The Book Of Abraham

[Mariner]

To be completely accurate, it is not Joseph Smith, but the edited result based the account of William Clayton, one of several different reports.

http://en.fairmormon...nderhook_Plates

It would be better to refer to Joseph Smith's translations of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the JST, the Book of Abraham and facsimilees, D&C 7 and part of 93, and of course, his study of Hebrew.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

To be completely accurate, William Clayton was acting as Joseph Smith's personal scribe when he wrote a contemporary account of Joseph Smith's effort at "translation" of the Kinderhook plates. As was often done when he was acting as Smith's personal scribe, Clayton wrote the account in first person.

The FAIR article you referenced stated that the Clayton account is believed to be accurate (in fact, the most accurate overall of the accounts available).

If you wish to infer that there is some doubt about the veracity of the the passage I quoted, then the same doubts should be raised about the revelations, some of which appear in the D&C (including parts of D&C 132), that Clayton recorded for Smith as if he were Smith.

[altersteve]

Kevin, I think you need to get up to date on this issue. Don Bradley's research on this subject pretty much establishes the fact that Joseph Smith consulted his Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language when trying to translate at least a portion of the Kinderhook plates. Besides, there is every reason to believe Clayton's account is trustworthy.

Nobody is denying that Clayton's account is trustworthy, but it needs to be understood that since Joseph consulted his Grammar and Alphabet of the English Language, it follows that he did not claim to translate the Kinderhook plates by divine means. The idea that the Kinderhook plates prove Joseph was a fraud has been refuted. With regards to the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, he always saw himself as the instrument God used to translate them, and he never claimed to have the ability to translate them by himself. There is a big difference there, and it's not trivial.

When you say that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate ancient documents, we agree with you.

[Mariner]

The idea that the Kinderhook plates prove Joseph was a fraud has been refuted.

How can you possibly say this? You just stated that Clayton's description of Joseph Smith's partial "translation" of the Kinderhook plates was authentic (trustworthy). Again, Joseph Smith's statement regarding the Kinderhook plates, as recorded by Clayton, is as follows:

" I have translated a portion of them, and find 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."

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

How is this not direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that Joseph Smith was a fraud - especially when considered in the context of claims that the Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that were in fact a Book of Breathings (nothing to do with Abraham) and Joseph Smith's statement to Professor Caswall and witnesses that a common Greek Psalter was a Dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics?

[Loran Blood]

Nobody is denying that Clayton's account is trustworthy, but it needs to be understood that since Joseph consulted his Grammar and Alphabet of the English Language, it follows that he did not claim to translate the Kinderhook plates by divine means. The idea that the Kinderhook plates prove Joseph was a fraud has been refuted. With regards to the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, he always saw himself as the instrument God used to translate them, and he never claimed to have the ability to translate them by himself. There is a big difference there, and it's not trivial.

When you say that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate ancient documents, we agree with you.

It should also be pointed out that at no time during Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrince and Covenants, and his redactions of the NT and OT, did he ever use, intimate, or mention the need or desire for anything like a body of "translation manuscripts" which were to act as a intellectual or literary mediation between himself and the actual translation itself. Joseph, and literally all eyewitnesses we have to his actual activities in the production of the BofM, D&C, and revisions of the Bible, claimed that he recieved his translations through the principle of divine, direct revelation, including the use of divinely authorized insturments such as the Urim and Thummim. At no time does anything like what the KEP is claimed to be by the critics ever appear in the historical records we have as related or relevant to the process of the production of any of the standard works. It also does not appear in any documentary account of the production of the BofA. What historical allusions or commentary we do have suggests very strongly that, whatever the manner in which the BofA was produced, the means, as far as Jospeh and his associates were concerned, were roughly indentical to the means used in the production of the BofM and D&C.

There is just no doumentary evidence of any veracity indicating the KEP as either relevant to or, in Joseph's mind, necessary for any translation of any kind required by the Lord in the production of restoriation scripture.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

How can you possibly say this? You just stated that Clayton's description of Joseph Smith's partial "translation" of the Kinderhook plates was authentic (trustworthy). Again, Joseph Smith's statement regarding the Kinderhook plates, as recorded by Clayton, is as follows:

How is this not direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that Joseph Smith was a fraud - especially when considered in the context of claims that the Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that were in fact a Book of Breathings (nothing to do with Abraham) and Joseph Smith's statement to Professor Caswall and witnesses that a common Greek Psalter was a Dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics?

There is no really cogent arguments, put forward over the last forty years, that the Sensen text was the source for the Book of Abraham. This is a purely conjectural, theoretical position, sohisticated to be sure, but lacking in the all important areas of well connected logical links between evidence and conclusions from evidenece and actual documentary confirmation. It is one of several competing theories, none of which can do any more, if and until new doucmentation comes forth, then provide plausibilities and possible scenarios.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Kevin Christensen]

To be completely accurate, William Clayton was acting as Joseph Smith's personal scribe when he wrote a contemporary account of Joseph Smith's effort at "translation" of the Kinderhook plates. As was often done when he was acting as Smith's personal scribe, Clayton wrote the account in first person.

The FAIR article you referenced stated that the Clayton account is believed to be accurate (in fact, the most accurate overall of the accounts available).

If you wish to infer that there is some doubt about the veracity of the the passage I quoted, then the same doubts should be raised about the revelations, some of which appear in the D&C (including parts of D&C 132), that Clayton recorded for Smith as if he were Smith.

I'm fine with the Clayton entry being what it is, which is an important report. But it is not an autograph, and quoting the History of the Church to establish the point is not good scholarship at this point. My point is that there are many more better first hand accounts and translated texts available to establish Joseph's claims for himself and his abilities and methods. And of course, since Joseph Smith did learn Hebrew, he could read and translate the Bible via that knowledge, which is quite distinct from what he did when doing the Inspired Revision before studying Hebrew. So even if one supposes that Joseph Smith's claims to the JST or other inspired translations were fraudulent, that does not mean that his study of Hebrew and the readings he subsequently provided should be labeled as fraudulent.

And, Kevin, yes, I did read Don Bradley's paper when it was made available. I'm impressed. I've corresponded with Don a few times. And the FAIR Wikipage I linked refers to Don's presentation, citing its evidence and conclusions. Pointing it out to all and sundry via the link should demonstrate interest, don't you think?

My point is not that edited journal entries have no value, but that they should be recognized for what they are at this stage of the discussion. If we at all interested in learning more than we think we know already.

And since Joseph Smith demonstrated different abilities, and different approaches to translation, I'm not inclined to take a "one size fits all" approach to his efforts at translation. Criticism, even if accurate, directed at one mode of translation does not necessarily apply to the other mode. Criticism directed at one translation, even if accurate, does not necessarily apply to another. I don't see either the Caswall episode, or the Kirtland papers and papyrpus as legitimate paradigms for the Book of Mormon or Book of Moses or Joseph Smith's Hebrew interpretation in the King Follett discourse. Procrustes, of course, is famous for making every guest fit one bed by the simple expedient of cutting off what pokes out, and stretching that doesn't reach.

As Kuhn says, "The decision to employ a particular piece of aparatus and use it in a particular way always carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise." (Kuhn 59). It seems to me that aparatus from one sort of experience is being misapplied to discount the results of other experiences, as well as the existence of a wide range of evidence. For instance, how far do Henry Caswall's set of reports from his three days at Nauvoo (and environs), for instance go towards explaining the sorts of things I've written about in the Book of Mormon? Alma as NDEr. Nephi as representing First Temple Judaism. As Kuhn says, "the defenders of traditional theory and proceedure can almost always point to problems that its new rival has not solved but that for their view are no problems at all." (Kuhn, 157) And Kevin G. here having refuted to his personal satisfaction LDS views of revelation, demonstrates a pattern of thought described here: "When it repudiates a past paradigm, a scientific community simultaneously renounces, as a fit subject for professional scrutiny, most of the books and articles in which that paradigm had been embodied." Kuhn also comments that "There are losses as well as gains in a scientific revolution, and scientists tend to be peculiarly blind to the former." (Ibid.)

Not having dismissed the LDS paradigm, I'm not yet blind to the problems solved by viewing Joseph Smith as a prophet. Granting, of course, that my understanding of what true prophet is, might not be the same as the next person. But of course, I did a lot of work on figuring out what I should expect to find in a true prophet. (The FAIR paper, for instance.)

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited January 9, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[volgadon]

Procrustes, of course, is famous for making every guest fit one bed by the simple expedient of cutting off what pokes out, and stretching that doesn't reach.

Which was co-opted by Jewish interpreters of the Bible and used to describe the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorha

[Pahoran]

I'll give you the 30 second, extremely simplified version, that probably leaves a lot out, but gives the overall flavor of the criticisms.

It appears that Joseph Smith came into possession of the papyrus, and made up a story about them containing the words of Abraham, and the words of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. At some point he "translated" what was on the papyrus as the Book of Abraham, including his interpretations of the drawings that were on the papyrus (the facsimiles in the BoA). Since people weren't commonly translating Egyptian at the time, he could say it meant pretty much whatever he wanted and nobody could contradict him.

Using my mad mind-reading skills, gazing fixedly into my crystal ball, and channelling the evil spirits who did not obey their first estate in an attempt to lead you astray, I believe that Joseph used the opportunity presented to him by the papyrus to present to his followers a work of scripture containing material which he believed to be true*, inspired by or cobbled together from other sources, such that he could A) present the material to his followers in a condensed form that consolidated the teachings in question, and B) claim it as his own prophetic work product.

*in other words, a form of "pious fraud" theory. I haven't got a reference handy right this instant, but critics have documented ideas in the Book of Abraham which appear to have been inspired by outside works that were current around the time of the BoA's forthcoming. Most recently, in the excellent Mormon Expression podcast 4-part series with George Miller on Mormonism and Masonry, George put forth the idea that much of what appears in the Book of Abraham that fills in the gaps about Abraham in the Bible, actually comes from the work "Antiquities of Freemasonry", a copy of, or intimate access to which George argues Joseph Smith almost certainly had.

An even shorter version: almost all criticisms of the Book of Abraham obsess about what might or might not have happened to and/or with the papyri, and don't actually discuss the Book of Abraham at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

How can you possibly say this? You just stated that Clayton's description of Joseph Smith's partial "translation" of the Kinderhook plates was authentic (trustworthy). Again, Joseph Smith's statement regarding the Kinderhook plates, as recorded by Clayton, is as follows:

How is this not direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that Joseph Smith was a fraud - especially when considered in the context of claims that the Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that were in fact a Book of Breathings (nothing to do with Abraham) and Joseph Smith's statement to Professor Caswall and witnesses that a common Greek Psalter was a Dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics?

First of all, neither Joseph Smith nor the Church today claims that the Book of Abraham was translated from the same papyri currently in the Church's possession. All that is known is that this collection of papyri was owned by Joseph at one point; the Church does not have all the scrolls of papyri Joseph had. Second, William Clayton's account was written originally in the third person and was not a direct quote; it was changed to the first person later on, a sloppy editing practice that was typical during the 19th century. If you're going to quote something, Mariner, it helps to quote what was originally written. And third, as Don Bradley argued, Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate one character ("a portion") of the Kinderhook plates, except by non-revelatory means, and the GAEL, as well as translation he gave, supports this:

From FAIR:

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 of the GAEL (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

Don Bradley, "President Joseph Has Translated a Portion': Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates," 2011 FAIR Conference, August 5, 2011.

I don't know anything about the "common Greek Psalter" you mentioned, so I have nothing to say about that. Now I have something else to learn, though, so I'll get researching.

Edited January 8, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

An even shorter version: almost all criticisms of the Book of Abraham obsess about what might or might not have happened to and/or with the papyri, and don't actually discuss the Book of Abraham at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

Discussing the content (text and facsimiles) as recorded in the the Book of Abraham certainly does nothing to convince any reasonable person that it is a translation of a document "written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus" as Joseph Smith claimed.

Even if one ignores the fact that the papyri in question have been dated to about 60 AD (just under 2,000 years after Abraham is believed by some to have lived), considering the misidentified figures (gods) on the facsimiles, the description of an Egyptian Pharaoh named Pharaoh (no Pharaoh was ever named Pharoah), the completely erroneous and unfounded "Kolob cosmology" with its made up names, the failed attempts at "restoration" of some of the missing figures and text (as determined by comparison to other Book of Breathings papyri) repeated references to "the Gods" as the creators of Earth, and a myriad of other problems, the case for the veracity of the BoA based content is as weak as the case based on provenance.

When considering the assertion that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith and the LDS Church claim it to be, qualified scholars who are not LDS (and even some who are) have determined that the Book of Abraham is clearly not a translation of a document written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus (or anything close). In other words, it is a fraudulent piece of work.

[Pahoran]

How can you possibly say this? You just stated that Clayton's description of Joseph Smith's partial "translation" of the Kinderhook plates was authentic (trustworthy). Again, Joseph Smith's statement regarding the Kinderhook plates, as recorded by Clayton, is as follows:

No, that is not Joseph Smith's statement as recorded by Clayton. It is Clayton's statement, most probably influenced by something Joseph said, and unquestionably edited for inclusion in History of the Church.

How is this not direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that Joseph Smith was a fraud

Actually the only fraud involved in the Kinderhook Plates was carried out by the Kinderhook forgers.

- especially when considered in the context of claims that the Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that were in fact a Book of Breathings (nothing to do with Abraham)

Whose claims are those?

and Joseph Smith's statement to Professor Caswall and witnesses that a common Greek Psalter was a Dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics?

What "witnesses?" For sure Caswall said that there were crowds of witnesses everywhere he went in Nauvoo, but the only one ever to come forward, John Taylor, explicitly contradicted an important detail of Caswall's story; he did not comment upon Joseph's supposed statement, because he wasn't present when it was supposedly made.

Furthermore, other contemporary witnesses -- not of Caswall's attempted Psalter hoax, but of Joseph's manner of talking at that period -- report him using quite different speech patterns than Caswall alleges. The whole "Greek Psalter" episode is highly suspect, and is evidence of precisely nothing.

OTOH, the eagerness with which some triumphantly flourish it as if it meant something, might indeed be evidence.

[Eddit fur spelunk.]

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited January 11, 2012 by Pahoran

[wenglund]

Irrelevant....The process is irrelevant....

It is nice when one of the critics summarily dismiss most, if not all that the critics as a group have argued against the Book of Abraham over the last 40 years--including what that one critic, himself, has proposed, such as: that a large portion of the Book of Abraham was derived from the Book of Genesis and that the first three verses of the Book of Abraham were "translated" via the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, which implies that the GAEL was produced with the intent of "translating" the Book of Abraham.

I can understand why he now wishes to distance himself from those propositions.

Nice going! [Thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

Discussing the content (text and facsimiles) as recorded in the the Book of Abraham certainly does nothing to convince any reasonable person that it is a translation of a document "written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus" as Joseph Smith claimed.

And the errors in your pile of boilerplate anti-Mormon dreck start in the very first sentence. Joseph Smith did not "claim" any such thing -- that was part of the title of the work.

Even if one ignores the fact that the papyri in question have been dated to about 60 AD (just under 2,000 years after Abraham is believed by some to have lived),

Ignoring the date of the papyri is a good idea, since it's irrelevant.

considering the misidentified figures (gods) on the facsimiles, the description of an Egyptian Pharaoh named Pharaoh (no Pharaoh was ever named Pharoah), the completely erroneous and unfounded "Kolob cosmology" with its made up names, the failed attempts at "restoration" of some of the missing figures and text (as determined by comparison to other Book of Breathings papyri) repeated references to "the Gods" as the creators of Earth, and a myriad of other problems, the case for the veracity of the BoA based content is as weak as the case based on provenance.

Really?

Are you actually prepared to discuss any of these throwaway lines with anything more substantive than a dismissive snort, or not?

When considering the assertion that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith and the LDS Church claim it to be, qualified scholars who are not LDS (and even some who are) have determined that the Book of Abraham is clearly not a translation of a document written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus (or anything close). In other words, it is a fraudulent piece of work.

I agree that there is a fraudulent piece of work in view in this thread; but it's not the Book of Abraham.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

Discussing the content (text and facsimiles) as recorded in the the Book of Abraham certainly does nothing to convince any reasonable person that it is a translation of a document "written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus" as Joseph Smith claimed.

Even if one ignores the fact that the papyri in question have been dated to about 60 AD (just under 2,000 years after Abraham is believed by some to have lived),

You're misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) what "by his own hand" means. It does NOT mean Abraham himself wrote it:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/By_his_own_hand

considering the misidentified figures (gods) on the facsimiles, the description of an Egyptian Pharaoh named Pharaoh (no Pharaoh was ever named Pharoah), the completely erroneous and unfounded "Kolob cosmology" with its made up names, the failed attempts at "restoration" of some of the missing figures and text (as determined by comparison to other Book of Breathings papyri) repeated references to "the Gods" as the creators of Earth, and a myriad of other problems, the case for the veracity of the BoA based content is as weak as the case based on provenance.

To echo what Pahoran said, I look forward to your in-depth discussion of these issues, because there are several people on these boards who I'm sure would love to talk to you about each of these in detail.

When considering the assertion that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith and the LDS Church claim it to be, qualified scholars who are not LDS (and even some who are) have determined that the Book of Abraham is clearly not a translation of a document written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus (or anything close). In other words, it is a fraudulent piece of work.

Please prove to us that Joseph Smith or the Church has ever made the assertion that the same papyri currently in the Church's possession are the source of the Book of Abraham text. If you can't do that, then everything you've said here is completely worthless.

[Mariner]

Altereteve and Pahoran,

Can you name one qualified non-LDS Egyptologist who believes that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

Because I can name qualified LDS Egyptologists who have stated that it is not.

[wenglund]

Altereteve and Pahoran,

Can you name one qualified non-LDS Egyptologist who believes that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

Because I can name qualified LDS Egyptologists who have stated that it is not.

Why are you appealing to Egyptologist to determine what is or isn't revelation from God?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Altereteve and Pahoran,

Can you name one qualified non-LDS Egyptologist who believes that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

Well, duh!

Disregarding the fallacious appeal to authority, may I point out that anyone (regardless of their qualfications) who believes that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be is ipso facto a believing Latter-day Saint. As you perfectly well know and fully intend, your question loads the dice.

Because I can name qualified LDS Egyptologists who have stated that it is not.

What Joseph Smith claimed it to be, or what he has been misrepresented as claiming it to be?

In any case, your triumphalistic swaggering misses the point. A person's qualifications in Egyptology invest his opinions on a question of inspired scripture with not a shred more authority than anyone else's.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Altereteve and Pahoran,

Can you name one qualified non-LDS Egyptologist who believes that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

Because I can name qualified LDS Egyptologists who have stated that it is not.

Mariner, if they believed it was, they'd probably already be LDS.

There is only one non-LDS historian I know of who believes that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is to one degree... that's Margret Barker. I've heard of ministers also who were not LDS who believed the Book of Mormon was what it said it was. But I have not heard another historian - Egyptologist or otherwise, who has said so. I believe there have been a few who have converted though. But you'd have to check with someone more knowledgeable to affirm that one.

[cdowis]

You're misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) what "by his own hand" means. It does NOT mean Abraham himself wrote it:

The book itself was written by Abraham, which is precisely what it says.

It does NOT say, however, that the specific document from which it was translated was personally written by Abraham, just as the books in the Bible were written by "the hand" of various authors but my personal copy of the Bible does not have their actual handwriting.

It means, like the Bible, that it was passed down from one generation to another. For those interested, it is my personal opinion that the original meaning and clear text was lost over the centuries. JS's translation, like the JST of the Bible, involved a great deal of cleaning up of the text.

It may be possible that, over the centuries, the text became so corrupt, that it was almost unrecognizable as Abraham's work. But I admit, that is an ad hoc argument.

Edited January 9, 2012 by cdowis

[altersteve]

The book itself was written by Abraham, which is precisely what it says.

It does NOT say, however, that the specific document from which it was translated was personally written by Abraham, just as the books in the Bible were written by "the hand" of various authors but my personal copy of the Bible does not have their actual handwriting.

That's what I meant, sorry. Thanks for the correction.

[altersteve]

Altereteve and Pahoran,

Can you name one qualified non-LDS Egyptologist who believes that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

Because I can name qualified LDS Egyptologists who have stated that it is not.

Okay, well, since you don't seem to have any desire to actually respond to what Pahoran and I have said to challenge your criticisms, I'll simply take this post as the clear admission of defeat that it is. You know just as well as anyone that no non-LDS Egyptologist believes the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture. If they did, then they wouldn't be "non-LDS," now would they?

Once again (how many times do I have to repeat myself about this?), there is no record of Joseph Smith or the Church making the claim that the papyri currently owned by the Church are the source for the text of the Book of Abraham. Either you're merely making the unfounded assumption that these papyri are the claimed source, or you're pretending that no one has ever shown you that the Church has never claimed this, but has said that these papyri are Egyptian funerary texts. And I can actually remember telling you that at least once, so I'm pretty sure it's the latter of those two options. That's even worse than just assuming things. It's kind of pathetic, really.

You know, Mariner, the fact that you have to resort to these fallacies and, well, outright lies all the time speaks for itself. It's pretty sad, really, especially coming from someone who claims to be a "scientist."

[Sky]

Thanks to everybody for taking the time to post and for sharing your thoughts. You all have given me a lot to process and think about. On a personal note, the passages that I get the most out of from The Book of Abraham, as well as the ones that I believe are most fundamental to Mormon doctrine, are verses 22 – 28 of chapter 3. In my view, this cannot really be proven true or false, but ultimately must be taken on faith.

[Xander]

Nobody is denying that Clayton's account is trustworthy, but it needs to be understood that since Joseph consulted his Grammar and Alphabet of the English Language, it follows that he did not claim to translate the Kinderhook plates by divine means.

If he didn't do it by divine means, then how else? The GAEL was not a conventional lexicon of the Egyptian language, let alone whatever language he believed the Kinderhook plates were written. It was a product of revelation. Joseph Smith probably wanted to see that there was some overlap to further support his claim that he was providing legitimate translations from these texts.

The idea that the Kinderhook plates prove Joseph was a fraud has been refuted.

Oh really, by whom? Joseph Smith was presented the Kinderhook Plates and he thought could translate them just like he did everything else that was passed his way. But it turns out he was trying to translate something that was a hoax. If this proves he is a fraud, I don't know. But it certainly doesn't do him much credit as someone presumed to have the power of divine discernment. You guys want to have it both ways. You constantly raise the point that Joseph Smith's method of translation was always by revelation, but the only way you can get around Kinderhook is by claiming he didn't provide a translation via revelation. So suddenly, he drops his standard method and tries to decipher the inscriptions using his version of an Egyptian lexicon? This makes no sense.

With regards to the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, he always saw himself as the instrument God used to translate them, and he never claimed to have the ability to translate them by himself. There is a big difference there, and it's not trivial.

This is a popular red herring by apologists. No one ever said he believed he could translate them based on his intellectual understanding of the ancient languages. So why are you guys constantly arguing against this as if anyone had ever made that argument? What he did do is claim to be able to produce valid English translations of these texts, because he was God's chosen prophet who was given that ability. In the case of the Book of Abraham, we know beyond all doubt that he couldn't do this. In the case of Kinderhook, there is every indication that he believed he could produce a valid translation. In fact, Clayton provided a brief description of his partial translation of one plate. It was rather silly, and sounded similar to his off the cuff description of a skeleton that was dug up, claiming it belonged to one of the last Lamanites named Zelph.

Zelph is a character relatively few LDS members know about. According to Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith revealed that Zelph was a famous Lamanite officer who died in the last great battle with the Nephites. This also flies in the face of modern apologetic attempts that try to separate the Indians from the Lamanites; or distance the great Nephiite-Lamanite battle from North America. In any event, other sources contemporary to Joseph Smith say he described Zelph as a famous person that was known across the continent. Funny how everything that comes across his way must have belonged to some famous person. The mummies were all from royalty, and the images on the papyri were all famous biblical characters like Abraham, Jacob, Eve, etc. This is typical, and supports the critical view that Joseph Smith was always using this stuff to his advantage for the purposes of propping up previous revelations. Joseph Smith claimed the Kinderhook plates were buried with yet another famous person, a "descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh."

But back to the point. If God is going to suddenly give Joseph Smith instant knowledge about irrelevant stuff like the detailed life of a person behind an exhumed skeleton, then why is it so hard to believe he does the same kind of stuff with like ancient texts?

When you say that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate ancient documents, we agree with you

If that were true then you wouldn't accept the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as legitimate translations of ancient languages.

[altersteve]

If he didn't do it by divine means, then how else? The GAEL was not a conventional lexicon of the Egyptian language, let alone whatever language he believed the Kinderhook plates were written. It was a product of revelation. Joseph Smith probably wanted to see that there was some overlap to further support his claim that he was providing legitimate translations from these texts.

Oh really, by whom? Joseph Smith was presented the Kinderhook Plates and he thought could translate them just like he did everything else that was passed his way. But it turns out he was trying to translate something that was a hoax. If this proves he is a fraud, I don't know. But it certainly doesn't do him much credit as someone presumed to have the power of divine discernment. You guys want to have it both ways. You constantly raise the point that Joseph Smith's method of translation was always by revelation, but the only way you can get around Kinderhook is by claiming he didn't provide a translation via revelation. So suddenly, he drops his standard method and tries to decipher the inscriptions using his version of an Egyptian lexicon? This makes no sense.

This is a popular red herring by apologists. No one ever said he believed he could translate them based on his intellectual understanding of the ancient languages. So why are you guys constantly arguing against this as if anyone had ever made that argument? What he did do is claim to be able to produce valid English translations of these texts, because he was God's chosen prophet who was given that ability. In the case of the Book of Abraham, we know beyond all doubt that he couldn't do this. In the case of Kinderhook, there is every indication that he believed he could produce a valid translation. In fact, Clayton provided a brief description of his partial translation of one plate. It was rather silly, and sounded similar to his off the cuff description of a skeleton that was dug up, claiming it belonged to one of the last Lamanites named Zelph.

Zelph is a character relatively few LDS members know about. According to Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith revealed that Zelph was a famous Lamanite officer who died in the last great battle with the Nephites. This also flies in the face of modern apologetic attempts that try to separate the Indians from the Lamanites; or distance the great Nephiite-Lamanite battle from North America. In any event, other sources contemporary to Joseph Smith say he described Zelph as a famous person that was known across the continent. Funny how everything that comes across his way must have belonged to some famous person. The mummies were all from royalty, and the images on the papyri were all famous biblical characters like Abraham, Jacob, Eve, etc. This is typical, and supports the critical view that Joseph Smith was always using this stuff to his advantage for the purposes of propping up previous revelations. Joseph Smith claimed the Kinderhook plates were buried with yet another famous person, a "descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh."

But back to the point. If God is going to suddenly give Joseph Smith instant knowledge about irrelevant stuff like the detailed life of a person behind an exhumed skeleton, then why is it so hard to believe he does the same kind of stuff with like ancient texts?

If that were true then you wouldn't accept the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as legitimate translations of ancient languages.

http://en.fairmormon...nderhook_Plates

Don Bradley, "President Joseph Has Translated a Portion': Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates," 2011 FAIR Conference, August 5, 2011.

And Zelph actually has nothing to do with the Kinderhook plates.

Edited January 14, 2012 by altersteve

[Xander]

http://en.fairmormon...nderhook_Plates

Don Bradley, "President Joseph Has Translated a Portion': Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates," 2011 FAIR Conference, August 5, 2011.

And Zelph actually has nothing to do with the Kinderhook plates.

From the FAIR wiki article you referenced:

Don Bradley presented compelling evidence during his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates. ^[1] Bradley noted that William Clayton's account is likely representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, since evidence indicates that he made his journal entries that day while he was at the Prophet's home. Clayton's account states that

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 of the GAEL (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet." The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

The highlighted phrases run contrary to more than a decade of apologetic claims that are often presented in absolute terms. The reasoning Don presented for his conclusions is essentially the same thing the critics have been saying for years.

While I agree with Don that Joseph Smith did not translate this character by revelation, this is because I don't believe he could translate ancient documents by any means whatsoever. There is simply no good reason to believe he could. Everything that is falsifiable has been falsified. So there is every reason not to assume the unfalsifiable stuff represented legitimate translations.

The apologetic assumption here, carefully chiseled from Don's presentation, is that the correspondence with the GAEL proves that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to translate the Kinderhook character, therefore it didn't matter if the whole thing was a hoax since revelation wasn't involved at all. But this is really a non sequitur.

As apologists have repeatedly argued, Joseph Smith always translated via revelation. It was God doing it. The correspondence with the GAEL can easily be explained another way. It is just as likely that Joseph Smith, knowing he couldn't really translate ancient characters, wanted to boost his credibility with his associates by demonstrating some overlap between his various translation projects. Mystery solved. I just don't see any good reason to believe Joseph Smith, the man who'd been bestowed the divine power to translate as prophet, seer and revelator, would suddenly turn his established method on its head, drop the revelation and try to translate the Kinderhook plates using a quasi-lexicon of a completely different language. This makes no sense. No, Joseph Smith wanted overlap for the same reasons we see overlap in the GAEL and Anthon transcript, and the same way he believed the original Adamic language had substantial overlap with modern English.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Xander