Kinderhook vs the Papyri

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again, Tobin

I'll try to be more specific.

What do you mean when you suggest than neither (Book of Abraham/papyri - Kinderhook plates) should matter to a Mormon? (I can't imagine how or why both of them are not extremely important to a Mormon)

What am I missing?

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kevin Graham]

Considering Don Bradley's recent and impressive work in this area, I think Kinderhook has approached the same level of significance. Now we know that the apologists can no longer argue with any degree of plausibility that Joseph Smith didn't translate the plates. He did. So the question now is simple. If Joseph Smith had a history of conjuring up from his imagination, a translation from bogus documents, then this pretty much explains the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, both of which purport to have been translated by this same creative fellow.

This is related to a discussion I recently had with Brian Hauglid who is now of the opinion that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Egyptian papyri, nor could he. He argues for something of a catalyst theory, which is becoming more and more popular among believers. It essentially concedes the point of the critics though, by admitting that Joseph Smith took documents completely unrelated to the story he purported to translate, and produced a narrative from his own mind. Calling it "inspiration" or "revelation" is all well and good, but we know what this really is. Joseph Smith claimed to have done something much, much different than reconstruct an ancient narrative from inspiration. He claimed to have translated ancient documents through inspiration.

[_Tobin]

Hey again, Tobin

I'll try to be more specific.

What do you mean when you suggest than neither (Book of Abraham/papyri - Kinderhook plates) should matter to a Mormon? (I can't imagine how or why both of them are not extremely important to a Mormon)

What am I missing?

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

If you've seen and spoken with God and God told you to believe in the gospel as revealed by the Book of Mormon, then the fallibility and humanity of Joseph Smith is really of little relevance. Believing in the Book of Mormon, God, and the Gospel should not be based on the word of a Mr. Joseph Smith, TSM, or a missionary. Joseph Smith is dead, TSM likes to tell urban legends, and missionaries usually don't know much of anything. It is should be based purely on what God tells you to believe and do.

Most of the criticisms of the Book of Abraham center around the fact Joseph Smith was interested in an Egyptian papyri, which it is, and the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics, which he couldn't. Pointing out these obvious facts has no bearing on the Book of Abraham as a revealed text of the long lost writings of Abraham nor whether or not God could reveal those writings to Joseph Smith. In fact, the papyri in no way can tell you if Joseph Smith was inspired of God at all. Only God can tell you that.

As far as the Kinderhook plates, it is a non-started. There is no translation so as I said, just a lot of smoke and no fire.

[_Ceeboo]

If you've seen and spoken with God and God told you to believe in the gospel as revealed by the Book of Mormon, then the fallibility and humanity of Joseph Smith is really of little relevance. Believing in the Book of Mormon, God, and the Gospel should not be based on the word of a Mr. Joseph Smith, TSM, or a missionary. Joseph Smith is dead, TSM likes to tell urban legends, and missionaries usually don't know much of anything. It is should be based purely on what God tells you to believe and do.

Most of the criticisms of the Book of Abraham center around the fact Joseph Smith was interested in an Egyptian papyri, which it is, and the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics, which he couldn't. Pointing out these obvious facts has no bearing on the Book of Abraham as a revealed text of the long lost writings of Abraham nor whether or not God could reveal those writings to Joseph Smith. In fact, the papyri in no way can tell you if Joseph Smith was inspired of God at all. Only God can tell you that.

As far as the Kinderhook plates, it is a non-started. There is no translation so as I said, just a lot of smoke and no fire.

Okay.
Understood!

Thanks for taking the time to offer me/us further clarity.
I appreciate it!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_son of Ishmael]

Considering Don Bradley's recent and impressive work in this area, I think Kinderhook has approached the same level of significance. Now we know that the apologists can no longer argue with any degree of plausibility that Joseph Smith didn't translate the plates. He did. So the question now is simple. If Joseph Smith had a history of conjuring up from his imagination, a translation from bogus documents, then this pretty much explains the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, both of which purport to have been translated by this same creative fellow.

This is related to a discussion I recently had with Brian Hauglid who is now of the opinion that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Egyptian papyri, nor could he. He argues for something of a catalyst theory, which is becoming more and more popular among believers. It essentially concedes the point of the critics though, by admitting that Joseph Smith took documents completely unrelated to the story he purported to translate, and produced a narrative from his own mind. Calling it "inspiration" or "revelation" is all well and good, but we know what this really is. Joseph Smith claimed to have done something much, much different than reconstruct an ancient narrative from inspiration. He claimed to have translated ancient documents through inspiration.

Did Joseph Smith produce a translation of the Kinderhook plates? I thought he just said they were written by a white lamanite or some such but never actually “translated" them.

For me, the catalyst theory doesn’t hold much water since he apparently produced the book of Moses without a catalyst and he did that before the Book of Abraham so why would he need a catalyst then?

[_Tobin]

For me, the catalyst theory doesn’t hold much water since he apparently produced the book of Moses without a catalyst and he did that before the Book of Abraham so why would he need a catalyst then?

The Bible does not contain all the writings and events associated with Moses and other prophets. Joseph Smith revealed more about Moses and other prophets. That was his calling. The same is true of the Book of Abraham. IT IS EXACTLY the same type of thing in very fact.

[_Shulem]

This is related to a discussion I recently had with Brian Hauglid who is now of the opinion that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Egyptian papyri, nor could he. He argues for something of a catalyst theory, which is becoming more and more popular among believers. It essentially concedes the point of the critics though, by admitting that Joseph Smith took documents completely unrelated to the story he purported to translate, and produced a narrative from his own mind. Calling it "inspiration" or "revelation" is all well and good, but we know what this really is. Joseph Smith claimed to have done something much, much different than reconstruct an ancient narrative from inspiration. He claimed to have translated ancient documents through inspiration.

You are correct. Joseph Smith actually claimed to translate the physical hieroglyphs from the very papyrus known as Facsimile No. 3. He wasn't inferring that those things represented a story from another unknown papyrus but actually put Facsimile No. 3 in his hands (on the table) and through his revelation claimed to reveal what the ancient Egyptian wrote. The name Shulem is not in the writing. Joseph Smith was a bloody liar. He was a dishonest man and those who defend him in these lies are also bloody liars.

"Figure 5 Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."



Paul O

[_Quasimodo]

[The Bible does not contain all the writings and events associated with Moses and other prophets. Joseph Smith revealed more about Moses and other prophets. That was his calling. The same is true of the Book of Abraham. IT IS EXACTLY the same type of thing in very fact.

Tobin, King Pharaoh? Even you realize that the word 'Pharaoh' is not a name. Just the word for King in old Egyptian. It's painfully obvious that Joe was making it up.

A tip of the hat to Paul O.


Explanation

Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

[_son of Ishmael]

For me, the catalyst theory doesn’t hold much water since he apparently produced the book of Moses without a catalyst and he did that before the Book of Abraham so why would he need a catalyst then?

The Bible does not contain all the writings and events associated with Moses and other prophets. Joseph Smith revealed more about Moses and other prophets. That was his calling. The same is true of the Book of Abraham. IT IS EXACTLY the same type of thing in very fact.

Not my point. He produced the Book of Moses through "pure revelation" without catalyst. Now apologist say that the papyri was the catalyst that he needed to have the Book of Abraham reveled to him. If he had the book of Moses reveled to him why didn't God just reveal the Book of Abraham to him?

[_Tobin]

The Bible does not contain all the writings and events associated with Moses and other prophets. Joseph Smith revealed more about Moses and other prophets. That was his calling. The same is true of the Book of Abraham. IT IS EXACTLY the same type of thing in very fact.

Tobin, King Pharaoh? Even you realize that the word 'Pharaoh' is not a name. Just the word for King in old Egyptian. It's painfully obvious the Joe was making it up.
A tip of the hat to Paul O.

Quasi,
You missed what I was saying. Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. His attempts at annotating the Egyptian Facsimiles only demonstrates this fact. Joseph Smith ability to translate (a better word is reveal) was not because he understood the reformed Egyptian that the Book of Mormon was written in nor was it because he could read (nor understand) the Egyptian Hieroglphics in the Egyptian papyri, which he clearly couldn't. This is a purely a false assumption. Joseph Smith could only reveal a text through the gift and power of God. And the only source that can tell you if he had that gift is God himself.

The Book of Abraham is not contained in the Egyptian papyri. It was only the impetus for Joseph Smith to reveal the long lost writings of Abraham by the gift and power of God. These writings do not exist, nor is there any reason to expect the Egyptians would have any interest in preserving them at all.