It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:01 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 3681
Location: La Mancha
Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.

What do we infer from this? If I understand the argument correctly...

  • Smith's evaluation of the Kinderhook Plates was based upon the GAEL
  • Smith considered the GAEL to be a tool to assist in translating Egyptian
  • Smith was intimately familiar with the GAEL

Is that basically it?

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:15 pm
Posts: 4172
Analytics wrote:
Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced.



Wait, how did a symbol from the GAEL get on the Kinderhook Plates?

_________________
Cinepro's Got a Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 9070
Location: The Orange House: The loft overlooking the garden
The plot thickens.

_________________
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:10 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 94
cinepro wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced.

Wait, how did a symbol from the GAEL get on the Kinderhook Plates?

Or did a symbol from the Kinderhook Plates get added to the GAEL by Joseph Smith, Jr. after the Kinderhook Plates were found?

Where in the GAEL is this character found?

Does this tie-in between Joseph Smith, Jr. and the GAEL cut against the Book of Abraham claims of FAIR and NMI, claims that tried to extricate Joseph Smith, Jr. away from the GAEL?

_________________
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 6063
How many characters are on the kinderhook plates?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:21 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 94
RockSlider wrote:
How many characters are on the kinderhook plates?

What character in the GAEL translates as an identification of a great Nephi warrior that descended from Ham? What part of the Book of Abraham talks about a great Nephi warrior descended from Ham?

_________________
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:15 pm
Posts: 4172
RockSlider wrote:
How many characters are on the kinderhook plates?


Here's an image of them:

Image

_________________
Cinepro's Got a Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:19 am
Posts: 2876
Socrates wrote:



_________________
My favorite game show is Jeopardy! "Alex, I'll take Theology for $800."


If your name is Socrates, shouldn't your signature line be a question?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:45 pm 
Has More Degrees Than Droopy
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:21 pm
Posts: 2685
Location: Cassius University: Ho Chi Minh Professor of American Military History
Morley wrote:
If your name is Socrates, shouldn't your signature line be a question?


Why? :P

_________________
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:19 am
Posts: 2876
Bond James Bond wrote:
Morley wrote:
If your name is Socrates, shouldn't your signature line be a question?


Why? :P

Is there ever a reason to answer a question with another question?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11830
Morley wrote:
Bond James Bond wrote:

Why? :P

Is there ever a reason to answer a question with another question?


Is there ever not?

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:12 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 94
Morley wrote:
Socrates wrote:



_________________
My favorite game show is Jeopardy! "Alex, I'll take Theology for $800."


If your name is Socrates, shouldn't your signature line be a question?

Have you considered what the second thing that would follow after my signature line quote would be?

_________________
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:45 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6886
Location: Cassius University
Analytics wrote:
Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.



That's bizarre. I was under the impression that Don's presentation was going to blow the critical arguments into smithereens. And given that the critics' main argument is that Joseph Smith was basically "duped" into thinking that the Kinderhook Plates were legitimate scripture, I don't see Don's presentation is helping anything. Doesn't it suggest that the guys who made the plates were more clever than we initially thought? Or, is Don claiming instead that the presence of this symbol shows that the K-hook Plates actually really *are* scripture, thus rescuing Joseph Smith on the issue of *both* Kinderhook and the Book of Abraham in one fell swoop?

Hopefully someone will be along to clarify sometime soon.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6736
Dr.,

There is a thread on MDD that contains some partial accounts of what was presented by listeners during the online broadcast. Kevin Graham is also heavily engaged in the discussion and may be persuaded to offer an overview of his understanding of the matter.

Based on the accounts from this thread, it seems that Don Bradley demonstrated the following:

- That the William Clayton journal account is generally reliable, and that William Clayton was actively involved in Joseph's doings on the day most importance to the translation attempt

- That Joseph Smith used the GAEL to attempt a non-revelatory translation of the kinderhook plates (Don apparently demonstrated clearly that it was an attempt using the GAEL and not by revelation through documentary evidence such as a news article from the time. I am not clear, but it may also be claimed in a quote from Parley P. Pratt from some source)

- That there is a symbol on one of the plates that corresponds with a symbol from the GAEL, and that some portion or all of the translation described by William Clayton is consistent with the meaning of the same symbol provided in the GAEL

That's the minimum I've gathered of what was presented, though there is a lot of additional detail being thrown around without attribution as well as speculation on the part of most thread participants. I may have the above points wrong as well. Hopefully someone more familiar will stop in to clarify.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:35 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:06 am
Posts: 385
Analytics wrote:
Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.

What do we infer from this? If I understand the argument correctly...

  • Smith's evaluation of the Kinderhook Plates was based upon the GAEL
  • Smith considered the GAEL to be a tool to assist in translating Egyptian
  • Smith was intimately familiar with the GAEL

Is that basically it?


No.

_________________
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 18180
Location: Koloburbia
Is there significance to this match of a single character shape? Does this prove the Kinderhook plates are true?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 3681
Location: La Mancha
onandagus wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Apparently, Don discovered that a symbol on the Kinderhook plates matched a symbol that was on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) documents that Joseph Smith and/or his cohorts had produced. Furthermore, the “translation” of the symbol, per the GAEL, is consistent with Joseph Smith’s reported interpretation of the Kinderhook Plates.

What do we infer from this? If I understand the argument correctly...

  • Smith's evaluation of the Kinderhook Plates was based upon the GAEL
  • Smith considered the GAEL to be a tool to assist in translating Egyptian
  • Smith was intimately familiar with the GAEL

Is that basically it?


No.

I'm looking forward to reading more about your actual views. I heard it was an interesting and entertaining presentation--congratulations!

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:24 am 
God

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 1464
Am I right in summarising this as:

A symbol has been found on the plates that matches an alphabet that Joseph Smith produced and his translation of both is consistent?

_________________
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6736
jon wrote:
Am I right in summarising this as:

A symbol has been found on the plates that matches an alphabet that Joseph Smith produced and his translation of both is consistent?

jon,

Based on the limited knowledge I have of the matter, I think there is a slight difference from the above and what was suggested by Don.

The Kinderhook plate translation made use of the already-transcribed GAEL.

I'm guessing, but it seems the presentation served to take the foundation out from under both the common critical and faithful arguments.

The most common critical argument is that Joseph Smith produced or at least began a translation of the counterfeit plates claiming revelation. This process, being the same as he claimed to use to produce LDS scripture, confirms he was a fraud as the argument goes.

The LDS-faithful view that Joseph did not make this attempt, and William Clayton's journal was describing something rumored but not actually known by Clayton himself is also basically removed from the table as a valid option if my understanding of Bradley's presentation is correct.

This now suggests Joseph produced a limited "translation" of the plates but that this was not complete. It was based on using the existing GAEL and the meaning it provided for a common symbol contained in both. Because this was not via revelation, it preserves the integrity of Joseph's abilities as a seer and revelator without denying the process described by William Clayton in his journal if someone wishes to view it in this manner.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:32 am 
Teacher
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 247
Location: Somewhere between Greensboro, Anchorage and San Diego
honorentheos wrote:

The Kinderhook plate translation made use of the already-transcribed GAEL.

I'm guessing, but it seems the presentation served to take the foundation out from under both the common critical and faithful arguments.

The most common critical argument is that Joseph Smith produced or at least began a translation of the counterfeit plates claiming revelation. This process, being the same as he claimed to use to produce LDS scripture, confirms he was a fraud as the argument goes.

The LDS-faithful view that Joseph did not make this attempt, and William Clayton's journal was describing something rumored but not actually known by Clayton himself is also basically removed from the table as a valid option if my understanding of Bradley's presentation is correct.

This now suggests Joseph produced a limited "translation" of the plates but that this was not complete. It was based on using the existing GAEL and the meaning it provided for a common symbol contained in both. Because this was not via revelation, it preserves the integrity of Joseph's abilities as a seer and revelator without denying the process described by William Clayton in his journal if someone wishes to view it in this manner.


From my recollection of the presentation, this explanation is correct. The data that Don presented supersedes and nulls out any previous critical and apologetic arguments related to the subject. Joseph did "translate" a portion of the plates just as William Clayton said, and he did so by non-revelatory means that were already available to him. Don backed this up with a number of sources.

WW

_________________
We cannot gauge the worth of another soul any more than we can measure the span of the universe. Every person we meet is a VIP to our Heavenly Father.
President Uchtdorf, April 4, 2010

FairMormon Answers Wiki


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 7570
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
honorentheos wrote:
jon,

. Because this was not via revelation, it preserves the integrity of Joseph's abilities as a seer and revelator without denying the process described by William Clayton in his journal if someone wishes to view it in this manner.


Except it seems to present evidence that Joseph Smith did not recognize the plates as a fraud.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group