Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

[Shulem]

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.

[Shulem]

Yeah, the fact that Smith went Old Testament the GAEL to check on the characters opens up very interesting avenues for the LDS Egyptologists who imagine Smith had nothing to do with the GAEL. It will be interesting to see how you guys handle this. When we do, we are labeled critics and not worth looking at or into. If other LDS take on the Egyptologists myopia it could be more effective. I really like your research Don!

Who said Smith actually checked the GAEL? Where are you getting that information? It is NOT a fact. It is conjecture which apologists have suggested as they interpret the evidence.

Never fear, Shulem is hear.

[Shulem]

The Kinderhook plates provided Joseph Smith another opportunity to tell another story about ancient inhabitants of the American continent and from whence they sprang. Does that sound familiar? But Smith had to feel confident that the plates were genuine and he had to be absolutely sure that the language on the plates was a dead language which could not be read by world scholars. This afforded him the opportunity to do what he will with the Kinderhook plates when the time was right. All he was willing to offer at that time was an abbreviated description of the origin of the plates and indicated that more would be given later. We saw the same process with the papyri of Abraham and Joseph.

[Shulem]

Only Joseph Smith could interpret or decipher the writing of the characters transcript of the gold plates. Joseph KNEW that it was impossible that anyone else in the entire world could decipher those characters because he knew they were fake. He was safe to do whatever he wanted with those characters and some of them ended up in the GAEL as if to decorate that work with sugar and spice and make everything nice.

Once Joseph Smith was confident that the Kinderhook characters couldn’t be interpreted or deciphered any more than his own Book of Mormon characters transcript, then he was safe to proceed in any manner he wanted when he had the time and the passion.

[Shulem]

Don,

You will notice on the upper section of one side of the plate has what I interpret is a full moon disc. It’s a full moon in the night sky. The plate to the right of it which is the reverse side has what I interpret as a half moon going through the phase cycle although you have identified it with the hieroglyphic NEB (boat looking character in the GAEL). Earlier, I mentioned the six little circles which I suggested may be stars -- perhaps even Orion’s Belt.



Ask yourself, what on earth (or in heaven) could that clean looking full circle possible be? Doesn’t it make sense that it’s the moon? Think about it. Imagery of the moon is timeless and as ancient as can be. It makes perfect sense that Fugate thought of that in order to add an authentic touch to an ancient work of art. Everyone loves and appreciate looking at the moon; especially a full moon. Right?

If it’s not the moon, then what is it? What did Fugate have in mind by drawing a full circle? He must have had something in mind. What is it?

[Shulem]

If it’s not the moon, then what is it? What did Fugate have in mind by drawing a full circle? He must have had something in mind. What is it?

Superdome!

[Shulem]

What is it?

[Shulem]

So, Fugate etched a circle within the scene which was separated from the hieroglyphs below. The crudely represented pictographic scenes were designed to express and imitate what an ancient artist might like to depict on special brass plates made to last forever. So it had to be important. I just can’t think of anything that fits better than celestial objects in the sky whereby the sun rules the day and the moon the night. If you can think of a better candidate then the full moon in this instance then by all means submit your candidate and we can consider the possibilities.

Otherwise, the moon wins! And if the moon is truly what the circle depicts then what else could the miniature six circles be other than stars that are visible around the moon in the night sky as shown on the reverse side with a half moon?

[Shulem]

IF the circle is a full moon AND the half circle on the reverse represents a moon in phase, then it stands to reason that the six little circles are stars in the night sky. AND those six stars could well represent the pattern of stars in the Orion constellation. Notice that the three stars in the belt are three in a row and the other three stars are offset just as they are in the actual constellation. It’s nearly an exact match! The arced character between the stars and below the half-moon could be a fictitious hieroglyph signifying the moon.





So what do you think of them apples?

[Shulem]

It all boils down to the fact that Joseph Smith claimed revelations in practically everything he did or said. It was revelation here and revelation there. It didn’t matter what he was doing or where he was because revelation was the name of his game. Smith tips his hand in the King Follet discourse given in April 1844 wherein he pretty much sums it up that everything he represented to the people was a kind of revelation and should be received as such. It was an all or nothing proposition. He was the prophet of revelation in everything he did and in everything he preached. But Joseph knew he had limitations and he knew others would question or even scrutinize his revelations in order to determine if they were valid. In the address mentioned above and later recorded in the Times and Seasons in August 1844 shortly after his death, Smith tips his hand in expressing the idea that his revelations he had given during his career as prophet might not be what they were cracked up to be.

My first object is, to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and if I should be the man [PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH] to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts so that the spirit seals it upon you, let every man and woman henceforth put their hand on their mouth and never say any thing against the man [PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH] of God again; but if I fail, it becomes my duty to renounce all my pretensions to revelations, inspirations, &c., and if all are pretensions to God, they will all be as bad off as I am at any rate. There is not a man but would breathe out an anathema, if they knew I was a false prophet; and some would feel authorized to take away my life. If any man is authorized to take away my life, who says I am a false teacher; then upon the same principle am I authorized to take away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood, and who would not be the sufferer.

Here, Smith tips his hand as an all or nothing proposition that his revelations, all of them, are either from God or they are not. And if they are not, then he’s a false prophet, and would be the first to admit it. So how does this tie in with how Smith believed the Kinderhook plates were genuine and his revelation of what they represented? The fact is his followers believed him and recorded his revelations as they understood it. But Joseph Smith was wrong about the Kinderhook plates. He was wrong about their authenticity. He was wrong about what they represented. Why? Because he was a false prophet and failure to prove otherwise is what he feared most.

I bear testimony that Joseph Smith was NOT what he claimed to be. His declarations and belief of the Kinderhook plates were no more valid than his declaration of the papyrus and the so-called name of King Pharaoh written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. Smith was wrong on both accounts!! BOTH revelations were false.