Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_The Nehor]

Why? :P

Is there ever a reason to answer a question with another question?

Is there ever not?

[_Socrates]

_________________
My favorite game show is Jeopardy! "Alex, I'll take Theology for $800."

If your name is Socrates, shouldn't your signature line be a question?

Have you considered what the second thing that would follow after my signature line quote would be?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.

That's bizarre. I was under the impression that Don's presentation was going to blow the critical arguments into smithereens. And given that the critics' main argument is that Joseph Smith was basically "duped" into thinking that the Kinderhook Plates were legitimate scripture, I don't see Don's presentation is helping anything. Doesn't it suggest that the guys who made the plates were more clever than we initially thought? Or, is Don claiming instead that the presence of this symbol shows that the K-hook Plates actually really *are* scripture, thus rescuing Joseph Smith on the issue of *both* Kinderhook and the Book of Abraham in one fell swoop?

Hopefully someone will be along to clarify sometime soon.

[_honorentheos]

Dr.,

There is a thread on MDD that contains some partial accounts of what was presented by listeners during the online broadcast. Kevin Graham is also heavily engaged in the discussion and may be persuaded to offer an overview of his understanding of the matter.

Based on the accounts from this thread, it seems that Don Bradley demonstrated the following:

- That the William Clayton journal account is generally reliable, and that William Clayton was actively involved in Joseph's doings on the day most importance to the translation attempt

- That Joseph Smith used the GAEL to attempt a non-revelatory translation of the kinderhook plates (Don apparently demonstrated clearly that it was an attempt using the GAEL and not by revelation through documentary evidence such as a news article from the time. I am not clear, but it may also be claimed in a quote from Parley P. Pratt from some source)

- That there is a symbol on one of the plates that corresponds with a symbol from the GAEL, and that some portion or all of the translation described by William Clayton is consistent with the meaning of the same symbol provided in the GAEL

That's the minimum I've gathered of what was presented, though there is a lot of additional detail being thrown around without attribution as well as speculation on the part of most thread participants. I may have the above points wrong as well. Hopefully someone more familiar will stop in to clarify.

[_onandagus]

Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.

What do we infer from this? If I understand the argument correctly...

• Smith's evaluation of the Kinderhook Plates was based upon the GAEL
• Smith considered the GAEL to be a tool to assist in translating Egyptian
• Smith was intimately familiar with the GAEL

Is that basically it?

No.

[_moksha]

Is there significance to this match of a single character shape? Does this prove the Kinderhook plates are true?

[_Analytics]

Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.

What do we infer from this? If I understand the argument correctly...

• Smith's evaluation of the Kinderhook Plates was based upon the GAEL
• Smith considered the GAEL to be a tool to assist in translating Egyptian
• Smith was intimately familiar with the GAEL

Is that basically it?

No.

I'm looking forward to reading more about your actual views. I heard it was an interesting and entertaining presentation--congratulations!

[_jon]

Am I right in summarising this as:

A symbol has been found on the plates that matches an alphabet that Joseph Smith produced and his translation of both is consistent?

[_honorentheos]

Am I right in summarising this as:

A symbol has been found on the plates that matches an alphabet that Joseph Smith produced and his translation of both is consistent?

jon,

Based on the limited knowledge I have of the matter, I think there is a slight difference from the above and what was suggested by Don.

The Kinderhook plate translation made use of the already-transcribed GAEL.

I'm guessing, but it seems the presentation served to take the foundation out from under both the common critical and faithful arguments.

The most common critical argument is that Joseph Smith produced or at least began a translation of the counterfeit plates claiming revelation. This process, being the same as he claimed to use to produce LDS scripture, confirms he was a fraud as the argument goes.

The LDS-faithful view that Joseph did not make this attempt, and William Clayton's journal was describing something rumored but not actually known by Clayton himself is also basically removed from the table as a valid option if my understanding of Bradley's presentation is correct.

This now suggests Joseph produced a limited "translation" of the plates but that this was not complete. It was based on using the existing GAEL and the meaning it provided for a common symbol contained in both. Because this was not via revelation, it preserves the integrity of Joseph's abilities as a seer and revelator without denying the process described by William Clayton in his journal if someone wishes to view it in this manner.

[_Wiki Wonka]

The Kinderhook plate translation made use of the already-transcribed GAEL.

I'm guessing, but it seems the presentation served to take the foundation out from under both the common critical and faithful arguments.

The most common critical argument is that Joseph Smith produced or at least began a translation of the counterfeit plates claiming revelation. This process, being the same as he claimed to use to produce LDS scripture, confirms he was a fraud as the argument goes.

The LDS-faithful view that Joseph did not make this attempt, and William Clayton's journal was describing something rumored but not actually known by Clayton himself is also basically removed from the table as a valid option if my understanding of Bradley's presentation is correct.

This now suggests Joseph produced a limited "translation" of the plates but that this was not complete. It was based on using the existing GAEL and the meaning it provided for a common symbol contained in both. Because this was not via revelation, it preserves the integrity of Joseph's abilities as a seer and revelator without denying the process described by William Clayton in his journal if someone wishes to view it in this manner.

From my recollection of the presentation, this explanation is correct. The data that Don presented supersedes and nulls out any previous critical and apologetic arguments related to the subject. Joseph did "translate" a portion of the plates just as William Clayton said, and he did so by non-revelatory means that were already available to him. Don backed this up with a number of sources.

WW