“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

[Shulem]

An apologetic article defending the Church from the Kinderhook dilemma is given by Don Bradly a member of our board. I’ve not read it but will put it on my things to do list. It looks interesting.

Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook Plates Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee

Although, I’ve not read the article, I’m therefore not qualified to critique it by any means or offer an opinion on the content but permit me if I may to comment on the last part of the article. I think it ties in nicely with Facsimile No. 3 and perhaps Don Bradley will weigh in and give us his thoughts on the matter. Who can say? I don’t know.

Taken together, these sources indicate that Joseph Smith was attempting to translate the Kinderhook plates by ordinary methods of traditional translation.

Joseph Smith is hardly on record for using ordinary means to determine anything. Just read what Dan Vogel has written on the subject. You know, I can’t imagine Smith trying to translate anything without applying his mind to supernatural means -- call it the Holy Spirit or whatever, Smith was into woo-woo and sensationalism. He was anything but ordinary. Remember when he translated for Chandler? He went away for a while and then came back with the translation.

Furthermore, they show that he was doing so openly, in the company of a group of Church members and nonmembers.

Well, I wasn’t there so I can’t really say what he might have had up his sleeve. One thing I do know about Joseph Smith is he can pull a rabbit out of a hat in a moment’s notice. The man was brilliant and had charisma.

In contrast, there is no mention of Joseph Smith using the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone or divine revelation of any kind in any of the sources close to the event.

I’m sure lot’s of things weren’t mentioned about what happened at the event. Who can say? Who can say whether Smith had a seer stone in his pocket? Who can say whether he stepped away for a while in a moment of prayerful solitude? We just weren’t there so we don’t know what tools he used. But we do know that he claimed to be the one TRANSLATOR for the Church in which God had appointed for the whole world. Right?

William Clayton mentioned nothing about revelation in his journal entry about the translation of the plates.

What else didn’t William not mention? Since those things weren’t mentioned, I guess they also don’t count. The problem is, we don’t know what was not mentioned because it wasn’t mentioned.

As it turned out, the Kinderhook plates were not what they appeared to be.

That IS how it turned out.

With the benefit of hindsight and modern scientific testing equipment, we see the plates differently than Joseph Smith did. Time has shown that he was mistaken.

Yes, Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saints were mistaken.

He mistakenly accepted the Kinderhook plates as authentic artifacts; he mistakenly identified their characters as Egyptian; and he mistakenly thought that he had translated one or more of these characters.

Yes, he was mistaken. Again and again, he was mistaken. Could it be that he was also mistaken into thinking that the papyri were genuine rolls penned by Abraham & Joseph? Could that have been a mistake too? Although he was correct in identifying the characters as hieroglyphic as found on coffins and tombs in ancient Egypt, we know he was not correct in translating those characters. Facsimile No. 3 provides prime examples in showing how he was mistaken. Right?

However, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith believed he had experienced a revealed translation or that he led others to believe he had.

Are you saying you don’t believe that Joseph Smith believed himself? Is that what you’re implying? The TRANSLATOR of the Church doesn’t believe his own translation is inspired? You know what? I don’t think any of Smith’s followers thought for a moment or doubted that his translations weren’t inspired. That’s just not the Mormon way! That’s not how Smith operated, Don.

Have you any evidence to show that Smith claimed to do-it-alone without the Spirit and tender a translation without God’s help? Is that what you’re suggesting? When did Smith ever do anything outside of revelation? I guess I need to read your article to find out.

I think I need a break. This is getting to me.

[Shulem]

N
A
MR. CHANDLER HAD BEEN TOLD I COULD TRANSLATE THEM
E

I GAVE HIM THE INTERPRETATION
S

G
I COMMENCED THE TRANSLATION OF SOME OF THE CHARACTERS
V
E
N

I
N

THAT IS THE HANDWRITING OF ABRAHAM
H
E

C
H
A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF WHICH I SHALL GIVE
R
A
C
THAT IS THE SIGNATURE OF THE PATRIARCH ABRAHAM
E
R
S

?sretcarahc eht ni nevig eman s’gnik eht si tahW

[Shulem]

A king’s name?

Yes, Dr. Muhlestein, a “king’s name.” What is it?

A king’s name, you say?

Yes, a king’s name written in the characters. What is it?

The king’s name is a king’s name.

Yes, it’s the king’s name but what is that name?

You want me to tell you the name of the king?

Yes, Dr. Muhlestein, what is the name of the king?

[Shulem]

You can forget it, Shulem.

Dr. Muhlestein is not going to tell you the name of the king.

[Moksha]

Dr. Gee is right and we're sticking to that story. You're not going to trap us with your Egyptology learning!!!

[Shulem]

Dr. Gee is right and we're sticking to that story. You're not going to trap us with your Egyptology learning!!!

Kerry, I’ll climb a pyramid with you if you’ll just tell me the king’s name that’s written in the characters above his head. Please, just tell me the king’s name. Is that too much to ask?

[Shulem]

Houston, we have a problem. We have a contradiction.

Come in Houston.

These two facts do exist, that there are two translations, one being more intelligent than the other:

1) The Egyptian scribe wrote characters to represent such and such
2) Joseph Smith interpreted characters to represent such and such

The ancient scribe wrote the original message and the latter-day prophet interpreted it using modern English. But the two do not agree. There is no at-one-ment between the original scribe and the modern translator. The message has been lost in transmission and the words of the prophet are not the words of the scribe.

Come in Houston.

[Shulem]

Let’s refresh, shall we?

Joseph Smith claimed to literally translate reformed hieroglyphics etched on gold plates into modern English.

I wish to mention here, that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title-page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the title-page of the English version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the title-page of the original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates.

NOW suppose that Smith had applied the same process in literally translating the Book of Abraham from papyrus into modern English. What should we therefore expect if we take that translation and translate it again into other languages?

איזיס הגדולה אמו שלהאל

伊西斯大神的母親

إيزيس العظيمة والدة الإله

Isis the great the god’s mother

That is how you translate one written language into another. That *IS* translation and that is exactly what Smith claimed to do with the characters above the persons.

[Shulem]

Dr. Gee,

You recently published a book about Saving Faith. As you know, faith is the first principle of the restored gospel of the Church. Everything hangs on faith, absolutely everything. Your faith in Jesus Christ is central to your testimony. Recall that President Gordon B. Hinckley once gave a remarkable address in General Conference about how the First Vision was the pinnacle event to open the way for the restoration. President Hinckley stated that the strength of the Church rested on the validity of that vision, “It either occurred or it not occur.” Of course, nobody can prove it really did occur seeing it is strictly a matter of faith. President Hinckley went on to state that if it did not occur then the work of the Church is a fraud.

Nobody can prove that God appeared to young Joseph. Conversely, It seems that nobody can prove that he did not! So we are left at an impasse but rather than trust the prophet for his word sake or the feelings we may get when our brains are excited by certain chemicals that make us feel good -- let us appeal another way. We can test that “work” and determine whether fraud is the cornerstone or a foundation of Mormonism, so to speak. We can test it with Facsimile No. 3. If God really did appear to Joseph in that grove of trees then we may also know that a king’s name is written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3, just as Joseph Smith revealed to the world in the Times and Seasons.

John, if you can name that king then it will be one step closer to Saving Faith (perhaps your faith) and one step away from confirming a fraud. Can you do that? Can you save your faith? On the other hand, if you can’t name that king and show us that Smith was telling the truth then your faith in Joseph Smith’s word is crippled. Nothing is more important to anyone in ancient Egypt than their own name, especially the king’s.

What is it?

[Shulem]

It all boils down to credibility. What is credible and what is not? The first chapter of the Book of Abraham is anything but a credible introduction of the nation state of ancient Egypt. Everything in that chapter screams that it was written by someone totally unacquainted with the historical beginning of Egypt and how the Predynastic period was the historical precursor for the Unification of the Two Lands. Many thousands of years was Egypt in the making and all that greatly predates the characters of Noah and Adam (4,000 BC) as they are dated in the Hebrew Bible.

Credibility in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs starts with the king’s name. That is the single most important name of any living person in all of Egypt. The king’s name is everything! The king’s name *IS* Egypt and here we see that Joseph Smith hadn’t a clue of what makes a king’s name or how to begin to even read one or decipher it. Joseph Smith has ZERO credibility when it comes to translating Egyptian. Mormon Egyptologists have ZERO credibility when it comes to defending someone who has no credibility. Zero times zero always equals zero and that is what we get from Joseph Smith, John Gee, and Kerry Muhlestein. Zero! No king’s name, not now and not ever.