hah." I have looked but have not found any non-Mormon secular academic sources that show the character from the GAEL/KP along with the pronunciation and accompanying translation. I look forward to being enlightened on this issue and seeing the evidence for a secular origin for the translation of the character.

[_onandagus]

How about...because I have dozens of projects, not enough time to do them, and I procrastinate (e.g., spending time on message boards).

May I respectfully suggest one project in particular that cries out for your immediate attention . . . ?

*ahem*

Here is my witness!!

Understood!

Don

[_onandagus]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/552 ... ok-plates/

[_Kevin Graham]

There is also a general consensus that Joseph Smith used the KJV of the Bible as an aid in translating the gold plates, should we also regard the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon as a secular translation?

Precisely the point I was driving at on the other board. A few years ago I noticed David Bokovoy was using Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Hebrew word elohim, as evidence of his divine inspiration. I pointed out that learning Hebrew to understand the meaning of a word via academic or secular means, hardly requires revelation. He continued to argue that in an LDS context, studying things out in your mind and secular learning go hand in hand with divine revelation. He pulled out all sorts of citations and D&C scriptures to back it up. He didn't want to make a distinction between revelation and secular learning, and he made a pretty good case that Joseph Smith didn't either.

Fast forward to the present day and we see Don arguing that there is a distinction, and Joseph Smith decided to drop what worked for him in the past, and go with the "reasoning of men," or the "arm of the flesh." However, I pointed out some of the same things you mention. Namely that the GAEL was derived by revelation, so using the GAEL to translaate anything is effectively relying on revelation. Pahoran and Don keep referring to academic and secular methods, but the GAEL is not an academic or secular lexicon. It is every bit a religious text in the sense that it was derived from divine inspiration.

Similarly, it doesn’t make sense that someone with such a gift would resort solely to the GAEL in the hope of finding a translation in an unrelated document.

Another interesting point. The GAEL addressed Egyptian. Is there reason to believe Joseph Smith thought the K-Hook plates were written in Egyptian? Just a quick glance reveals a striking disimilarity between the symbols on the plates and the papyri. If anything, this should serve as further evidence to the notion that Joseph Smith believed there was a connection between all these ancient languages, such as Egyptian, Adamic "pure language," and now whatever he presumed was written on K-Hook.

Rather, it seems more likely that he referred to it for support and to show similarity, not as a replacement for the prophetic gift. The statement in New York Herald that Joseph Smith “will be able to decipher them” raises the problem of trying to perform that task using only the GAEL—which would be impossible.

Yes, exactly. There is no reason to believe he or anyone else thought the GAEL could translate more than that one single character that had only a slight resemblance to a character addressed in the GAEL. Anything else had to be from revelation.

I'd also like to point out that we have no official translation. All we have is Clayton's brief description of a translation. For all we know Joseph Smith's translation consisted of more than what Clayton remembered. He could have very well been reading the GAEL and used that as a reminder as to what the details were. After all, he remembered all the four main points. But my point is that we do not know if this is all Joseph Smith provided. We know this is all William Clayton provided, but we do not know that this was the extent of Joseph Smith's translation. As I pointed out a couple days ago, it is unlikely that anyone could just string along words or concepts found in any given GAEL definition. You need historical context and all the connecting verbs, nouns, propositions, etc in order to come up with a coherent translation. Obviously there is no "academic" or "secular" means to do this using Joseph Smith's method. The only thing left is revelation.

Indeed, the idea of a prophet seer and revelator relying on "academic" means to translate, is as strange as a linguist relying on revelation to translate languages he or she already knows. If Don is right, that zero revelation was involved, then this would have been an unprecedented event in the history of Joseph Smith's translations. This in and of itself should be understood as evidence against it.