Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Isn't trying to entice someone into committing a fraudulent translation a form of entrapment? Would Kirton McConkie have a case they could argue before the Illinois court?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Sure, they can take their case to a worldly court and attempt to cover up the prophet’s inability to discern the truth in which he chose to eat the poisoned apple. Fugate presented a delicious looking apple before the prophet because he knew the prophet liked to translate fruity revelation. And, it appears by the evidence that is exactly what Smith did. At minimum, however, he ate the fruit and believed it was true.
In this we can see that the prophet was fallen from grace. There is no power on earth that can undo that. All the lawyers and apologists in the church can’t justify Smith’s errors and inability to discern truth. It’s an open and shut case. Don Bradley himself will admit the prophet was wrong. And guess what? The prophet was also wrong about hundreds and thousands of other things. Take the so-called king’s name in Facsimile No. 3! He was wrong about that too! Right? He was wrong about the name “Shulem” in the writing above the hand of Hor and in mistakenly thinking Maat was a man.
I could go on and on.
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Jun 09, 2022 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
So FAIR might request that all mention of the Kinderhook Plates be blocked?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
What I think you will find is they block the idea that a prophet who is moved by the Spirit of God failed to discern the plates were fake. They just chalk it up as a man going about his daily business and that revelation and discernment are not the issue at hand. But nothing could be further from the truth because apologists block the truth and don’t want to face up to the reality of what really happened and what it means to Smith’s claims to access constant revelation and companionship of the Holy Ghost when it comes to leading the Church. Everything I understand about the whole affair leads me to believe that everyone accepted Smith’s explanation as having come from God. He believed the plates were authentic and they were not. The saints would have been justified in walking away from Joseph Smith in realizing they were not being led by a man receiving prompting from the so-called Holy Ghost.
Jesus of Nazareth
Father,
After I have fed the people with the donations in which thou hast provided, I will read from the hieroglyphs of the Kinderhook plates which testify of the gospel given to other sheep who are not of this fold.
After I have fed the people with the donations in which thou hast provided, I will read from the hieroglyphs of the Kinderhook plates which testify of the gospel given to other sheep who are not of this fold.
In conclusion:
Don,
You’ve probably correctly deduced from the presentation offered in this thread that I remain quite skeptical that the character in Smith’s Egyptian Grammar is linked to the character on the Kinderhook plate with regard to how Smith interpreted things. I don’t believe that an association between the two was made and don’t have reason to think Smith would specifically consult his fictitious grammar to learn about characters on ancient Indian plates which he believed were authentic. He was more interested in consulting genuine scholarship and authoritative references pertaining to ancient languages.
Now, with that said, I happen to think that Smith would have associated several of the main characters on the plates as signs pertaining to astronomy which is what I’ve been stressing all along. The sun, moon, and stars are constant reoccurring themes in ancient history and Smith knew that. You know full well that Joseph Smith had a deep regard for Joseph who was sold into Egypt and Smith attributed his own divine calling of being called “Joseph” after Joseph of old. And, what do we remember young Joseph of old for being remembered by? Joseph told his family about his miraculous calling from God in which all would bow to him: “I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.”
In conclusion, I think you are mistaken about the connection you’ve made between the GAEL and the Kinderhook plate.
Sincerely,
Paul
You’ve probably correctly deduced from the presentation offered in this thread that I remain quite skeptical that the character in Smith’s Egyptian Grammar is linked to the character on the Kinderhook plate with regard to how Smith interpreted things. I don’t believe that an association between the two was made and don’t have reason to think Smith would specifically consult his fictitious grammar to learn about characters on ancient Indian plates which he believed were authentic. He was more interested in consulting genuine scholarship and authoritative references pertaining to ancient languages.
Now, with that said, I happen to think that Smith would have associated several of the main characters on the plates as signs pertaining to astronomy which is what I’ve been stressing all along. The sun, moon, and stars are constant reoccurring themes in ancient history and Smith knew that. You know full well that Joseph Smith had a deep regard for Joseph who was sold into Egypt and Smith attributed his own divine calling of being called “Joseph” after Joseph of old. And, what do we remember young Joseph of old for being remembered by? Joseph told his family about his miraculous calling from God in which all would bow to him: “I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.”
In conclusion, I think you are mistaken about the connection you’ve made between the GAEL and the Kinderhook plate.
Sincerely,
Paul
-
Don Bradley
- Star B
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Hey Paul,
I appreciate your work written about on other threads regarding the Anubis snout--and, as I've expressed, I really think you should follow that line of research much further. And I love your forays on this thread to get at what the Kinderhook forgers were thinking and where they were getting their ideas--that also I think you should pursue much further.
Your Kinderhook plates thread here (along with Kerry's video response) helped me to see is that Mark and I placed too much stress on the potential apologetic implications of our historical findings. So, thank you for calling attention to those. In retrospect, I would minimize that in the chapter so it can be seen more clearly for what it really is--a historical exploration of whether--and how--Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates.
There are things that I'll go into below that I greatly disagree with you on, and will take you to task on. But perhaps that disagreement can be useful if I first lay out some points of historical method as I see myself and other historians practicing it, since methodology is the crux of all historical work.
A few thoughts on historical method...
First, historical explanation is a process of inference to the best explanation. We seek to piece together the fragments of the past in the way that offers the best overall explanation. The more data an explanatory model can account for, the better for that model.
Second, what we mean by explaining the data here is that we can explain the various historical sources and why the events came out the way they did--why they came out that way in particular and not any of the other countless ways they could have.
Third, a model is to be judged not only on how much it explains, but also on how simply and elegantly it explains it. So, if a model can both account for more data than another and can do it more simply than another model, then it is, hands down, the better model.
Fourth, historical sources are by their very nature "messy." As in scientific measurements, there is always a level of randomness and "noise" in the historical data. For instance, despite the overwhelming mass of sources reporting that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, there is enough contradiction between sources and counter-evidence (such as Emma Smith's denials that her husband practiced polygamy) that some intelligent people have been able to put together entire books arguing that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy. Yet, you'll notice, while this historical "noise" has been enough to trip up some non-historians, it has not fooled any actual historians. No model will perfectly account for all the data, but it doesn't have to. The preferable model is the one that provides the bestexplanation rather than than an unattainably high standard of perfect explanation of all noise. So, historians recognize that despite the noise in the historical record on Joseph Smith and polygamy, the model of Joseph Smith as a polygamist is by far a better explanation than the model of Joseph Smith as a monogamist.
Regarding the Kinderhook plates, Mark Ashurst-McGee and I have have presented a model that accounts for William Clayton's report that Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates and accounts for the most concrete, distinctive, and idiosyncratic data to be explained in Clayton's report--the specific text Joseph Smith derived from the Kinderhook plates: that they were about a king who was a descendant of Pharaoh and possessor "of heaven and earth." . We how and why he would derive that exact content from them rather than other content. We show that Smith could derive this content from a single matching character that appears on the Kinderhook plates and on a document in Joseph Smith's possession--the GAEL. We produce a witness who recorded on the very day that he saw Joseph Smith making such a comparison, and we back this up by identifying the-otherwise pseudonymous witness, his position in the Nauvoo community, and how reliable he can be expected to be and by showing that Parley P. Pratt also records on the same day that people had been comparing the Kinderhook plates with the Egyptian characters associated with the Book of Abraham.
This can be contrasted with what appears in your posts above criticizing this model. What explanation for the actual text have you presented--what explanation for why Joseph Smith arrived at that particular text of translation rather than anything else under the sun? None.
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. Meanwhile, on the other side of the question, there is no actual model but merely a criticism of someone else's model. Taking shots a model is easy. Crafting a betterl one is where the rubber meets the road in inference to the best explanation. And since Mark and I actually have an explanation for the text Smith translated, and one that is simple and evidenced by from other sources, it is crystal clear which position provides a better explanation--the only one that actually explains something.
Rather than presenting a model, you've pointed out a couple instances of noise--primarily that when "A Gentile" writes to the New York Herald on May 7, 1843 about Joseph Smith's analysis of the Kinderhook plates the "Gentile" thinks Smith's "Egyptian alphabet" is related to the Book of Mormon rather than the Book of Abraham--exactly the kind of error we might expect a "Gentile" to make. And since Mark and I already accounted for this datum in the paper by identifying the letter's author as the non-Mormon Sylvester Emmons, showing that the GAEL is labeled "Egyptian Alphabet," and showing that Parley P. Pratt's account written the same day identifies the characters compared to the KP as those associated with the Book of Abraham, you are merely repeating something we already noted, albeit without acknowledging as much, dealing with our arguments, or setting the letter writer's phrasing in the context of his identity and the historical context of other sources recorded that day demonstrate. Such an objection is no more serious than a Joseph Smith polygamy-denier rejecting Todd Compton's entire In Sacred Loneliness because of the historical noise of Emma Smith saying her husband had been strictly monogamous.
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.
If a genuinely better explanatory model of the event than this could be developed, I would want to know it. But what you've laid out above is simply light years from that. If, however, you eventually do develop a model that can account for the text Joseph Smith translated from the KPs both as well as and as simply as the one Mark and I have presented, run it past friends who are informed on the data and on our competing model--friends like RFM, Bill, and Kerry--and if you can persuade them, then you should absolutely write it up and submit it to a journal for publication. If you can get it through academic peer review by trained historians and get it into print, then I will, genuinely(!), be fascinated to see what you come up with and willing to engage with it in my own writings. As one of the founders of the Baha'i faith sagely said: "The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions." If you are able to get a model up to the level where it has proven by jumping through the scholarly hoops that it can genuinely compete with ours, then it would be beneficial for everyone to put those models into competition, and then may the best model win. That said, as things stand, the best model has won, since only one model can actually account for the translation text and the historical sources and can convince professional historians and both Mormon and non-Mormon observers. If you want to change that, you need to not merely claim a hollow victory on a message board by taking shots at someone else's model; you need to do the work of building a complete model and show that it is superior in a way that convinces others besides just you.
If, however, you can't come up with a model that both you and intelligent cohorts like RFM, Bill, and Kerry think has greater and more parsimonious explanatory power in accounting for the various historical sources and, particularly, for the text Joseph Smith derived from the Kinderhook plates, then perhaps you should consider why the other model is more compelling.
Historical scholarship doesn't duke out differing models on message boards. If you really want to persuade others on questions like this where there is published historical work, then you will want to fully flesh out your ideas and engage on that level of peer-reviewed publications. You're quite bright, motivated, and perfectly capable of writing and submitting a scholarly paper on your perspectives. And when you do, I'll be perfectly happy to engage with them, to agree or disagree, to reject or to build on.
Cordially,
Don
I appreciate your work written about on other threads regarding the Anubis snout--and, as I've expressed, I really think you should follow that line of research much further. And I love your forays on this thread to get at what the Kinderhook forgers were thinking and where they were getting their ideas--that also I think you should pursue much further.
Your Kinderhook plates thread here (along with Kerry's video response) helped me to see is that Mark and I placed too much stress on the potential apologetic implications of our historical findings. So, thank you for calling attention to those. In retrospect, I would minimize that in the chapter so it can be seen more clearly for what it really is--a historical exploration of whether--and how--Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates.
There are things that I'll go into below that I greatly disagree with you on, and will take you to task on. But perhaps that disagreement can be useful if I first lay out some points of historical method as I see myself and other historians practicing it, since methodology is the crux of all historical work.
A few thoughts on historical method...
First, historical explanation is a process of inference to the best explanation. We seek to piece together the fragments of the past in the way that offers the best overall explanation. The more data an explanatory model can account for, the better for that model.
Second, what we mean by explaining the data here is that we can explain the various historical sources and why the events came out the way they did--why they came out that way in particular and not any of the other countless ways they could have.
Third, a model is to be judged not only on how much it explains, but also on how simply and elegantly it explains it. So, if a model can both account for more data than another and can do it more simply than another model, then it is, hands down, the better model.
Fourth, historical sources are by their very nature "messy." As in scientific measurements, there is always a level of randomness and "noise" in the historical data. For instance, despite the overwhelming mass of sources reporting that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, there is enough contradiction between sources and counter-evidence (such as Emma Smith's denials that her husband practiced polygamy) that some intelligent people have been able to put together entire books arguing that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy. Yet, you'll notice, while this historical "noise" has been enough to trip up some non-historians, it has not fooled any actual historians. No model will perfectly account for all the data, but it doesn't have to. The preferable model is the one that provides the bestexplanation rather than than an unattainably high standard of perfect explanation of all noise. So, historians recognize that despite the noise in the historical record on Joseph Smith and polygamy, the model of Joseph Smith as a polygamist is by far a better explanation than the model of Joseph Smith as a monogamist.
Regarding the Kinderhook plates, Mark Ashurst-McGee and I have have presented a model that accounts for William Clayton's report that Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates and accounts for the most concrete, distinctive, and idiosyncratic data to be explained in Clayton's report--the specific text Joseph Smith derived from the Kinderhook plates: that they were about a king who was a descendant of Pharaoh and possessor "of heaven and earth." . We how and why he would derive that exact content from them rather than other content. We show that Smith could derive this content from a single matching character that appears on the Kinderhook plates and on a document in Joseph Smith's possession--the GAEL. We produce a witness who recorded on the very day that he saw Joseph Smith making such a comparison, and we back this up by identifying the-otherwise pseudonymous witness, his position in the Nauvoo community, and how reliable he can be expected to be and by showing that Parley P. Pratt also records on the same day that people had been comparing the Kinderhook plates with the Egyptian characters associated with the Book of Abraham.
This can be contrasted with what appears in your posts above criticizing this model. What explanation for the actual text have you presented--what explanation for why Joseph Smith arrived at that particular text of translation rather than anything else under the sun? None.
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. Meanwhile, on the other side of the question, there is no actual model but merely a criticism of someone else's model. Taking shots a model is easy. Crafting a betterl one is where the rubber meets the road in inference to the best explanation. And since Mark and I actually have an explanation for the text Smith translated, and one that is simple and evidenced by from other sources, it is crystal clear which position provides a better explanation--the only one that actually explains something.
Rather than presenting a model, you've pointed out a couple instances of noise--primarily that when "A Gentile" writes to the New York Herald on May 7, 1843 about Joseph Smith's analysis of the Kinderhook plates the "Gentile" thinks Smith's "Egyptian alphabet" is related to the Book of Mormon rather than the Book of Abraham--exactly the kind of error we might expect a "Gentile" to make. And since Mark and I already accounted for this datum in the paper by identifying the letter's author as the non-Mormon Sylvester Emmons, showing that the GAEL is labeled "Egyptian Alphabet," and showing that Parley P. Pratt's account written the same day identifies the characters compared to the KP as those associated with the Book of Abraham, you are merely repeating something we already noted, albeit without acknowledging as much, dealing with our arguments, or setting the letter writer's phrasing in the context of his identity and the historical context of other sources recorded that day demonstrate. Such an objection is no more serious than a Joseph Smith polygamy-denier rejecting Todd Compton's entire In Sacred Loneliness because of the historical noise of Emma Smith saying her husband had been strictly monogamous.
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.
If a genuinely better explanatory model of the event than this could be developed, I would want to know it. But what you've laid out above is simply light years from that. If, however, you eventually do develop a model that can account for the text Joseph Smith translated from the KPs both as well as and as simply as the one Mark and I have presented, run it past friends who are informed on the data and on our competing model--friends like RFM, Bill, and Kerry--and if you can persuade them, then you should absolutely write it up and submit it to a journal for publication. If you can get it through academic peer review by trained historians and get it into print, then I will, genuinely(!), be fascinated to see what you come up with and willing to engage with it in my own writings. As one of the founders of the Baha'i faith sagely said: "The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions." If you are able to get a model up to the level where it has proven by jumping through the scholarly hoops that it can genuinely compete with ours, then it would be beneficial for everyone to put those models into competition, and then may the best model win. That said, as things stand, the best model has won, since only one model can actually account for the translation text and the historical sources and can convince professional historians and both Mormon and non-Mormon observers. If you want to change that, you need to not merely claim a hollow victory on a message board by taking shots at someone else's model; you need to do the work of building a complete model and show that it is superior in a way that convinces others besides just you.
If, however, you can't come up with a model that both you and intelligent cohorts like RFM, Bill, and Kerry think has greater and more parsimonious explanatory power in accounting for the various historical sources and, particularly, for the text Joseph Smith derived from the Kinderhook plates, then perhaps you should consider why the other model is more compelling.
Historical scholarship doesn't duke out differing models on message boards. If you really want to persuade others on questions like this where there is published historical work, then you will want to fully flesh out your ideas and engage on that level of peer-reviewed publications. You're quite bright, motivated, and perfectly capable of writing and submitting a scholarly paper on your perspectives. And when you do, I'll be perfectly happy to engage with them, to agree or disagree, to reject or to build on.
Cordially,
Don
Last edited by Don Bradley on Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
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. 
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.
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.
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Don Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:08 amA few thoughts on historical method...
First, historical explanation is a process of inference to the best explanation. We seek to piece together the fragments of the past in the way that offers the best overall explanation. The more data an explanatory model can account for, the better for that model.
Second, what we mean by explaining the data here is that we can explain the various historical sources and why the events came out the way they did--why they came out that way in particular and not any of the other countless ways they could have.
Hello, again. And welcome to the Celestial forum. What a beautiful day it is.
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.
Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley
Don Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 5:08 amYour Kinderhook plates thread here (along with Kerry's video response) helped me to see is that Mark and I placed too much stress on the potential apologetic implications of our historical findings. So, thank you for calling attention to those. In retrospect, I would minimize that in the chapter so it can be seen more clearly for what it really is--a historical exploration of whether--and how--Joseph Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates.
I didn’t necessarily interpret your paper as an apologetic piece, per se. I recognize that the paper was anything but that! So, you need not think that my responses and observations in this thread are anything personal against you but a natural desire and instinct to take Joseph Smith on point blank. It just so happens that anything critics (myself & Shirts) might have to say about the Kinderhook incident is going to take on apologetics to some degree, more or less. That is a natural consequence for anyone of the faith who brings up the Kinderhook plates. Critics are going to naturally want to dismiss Smith. It just comes with the territory, Don.
I’m sure you understand.