I need help with information on the kinderhook plates


Recommended Posts

Some 'well meaning' person (honestly I think it was our parish priest) has given my husband a copy of the CES Letter. He was very nice about it (my husband I mean) when he showed it to me and I managed to stay very calm while reading the thing (then cried like a baby for a couple of hours).   I asked my husband what his main concern with this letter was and he says its the Kinderhook Plates and the book of Abraham papyri.  I have to admit it doesn't look good and I am having concerns of my own with regards to this. 

Anyway, I got on fair mormon straight away and found their response to it, my husband doesn't accept their explanation saying 'they were fakes, he was set up, and yet he said they were something they were not, if he could not tell they were fake then how can we trust any of his other translations'.  

Please any information you guys can give me to help get me and my husband past this crisis would be highly appreciated.

I believe in the Book of Mormon, but this kinder hook plates thing and the book of Abraham has really upset me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not Joseph's finest moment, but it's not exactly like we've been keeping it a secret.  Here's what the church had to say about it back in 1981:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng

And here's an article from BYU's Religious Study Center back in 2011:
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/did-joseph-smith-translate-kinderhook-plates

A good thorough response would involve asking your husband and parish priest, exactly what they think Prophets of God are, and what they are not.  Challenge them to read the Old Testament and see the occasionally rascally band of sinful foolish agenda-driven humans God picked to be his mouthpieces across history.   There are umpteen examples of OT prophets failing, sinning, getting things wrong, doing things wrong on purpose, even lying about heavenly things.

"How can we trust any of his other translations?"

It's a worthy question - the answer is "Via the confirming spiritual witness of the Holy Ghost."

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Kinderhook plates, I used to know all of this, determined it was a total non-issue, and then forgot it.  I know Jeff Lindsay has an excellent explanation here: https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#fooled.  I do remember thinking that the whole thing doesn't make much sense, though, depends largely on third and fourth hand accounts of things that Joseph Smith was supposed to have done, and the whole thing is just . . . weak . . . as a criticism.  It didn't bother me much.

As for the Book of Abraham, I am assuming you are referring to the criticism that the Book of Abraham does not match the translation of the papyrus?  Would it help to know that the papyri we have today is only a small fragment of what Joseph had according to descriptions, and that most of the papyri were later lost (I believe a museum fire)?  The current Book of Abraham came from the papyrus that was lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Anyway, I got on fair mormon straight away and found their response to it, my husband doesn't accept their explanation saying 'they were fakes, he was set up, and yet he said they were something they were not, if he could not tell they were fake then how can we trust any of his other translations'.

Can we really expect an unlearned man to be able to tell if something like that was real or fake just by looking at it?  Joseph Smith only knew the Gold Plates were real because they were delivered by an Angel and the Holy Spirit testified they were true.

Joseph Smith is only purported to have translated one single character from the plates that looked kind of like a boat which he instantly recognized from his compilation of already translated characters called the GAEL.  He did not seek revelation, nor did he translate it using the Gift and Power of God, nor did he claim to do so.  How would this have any bearing on his ability to translate?  Joseph Smith never had the ability to translate, he had the Gift and Power of God when he needed it and sought it, to use for the purposes of translation, or as directed by the Lord.  So obviously if he goes off and does something on his own without inquiring of the Lord, he's not going to come up with something that is entirely accurate.

Likewise, if you gave me a paper and I glanced at it and only translated one word or sentence from Spanish to English, you would only know that much about it.  Think about the minions from the Despicable Me franchise.  Their language is mostly fake gibberish, but includes fragments of real words in various languages, if I were to translate those and say that they said [x thing] I could be right about that one word without having any clue what they actually were trying to say.  That wouldn't mean I can't translate in the appropriate context, nor would it mean I make things up fictitiously.

@NeuroTypical beat me to the additional resource links ;)

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, not Joseph's finest moment, but it's not exactly like we've been keeping it a secret.  Here's what the church had to say about it back in 1981:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng

And here's an article from BYU's Religious Study Center back in 2011:
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/did-joseph-smith-translate-kinderhook-plates

A good thorough response would involve asking your husband and parish priest, exactly what they think Prophets of God are, and what they are not.  Challenge them to read the Old Testament and see the occasionally rascally band of sinful foolish agenda-driven humans God picked to be his mouthpieces across history.   There are umpteen examples of OT prophets failing, sinning, getting things wrong, doing things wrong on purpose, even lying about heavenly things.

"How can we trust any of his other translations?"

It's a worthy question - the answer is "Via the confirming spiritual witness of the Holy Ghost."

I don't mean to sound dense, but do we even know that Joseph made any mistakes at all regarding the Kinderhook Plates?  From my vantage point, the references to the Kinderhook Plates are so few, so scattered, and are all thirdhand that we don't really know what went on.  We don't even know if the "Kinderhook Plate" that was recovered was one of the originals.

I think the whole entire criticism is stupid and convoluted, even by anti-Mormon standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

As for the Book of Abraham, I am assuming you are referring to the criticism that the Book of Abraham does not match the translation of the papyrus?  Would it help to know that the papyri we have today is only a small fragment of what Joseph had according to descriptions, and that most of the papyri were later lost (I believe a museum fire)?  The current Book of Abraham came from the papyrus that was lost.

It does helps that the actual text comes from something that was lost, thank you.  But the bigger problem is Josephs interpretation of the actual Facsimile pictures, what he says they mean compared to what Egyptian Scholars say they mean are completely different.  Honestly the whole letter is really disturbing, I just wish I'd never seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

It does helps that the actual text comes from something that was lost, thank you.  But the bigger problem is Josephs interpretation of the actual Facsimile pictures, what he says they mean compared to what Egyptian Scholars say they mean are completely different.  Honestly the whole letter is really disturbing, I just wish I'd never seen it.

If I recall, the facsimiles are interpretations of what pictures mean.

Are you familiar with the swatstika, the Nazi symbol, widely associated with hate?  Would it surprise you to know that the same symbol was originally an Eastern religious icon, a symbol for life?  It was repurposed by the Nazis to be a symbol for hate.

This is sort of what I think happened with the facsimiles.  They were originally as Joseph interpreted them, and were re-purposed later to mean something else by later Egyptian religions.  So, when scholars claim that Joseph blew it and interpreted this symbol to be this Egyptian god rather than what Joseph interpreted, then maybe they are not taking into account the fact that the facsimiles may have meant something else beforehand.

Jeff Lindsay has some interesting stuff along the same lines to say about this on his site . . . 

I don't know - anyone have any insights?

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

This is sort of what I think happened with the facsimiles.  They were originally as Joseph interpreted them, and were re-purposed later to mean something else by later Egyptian religions.  So, when scholars claim that Joseph blew it and interpreted this symbol to be this Egyptian god rather than what Joseph interpreted, then maybe they are not taking into account the fact that the facsimiles may have meant something else beforehand.

I don't know - anyone have any insights?

Nibley wrote something about how the Egyptians used the same characters to represent different things and that one would need some kind of context in order to accurately interpret things like the facsimiles - there isn't exactly and only one possible meaning.  (I just don't remember where he wrote that - probably in multiple places.  I most likely read it in one of his first 6 books, or the 9th, but it could have been an article...  :embarrassed:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

If I recall, the facsimiles are interpretations of what pictures mean.

Are you familiar with the swatstika, the Nazi symbol, widely associated with hate?  Would it surprise you to know that the same symbol was originally an Eastern religious icon, a symbol for life?  It was repurposed by the Nazis to be a symbol for hate.

This is sort of what I think happened with the facsimiles.  They were originally as Joseph interpreted them, and were re-purposed later to mean something else by later Egyptian religions.  So, when scholars claim that Joseph blew it and interpreted this symbol to be this Egyptian god rather than what Joseph interpreted, then maybe they are not taking into account the fact that the facsimiles may have meant something else beforehand.

I don't know - anyone have any insights?

Yes I did know that about the Nazi Symbol, the problem with that line of thought is the Egyptians were here first, they had a very well established written language, the Egyptian interpretation of the papyri is consistent with everything known about the Egyptian written language, they wrote it, they didn't find it.

I really appreciate you trying to help me make sense of this though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Yes I did know that about the Nazi Symbol, the problem with that line of thought is the Egyptians were here first, they had a very well established written language, the Egyptian interpretation of the papyri is consistent with everything known about the Egyptian written language, they wrote it, they didn't find it.

I really appreciate you trying to help me make sense of this though

You can read more at this site: https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml 

You can be the judge.  To me, this doesn't seem to be much of a problem, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Some 'well meaning' person (honestly I think it was our parish priest) has given my husband a copy of the CES Letter.

The CES letter is... frankly, it's completely anti-Christ trash, designed to just tear down one's belief in anything.  It does this by doing the "look how much spaggetti I can throw at the wall" technique.  Their points are junk, vast majority of them blatant misconstruing of LDS beliefs or history, and have been answered for decades... again, it's just peppering of quantity of complaints with no quality about them.  

Similar documents exist for all religious groups, political groups, or any other philosophies :rolleyes:.  

I'll actually respond productively to your questions in a minute (got to put little girl to bed first...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blossom76

Quote

Joseph Smith History 1:33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

Thanks to Moroni, Joseph Smith knew his name would be had for "evil amoung all nations, kindreds, and tongues", this includes through items like the CES letter.
The CES letter contains nothing that hasn't already been discussed time and time again. It's packaging may appear differently but it contains the same old arguments simply rehashed with a more modern tone. Antagonist of the Church, Joseph Smith or BOM will throw curve ball after curve ball at you if you let them. It is our choice to step in the batter's box and play ball with them or not. One option is to leave them to play with their balls alone and ignore them.

Focus on your scripture study and prayers. Focus on the Spirit. Remember the joy, happiness and clarity you have felt from the Spirit at times. Learn to recognize and ignore the confusion, chaos and doubt that stem from those who would pull you away from the path you hope to explore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This answer is just me speaking as me)

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

my husband doesn't accept their explanation saying 'they were fakes, he was set up, and yet he said they were something they were not, if he could not tell they were fake then how can we trust any of his other translations'.  

Full stop right there--

No one is asking you to take Joseph's word that the Book of Mormon is True.   No no.  Rather, the specific instructions are for you to ask GOD and listen to GOD's word on the matter.   Anti-Christ junk doesn't want you to ask God or listen to what God has to say, so instead paints this argument of "this man's faulty, so it must all be false".  When in reality Christian beliefs are that a perfect God uses imperfect people to do His wonders.  Scriptures and Christian history are full of examples of this.  The only perfect human is Christ, the Son of God. 

 Note: I'm saying "Christian" here, not just LDS-specific.  This is in essence the same argument as "look this pope made a mistake or sinned, Catholicism must be false".  Same with all other Christian groups.  For a LDS-specific example, Joseph gets told specifically told by God that he screwed up multiple times D&C-- we don't believe he was perfect.  

 

 

As to my personal take on the Kinderhook plates matter:  In my mind's eye, I see Joseph approached by men in the church-- friends that he worked alongside of, and had mutual respect of.  The men bring him the plates, and say "translate these for us".  Joseph, who had spent most of his life being persecuted for proclaiming he translated the gold plates, holds these new plates in his hands-- seemingly proof for everyone to see- proof that no one can deny!  But... Joseph can't translate these.  The inspiration doesn't come... what to do?  Here are plates- proof!  And he cannot translate them... does he tell everyone "I cannot translate these"- disappoint the men who eagerly await his answer, and seem like a fraud for everything?  

Joseph then made a mistake.  A big one.  He claimed to has translated a portion of them.  To what degree this was through his translation codex (the old-school translation method) of the single character, or simply a false claim, we don't know.   He was a man- a imperfect.  sinner.   Yes, God used him to work His wonders, but he still faulted.   But our faith is not about worshiping the man Joseph- or the man Paul, Peter, Moses, Daniel, etc.  It is about Christ, the everlasting Perfect Son of God.  

 

 

On a different topic about the Book of Abraham.  No one yet referred you to the LDS.org essay on the subject: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

It does helps that the actual text comes from something that was lost, thank you.  But the bigger problem is Josephs interpretation of the actual Facsimile pictures, what he says they mean compared to what Egyptian Scholars say they mean are completely different.  Honestly the whole letter is really disturbing, I just wish I'd never seen it.

Most of the people discussing this stuff are anti-Mormons who don't know what they are talking about in the first place.  They will quote one or two Egyptian "scholars" that tend to think the way they do, but ignore the other 99.9%...which personally, I find a little infuriating.

As a HISTORIAN, I have a very different slant.  However, sometimes it's not even worth discussing it, as anti-Mormons normally are not going to listen to anyone but anti-Mormons.  Any scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon that does not agree with their slant on things is normally considered...all sorts of bad names.  They are NOT objective in their criticism, and normally thus, not in any of their analysis.  They jump to conclusions.

That said, I have seen copies of the facsimiles (in otherwords, more than what is on the pages of the LDS scriptures, these were actual copies of them including the additions made to them, which is more than 99.9% of those of the anti-Mormons can even claim, much less discuss in all honesty).  I've also seen notes written by Joseph Smith in regards to the translation. 

The fragments themselves appear to be from a common funerary text that was utilized by Egyptians.  It is common enough that we can even identify the figures and shapes of the various deities and other items in the facsimiles in our current historical understanding.  They do not appear to correlate to what Joseph Smith identified them as on the surface.

What is INTERESTING, is that Joseph Smith appears to have tried to write out an alphabet or other items in trying to translate...HOWEVER...these do NOT CORRELATE to the pages EITHER.  This means that these words that Anti-Mormons sometimes try to point out as his translation...IS NOT his translation as it does not even correlate to what he wrote in the Pearl of Great Price (from what I can tell).  In truth, they do not appear to have any correlation to show us how he did his interpretation, or whether his interpretation of the Pearl of Great Price came from anywhere on these fragments, or if there were other parts of them that they came from.  Anything he did (including the words he has written on the margins) do not correlate to either the Pearl of Great Price that we have, OR the scroll (at least the portions I saw, I do not know about parts I did not see).  They correlate to NEITHER.

In regards to the names, an interesting thing about Egyptian is that we have only GUESSES as to how these names or words sounded.  We got our original Egyptian from the integration of utilizing the Coptic of the Rosetta stone and transliterating it (I think that's the correct word) to Egyptian.  Hence our Egyptian words are actually the Greek sounds that we estimate from the Greek...we do not actually know how ancient Egyptian sounded.

Hence, the ONLY parallel we MIGHT have of Joseph's Translation in a connection between the manuscript and his Pearl of Great Price would be those facsimile's...in which if he had a clue of how Egyptian sounded, he most likely had NO idea how to spell it.  On the otherhand, we may know how to spell words from a Greek perspective of Egyptian, but we do not know how they actually sounded.

NOW, the following IS Bias on my part.  It is taking the opposite slant of that of the Anti-Mormons, but it isn't necessarily what other apologists may think.  It is a PERSONAL slant, meaning this is NOT a professional statement and would NOT go on any professional papers or even amateur papers on the subject.  In otherwords, what I'm talking about now is NOT going to be an unbiased thing, but more similar to what the Anti-Mormons do when they get all biased.  These are MY thoughts from

It is possible that Joseph knew how the words of these characters sounded out the names of certain figures and tried to spell them out...which is where they seem so odd and out of place to us in regards to the Facsimile's.

Another thing in regards to this, is that the Pearl of Great Price itself does not seem to correlate to anything we have in the texts...so this could mean several things.  First, it could mean that the portions he took the translation from were not found.  I tend to not favor this opinion.  I tend to think that the texts he had were the common funerary texts...but that they had hidden meanings that were common then, but maybe not so understood by us.

Prime examples of this today is when we have a funeral, we say dust to dust.  This is a common phrase from Genesis 3:19, but many may not realize that this is what this phrase is from.  Other common things we may use that have secondary meanings that we may not even realize are from the Bible would be things such as "spare the rod, spoil the child...or when we talk about the phrase the second coming or other common items straight from the Bible...but which we may not understand if we are not from our culture.

The secondary thing that I think is that this is symbolic.  That this was actually written by Abraham in by his own hand (though this would be more figuratively in our time) but as a parallel or type and shadow. 

This is done very commonly in both Egypt and other Ancient Societies.  We see it among the Hebrews and Jews and know that they favored these.  We see it with the Lord.  He used stories often that seem common but had a higher or hidden meaning.  We often cite these as parables (for example, the parable of the prodigal son, or the parable of the Good Samaritan).  What is even more interesting on some of these parables is that they had a second hidden meaning, but then often had an even deeper hidden meaning, or tertiary meaning which only those who truly understood would understand.  For example, the Good Samaritan is one that we commonly understand is talking about us and being good to others...however it also can be seen to have a deeper and more specific meaning directly relating to the LORD and his role in our lives. 

In this, I think that it is probable that Joseph saw the hidden meanings or hidden text in a common funerary text, and translated it to bring that out to the obvious forefront. 

What I also think is that there is a strong parallel between the criticisms of the Pearl of Great Price and criticisms of some of the works in the Bible.  Of note, the book of Genesis and some parts of it differs greatly in some regards with other ancient texts that we have discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other items.  AS Christians we accept the Book of Genesis as written, but from a scholarly viewpoint, the Book of Genesis would have about as much weight in reality as the Book of Abraham.  In this we can see that the things of God are NOT necessarily the things of the World. 

This is my OWN thoughts on it though, not something that I'd ever utilize professionally (most likely it would be laughed out of the arena).

More on a Historian type level rather than my personal views...so going back to the more non-biased view again...

We do not have any evidence that really connects Joseph's translation to our current understanding of the common funerary texts we think he took his translation from.  None of his notes really correlate to the Pearl of Great Price...but all that means is that whatever he was writing in the Margins, was NOT the actual translation he was making.  They were notes of some sort, and at times they seem to correlate to some of the words he used, but they do not really correlate to his actual claimed Translation in the Pearl of Great Price.

Because of this, we do NOT KNOW where he got the Pearl of Great Price from...academically speaking.  It would appear that he did NOT get it from the fragments that we have now. 

In the Facsimile's, we have a pretty good guess as to what they appeared as from their similarities to other common texts of the same sort.  His statements in regards to what they mean do not seem to correlate to what we understand them to be showing.  This is the ONLY thing we have that we can show a big difference between what he wrote down, and what we currently understand them to be showing.

That SAID...EVERYTHING WE THINK THEY SHOW IN THE FACSIMILE'S ARE STILL OUR BEST GUESS.  That means, this is what we are assuming and guessing they mean.  These documents are common but NOT THAT interesting to be honest.  You have very few scholars that actually study this specific thing, and many of those are actually Mormon.  The few that do not...well...we have some pretty good educated guesses...but they are that...educated guesses based upon other things that we have seen in relation to them.  Anyone who thinks we have all the answers is kidding themselves...and whoever says that science knows everything about this is flat out lying.

As a Historian, I probably would professionally trust more in what the science says, than a religious figure...speaking from a non-bias.  We don't know everything there is about the facsimile's, and most don't actually care about them.  It means a LOT MORE to Anti-Mormons than probably Mormons, and more to Mormons than the rest of the world.

As such, only a few have even bothered to even look at them and try to decipher what they are.  Thus far, those Egyptologists findings do NOT seem to correlate with what Joseph identified...but we do not know what tomorrow holds.  Our entire understanding of them could change tomorrow (not necessarily to what Joseph thought they were, just to be clear, but our understanding of ancient cultures IS constantly changing as we discover new things).  Because it is such a trivial thing...except for the Mormons and Anti-Mormons, not a Lot of people have studied, much less even seen, the surviving fragments (though I believe there are electronic copies of them on line today if someone actually cared about it...I think there's about exactly one to three non-Mormon Egyptologist that actually MIGHT, but most are concerned with things they actually can access more easily and are less common in appearance).

AS for the Book of Abraham itself, we have nothing currently that connects what Joseph called the Book of Abraham and the texts we think he took it from.  In the fragments, nothing shows the actual translation there.  We have some words, but they do not follow as a translation (more like he was trying to create some sort of lexicon or something instead).  They do not seem to correlate with the actual text there either...from what I can tell.  This means, we do not KNOW where Joseph got the Book of Abraham from.  It does NOT appear to have come from the fragments that we possess. 

The Anti-Mormons use this to jump to a conclusion (without really evidence to back it up) try to claim he made it up, but we have no evidence of WHERE he got it from.  That could be an explanation, but there could be many other explanations as well.  Currently, due to lack of evidence, no one really knows where it came from...from a scholarly viewpoint.

 

Edit: Sorry for the long reply, but this is about as comprehensive in a very short brief (yes, this is a short brief on a very complicated subject)...and as many already know...I am long winded.

 

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic

I remember when I was a kid (some 40 years ago) the Book of Mormon had lots of pictures in it of modern findings of ancient writings, metal plates, stone boxes. etc.  Real authentic evidence that pre-Colombians used metal for record keeping or some kind.  Early Mormons were very keen on proving the Book of Mormon through archeological evidence, and many still are.  The Kinderhook plates fit into that narrative.   When found, they were written up in Mormon pamphlets and touted as more evidence.  Today people will point to a quote from Joseph Smith that claims he observed the plates and commented on their authenticity.  It's even in our history books as a direct quote.  But it's not true.  He never actually made such a statement, at least not directly, and the closest thing is his secretary making the claim, likely from hearsay, and when his (the secretary's) notes were compiled as part of church history, the wording was changed to a first person quote.  Apparently this was common back then.   But as the church has progressed, the members, I think, are finally realizing that there really is no physical proof.  Evidence, yes, and compelling evidence at that, but not proof.   So, chock up the Kinderhook plates as enthusiastic Mormons hoping to prove the Book of Mormon through physical evidence. Early Mormons are victims of their own eagerness to find irrefutable proof, and a century later, we're still eating a bit of crow for it.

As to the book of Abraham, I believe God needed to reveal scripture to Joseph Smith, important scripture to the understanding of the premortal life.  I believe the scrolls used by Smith were a conduit to a great vision and a recording of the scriptures we now call the Book of Abraham.  I think the scrolls were a tool, but not necessarily the source for that vision, although the facsimile descriptions are compelling.   Other Mormons might disagree.

But I will say, and you may not be aware of this, so don't be shocked, but as Joseph Smith understood so much as a prophet, that he saw that the Bible had errors, and had a project to "translate" it into correctness.  Consider it, Smith writing in the margins, correcting understanding, and clarifying meaning.  But it was done in line, changing the text for clarity.   We don't consider all of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) as canon, but it is in the footnotes, and you can study it.   But, out of that, we did get another book, called the Book of Moses, which is essentially the JST of the book of Genesis.  This is canonized, and considered scripture, but Joseph Smith didn't use an ancient text to have it revealed to him.  The Bible itself was the catalyst and conduit to his vision.   I don't believe it is a direct translation of what Moses wrote, but I do believe it was what God wanted us to understand about the creation story.  

So, as a prophet, Smith had visions and inspired "translations" which were really clarifications and expansion of ancient texts.  How God delivered the information, and whether they are scientifically provable is irrelevant.   Moses had a burning bush and a talking donkey.  Joseph Smith had Egyptian papyrus.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I believe in the Book of Mormon, but this kinder hook plates thing and the book of Abraham has really upset me.

I believe the above posts have said enough about the Kinderhook plates.  But here is something to consider about the book of Abraham and "Egyptian Scholars."

These scholars are all agreed on one fact: Joseph didn't translate the meanings of the facsimilies correctly.

They are also united on one fact: All other Egyptian scholars have it all wrong as well. 

The truth is that facsimilies such as these are not a direct interpretation of the Egyptian language a-la the Rosetta Stone.  They are interpretations of the individual scholar or school of thought that he comes from.  And there are MANY schools of thought on the interpretation of Egyptian images.  While we believe we have a "fairly good" approximation of the hieroglyphics, entire drawings such as this one are another matter.  It is not settled archaeology/anthropology on whether there are universal meanings to any specific images or not.  The same image will have as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Bible.

Is it any wonder, then, why they would think that Joseph got it wrong?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself a question...  If Joseph Smith was ultimately fooled... then were is the translation of the Kinder Hook plates?

There is not one.

Therefore the argument that "How could he be fooled?" is rendered moot by the simple fact that he ultimately was not.

Now could Joseph had been caught up in the excitement?  Sure why not he was human being a prophet of God does not negate that, nor does it meant that God is pulling his strings all the time.  But temporary excitement on an idea does not mean that he accepted it after some study and prayer.

 

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

This is sort of what I think happened with the facsimiles.  They were originally as Joseph interpreted them, and were re-purposed later to mean something else by later Egyptian religions.  So, when scholars claim that Joseph blew it and interpreted this symbol to be this Egyptian god rather than what Joseph interpreted, then maybe they are not taking into account the fact that the facsimiles may have meant something else beforehand.

Jeff Lindsay has some interesting stuff along the same lines to say about this on his site . . . 

I don't know - anyone have any insights?

That's a pretty thin explanation, I am aware of the kinderhook plates and I have my owe issues with the Pearl of Great Price. Not that I don't think that they are scripture because I do think that they are. My issue lies with the claim of translation from the papyrus scrolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bytebear said:


As to the book of Abraham, I believe God needed to reveal scripture to Joseph Smith, important scripture to the understanding of the premortal life.  I believe the scrolls used by Smith were a conduit to a great vision and a recording of the scriptures we now call the Book of Abraham.  I think the scrolls were a tool, but not necessarily the source for that vision, although the facsimile descriptions are compelling.   Other Mormons might disagree.
 

This 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, not Joseph's finest moment, but it's not exactly like we've been keeping it a secret.  Here's what the church had to say about it back in 1981:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng

And here's an article from BYU's Religious Study Center back in 2011:
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/did-joseph-smith-translate-kinderhook-plates

Ugh! Why are we so rotten at hiding and white washing our history?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

We don't even know if the "Kinderhook Plate" that was recovered was one of the originals.

We have pretty good evidence that it was. One of the questions in @NeuroTypical's link (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng) is whether the plate is the original or a copy based on the surviving facsimiles. It was determined that it must have been the original because where the facsimile has some character etchings the plate has a dent. That is, if the facsimile was based on this plate, then the artist preserved the dent by drawing in marks of where it was; whereas if the plate was based on the facsimile, then the forger placed a dent where some circular markings were placed. Of the two options, the more likely is that this plate is the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share