DiscussMormonism.com

Joseph had his own copy of the "Caractors" Document, which he had given to Martin Harris in 1828. This was separate from the one that David Whitmer had. Joseph showed it to the Rev. George Moore in December of 1842 who wrote,

Called on the “Prophet Jo Smith.” His carriage was at the door and he was about going away, but he received me very kindly, asked me into his house. I remained about 10 minutes. He was very communicative. We conversed about the golden plates, which he professes to have dug up and translated into the Book of Mormon. “Those plates are not now in this country,” he said–“they were exhibited to a few at first for the sake of obtaining their testimony–no others have ever seen them–and they will never again be exhibited.” He showed me some specimens of the hieroglyphics, such as, he says, were on the gold plates. . . . He expressed a desire to have a long conversation with me, but he had an engagement, and I was soon going away, so that we could not have much conversation. Our interview was short, but pleasant.

In 10 minutes, Joseph had produced a copy of the Book of Mormon characters for a visitor. This was five months before the Kinderhook Plates were found. In the Times and Seasons (Broadside printed June 24, 1843) they wrote that,

There are four lines of characters or hieroglyphics on each [plate]. On one side of the plates are parallel lines running lengthwise. A few of the characters resemble, in their form, the Roman capitals of our alphabet--for instance, the capital B and X appear very distinct. In addition, there are rude representations of three human heads on one of the plates, the largest in the middle. From this head proceeds marks or rays, resembling those which usually surround the head of Christ in the PICTORAL ILLUSTRATIONS of his person. There is also figures of two trees with branches, one under each of the two small heads, both leaning a little to the right. One of the plates has on it the figure of a large haed by itself with two [small picture of hand] pointing to it.

A few months later, Brigham Young asked the "Saints" at Boston:

“Is there wisdom in Zion? We think so, and the world begins to think so. Let the world come forward and translate the plates that have of late come forth, if they have wisdom to do it.”

I'm bumping this, because if you, gentle reader, haven't read Grindael's comments you really ought to. Yet another great post by our resident historian.

- Doc

KevinSim wrote:

Holy Ghost wrote:The KEP does two things. It demonstrates the the papyrus found in 1967 is THE one Joseph Smith and scribes supposedly translated into being the Book of Abraham (even though as enabled by the Rosetta Stone, Egyptologists agree that there is nothing on the papyrus that matches up with the Book of Abraham story). The KEP proves it was a linguistic translation that Joseph Smith and scribes were attempting, taking characters in one language and creating corresponding text in English.

In his book _An Introduction to the Book of Abraham_, Egyptologist John Gee says that statements by eyewitnesses to the translation process prove that none of the recovered papyrii is the one Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from. The document they saw him working on had features that simply don't match any of the recovered papyrii. Does the KEP somehow refute that? If so, is John Gee currently aware that it refutes that? I'd like to hear Gee's reaction to HolyGhost's statement above.

John Gee is a dishonest hack and I refuted him on this many years ago when I demonstrated that virtually every historical description of the Egyptian documents can be clearly identified among extant materials.

The interpreter has reviewed the book The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, eds. Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2018), 381 pages." By Jeff Lindsay.

Of interest is their concern over Brian Hauglid's orthodoxy.

"Responding to a November 9, 2018, post by long-time Book of Abraham critic Dan Vogel, Hauglid made the following public statement, which, as of 12 May 2019, is still visible in Facebook and apparently has not been followed up with a retraction or apology:

For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. I have moved on from my days as an “outrageous” apologist. In fact, I’m no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan’s excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos [videos which are critical of the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith]. I now reject a missing Abraham manuscript. I agree that two of the Abraham manuscripts were simultaneously dictated [Vogel’s point is that they were simultaneously dictated by Joseph Smith as he was “translating” characters in the margins, thus giving us a window into the translation process as it occurred]. I agree that the Egyptian papers were used to produce the Book of Abraham. I agree that only Abraham 1:1‒2:18 were produced in 1835 and that Abraham 2:19‒5:21 were produced in Nauvoo. And on and on. I no longer agree with Gee or Muhlestein. I find their apologetic “scholarship” on the Book of Abraham abhorrent. One can find that I’ve changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan’s thinking on the origin of [Page 20]the Book of Abraham. My friend Brent Metcalfe can attest to my transformative journey.6

Sadly, it seems that Hauglid has denounced his peers for having views similar to those he publicly shared in the past.7 I hope that whatever problems or tensions are behind this puzzling statement may be resolved, and I hope that Hauglid’s journey might take a new direction and bring him closer to where he once was. Unfortunately, it raises fair questions about Hauglid’s approach, especially when he hints that his “transformative journey” has influenced his editorial work in JSPRT4, which is “much more open to Dan’s thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham.”
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-pre ... -zigblpa3Y

Lindsay complained "But Nibley’s foundational work and extensive scholarship gets zero recognition. "

KG - And I read everything I could find that you wrote about. BELIEVE IT.

I wish to drop my own KINDERHOOK BOMB. I believe that Smith looked at this very picture...



And he thought it was a Jaredite Barge. And who was on that barge? Some of the descendants of HAM & Cain...



The Olmecs were the Jaredites! http://inthecavityofarock.blogspot.com/ ... dites.html

Joseph "translated a portion" of the plate with the Jaredite barge on it (see above) by revelation, as he did with the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham and it was all about a descendant of Ham and the Book of Mormon! He then told "A Gentile" that the plates contained characters like those from the gold plates. And it just so happened that Smith could get information about Ham from his Eqyptian Alphabet and Grammar! So the KP helped to support his Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham!

Imagine that.



And notice that the picture has a Jaredite barge, small glowing? stones and waves! How Book of Mormon can you get?

In the George Moore account above I found it fascinating that Jo told George that the gold plates would NEVER again be exhibited! What?

What about the sealed portion that they claimed over and over again would someday be "translated"?

Another one of Jo's scams. The above shows that it was exactly that.