Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Character vs. characters

Post by Shulem »

Don Bradley wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:08 am
So, one the one hand Mark and I have a model that accounts for the actual content Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates--a model that also identifies the exact character translated and shows that Smith could derive the text from that character from a translation tool that was demonstrably in his possession and by a process that eye witnesses say was used--the comparison of Kinderhook plates characters with Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's possession.

Well, it’s NOT the “exact character” (singular) found in the GAEL. You know the character on the plate has more features than the one in the GAEL, extra lines forming additional content. To explain these differences in your paper you suggest the dissection process used in the grammar itself and suggest this may justify the differences. It’s speculative although worthy of serious consideration -- but it doesn’t ring true for me in this case. For me, it falls flat as a pancake. IF that exact character was in the GAEL as it is on the plate in which eyeballs present were looking at them, back and forth, comparing, THEN, I’d say you have a bullseye. But that’s not the case.

Don Bradley wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:08 am
Why do you suppose intelligent and informed cohorts and friends of yours who are critics of Joseph Smith's ability to translate--such as Bill Reel, RFM, and our own beloved Kerry Shirts--have accepted the case that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to translate from the Kinderhook plates? I'll tell you why: because our case is air tight. Mark and I produce both the smoking gun and the contemporaneous statement of an eye witness and demonstrate where Smith is getting his text and that he did so with a document he had in his possession and by a character-matching process that eye-witness testimony says he used.

The eyewitness is not said to know anything about the mechanical translation process of the GAEL and neither can it be proven or shown that he actually saw the GAEL, per se. Your paper even brings up the point of possible confusion with the various alphabets and documents in question. Sorry, but I don’t find your case as air tight as you tend to think. All of the documents had in the collection pertaining to the Egyptian Papers will never be known. I am not afraid to say that RFM, Reel, and Shirts may be wrong. I can face the crowd! I can be a one man football team if need be and be as big as the field. ;)

As I said earlier:

Shulem wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:58 am
An eye witness declared and published his statement that “characterS” (PLURAL) on the Kinderhook plates were the “same characters” found in the Egyptian alphabet of the Book of Mormon and that Smith said he was able to decipher them.

Note that he said “characterS” which implies there is more than one, probably several or many. Compare the Kinderhook characters with what could be construed as alphabetical characters from the gold plates and I think you will see several comparisons and even bullseyes! Don Bradley found what he thinks is a single character in the GAEL that matches a Kinderhook character. Just one character. Just one. One! That hardly describes the eyewitness description of what Smith claimed.

Image
Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

On this we do agree

Post by Shulem »

Don,

In spite of our differences in interpreting things and regardless of me being unconvinced/skeptical that the character in question within the GAEL is absolutely a character identified on the plate, we can agree on one very important principle: The definition of the Kinderhook plates by information gleaned from Williams and Pratt was certainly content had within the GAEL. Those brethren were directly associated with Smith and undoubtedly were familiar with the historical records. Williams certainly had access to documents in the office of President Smith -- to include the Grammar. He knew the contents quite well as did Joseph Smith!

Content in the GAEL is spot on with how Williams and Pratt describe the historical nature of the plates and you make excellent points of that in your paper. Bear in mind, the brethren were open to additional revelation/translations about historical stories to include the Book of Joseph, Katumin, etc.

I realize that I’ve not given you a model, my model. I’ll work on that for you and see if I can produce a model that is better than the one you’ve come up with. And if not, that’s okay. We can agree to disagree on certain points and nobody need lose sleep over it. Please allow me to collect my thoughts and find a way to politely express them in this thread. I love how this message board works and operates.
Don Bradley
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Don Bradley »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:17 am
Every time there is evidence left behind to show Smith wasn’t “translating”, he is defined as translating as a man. The one time there is no evidence left behind, Mormons want to argue he was translating with a divine gift from god. :roll:

Using Don’s concept of the simplest model that explains the most data, it’s pretty clear that the Book of Mormon is an orally produced story out of the mind of Smith, with no more “divine” intervention or assistance than was evidenced in the kinderhook plate or the papyrus situations.
Marcus,

With respect, you may want to read the chapter in question before assuming you understand what I'm arguing.

Regards,

Don
Don Bradley
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Don Bradley »

Hey Paul,

Sorry to have accidentally italicized half of my post. I've fixed the formatting.
Shulem wrote:
In spite of our differences in interpreting things and regardless of me being unconvinced/skeptical that the character in question within the GAEL is absolutely a character identified on the plate, we can agree on one very important principle: The definition of the Kinderhook plates by information gleaned from Williams and Pratt was certainly content had within the GAEL.
I appreciate this statement of common ground. I'm glad we agree this content was in the GAEL.

I have to admit that this acknowledgment leaves me more puzzled. Once it is seen that the translation content Smith got from the Kinderhook plates matches the meaning of a single character on the GAEL and could therefore be derived from finding merely a single character match between them, then it's clear that this translation content can be explained in the most parsimonious way possible--by identifying a single character on the Kinderhook plates that Smith could plausibly have identified with the GAEL character bearing this definition. Then, given that we have Emmons and Pratt both describing character comparisons being made, that the Kinderhook plates have a boat-shaped character as one of the largest and most prominent at the top of one of the plates, and that the GAEL itself offers the rules by which the Kinderhook plates character can be made an even more perfect match, it would seem bizarre to keep looking for an explanation.


Further thoughts:

In early Mormon history, perhaps particularly on topics that (like this one) are related to the Book of Abraham, there are so many differing viewpoints, and whole arguments are sometimes made to hinge on details that historical record-keepers are assumed to have gotten right. Much of the missing scroll theory, for instance, hinges on lengths ascribed to one of the scrolls the witness saw, but this takes the risk of overinterpreting variations in the data.

A few points about your objections:

First, recall that my model is that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to translate the large boat shaped character at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates. You object to this model by saying the characters don't precisely match without the dissection. But since dissection is one of the GAEL's own rules of translation, and one that appears just prior to the character in question, from which Smith's reported translation can be derived, then for Smith to expect that the character would be dissected prior to interpretation via the GAEL is simply part of what it would mean for the character to be interpreted via the GAEL. Since dissection is precisely what the GAEL told Smith to do, it is precisely what we would expect him to have done if he translated via the GAEL. So to posit that Smith dissected the character prior to translating it does not add something to the idea that he translated it via the GAEL: it is part and parcel of his having translated it via the GAEL. And once the character is, as expected under this process, dissected then it does in fact yield a precise match. So in rejecting the dissection it's not that you're seeing some fault in Joseph Smith having translated from the KPs via the GAEL; you're simply refusing to consider whether he did so. To find a flaw with a reasonable hypothesis is something meritorious. To refuse to consider it is simply closed-minded.

Second, the fact that I've identified a specific character that Joseph would have seen as matching doesn't mean those are the only characters he compared. Nor does Emmons' conclusion that "they are evidently the same characters" require multiple matching characters. So this objection fails.

Third, I want you to think of the arguments made for a missing lengthy Book of Abraham scroll, mentioned above, and how they hinge on the presumed accuracy of quantitative details in the sources. You are hinging quite a bit of interpretation on just this sort of detail--the sort that historical sources don't tend to be terribly accurate on. Even if the wording of Emmons' statement did overtly indicate that there were multiple matching characters, the idea that he would have been precise on this point contradicts a mass of evidence that historical sources don't tend to be very accurate on things like this. Our informants in the historical sources just aren't as precise as you're requiring them to be here.

Fourth, while you appear to raise questions about me saying that Emmons identifies Joseph Smith using character-matching, this is exactly what happens in his own account. He says "he compared them in my presence" and "they are evidently the same characters. He will therefore be able to translate them." How could Smith have determined that they were "the same" without finding a match? And note that is precisely because of this match--[b["therefore"[/b]--that Smith could translate them. So, even if you object to me observing that Emmons proves that Smith compared the characters and found a match that would enable him to translate them, this in the eye-witness source.

Although we disagree, Paul, I'm glad we can have an open discussion on this, really laying out our viewpoints. I really would like to see the best explanations win out--whatever those are, and even if I end up being wrong on things. I don't see that happening here, but discussion can only serve to bring out new ideas that may refine the model I'm working with.

Something I think you and I can agree on is that we should look for the best explanation and abandon models that don't work. I think we agree on this because I've seen you criticize apologists for holding onto theories even when they don't work and are inferior to other explanations. And I think it because I've seen you change your mind on things over time, as when you were a believer when I was not, and then when I've been a believer you when you have not. So, I trust that, like me, you ultimately just want to know the truth of what actually happened.

Regards,

Don
Last edited by Don Bradley on Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
Don Bradley
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Don Bradley »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:15 pm
In order to better understand what the Kinderhook plates were in Smith’s mind, let’s first think about what they were not. They were not reformed hieroglyphic script copied from (imaginary) gold plates. Therefore, they were not script used by Book of Mormon scribes such as Mormon and Moroni. So, that eliminates the possibility of linking it to a Nephite script. Neither did Smith link the Kinderhook characters to the Lamanites or a script used in their kingdoms by their peoples. Nor was it attributed to the people Zarahemla or any other peoples who inhabited the promised land during the Nephite era. Smith opted for the earlier epic in which the Jaredites inhabited the land and any others peoples who also made the journey to ancient America. Smith opted to identify the script of the Kinderhook plates to a time that long predated Nephi. Smith opted to separate the language of the Kinderhook plates from that of the Nephite era and identify it in an earlier time and place.
Ahh, thanks, Paul!

You have a significant insight here that I had not noted, and that is relevant to our discussion in a way that I had not yet seen.

I think you are dead on: the identification of the Kinderhook plates and characters as Jaredite almost certainly comes from Smith himself. Here's why. Parley P. Pratt identifies them as Jaredite on the same day that Smith is comparing these characters with other characters and making public statements about them and how he can translate them. So, Pratt's information identifying them as Jaredite is almost certainly drawing on what Smith was saying about them on that occasion that same day. Further supporting this, in Pratt's letter he also mentions comparisons being made with these characters, suggesting that he is referring to the same event at which Smith was comparing the Kinderhook plates characters with other characters.

What was the result of Smith's comparison of characters? Sylvester Emmons tells us. In his letter under that date, he reports of Smith comparing characters at the event, "He compared them in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet" (the nature of which you and I trying to determine) and that "they are evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them."

Emmons' statement that Smith compared characters between these two documents and they are "evidently the same characters" indicates that Smith found matching characters between the documents, and that on this basis--"therefore"--he would be able to translate them.

This is where your observation that on this very day Smith identified these characters as Jaredite script ties in significantly:
Shulem wrote:In order to better understand what the Kinderhook plates were in Smith’s mind, let’s first think about what they were not. They were not reformed hieroglyphic script copied from (imaginary) gold plates. Therefore, they were not script used by Book of Mormon scribes such as Mormon and Moroni. So, that eliminates the possibility of linking it to a Nephite script.
As you correctly note, Paul, if these characters were Jaredite script then they could not be reformed Egyptian Nephite script like Smith's transcript from the gold plates. And if they were not reformed Egyptian script like on Smith's gold plates transcript, then Smith would not have matched them as "the same characters" on that gold plates transcript.

Your quite correct observation that Smith connected the Kinderhook plates with Jaredites--not with Nephites--thus refutes the hypothesis that the "Egyptian alphabet" Smith compared and matched with Kinderhook plates was the Nephite reformed Egyptian character transcript.

(We might also note that this hypothesis was already refuted by the fact that gold plates transcript, which has repeating patterns of characters, is clearly meant to represent text rather than an alphabet, since alphabets by nature don't repeat the same characters over and over the way text does. But your Jaredite connection adds a sufficient final nail to that coffin.)

If you do continue to argue that Smith compared the Kinderhook plates to the gold plates transcript and finding that they are "evidently the same characters," then perhaps you could explain, among other things...
- by what magic Smith's approach of supposedly comparing the Kinderhook plates to the golden plates characters yields text, not from the golden plates, but from the document you say he didn't compare to them--the GAEL?
- why Smith would have connected the Kinderhook plates to the Jaredites after showing that they were in the language of the Nephites?

Really--how does your model that Smith compared the Kinderhook plates to Nephite script and found they were the same characters and translated from them by revelation predict or account for him identifying them as Jaredite? Under your model, that's anomalous.

But under the model that he translated from them via the GAEL, it's easily explicable: since the GAEL's "ho-e-oop-hah" definition for the KPs' boat-shaped character identifies the king of whom it speaks as a descendant of Pharaoh, and since none of the Lehites are Hamites descended from Pharaoh, the Kinderhook plates king could not have been a Lehite, and thus (under a Book of Mormon anthropology of the Americas) would have needed to be a Jaredite, whose lineage is unspecified. (Though this appears to have escaped your notice Mark and I put this in our chapter.)

While I've sprung a "gotcha" here, Paul, I'm doing so based on what I think is a genuine insight you've provided on what Joseph Smith saw the Kinderhook plates script being--and not being. This is a great insight and a contribution to the discussion. I wish I'd had that insight back when Johnny was around to discuss all this with, since I'd like to see what he would have made of it.

Ah well.

Your observations that Smith identified the Kinderhook plates as Jaredite doesn't fit with the interpretation that the document Emmons saw Joseph Smith compare with and match to the Kinderhook plates was the gold plates character transcript. That hypothesis is self-contradictory and doesn't work. And the reason this is evident is because your observation shows it.

In any case, my friend, as you can see from the time stamps on my posts, I'm spending a lot of time on this discussion, and in the middle of the night at that, so I am going to need to call it quits. While I think you are mistaken in this particular perspective on the Kinderhook plates, I really do think you should write for presentation and publication on the topics you're pursuing. If you do write a draft on one of these topics, please feel free to run it by me for feedback if you'd like.

Ciao,
Or, as Jacob says,
Adieu,

Don
"People can find meaninglessness in just about anything if they convince themselves that there is no meaning in that thing." - The Rev. Dr. Lumen Kishkumen
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Marcus »

Don Bradley wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:56 am
Marcus wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:17 am
Every time there is evidence left behind to show Smith wasn’t “translating”, he is defined as translating as a man. The one time there is no evidence left behind, Mormons want to argue he was translating with a divine gift from god. :roll:

Using Don’s concept of the simplest model that explains the most data, it’s pretty clear that the Book of Mormon is an orally produced story out of the mind of Smith, with no more “divine” intervention or assistance than was evidenced in the kinderhook plate or the papyrus situations.
Marcus,

With respect, you may want to read the chapter in question before assuming you understand what I'm arguing.

Regards,

Don
Don,

With respect, I did. And I am expressing my opinion, using from the chapter in question only your definition of choosing the simplest model that explains the most data.

Also with respect, you may want to more carefully read the comment in question before assuming you understand what I'm arguing.

Regards,

Marcus
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Marcus »

Don Bradley wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:19 am
...back when Johnny was around to discuss all this with, since I'd like to see what he would have made of it.

Ah well....
I agree with that sentiment completely. May he rest in peace.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:17 pm
Don Bradley wrote: So, one the one hand Mark and I have a model that accounts for the actual content Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates--a model that also identifies the exact character translated and shows that Smith could derive the text from that character from a translation tool that was demonstrably in his possession and by a process that eye witnesses say was used--the comparison of Kinderhook plates characters with Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's possession.
Well, it’s NOT the “exact character” (singular) found in the GAEL. You know the character on the plate has more features than the one in the GAEL, extra lines forming additional content. To explain these differences in your paper you suggest the dissection process used in the grammar itself and suggest this may justify the differences. It’s speculative although worthy of serious consideration -- but it doesn’t ring true for me in this case. For me, it falls flat as a pancake. IF that exact character was in the GAEL as it is on the plate in which eyeballs present were looking at them, back and forth, comparing, THEN, I’d say you have a bullseye. But that’s not the case.

...The eyewitness is not said to know anything about the mechanical translation process of the GAEL and neither can it be proven or shown that he actually saw the GAEL, per se. Your paper even brings up the point of possible confusion with the various alphabets and documents in question. Sorry, but I don’t find your case as air tight as you tend to think. All of the documents had in the collection pertaining to the Egyptian Papers will never be known. I am not afraid to say that RFM, Reel, and Shirts may be wrong. I can face the crowd! I can be a one man football team if need be and be as big as the field. ;)
just taking a quick and dirty look at the probabilities, you have a point here, Shulem. if a model relies specifically on eyewitness statement, it's hard to then justify that another part of the same statement (plural not singular) can't be relied upon to mean what it says. on the other hand, if the eyewitness is unreliable then the plural may not mean anything, but parsimony would also require that the rest of the statement not be relied upon so specifically as well. Typically, you can't have it both ways.

but i'd like to read a little more of your work on this. I read Don's chapter on this, i'll re-read but i'd also like to read more on your interpretation. Do you have another thread on this? I'll ask Philo too.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:57 pm
but i'd like to read a little more of your work on this. I read Don's chapter on this, i'll re-read but i'd also like to read more on your interpretation. Do you have another thread on this? I'll ask Philo too.

This thread is the only time I’ve publicly discussed the Kinderhook plates at length and depth so all this is rather groundbreaking for me. I think it has been a wonderful thread so far and the back and forth has been quite pleasant. NOW, Don is going to take a little break and work on other things. For all intents and purposes, he’s rested his case and now the ball is really, really, in my court. I have ball to play with and playing ball can be both challenging and FUN.

:D

I will reassess points Don has made in challenging my points and see how things can be stretched/expanded and categorized in different ways to allow for other options. It’s always those other options that bring about new discovery. That is the fun part!

Also, I will work on a model. I have one in mind and would like to tie it into the events that took place in Nauvoo and consider the principles of the moment while Smith was having these discussions with persons of interest.

We will get to the bottom of it, I can assure that. We will uncover the mystery of the Kinderhook translation. Although I remain skeptical/unconvinced of the character in which Don has identified as the winning number of this game, I have not however, completely ruled it out. It’s not an impossibility. For me, it needs to be further fleshed out because it doesn’t ring true for me. I need more!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Sylvester Emmons

Post by Shulem »

Don Bradley observations (blue emphasis mine):

Don Bradley wrote:
  • “Then, given that we have Emmons and Pratt both describing character comparisons being made”
  • “Nor does Emmons' conclusion that ‘they are evidently the same characters’ require multiple matching characters.”
  • “Even if the wording of Emmons' statement did overtly indicate that there were multiple matching characters the idea that he would have been precise on this point contradicts a mass of evidence that historical sources don't tend to be very accurate on things like this. Our informants in the historical sources just aren't as precise as you're requiring them to be here.”
  • “Fourth, while you appear to raise questions about me saying that Emmons identifies Joseph Smith using character-matching, this is exactly what happens in his own account. He says ‘he compared them in my presence’ and ‘they are evidently the same characters.’”
  • “So, even if you object to me observing that Emmons proves that Smith compared the characters and found a match that would enable him to translate them, this in the eye-witness source.”
  • “What was the result of Smith's comparison of characters? Sylvester Emmons tells us. In his letter under that date, he reports of Smith comparing characters at the event, ‘He compared them in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet’ (the nature of which you and I trying to determine) and that ‘they are evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them.’”
  • “Emmons' statement that Smith compared characters between these two documents and they are ‘evidently the same characters’ indicates that Smith found matching characters between the documents, and that on this basis—‘therefore’--he would be able to translate them.”
  • “Your observations that Smith identified the Kinderhook plates as Jaredite doesn't fit with the interpretation that the document Emmons saw Joseph Smith compare with and match to the Kinderhook plates was the gold plates character transcript.”

Don,

I emphasized that plurality vs. singularity is a vital clue in describing character comparisons and it’s always done in the plural. The “A Gentile” letter submitted to the New York Herald by Sylvester Emmons may have been said with “tongue in cheek” with regard to being called a Gentile, but certainly NOT the accuracy of the contents of the reporting itself. Was not the anonymous author for the letter published in the New York Herald an ATTORNEY? And if he was an attorney then can we not expect an accurate reporting? I would tend to think that an attorney is going to weigh the facts accurately and be precise in doing so. What do think, RFM? Emmons used the PLURAL to report character comparisons and that makes for a broad interpretation to what may have happened than simply identifying a single character from the GAEL. It suggests that more than one match was identified within the materials at hand in which the hieroglyphs on the plates were accessed. Bear in mind that the hieroglyphs from the reformed Egyptian (gold plates) were considered to be kin to the conventional Egyptian (Abraham papyrus) and would have been given every consideration in looking for matches!

PS. Marcus, does this observation help my case for the plurality of character translations?

Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:57 pm
just taking a quick and dirty look at the probabilities, you have a point here, Shulem. if a model relies specifically on eyewitness statement, it's hard to then justify that another part of the same statement (plural not singular) can't be relied upon to mean what it says. on the other hand, if the eyewitness is unreliable then the plural may not mean anything, but parsimony would also require that the rest of the statement not be relied upon so specifically as well. Typically, you can't have it both ways.
Post Reply