Bazooka: The Significance of Don Bradley's work

[_DonBradley]

Sock Puppet,

While I'd give a little less credence to Haven than you do, you've offered a reasoned interpretation of the evidence.

One could argue that the bit about the Kinderhook plates containing a history of the person with whom they were found was a revelatory addition to Joseph's GAEL-based interpretation. But it looks most likely to me to just be a bit of inference: the plates were buried with someone, and the most prominent character at the top of a plate--i.e., a heading--makes reference to someone. The idea that these were the same someone could easily be inferred without any claim to revelation.

In your final conclusion you state, "Since the GAEL was a by-product itself of what JSJr thought was divine providence and intervention--the papyrus and the Book of Abraham text--I think it is a bit of a stretch to conclude that JSJr's use of the GAEL was strictly a non-revelatory translation exercise by JSJr."

I see what you're saying, but I wonder whether we're arguing about the same thing. You're arguing that (given a revelatory origin for the GAEL), Joseph Smith's translation from the Kinderhook plates would have its roots in this earlier revelation. I'm arguing that the only we can see that Smith undertook in interpreting the Kinderhook plates character was a non-revelatory action: comparing characters is not one of the functions of prophethood. Regardless of the origin of the GAEL (which is a subject all its own), anyone could have made the character comparison. The fact the one who did so was the church's revelator does not make the activity of doing so revelatory. The translation here was not made via a prophetic process like Smith used in producing the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham (or, on your interpretation, the GAEL).

Don

[_DonBradley]

Hola Kevin,

While, as mentioned, I see Joseph Smith's use of the GAEL as a possible key to the Kinderhook plates as having implications for KEP-BoA debates, I don't see it as having the same implications you do.

Well, obviously. You're no longer approaching this strictly with your brain ;). You said so yourself. It got you nowhere, you said.

First, where did I say this?

Second, please see above where I mentioned that my view of the implications of this find is the same now as it was five years ago, when I was no more a believer than you.

And, third, you may want to check the end of the FAIR presentation you're quoting, where I conclude, "The answer to questions caused by thinking is more thinking." How much does my advocacy here of "more thinking" on this issue, and in general, sound like the philosophy of turning off one's brain?

As to how well my conclusions have been received and whether I am seen as somehow treasonous for drawing them, you may want to check the FAIR website's article on the Kinderhook plates. Note also that I was invited to present again at the following year's FAIR conference--and this year's, and that Dan Peterson just posted a link to the Tribune story about me to his blog.

I think you're right that we're talking past one another on this and liable to continue doing so. So, it may not make sense to continue rehashing our same respective points.

Despite our considerable disagreement, Kevin, I continue to think you play an important role in discussion of the Book of Abraham. Theories that go unchallenged are rarely improved. And, whether I agree you on matters of faith or not, you provide plenty of informed challenge.

My Best,

Don

[_Kevin Graham]

First, where did I say this?

It is plastered all over that SLT piece on you. It is essentially the same story we traditionally hear from LDS members who are unable to address serious historical facts that challenge their Church's own truth claims. In a nutshell, "stop thinking too much and do more praying, that way you can get the answers you want." Well, no kidding! But how is that using your brain alone? Because thinking in Mormon literature leads to the "reasoning of men"( We're men right?) which is never a good thing in Mormon thought. We hear this from day one, right out of the missionary discussions.

Here is what I was talking about from Fletcher's interview:

"I could describe many of the events of Joseph Smith’s life, but I couldn’t explain the thing that really mattered: why it all worked," Bradley, now 42, said in a July speech at the annual Sunstone Symposium, a conference in Salt Lake City for Mormon intellectuals. "Joseph Smith wasn’t of interest because he’d been a merchant, a mayor, or even a much-married husband, but because he was the founder of a religion. And it was precisely the religious dimension I couldn’t account for."

Besides rediscovering Mormonism, Bradley learned how to balance faith and facts, science and spirituality, reason and revelation...

Why do facts and science need to be "balanced with faith and spirituality" at all? Why does reason need to be balanced with revelation? What is the "religious dimension" and why does it need to be accounted for?

"...I overthink things," Bradley said with bemused understatement. "I saw that I’d often done this, to my detriment. . . . I’d been trying to solve spiritual questions with the tools of history."

Could part of the problem be, he wondered, "that spiritual questions can’t be resolved by scholarly analysis?"

What spiritual questions? "Is the Church true" isn't a spiritual question. It can be ascertained via scholarly analysis. Especially when its own leaders have insisted it should be rejected if it is ever shown, via scholarly analysis, to be false.

If you're inclined to further explain things, I'd like to know what you mean by this question that made you turn everything you learned on its head: "why it all worked"? And what makes that the most important question? I can tell you why it worked. For the same reason most religions "work" for their adherents. Also, why is thinking too much to your "detriment"? The article makes it sound like your propensity for scholarly analysis led you to these questions, but to me it seems like these questions need not exist at all, but that you asked them because you were looking for a reason to make the situation more complex than it really is. Because later you said you had a few evidences that you had to base your belief upon, but later picked them apart. This suggests you are constantly looking for reasons to believe, and so you came up with questions that were impervious to scholarly analysis. That way you can not only return to the go-happy Mormon society, but you can also feel confident that you'll never leave it again because, according to your new approach, thinking too much is bad, and some things can only be answered "spiritually" anyway.

Second, please see above where I mentioned that my view of the implications of this find is the same now as it was five years ago, when I was no more a believer than you.

I got that. But I'm not sure what your point is with it. Should I be surprised that you would do wonderful detective work as a nonbeliever? I'm not.

And, third, you may want to check the end of the FAIR presentation you're quoting, where I conclude, "The answer to questions caused by thinking is more thinking." How much does my advocacy here of "more thinking" on this issue, and in general, sound like the philosophy of turning off one's brain?

But that isn't what I said. It isn't so much "turning it off" as it is a willingness to substitute valid reasoning skills with something else (i.e. prayer, emotion), for no other reason than "thinking begets more thinking." I didn't say you turned your brain off, but I took your story to mean you decided you were "overthinking" (I said, "You're no longer approaching this strictly with your brain"), and for some inexplicable reason, just decided to take for granted the "spiritual," where sometimes the logical and the spiritual are allowed to contradict one another. I don't get that at all, and for us it is just another dilemma that goes unresolved in the saga of Don Bradley. I hope you can understand why so many of us are taking a keen interest in this. Just because we don't claim "spiritual" experiences doesn't mean this issue isn't important to us. Try to put yourself in our shoes for a second. Imagine you never had a spiritual experience and some guy is telling you that doing what you're doing is "detrimental" and essentially, that you only think you have answers when you really don't (i.e the Church was constructed by an opportunistic con-man, and sensational truth claims that do not stand up to scrutiny). All it does is energize the jackasses at FAIR, to keep doing what they're doing because for them, the end justifies the means.

I know you're not saying this directly to us, but it is the gist of what's implied by these kinds of "apostate turned believer" stories that was recently published in the SLT, especially when presented in the context of the online apostate/apologist fiascoes.

As to how well my conclusions have been received and whether I am seen as somehow treasonous for drawing them, you may want to check the FAIR website's article on the Kinderhook plates. Note also that I was invited to present again at the following year's FAIR conference--and this year's, and that Dan Peterson just posted a link to the Tribune story about me to his blog.

Well, you know as well as I do that you were criticized as a turn-coat with that same group, for doing nothing more than stating the facts. I'm sure Will Schryver still doubts your sincerity as a loyal believer. But the fact that you were accepted back after rebaptism is hardly surprising. Your acceptance among that tribe is conditional. It always has been. But it still remains to be seen how well your work is going to be consumed, processed and what role it will play in the apologetic arena.

Unlike Mormonism, you're accepted by non-believers no matter what you decide to believe. We know there is much more to your story that further explains your decision to seek reasons to believe in the Church. We know because many of us have those same reasons and desires. But ultimately it is a question of choosing what's true over what's not. Or in your case, what's true and making you miserable between what's false and what you think is going to make you happier.

I think you're right that we're talking past one another on this and liable to continue doing so. So, it may not make sense to continue rehashing our same respective points.

I'm referring to you dropping the "spiritual" bomb on us, as a historian. Most of us have some idea what you're trying to say because we all once had "spiritual" experiences that turned out to be emotion triggered by other things. You know, social needs being fulfilled, the feeling of acceptance, wild coincidences after a random prayer, etc.

But ultimately people are going to go with feelings and what makes them happier. Normally I wouldn't worry about such things, but with the Church, the potential for disappointment is enormous after you realize your spiritual experience was something else. Because the emotional high is so high, you have that much further to fall, and I think maybe this explains why Mormons have such a high rate of depression/suicide. But that's another topic.

[_sock puppet]

Sock Puppet,

While I'd give a little less credence to Haven than you do, you've offered a reasoned interpretation of the evidence.

My take on Haven's letter was that she was only relating what she understood JSJr was telling Joshua Moore to entice Moore to leave the KPs with JSJr, so that he might be able to translate them with the help of revelation. That might have been JSJr's sincere belief at that moment in time, whether JSJr later--after attempting to translate the KPs--thought that there was or was not revelation involved in his later translation of the boat-shaped grapheme. Since Haven's letter does not state that JSJr claimed after having translated that grapheme that it was by revelation, my position is that Haven's letter is not consequential to the question of whether revelation was or was not what JSJr thought was involved in his translation attempted only after he had made the statement to Moore that is reported in Haven's letter.

Do you see some other implications from the Haven letter?

Is there reason you have to question the veracity of Haven's account in her letter of what JSJr might have told Moore in order to entice Moore to leave the KPs with JSJr?

One could argue that the bit about the Kinderhook plates containing a history of the person with whom they were found was a revelatory addition to Joseph's GAEL-based interpretation. But it looks most likely to me to just be a bit of inference: the plates were buried with someone, and the most prominent character at the top of a plate--i.e., a heading--makes reference to someone. The idea that these were the same someone could easily be inferred without any claim to revelation.

In your final conclusion you state, "Since the GAEL was a by-product itself of what JSJr thought was divine providence and intervention--the papyrus and the Book of Abraham text--I think it is a bit of a stretch to conclude that JSJr's use of the GAEL was strictly a non-revelatory translation exercise by JSJr."

I see what you're saying, but I wonder whether we're arguing about the same thing. You're arguing that (given a revelatory origin for the GAEL), Joseph Smith's translation from the Kinderhook plates would have its roots in this earlier revelation. I'm arguing that the only we can see that Smith undertook in interpreting the Kinderhook plates character was a non-revelatory action: comparing characters is not one of the functions of prophethood. Regardless of the origin of the GAEL (which is a subject all its own), anyone could have made the character comparison. The fact the one who did so was the church's revelator does not make the activity of doing so revelatory.

The translation here was not made via a prophetic process like Smith used in producing the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham (or, on your interpretation, the GAEL).

Don

That prophetic process involved JSJr having a tangible 'records'--the gold plates--when doing the Book of Mormon, the papyri when doing the Book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook Plates when he 'found' that "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 and earth." We know of know translation key or 'Rosetta Stone' that JSJr had when producing the Book of Mormon or BoA--except that as Chris Smith has persuasively demonstrated, Book of Abraham 1:1-3 seems to have been 'developed' from the KEP writings. With the Book of Mormon, there were the seer stones/interpreters/Urim & Thummim (whatever) that were a tangible tool purportedly provided by god that had uncommon properties that aided and assisted in the production of the Book of Mormon, and one who did not have them would not be able to produce text for the Book of Mormon.

The GAEL is a human refinement of an allegedly god-given holy text and the papyrus that JSJr (at least, even if his modern LDS counterparts are now backing away from) claimed was the ancient Egyptian writings by Abraham of his story and corresponded to the English text Book of Abraham that JSJr produced.

Unlike the seer stones, as a tool the GAEL had some 'human' refinement by JSJr himself. The GAEL was a derivative that he arrived at.

With the Kinderhook Plates, JSJr used the GAEL as a translation tool, just as he used the seer stones before with the Book of Mormon gold plates. Both enabled him to produce English text--the Book of Mormon hundreds of pages long and the very brief identification of the descendant of Ham from the Kinderhook Plates.

When we get to that part about the Kinderhook Plates "contain the history of" this descendant of Ham, you chalk that up to an non-revelatory assumption made by JSJr. From the perspective of a believer, one could appreciate (if not need) a differentiation between a prophet's mere human assumptions and divine inspirations. From the perspective of one who is not a believer, such a differentiation is more diffuse if granted at all.

Even through the lens and perspective of a believer, I would have trouble with assigning JSJr's 'finding' that the Kinderhook Plates "contain the history of" this descendant of Ham as merely a human assumption. True, there was an explanation for the 'translation' of the boat-shaped grapheme from the KP's character without the need for supernatural intervention from the divine. JSJr had the GAEL, and I wholeheartedly agree with your findings and conclusion that JSJr in all likelihood matched the boat-shaped grapheme to the GAEL's boat-shaped character, "ho e oop hah", as the mechanics of how JSJr found the KP to have mention of the descendant of Ham. But I do not think it follows that because there was a natural explanation for how JSJr arrived at that finding that JSJr did not think it was yet the product of divine inspiration--unless you posit that for something to involve divine inspiration it must involve an unexplainable, supernatural aspect to it. (For example, people have thoughts occur to them all the time. Does this natural explanation preclude the possibility that the HG could inspire a thought into someone's mind?)

JSJr though divine providence delivered to him religiously significant, ancient writings--the gold plates and the Chandler papyrus--that purportedly contain the histories of ancient religious figures. When JSJr said what Clayton noted--which significantly had to have been after JSJr applied 'key' assisted translation of the boat-shaped grapheme from the KPs--JSJr ascribed to the KPs that they 'contain a history' of the descendant of Ham. So, after having just applied the GAEL in a natural, mechanical way to 'translate' the boat-shaped grapheme from the KP character, JSJr yet thought that divine providence was once again shining on him, bringing him another "history" of an ancient religious character, even a descendant of Ham.

Since the question of the KPs on JSJr's claims of being an actual prophet to whom god talked/inspired is the significance of the KPs, this 'contains a history' part of Clayton's notation signals that JSJr thought, after having used the GAEL in a natural way to translate that boat-shaped grapheme, that the KPs were yet delivered to him (JSJr) by divine providence. This casts doubt on JSJr's ability to discern what obviously to you, Don, seems evident with the benefit of now knowing that the KPs were simply a fraud, a trick, to be "non-revelatory". But if this was not evident to JSJr, even after just his mechanical application of the GAEL to the KP grapheme, what does that say about what JSJr claimed in other respects (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, "revelations" codified as the D&C, etc) as having been of divine origin to JSJr?

[_Kevin Graham]

The translation here was not made via a prophetic process like Smith used in producing the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham

There is no reason to believe a prophetic process was ever involved in any of the translations. What you presented is perfectly consistent with the critical view. Joseph Smith tried to invent story lines from ancient looking symbols and he tried to tie them together in order to boost credence of his purported calling. It was all part of the con.

So in the EAG we find all sorts of images and symbols that overlap with Masonic symbols as well as those that derived from the "Reformed Egyptian" (Anthon Transcript). Why? Because Joseph Smith wanted to make his translations seem legit, like all these ancient languages had considerable overlap. And what you uncovered with the KEP/EAG connection furthers that thesis, since obviously Joseph Smith knew people would be able to see the clear overlap with the boat looking symbol in both documents. What better way to bring legitimacy to his "divinely inspired" lexicon in the EAG, than by using it to "translate" newly found plates?

It is all part of the con, perfectly consistent with that thesis. Mystery solved.

The approach you're taking begets more thinking and it raises more questions than it answers. Which is ironic since that was one of the reasons why you said a scholarly analysis of the data was insufficient ; because it kept raising more never ending questions that could only be explained spiritually.

Smith was a con artist but he was not a dumb man. He was cognizant of the many things that could expose the con and he knew he had to keep giving people reasons to believe.

Thus, every new finding conveniently had something to do with Mormon themes. A discovered skeleton had to be a man named Zelph the Lamanite! Egyptian papyri had to be related to another hero in Mormon lit, Abraham. During a time when he needed new scripture and to reignite confidence in his followers that he could still "translate."

Thus, when Martin Harris loses the 116 pages of translated text, suddenly Smith comes up with a revelation saying God is going to punish the entire earth by forbidding us to know what was translated from those pages. But this is also perfectly consistent with the scam because Joseph Smith knew that if Harris were lying, and he would want to see if Joseph Smith would re-translate those 116 pages. Then he could compare the translation with the previous translation. If they were identical, he was a proven prophet. But if they were two completely different stories, then he would be proven a fraud and Joseph Smith's ambitions as a religious leader were over before they started.

So, I see nothing inconsistent with his translation of the Kinderhook plates. You assume he was using the EAG alone, therefore he wasn't purporting to translate via "revelation." He wanted some overlap and he found it, but one thing you haven't asked is why both translations weren't identical. Like you said, the slightest degree change in the angle of a grapheme can change a meaning ever so slightly, and you already conceded these two images were not absolutely identical. So we should expect the translations to be similar, but not identical. So by what method was he using to determine the degree to which one translation should resemble the other? Hmmm?

[_sock puppet]

by the way, Don, I like how you pointed up the Stanley Kimball non sequitur by which Kimball had tried to impeach both Clayton's journal entry and Parley Pratt's 5/7/1843 letter to John Van Cott because there are inconsistencies between them. You rightly and logically point out that the inconsistency simply means that one of those two accounts got something wrong. It does not invalidate both. And it would not invalidate the parts on which they agree.

Speaking of Pratt's letter to Van Cott, Pratt's account to goes beyond just mentioning Ham and perhaps implying a descendant of Ham. As with Clayton's account, Pratt's was made after identification of Ham, or descendants of him, had been made by JSJr, probably as you have pointed out using the GAEL.

Pratt, who at that point had himself been an apostle (prophet, seer and revelator) for 8 years, noted that the "engravings" on the KPs were "in Egyptian language". This reference was not limited to a single character, the one from which JSJr took the boat-like grapheme. However, Pratt states that the KPs "are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language"--not that the KPs contained a single character that included a boat-like grapheme familiar to Smith from the Chandler papyrus. "[A] large number of Citizens here have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city."

Pratt's letter to Van Cott mentions more than just the descendant of Ham whose bones were found buried with the KPs. Pratt's account is that the KPs "contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah" whose "bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement)."

A genealogy (the expansion beyond just a descendant of Ham in Pratt's letter to Van Cott) is often a part of a history (the expansion beyond just a descendant of Ham in Clayton's journal entry). I do not see Pratt's more precise "genealogy" as contradictory of Clayton's "history". I find that they each lend a bit of verification for the other, and that both likely came from a single source, and I think the most likely candidate there for that source being JSJr himself, after the mechanical translation using the GAEL.

Unless JSJr was in the habit of pontificating his assumptions about what he believed to be ancient, religious writings--which would impeach the claimed credibility of any of his 'prophetic' productions--then I do not see how it follows that just because he used the GAEL to translate the boat-like grapheme from the KPs that it follows that JSJr did not think there was divine inspiration involved.

[_sock puppet]

Smith was a con artist but he was not a dumb man. He was cognizant of the many things that could expose the con and he knew he had to keep giving people reasons to believe.

And of course, some context for this assertion by Kevin is the Greek Psalter incident just a year earlier than the KPs incident.

Vol. I. Warsaw, Illinois, November 15, 1843. No. 45.

THE Mormon PROPHET AND THE GREEK PSALTER.

We lately heard a story, which while it may make us mourn over the depravity of Human Nature, serves to show, among many similar facts, the low artifices and cunning tricks, to which the Mormon Prophet will resort, in order to impose upon the gullibility of his followers. The story is in this wise; and can be substantiated by respectable witnesses.

Some time since, Professor Caswell, late of Kemper College, near St. Louis, an Episcopal Clergyman of reputation, being about to leave this country for England, paid a visit to Smith and the Saints, in order that he might be better able to represent the imposture to the British people. It so happened that the Professor had in his possession a Greek Psalter, of great age -- one that had been in the family for several hundred years. This book, as a relic of antiquity, was a curiosity to any one -- but to some of the Saints, who happened to see it, it was a marvel and wonder. Supposing its origin to have been as ancient, at least, as the Prophet's Egyptian Mummy, and not knowing but the Professor had dug it from the bowels of the same sacred hill in Western New York whence sprung the holy Book of Mormon, they importuned him to allow 'brother Joseph' an opportunity of translating it!

The Professor reluctantly assented to the proposal; and accompanied by a number of the anxious brethren, repaired to the residence of the Prophet. The remarkable book was handed him. Joe took it -- examined its old and worn leaves -- and turned over its musty pages. Expectation was now upon tip-toe. brethren looked at one another -- at the book -- then at the Prophet. It was a most interesting scene!

Presently the spirit of prophecy began to arise within him; and he opened his mouth and spoke. That wonderful power, which enables him to see as far through a mill-stone as could Moses or Elijah of old, had already in the twinkling of an eye, made those rough and uncouth characters as plain to him as the nose on the face of the Professor. 'This Book,' said he, 'I pronounce to be a Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics!'

The brethren present were greatly astonished at this exhibition of their Prophet's power of revealing hidden things. After their exaltation had somewhat subsided, the Professor coolly told them that their Prophet was a base impostor! -- and that the book before them was but a plain Greek Psalter! -- Joe 'stepped out.'

Such is the manner in which this arrant knave imposes upon his followers! and such is the manner in which his knavery is sometimes exposed! Yet, strange that people continue to believe him!

Professor Caswell, since his sojourn in England, has published a work entitled 'Three Days at Nauvoo,' in which this rich scene is represented in an engraving.

Underlining added.

Consider also that in the meantime (late 1842-early 1843), JSJr was "restoring" missing parts of the outer-ring of the hypocephali with hieratics while all of the intact portions of that outer-ring have hieroglyphics, and having them inverted in relation to the orientation. JSJr passed this off as some religious artifact/writings, with clearly bogus Explanations--his English explanations do not translate linguistically from the Egyptian characters. This has been canonized (as Facsimile 2 and Explanations) along with the bogus Explanations to Facsimile 3.

So, in the space of 15 months,

• beginning in April 1842 with the Greek Psalter incident and JSJr quietly taking a powder from his own offices without so much as a word, when confronted by Caswall with the fact that it was not a Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, but simply a centuries' old Greek Psalter
• later that year with Willard Richards help as scribe he 'finished' the Book of Abraham, and made his phony restoration of the hypocephali (canonized as Facsimile 2), and his linguistically unrelated Explanation of Facsimile 2 and historically false Explanation of Facsimile 3, published in March and then June 1843
• late April, early May and for a day in June 1843, the Kinderhook Plates fiasco that is the subject of this thread

a pattern and context emerges that shows JSJr to be the fraudulent conman that Kevin calls him.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, and the fact that Joseph Smith claimed the Greek Psaltar was actually a "dictionary," for converting Egyptian to "Reformed Egyptian." Again, overlapping a popular theme that exists nowhere outside of Mormonism. How convenient.

And this concept of one character in the left being translated into multiple lines of "explanation" to the right, is perfectly consistent with how he translated the Egyptian Papyri, as demonstrated in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

[_sock puppet]

Yes, and the fact that Joseph Smith claimed the Greek Psaltar was actually a "dictionary," for converting Egyptian to "Reformed Egyptian." Again, overlapping a popular theme that exists nowhere outside of Mormonism. How convenient.

And this concept of one character in the left being translated into multiple lines of "explanation" to the right, is perfectly consistent with how he translated the Egyptian Papyri, as demonstrated in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Just think of the good run that JSJr was having off of the Book of Mormon (and the absence of gold plates) from 1829 through that fateful day in the summer of 1835 when Chandler showed up in Kirtland. Up until then, there were no artifacts to have to worry about. The Pied Piper could go off in most any direction he wanted with this Mormonism thing he'd started. But with those cursed papyrus, it all began to unravel. He couldn't complete the Book of Abraham in 1835-36 because of the inconsistencies that scribes would be able to detect between the characters and order of them on the papyrus and the GAEL/KEP he'd started in July 1835. He had to put that project, unfinished, on the shelf for 7 years.

Then in April 1842, that cursed Professor Caswall and the Greek Psalter situation. This really ratcheted up the stakes as a divine translator.

By the end of that year, JSJr's grip on the Mormons was no longer as tight as it had been. In October 1842, JSJr tried to get the general membership to vote Sidney Rigdon out of the FP. The general membership refused JSJr.

It was time to dust off that old partially completed Book of Abraham "translation" and wow and dazzle the Mormons that he, JSJr, was still the "translator" and that they needed him.

If I recall correctly, the KPs was JSJr's last "translation". It was the cherry on top of the sundae.

What is more remarkable than the Mormon movement that JSJr began is that the BY/12 faction was able to so whitewash and sanitize JSJr as a virtual 'saint', and make him the icon for continuing their LDS movement.

[_honorentheos]

This thread, started by Analytics at the time the presentation was given, is interesting to revisit in light of the current discussion: Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

Not exactly along the lines of Sock Puppet's comments, but in the same vein, I had wondered then what might come of the finding that Joseph was willing to attempt a translation in 1843 that did not rely on inspiration from God? When taken in the context of other things he was saying at the time and his overt earthly political ambitions it seems to me that an interesting critical argument could be formed to show Joseph was essentially a law unto himself by this point in Mormon history.