Banned to the Bone

[_harmony]

That message board has become so uninteresting in the past year . . .

I believe I can pinpoint the precise day of its downward trend . . .

the day... the music... died...

[_consiglieri]

They caught the last train for the coast . . .

[_Nomad]

Nomad was banned from a thread. The poster was snide and for the poster's snideness the poster was banned from the thread. End of story.

No, the poster was not "snide".

Here is what the poster wrote:

grindael continues to raise excellent points supported by the very sources Bradley thinks prove his case. Bradley continues to try to bully his way through those arguments with a lot of bluster and growing frustration that grindael is "misusing" the sources. I disagree that grindael is misusing sources or misunderstanding "obvious" things. I think grindael is simply exposing the weaknesses of what is inherently a very weak case. Good job, grindael.

I was banned simply because ... well, I don't know. Except that "Skylla" has banned me from numerous threads over the course of the past several months. Each time for dubious reasons. I don't know who "Skylla" is, but whoever it is has a chip on his/her shoulder towards me. It's pretty obvious also that the mods over there are being very protective of Don Bradley's new apologetic, which they seem to like a whole lot.

I do think that "grindael" has raised very good points about how the sources don't say what Bradley wants us to believe they say and that Bradley has not adequately addressed any of them, but has instead brushed them off with a wave of his hand.

As far as the MDD board and its fickle moderators are concerned, I won't be going back there again. I'm sure they are as happy about that as I am. So Iguess everyone's a winner. I think they have made a conscious decision to get behind all the apologists who are advocating the "progressive" internet Mormon approach to things. Good for them. I like people that take defined stands on things, even when I don't agree with those stands. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the Bokvoy, Gardner, Bradley perspectives start to be adopted by the "mainstream" part of the church. I'm kind of doubtful about that, though.

[_onandagus]

Nomad!

Hey, if my arguments are as bad as you say, you could save me, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, and therefore the Joseph Smith Papers, not to mention the Mormon apologetics community, which is grabbing onto this new information, by laying out your critique now, before I publish them with Mark and before they spread further, as they have now through the FAIR Wiki and the article about my presentation in the Mormon Times. My personal history will show--in spades--that I'm not averse to changing my mind when I have real reason to.

Since transparently fallacious arguments are, by definition, not difficult to show false, I'll repost my arguments on the "Egyptian alphabet" being the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language here. While this is only a supporting side argument, it is the part that you, Dan Vogel, and Grindael have singled out as the most vulnerable to attack. If my entire case is weak, then this part should be an absolute pushover.

So, here for quick and complete refutation are my arguments on the identity of the Egyptian alphabet:

My previous responses to the argument the "Egyptian alphabet" mentioned by "A Gentile" is a Book of Mormon character transcript rather than the GAEL:
______________
Will:

[*]Among several other tenuous evidentiary elements, the citation from “A Gentile” cannot be reasonably interpreted to say what Bradley wants us to believe it says. Rather, it quite explicitly states that, to the extent any relationship was observed between the Kinderhook Plates and something else, that “something else” was the characters from the “plates” of the Book of Mormon.

That the "Egyptian alphabet" reference could be to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language is more than reasonable. That these were seen as Egyptian "alphabet" materials is stated in the document's internal name. And that the document was either labeled Egyptian Alphabet already at this time or known as such by insiders early after the exodus to Utah (and therefore likely also in Nauvoo) is clear from the spine.
And further evidence makes it more than merely reasonable, but also extremely probable that the "Egyptian alphabet" reference was to the GAEL. First, we know that the Kinderhook plates characters were being compared to the Egyptian characters because Parley Pratt, writing on the same day as "A Gentile" and evidently with reference to the same incident, says that they were. And, second, the content Clayton says Joseph got from the Kinderhook plates--for which no other specific explanation has been offered by anyone--is easily derivable from a single GAEL character. If this doesn't indicate that he had compared the KP characters with those on the GAEL, what exactly would it indicate?

Indeed, I think a valid argument can be made that there is some similarity between the characters observed on the Kinderhook Plates and the so-called "Anthon Transcript." Perhaps the former were fashioned using the latter as a guide?

How? The forgers were non-Mormons living in Kinderhook, and the Anthon transcript characters had not yet been published.
Do we even know that Joseph Smith had a copy of the "Caractors" document at this time, given that the extant copy was then in the hands of Oliver Cowdery or the Whitmers?
If Joseph Smith was, in fact, comparing the characters on the Kinderhook plates with those on the Caractors document, or some other transcript of Book of Mormon characters, then "A Gentile's" statement "he will therefore be able to translate them" would mean what--translate them how? By revelation--just like the Book of Mormon. But the evidence doesn't support this--at all.
_______________
_______________
It just occurred to me that there is more evidence to identify the "Egyptian alphabet" mentioned by "A Gentile" as the GAEL rather than a Book of Mormon character transcript.
Check these out:

Joseph Smith's journal, kept by Willard Richards, entry for May 7, 1843: “visited by several gentlemen concerning the plates which were dug out [of] a mound near Quincy."
Parley P. Pratt letter to John Van Cott, May 7, 1843: “A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city,” and the plates are “filled with engravings in Egyptian language.”
“A Gentile” to the New York Herald, May 7, 1843: Joseph Smith compared the Kinderhook plates characters “in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet…and they are evidently the same characters. He will therefore be able to decipher them.”

What do these documents have in common?
First, they were all written on May 7.
Second, they all refer to non-Mormons visiting Joseph about the Kinderhook plates. Richards refers to "gentlemen," a term he elsewhere employs in Joseph's journal for friendly non-Mormons. Pratt refers to "citizens," which also seems to connote Gentiles rather than fellow saints. And, "A Gentile," well, he just makes it obvious!
So, what happened on this day?
A number of non-Mormons called on Joseph about the Kinderhook plates. He displayed the plates to them, and, according to Pratt, allowed them to compare them with "the characters on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city." Pratt omits any comparison with Book of Mormon characters, which would one think more significant than comparison with the papyrus characters.
And note that Pratt doesn't say they were compared directly to the papyrus but to the characters that are on the papyrus--which characters are also on the GAEL. One of these men, "A Gentile," says Joseph showed him how the Kinderhook plates characters compare to those on his "Egyptian alphabet," a more than plausible reference to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, which was then or not long later labeled on the spine "Egyptian Alphabet." Richards refers to Joseph sending for his "Hebrew Bible and lexicon." But given that Richards is keeping the journal for Joseph and thus hears some of the journalized events by word of mouth, it's not unlikely he could confuse reports of Joseph sending for the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" with Joseph sending for his Hebrew lexicon.
Given that we know via Pratt that the Kinderhook plates were being compared to the Egyptian characters from the papyri, why would we conclude that the "Egyptian alphabet" in question is a document associated with the Book of Mormon, rather than the papyri? And given the obvious relationship of what Joseph reportedly translated from the KP to the GAEL, why would we think he wasn't comparing it with the GAEL? Indeed, how did the GAEL definition get associated with the Kinderhook plates without the GAEL being consulted?
To connect the GAEL with the "Egyptian alphabet" that was compared to the Kinderhook plates and with Joseph Smith's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not only reasonable, it is the logical conclusion.
Don
________________________________________
I'll add that "A Gentile" identifies himself as a friendly non-Mormon resident of Nauvoo. His letter is dated the same day that Joseph is known from other sources to have shown the Kinderhook plates to a number of non-Mormon citizens. And the next sentence after what Dan quotes is, I believe, "He will therefore be able to decipher them."
A non-Mormon could easily be confused over what the GAEL is, associating it with the well known Book of Mormon rather than the relatively obscure Book of Abraham. And the title on the spine of the GAEL is "Egyptian Alphabet," indicating that it was known by the same name "A Gentile" uses for the GAEL.
Coupling that with the easy derivation from the GAEL of the content Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates we have Joseph using the GAEL to interpret the Kinderhook plates character. By reference to this one matching character, we can explain the "translated" content; and "A Gentile" confirms the character matching: he sees Joseph make a match--hence his comment "they are evidently the same characters." And it is based on this match to the "Egyptian alphabet" that he concludes that Joseph will "therefore be able to translate them."
_______________________________________
I responded more fully to the Egyptian alphabet criticism on the other board. But here are some summary points:
It's obvious from Clayton's journal that the GAEL and the KPs were compared.
PPP says the KP characters were compared to those on the papyri--with evident reference to the same occasion on which "A Gentile" saw Joseph Smith compare the KP characters to those on his "Egyptian alphabet."
"Egyptian alphabet" is not the most plausible reference to a Book of Mormon character transcript like the extant one, in which we don't have an alphabetic collection but simply a sample of text. Calling this an "Egyptian alphabet" would be only as plausible as calling the papyri an "Egyptian alphabet." Who does that?
However, "Egyptian alphabet" is a more than plausible reference to the GAEL, which has those words in its internal title, and then or later had them added to the spine, indicating a common name for the document, and does attempt to create a sort of alphabet of characters.

___________________________________________________________

[quote name='grindael' timestamp='1313367597' post='1209036151']
Don, you can say all you want that Joseph Smithhad no access to the Characters from the Book of Mormon, but the fact thatthey were published in Nauvoo, in 1844 shows that they were accessible.[/quote]
That they were published in Nauvoo in 1844 does not show that they were accessible to Joseph Smith in 1843. Since the published characters are a version of the "Caractors" document then in possession of Oliver Cowdery or the Whitmers. The version used for the 1844 publication is likely a copy made from that, but unless you have information that neither you nor anyone else has presented, we don't know when such a copy would have been made, or when or how these were otherwise obtained.

"IfJS, et al. are going to go to the trouble of having the KP characters publishedimmediately, why hold off so long on publishing the Book of Mormon characters, if he hasthem?

"I don't know. But Hyrum obviously had a copyof them, therefore Joseph had access to them. An easy document to docomparisons with, (by the way) one which easily could have been referred to asan Egyptian Alphabet, as Lucy Smith referred to the one from 1828.

Note, again, that 1844 and 1843 are different years, with 1843 preceding 1844.

Note also that in Lucy Mack Smith's couple statements in her history she says Joseph was creating an alphabet of the characters by pulling out each character he saw and putting it on his alphabet document. In such a production we would have unique characters listed rather than a text with a number of obvious repetitive characters. The document Lucy references is likely the one referenced by Anthon, which he says had characters from various scripts, but it is not the "Caractors" text published in 1844, which is a copy of a segment of plates' text rather than an alphabet of all the individual characters.

"I make a big deal out of the papyrus beingin the city, because ANYONE for a quarter, could go see them

Recall that there is not one but three May 7 sources about non-Mormons visiting Joseph's house to see the plates. All three likely refer to a single group of non-Mormons visiting, and Joseph's journal describes only one. "A Gentile" is one of these men, and he doesn't simply go view the papyri on display but sees Joseph directly compare the KPs with another document. Why, then, are we supposed to think that it's unlikely that Joseph shows this group a document that isn't ordinarily on display?

You also said: "One can't determine from sucha reference whether they saw the papyrus or not.

I disagree. That is what Pratt says they did.

How many times do you think it will take you asserting this opinion before I will magically see the light and agree with you? As I've indicated in the words bolded in my post, PPP says only that they saw the KPs and compared the characters of the KPs and those of the papyrus. We have the characters that are on the papyrus in the GAEL in just the same sense that we have the characters that are on the plates in the character transcripts. The act of copying the characters from the papyri onto another document does not suddenly make them not be the characters that are on the papyri.

But let's grant your assertion for a moment. Suppose it is the papyrus itself that is being compared to the KPs. How does this weaken the view that it is the GAEL, and not a Book of Mormon transcript that is the Egyptian alphabet in question? If Joseph Smith's visitors are being shown the papyrus in comparison to the KPs, doesn't this dovetail nicely with them being shown the GAEL, which interprets the papyrus characters? If papyrus characters are being connected to those on the KPs (and why else compare them, if no connections are to found?), all the more reason to use the GAEL to understand the KP characters that are the same as those on the papyrus!

How could they do this with the GAEL?

<sigh> "A Gentile" says directly that Joseph Smith was comparing the KPs to a document he calls his "Egyptian alphabet" in front of others, including himself. Therefore Joseph Smith was specially displaying for visitors items not usually on display.


You also say

"The only real "problem" is here isthat you are misusing the sources. The Haven account says Joseph said they weresimilar to the Book of Mormon characters on sight before comparing them to anything. Howdoes this support your claim that Joseph Smith compared them to a Book of Mormon charactertranscript?

"Howam I misusing sources?

What a waste of my time this discussion is. Why should I answer again here what I answer in what you just quoted? You're trying to make the point that the Haven account somehow supports "A Gentile's" statement that Joseph compared in his presence the KPs with Book of Mormon characters. Yet, as I point out above, at the time of Joseph Smith's statement reported by Haven, Joseph Smith had done nothing more than look just at the KPs. Haven's report, if accurate, means that when Joseph Smith saw the KPs he thought some of their characters looked like those on the Book of Mormon plates. It doesn't mean that he had compared them to a Book of Mormon character transcript, which her account would indicate he hadn't. "A Gentile" isn't talking about whether Joseph Smith thought the KP characters looked like Book of Mormon characters when he first saw them; it's talking about a later physicalcomparison he made on a specific occasion.

Her account indicates that he recognized the characters on sight as being similar:

Haven: "When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on themwas similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr.Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would beable to translate them.

This account does not have Joseph comparing the two sets of characters, in which case Haven could see the match for himself. Nor does it say he specifically matched the characters--i.e., that there were identical characters. It says that Joseph recognized a similarity "when" he saw them.

You are absolutely misusing Haven.

there are things in these statements thatgive good reason to question that the GAEL could have been the only source ofhis translation.

Really? Because the case for Joseph Smith's use of the GAEL in interpreting the KPs is based overwhelmingly on the fact that GAEL content shows up in Joseph's KP translation as reported in the Clayton diary--and you have no other explanation for how he derived this specific text from the KPs.

The "A Gentile" letter is only supporting evidence. So, even if your argument that Joseph Smith compared the KPs to Book of Mormon characters seemed credible, it would not do anything whatsoever to suggest that anything other than the GAEL--which has the content necessary to derive the reported translation was the source used.

If I'm wrong, please show me how or why Joseph Smith would have derived the constellation of kingship, descent from Pharaoh, and language about the master "of heaven and earth" from Book of Mormon character comparisons. Even if you posit a claim to revelatory translation, you have an explanation that doesn't live up to its name--it doesn't actually explain the content of his translation, whereas the GAEL comparison does explain just that.

________________________________________________________________________________________

On the identity of the "Egyptian alphabet" mentioned by "A Gentile"...
That Joseph Smith possessed a character transcript in 1843 for the Book of Abraham characters is...
Definite. He had the GAEL from the Kirtland period on, and W. W. Phelps knew to look for it in Joseph's office just a few months later and borrowed it from there.

That Joseph Smith possessed a character transcript in 1843 for the Book of Mormon characters is...
Hypothetical, argued for on the basis that a copy of the "Caractors" document known to be in others' hands was published in Nauvoo in 1844. Despite the handing down of numerous Joseph Smith documents through the Smith family, a manuscript of this one is never mentioned thereafter nor passed on to posterity. In fact, the sole mention of Joseph Smith having a transcript he'd made from the plates between 1828 and 1844 is this single non-Mormon account. And on that basis alone we are to believe he had one.

That the Book of Abraham character transcripts in Joseph Smith's possession would have been called an "Egyptian alphabet" is...
Definite. The shorter transcripts were titled "Egyptian Alphabet." The longer document into which these were copied was titled "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language." The spine of the document was either by then or in the several years following labeled on the spine by Joseph Smith's companions "Egyptian Alphabet." And these documents functioned as alphabets, attempting to collect all the different characters, arrange them alphabetically, and so on.

That the "Caractors" document published in 1844, or some otherwise unknown Book of Mormon character transcript extant in 1843 Nauvoo, would have been called an "Egyptian Alphabet" is...
Hypothetical. There is no record of anyone referring to the Caractors document this way. And such a transcript is an abstract of text, with repeating characters, and does not function as an alphabet. The difference is as clear as this:

Alphabet: a b c d e f g h i j k ...

Abstract of text: O Romeo, Romeo, why must some persons be so tendentious in ignoring my central arguments and repeating over and over bad criticisms of my supporting arguments on this topic? Wherefore art thou, Romeo?

Note that in the first example the symbols do not repeat: this is an alphabet, a total set of characters. But note that in the second the symbols (letters) repeat as often as the tired arguments for a Book of Mormon Egyptian alphabet do in the discussion above.

____________________________________________________________

Waiting for the hammer to fall,

Don

[_onandagus]

By the way, Nomad, I agree that Grindael's doing a good job of critiquing my GAEL-Egyptian alphabet connection. In fact, he's doing better and better all the time, as you'll see when you visit the MDD thread again, something I suggest folks who want to see a good critique of this part of my argument do.

You should note, however, that Grindael's critique of my supporting argument regarding the Egyptian alphabet quote doesn't mean he rejects my main argument from the Clayton journal-GAEL correspondence.

Here is what he's had to say on this most recently on MDD:

"I really think that Joseph was comparing the KP with the Book of Mormon characters, (and I have good reason to think so) BUT, I think he did use information from the GAEL. I'm not certain when he did this, but the striking similarities of the GAEL definitions & Clayton's diary entry, are very compelling (emphasis added)."

I suppose what I'll hear from you next is that Grindael is a genius when arguing for the fallacy of my GAEL-Egyptian alphabet argument but a moron when perceiving the connection on which my main argument for Joseph's use of the GAEL as "striking" and "very compelling."

Don

[_harmony]

Impressive. Thank you, Don.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Thanks Don! Some of us are not allowed to view the MD&D site, so we have to hear the goings on via reports.

[_onandagus]

By the way, I didn't go through and cut out my snideness at times to Grindael, but know that I have repented! Now that I see more clearly the positive aspect of what he's doing in addition to negating aspect of trying to dissociate the May 1843 "Egyptian alphabet" from the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language," I'm impressed.

He should post his latest from MDD here as well, to show how he's called part of my argument into doubt by showing that "A Gentile" was very likely a Mormon, which qualifies the identification of the "Egyptian alphabet" and GAEL, though in my view doesn't change Joseph Smith's use of the GAEL being the best explanation for the reference to his using "his Egyptian alphabet" (for reasons I can post here as well).

Cheers,

Don

[_moksha]

They caught the last train for the coast . . .

You mean the Jester (Runtu),
King (Daniel C. Peterson) and
Holy Ghost (Dr. Scratch's informant)?

[_Droopy]

Yep, there is a real conspiracy at MDD to protect Kevin...

Actually, they've been really welcoming to him over there in the past months. I don't have a problem with that either. I say let Graham speak his piece whether there or here or anywhere. I think FAIR/MDA/MDDB basically ruined the place by going hog-wild with the bannings/suspensions, etc. All they did was make the place boring and sterile, as far as I'm concerned. When I first started posting there back in 2006, it was still the wild west of Mormon message boards, although even then they had started to "crack down" on the elements they didn't like. Now it's a boring joke. I miss the days when Scratch, and Shades, and Paul Osborn, and harmony and beastie were there, and even some of the real nutso extreme, fringe LDS (I forget their names, but I seem to recall one with a Luke Skywalker avatar that was really "out there"). Those were the days when it was worth your time to check it out over there.

I've had the distinct feeling of having to "walk on eggs" there since I've been back. I've noticed that I will be threatened with various forms of sanction for saying pretty innocuous things, while others, including, to my astonishment, Graham himself, are allowed much more leeway in the ad hominem department before being reigned in. I have intellectual, which means primarily ideological (yes, political) adversaries at the MDDB board and I've known that for a long time, and one or two of them are a bit mean spirited about it. There is a definite sense there that at least some of the mods are expressing aspects of the "political correctness" some of them have absorbed at university, as well as, perhaps, the air of intellectual intolerance of differing views that always accompanies those ideologies.

It does seem to me that FAIR and the MDDB board are starting to lean pretty strongly towards the "progressive" arm of LDS apologetics. Not exactly "new order Mormon" yet but kind of starting to lean in that general direction.

That was noticed a long time ago by others as well, including me. The point at which it really all "hit the fan" was in a thread David Bokovoy started several years ago called the "United Firm." That thread, which became very heated, and which created a number of spin off threads on the same topic, eventuated in a rather acrimonious split between David and Will, and bloodshot eyeballs all around.

There has long been both a leftish bias in matters political at that board, as well as a bias for degreed scholars with name school recognition and against auto-didacts without the credentials. The credentialism has, now and then, become a bit much, and Bokovoy's series of threads on the United Order and its alleged collectivistic nature produced some interesting behavior from the mods there. Will complained at one point of having his posts intercepted and axed before they ever made it onto the thread. Further, despite continued pleading from the mods regarding board rules relative to political threads, only David's interlocutors were ever disciplined. David himself was allowed to start thread after thread upon fundamentally the same subjects (total economic equality through redistribution of wealth, collective sin, guilt, and salvation, the evils of free market economics etc.) all of which had distinct and unavoidable political implications.

One can only wonder why the inconsistency in application of board rules.