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: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Sylvester Emmons

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 3:53 am
Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:13 pm
i'm about to get on a plane for my kid's wedding (!) so this will have to be quick, and i'll take a longer look later but yes, i definitely think so! you're looking at the likelihood of similar behaviors in a consistent way. wish me luck... i'll be back!
Got to love when this happens. I enjoy being a grandfather.

Yeah, I enjoy being a grandfather too.

:)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Shulem »

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:09 am
I am obviously being a little slower about making my exit from the discussion than I had planned. ;) I'll exit soon, with the ball in your court. I love your enthusiasm here. Generating and exploring ideas is a blast, isn't it?! :D

I appreciate that you're open to the possibility of the model I've laid out, and I'm glad that for you it needs to be further fleshed out, and that you need more. You are right that the anomalies in a model are a key to making progress. I may comment on that further in another post.

Yes, I do “need more” before I can be on board with a definite connection between the character in the GAEL and the KP’s. For me, the *missing link* is the fact that the character is NOT illustrated in Clayton’s journal whereby we have a perfect outline of the plate and noticeably the very hole at the top of the plate whereby he simply couldn’t resist putting the tip of his pen into the hole and making that loop de loop that punctuated the outline of the plate in showing the plates were originally fastened by wiring via the holes. Making that loop de loop must have had a certain delight and sensation which reminds me of drawing with Spirograph as a young boy.

MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION:

Why wasn’t the character (boat) which is the Egyptian NEB (lord, all, any, every) included in William’s journal? How easy it would have been to feature it whether in the plate or on the page itself. Obviously, content from the GAEL defines the explanation Smith gave for the plates, so WHY isn’t the character included? Doing so would have been so easy! At least it would have been for Wilford Woodruff whose journal is riddled with doodling of every kind.

THIS omission makes it hard for me to accept the character itself was the sole reason Smith gave the explanation in the first place because it’s simply not there in Clayton’s journal. It *is* the missing link you would love to have in order to cement your theory and provide the definite proof that they were looking at that very character while making a match.

You do see my point, right? This omission causes a certain degree of serious skepticism or at minimum, a long pause when taking into consideration that a specific character was the defining moment in which Smith gave his translation. I just don’t see it, but remain open to the possibility.
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:29 am
First, we agree that what Joseph Smith reportedly translated from the KPs per Clayton overlaps what the GAEL says in the definition it assigns to the character it calls "ho-e-oop-hah."

So, If--for the sake of assessing the GAEL translation model's viability, we grant, that Smith identified the boat-shaped "ho-e-oop-hah" as a match with the big boat-shaped character from the Kinderhook plates, this would have identified those plates as pertaining to a king who was a descendant of Pharaoh, etc.

It’s important that we point out that the boat character (Egyptian NEB) is illustrated and defined five different times in the GAEL. One of those occurrences (Ho e oop hah) matches really well with what William Clayton wrote in his journal when tracing the KP. It’s a bullseye. Nobody can deny that. But since there are other instances to define “Ho e oop hah” using the same character, it becomes a theme of ideas strung together rather than a sole explanation or single event. Smith’s explanation for the KP’s is more in line with a theme rather than just a simple explanation for a single character and I will explain why a little later. Anyway, here are the instances where this specific character is used in the GAEL:
  • Page 4,5 “Ho e oop hah— honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharoah. possession by birth one who riegns upon his throne universally— possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth.”
  • Page 10 “Ho e oop hah= Kingly possessions— right of possession, title, dignity, honor.”
  • Page 14 “Hoe oop hah— kingly power, dominon, right”
  • Page 18 “Ho=e-oop=hah: a king:”
  • Page 21 “Ho=e oop=hah: Crown of a prince”
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

The expansion of “Ho e oop hah” is expressed further in the GAEL five more times with additional information to define its meaning. But in these cases, it’s important to note that DIFFERENT characters are used rather than the boat (NEB). And those characters are fairly simple or generic in which one could look for them on the characters transcript featuring reformed hieroglyphics as well as the Kinderhook plates and attempt to make matches.
  • Page 3 “Phah ho e oop— A king who has universal dominion, over all the earth.”
  • Page 4 “Ho-e-oop A prince of the royal blood a true desendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the Kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the trangrissions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah”
  • Page 10, 11 “Hoe-oop hah phaheh: A land, Kingdom or dominion governed by wise, upright kings or rulers, or judes or governors in administring equetable laws for the benefit and comfort of the poor; charity and favor to the poor”
  • Page 14 “Hoeoophahphaheh. A land Kingdom of or country, governed, by wise upright rulers or kings, or Judges,— good, excellent, and whole some laws”
  • Page 21 “Ho=e-oop=hah=Phah eh: Reign or rule, government, power, Kingdom or dominion.”

Note well that the explanations are thematic in nature and provide information that more fully expressed what William Clayton wrote in his journal. Therefore, we can string all of these explanations into a whole in which to provide the theme in which Smith was thinking for his NEW novel which he would have loved to write had he time to do so.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Shulem »

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:02 am
What does Emmons say was compared with what? He says the plates were found in Pike County and brought up and shown to Joseph Smith and that Smith compared these plates with his Egyptian alphabet.

In other words, everything was laid out in full view for examination in which a determination could be made by all interested parties there present to see if matching characters can be identified between document and the plates. What was needed to accomplish this? I think everyone can agree on the following:
  • Room with adequate lighting
  • Daylight
  • Large table

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:02 am
He does not say that multiple characters from one set were compared and matched to multiple characters in the other.

Here’s the deal, Don. There was a table large enough to accommodate the documents used to compare the plates. The SIX plates were laid out in neat fashion whereby they could be readily examined in unison with open documents used to compare the characters. Then, after the characters of one side of the SIX plates were thoroughly examined and compared to the documents then they were flipped over and the process was repeated.

Doesn’t that make sense? I think it does.

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:02 am
Rather, he says the plates themselves are compared to the Egyptian alphabet, implying character comparison but without saying how many characters were compared, much less matched.

But he did NOT link the Egyptian alphabet in conjunction with the recently translated and published BOOK OF ABRAHAM. No direct link to Abraham’s papyrus is given, just “Egyptian alphabet, which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated”, as you well know and have provided your own explanation in correcting his alleged error. I get the point how you think he may have confused the issue with the books and scripts but that is beside the point -- the ATTORNEY testified that the “alphabet” used by Smith was associated with the Book of Mormon. It’s likely he was taking notes as any good reporter would do. This leads me to believe that he was informed that hieroglyphic script had by the Nephites was being taken into consideration as probably was the GAEL.

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:02 am
He then concludes that the two sets of characters are "evidently" the same characters. This implies that that a match was made, but does not tell us between how many characters. Indeed, the fact that Emmons must infer that they are "evidently" the same characters suggests that the matching was not extensive, or a stronger statement might have been made. The number of characters matched here is a non-issue, since a match between multiple characters cannot be found in the source itself.

“Two sets”? That would imply at least four characters if a set had a minimum of two each. But the point is that characters were matched and I have emphasized the plural and it seems to be rubbing off on you. I like to read between the lines and imagine what it is they are seeing:

“He compared them”
“in my presence”
“they are evidently the same characters”
“able to decipher them”


I see more than just TWO. I see several within the Egyptian script being matched to the plates. NOT just two!!

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:02 am
He then concludesPaul's objection that Emmons identifies the Egyptian alphabet, in the ellipsis above, as having been taken from the Book of Mormon, and therefore theoretically could have been the gold plates transcript, was better. But Emmons' non-insider status within Mormon discourse and Paul's observation that Smith identified the plates as Jaredite, precluding them from being in Nephite script, deep sixes that objection instead.

And Smith comparing the KPs to the gold plates transcript would still not account for the data Smith translated from the KPs anyway, whereas Smith comparing them to the GAEL, or "Egyptian Alphabet" as its spine declares, would.

I’m under the lasting impression that all of the books/documents needed were on the table. Smith had his cards laid out and was prepared to play his hand and that is exactly what he did. I trust he informed his visitors that the reformed Egyptian script was just another version of the original conventional Egyptian script used in Egypt but that the Nephites altered it to save space on the plates. In other words it followed the same conventions, rules, and format but was designed to use less space. Nephite Egyptian was Egyptian, just modified. So for Smith to use the GAEL and the characters transcript of the Book of Mormon makes perfect sense. But the main point was to determine which script was the script on the KP’s and it was determined that it was not strictly from the Nephite script (Reformed Egyptian) but the Kinderhook plates were from earlier origins -- Jaredites! There really is no telling what was racing through Joseph’s mind and exactly what he told his visitors. We do however, have some good clues to work this out.

This is fun and somewhat tedious.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Evidence of absence or absence of evidence?

Post by Shulem »

Don,

I just had a flash go across my mind that I need to bring up. *IF* Smith had specifically identified the boat (NEB) character in the GAEL with the Kinderhook character which therefore identified the house of Ham having come to America in Jaredite times, then it stands to reason that a notation to that effect would have been marked in the GAEL, more especially on page 4. Even if it was just a notation in the left register, something, anything, indicating that this also represented the Kinderhook plates. Also, there are dozens of blank pages between various sections of the grammar to add new material or at least a footnote or explanation to support the claim that Smith had “translated a portion” of the Kinderhook plates. You would think the Jaredites would get some representation in the GAEL!

The FACT that the GAEL doesn’t have any notation or reference to the Kinderhook plates or the Jaredites does not serve to credit the GAEL as the source for the character in which you theorize.

Someone help me out, please. It gives me great pause.

Is this evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Or do I even care?
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3344
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence?

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 9:53 pm
Is this evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Or do I even care?
Given the love of Mormons for C.S. Lewis, you would imagine BYU might hire an archeologist specializing in Narnia artifacts. Those additions could double the size of the Book of Mormon collection.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Not a trace!

Post by Shulem »

Interesting to note that a Kinderhook plate was traced into the personal journals of William Clayton and Brigham Young wherein the latter included the notation therein that he had taken the object to Joseph Smith’s house on May 3rd, 1843. Only the tracing of the plate is given in Young’s journal. No hieroglyphs are included nor any explanation for the Hamite race or Jaredite connections. Just the plate which can be seen here at Wikipedia, scroll down to the far left, and magnify the image to considerable detail.

And yet within the covers of Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet there are over 70 blank pages in the spine of the book and yet no trace of the Kinderhook plate is found therein. No notation. No footnote. No nothing about the Kinderhook plate or the character in question.

It seems that the Kinderhook plates borrowed from the Egyptian Alphabet but the Egyptian Alphabet took nothing from the Kinderhook plate. I find that rather curious. One might think that a fingerprint or a clue would have been left behind to indicate that the Kinderhook plates were here. But such is not the case, apparently.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: My Model

Post by Shulem »

Stage 2
Paul Osborne wrote:The contents of the GAEL were taken from papyri recovered from mummies which Smith purchased in 1835. Everything in the GAEL was derived from the papyri; directly connected to ancient Egypt. Smith dated the papyri to the time of the Patriarchs. The Egyptian script on the papyri were understood by Smith and everyone as genuine authentic Egyptian.

The explanation for the Kinderhook plates given by Smith was derived from thematic material of the GAEL. Smith identified the Kinderhook plates having a Hamitic origin via the Egyptians and therefore *that* hieroglyphic script may have been viewed as another version of reformed Egyptian having come to America via the Jaredite expedition. As far as Smith was concerned there was now another script to add to the Egyptian works:
  • Conventional Egyptian from papyri
  • Reformed Egyptian from gold plates
  • Reformed Egyptian from Kinderhook plates
I can imagine Smith finding imaginary comparisons between the various scripts and intermingling them to find what ever he wanted to invent new concepts and stories.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4950
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

My Model

Post by Shulem »

Stage 3
Paul Osborne wrote:
William Clayton wrote:Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. they are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah his bones were found in the same vase part of the bones had crumbled to dust & the other part were preserved the bones were 15 feet underground.

Both accounts taken together suggest Joseph Smith had concluded that the Kinderhook plates were a record of Egyptian descendants who had accompanied the Jaredites and were taken to the land of promise by the power of God. Note how the “person” (alleged skeleton or bones) in whom the plates were found was of royal Egyptian descent and that the Egyptian race was therefore brought to America along with the ancient Jaredites. This makes for an all NEW story for which Smith would soon tell. These early Egyptians were specially called, chosen, and blessed by the “ruler of heaven and earth” (Jared’s God) to receive a kingdom in the promised land. The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that only through the grace of God are people brought to the promised land.

It was determined and reported that the hieroglyphs on the Kinderhook plates was an Egyptian language and contained the genealogy of the owner of the plates -- all the way back to Ham himself! It’s incredible to think that Joseph Smith could yet again decipher a new hieroglyphic script that throws light on the early history of the continent. The translation and publication of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were already two feathers in his hat. Everyone believed Smith could translate the Kinderhook plates and get another feather in his hat.

Times and Seasons, MAY 15, 1843 wrote:The plates above alluded to, were exhibited in this city last week, and are now, we understand, in Nauvoo, subject to the inspection of the Mormon Prophet. The public curiosity is greatly excited, and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will do more towards throwing light on the early history of this continent, than any man now living.
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply