LDS Mountain Meadows Massacre: John D. Lee was a Scapegoat!

[LindaBerlin]

@Daniel Marsh ,

Joseph Smith was more than just a false prophet. He was a liar, a fraudster, a manipulator and much more. In 1826 he was indicted and convicted for promising to find hidden treasures with the help of a "seer stone".
He was violent against strangers, opponents and even family members. Here are some examples:

As Dr. Michael Quinn wrote in his book The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, on pages 261f, Joseph Smith attacked Mormons like non-Mormons when they felt threatened or (verbally) attacked.
Even the Mormon church leadership knows this, for Joseph Smith himself reported in his History of the Church (Volume 5, p. 524; 531) that he strangled a tax collector who allegedly threw a stone at him and called him a liar. For this, Joseph Smith received a fine, which he said he paid.
Baptist clergy who once visited Joseph Smith experienced what the "prophet of God" was capable of, as Jedediah M. Grant of the First Presidency under Brigham did.
Young, reported:

... the Baptist priest who came to see Joseph Smith... Standing in front of him, his arms crossed, and saying, "Is it possible that I now flash my optics on a man who has talked to my Savior?" "Yes," says the Prophet, "I don't know, but you know it; don't you want to do a wrestling match with me? You see, this brought the priest directly to the Dreschtenne and he turned a pretty straight "sumerset". After swirling around a few times, like a duck being shot in the head, he came to the conclusion that his piety would be terribly shocked... (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 66-67)
Benjamin F. Johnson, a close friend of Jedediah M. Grant, said after Smith's death:

"And although he [Joseph Smith] was so social and sometimes even sociable, he did not want to allow arrogance or inappropriate freedoms, and criticism, not even from his comrades, was hardly acceptable, and contradiction would have immediately awakened the lion in him; for none of his comrades wanted to be ousted or challenged, and in the early days in Kirtland and elsewhere, one or more of his comrades had been promoted from the assembly more than once because of their naughtiness, and once in a meeting in Kirtland because of his inessent to him, he audibly beat his brother Wiliam, who boasted of being invincible. And while we were with him in such a fraternal, social, and sometimes sociable mood, we could not fully see at that time the greatness and majesty of his vocation, which has continued since his martyrdom, to glorify oneself in our lives, just as the glories of this last dispensation unfold in greater abundance of our understanding. (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to Elder George S. Gibbs, 1903, as printed in The Testimony of Joseph Smith's Best Friend, p. 4-5, at the University of Utah, Marriott Library).
So outbursts of anger and violence did not even stop at their own families. Calvin Stoddard, a brother-in-law of Joseph Smith, testified in a court filing that:

"Smith arrived at the time and slapped him on the forehead with his flat hand - the force struck him, while Smith repeated the blow four or five times very violently - he went blind - that Smith later came to him and asked him for forgiveness. (Max H. Parkin , Conflict at Kirtland, 1966, p. 132, quoted from the Painesville Telegraph, 26 June 1835)

Here is one of the reasons for the "Nauvoo conflict":

According to the Sangamo Journal of July 15, 1842, published in Springfield, Illinois; With the help of the Mormon voices of Nauvoo and Illinois, Joseph Smith wanted to "secure control of the state elections".
And the Quincy Whig wrote the following:

"It is not so much the strange teachings that Smith maintains and practices, however abhorrent, that our citizens are concerned about, but rather the anti-republican nature of the organization over which he has almost supreme control– and who are educated and trained to act according to his selfish will. (Quincy Whig, as reprinted in the Nauvoo Expositor on 7 June 1844).

His successor, Brigham Young, wanted to build a "kingdom of God" in which Mormons could live undisturbed, and in which a man could have many women (which U.S. laws had prohibited), and could punish disbelievers and dissenters (murder and castration were common in Brigham's kingdom at that time).

 

[LindaBerlin]

Walters' reputation never recovered from the incident wherein he *stole* documents from a courthouse archive and refused to let anyone other than his circle of acquaintances examine them in person before he was legally forced to return them.

A *lot* of Walters' declarations about Joseph Smith stem from these documents, compromising a fair bit of his work in addition to his reputation as a whole.

You'll want to have someone else other than him going.

Mr. Walters has uncovered many things that are embarrassing to Mormons. Here are some examples:

The different versions of the first vision
The Revival Movement/Revival 1823/24 in Palmyra
The 1826 conviction of Smith
The racism of Mormons, and why the "revelation" of Kimball about color and priesthood really happened. Here is an interview with the late Apostle LeGrand Richards, which Mr. Walters did:

'And I could tell you what she kind of called out. Down there in Brazil, the population has so much Negro blood that it's hard to get to leaders who don't have Negro blood, and we've just built a temple down there. It will be inaugurated in October. Many people who have Negro blood in them have collected the money for temple building. And if we don't change something, they can't use it after it's built." (From an interview recorded on tape by LeGrand Richards on August 16, 1978, Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos, quoted in the booklet by Donald S. Tingle, The Mormons, p. 23).

Conceal, camouflage and cover up the normal ingredients of Mormon teachings.

 

[LindaBerlin]

@Ironhold

About the Kinderhook plates (not a Mormon fairy tale, but facts):

Kinderhook plates - Wikipedia

Even LDS leaders knew, that it was a hoax, and that Smith couldn't translate.

Here is a proof that Smith translated the plates:

As the History of the Church reported, Joseph Smith took the records, described them as authentic, and thought they could translate at least part of them (History of the Church, volume 5, p.372). Smith said that these plates contained from a descendant of Ham who received his kingdom from God (History of the Church, Volume 5, p.372).

The plates found were quickly widely accepted, and Mormons in particular rejoiced that it revealed the divine energization of their Prophet Joseph Smith.
That is why the issue of January 15, 1844 also stated in the magazine Times & Seasons:

"Why will the circumstances of the plates and bones recently found in a hill in Pike County, Illinois, and a thousand other things, prove the Book of Mormon to be true? — Answer: Because it is true! ( Times and Seasons, Volume 5, p.406)

In the years that followed, the plates were lost until a Mr. Poulson, a Mormon member and former teacher at Brigham Young University, which is owned by the Mormon Church, found one of the plates by chance in Chicago at the Historical Society Museum, where it was mistakenly marked as one of the book of Mormon gold plates. This plate was identified as No. 5, and was in very good condition. Poulson was convinced that this record could not be older than 1840, as Mr. Fugate had claimed.
However, the former president of the Archaeologic Society at BYU, Welby Ricks, had a very different opinion on this. In September 1962, he said:

"The recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates reviewed by Joseph Smith Jr. confirms his prophetic vocation and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders ...
These plates are now back in their original category of authenticity.
What scholars may learn from this ancient record in future years, or what may be translated by divine power, is an uplifting thought for contemplation.
That much is certain. Joseph Smith Jr. is confirmed as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means, and all the world is invited to examine the truth that came from the earth not only with the Kinderhook plate, but also with the Book of Mormon." (Welby W. Ricks: The Kinderhook Plates, reproduced in Improvement Era, September 1962).

 

[LindaBerlin]

I agree that the first vision was most likely in 1823 or 1824 as the Joseph Smith History account states.

But YOUR CULT said, that it was Spring 1820. Are you an apostate?

 

[LindaBerlin]

Joseph Smith didn't translate the fake Kinderhook plates, which proves that he was able to translate. Nor was he married to a man or horny to other women. Your accusations have no foundation what so ever. His prophecies will be fulfilled and he died as a martyr. The city council voted to have the press destroyed, and the non-member sheriff made sure it was. The Nauvoo Expositor was owned by people out for revenge and wanted Joseph Smith to pay with his blood. Guns were smuggled in to the jail and self defense is legal. However I believe that Joseph Smith was defending the others in the jail with him. He said "my Lord my God" before he died. I believe that was because the Lord was there to welcome him home.

I proved, that he did, according to your History of the Church.

 

[He is the way]

But YOUR CULT said, that it was Spring 1820. Are you an apostate?

No, I am not an apostate, but I choose to accept Joseph Smith's own account:

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:3 - 16)

3 I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont . . . My father, Joseph Smith, Sen., left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) county, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father's arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario—
4 His family consisting of eleven souls, namely, my father, Joseph Smith; my mother, Lucy Smith (whose name, previous to her marriage, was Mack, daughter of Solomon Mack); my brothers, Alvin (who died November 19th, 1823, in the 26th year of his age), Hyrum, myself, Samuel Harrison, William, Don Carlos; and my sisters, Sophronia, Catherine, and Lucy.
5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, "Lo, here!" and others, "Lo, there!" Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.
7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.
14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

I believe that the word three or four was accidently left off of this sentence "It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty" because it fits more correctly with the rest of Joseph Smith's history.

 

[He is the way]

I proved, that he did, according to your History of the Church.

Where is the transcript then? It does NOT exist. Joseph Smith did not know they were fake and even tried to translate them at first thinking they could be real, but he did NOT translate the Kinderhook plates. There is NO proof.

 

[Ironhold]

@Ironhold

About the Kinderhook plates (not a Mormon fairy tale, but facts):

Did you read anything I linked you do?

All of the evidence says that Joseph halted the process after only a token effort to translate them.

 

[LindaBerlin]

Where is the transcript then? It does NOT exist. Joseph Smith did not know they were fake and even tried to translate them at first thinking they could be real, but he did NOT translate the Kinderhook plates. There is NO proof.

In a previous posting I mentioned the sources. You only need to read them. Smith claimed to have translated the kinderhook plates, and that they came from a descendant of Ham. Here for YOU again the sources:

History of the Church, Volume 5, p.372

However, the former president of the Archaeologic Society at BYU, Welby Ricks, had a very different opinion on this. In September 1962, he said:

"The recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates reviewed by Joseph Smith Jr. confirms his prophetic vocation and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders ...
These plates are now back in their original category of authenticity.
What scholars may learn from this ancient record in future years, or what may be translated by divine power, is an uplifting thought for contemplation.
That much is certain. Joseph Smith Jr. is confirmed as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means, and all the world is invited to examine the truth that came from the earth not only with the Kinderhook plate, but also with the Book of Mormon." (Welby W. Ricks: The Kinderhook Plates, reproduced in Improvement Era, September 1962)

Joseph Smith a "true translator"? I'm laughing dead!
Even the story of the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price shows that Smith mastered as well as Egyptian as I master Chinese - not at all!
It has been proven that the book of Abraham does not come from Abraham or one of his descendants, but belongs to the cult of the ancient Egyptians. Here are the opinions of some experts on Smith's ability to translate in relation to the book of Abraham (from my unpublished manuscript):

After the Church handed over to Joseph Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Gammar" leading Egyptologists, believing that they would confirm Joseph Smith's translation ability, they experienced a painful surprise.
Thus, the then head of the Egyptian Antiquities department of the British Museum, I. E. S. Edwards, wrote that this manuscript of Joseph Smith:
"... is largely a piece of imagination and has no scientific value in any respect... The whole document reminds me of the writings of psychic practitioners that are sometimes sent to me." Source of quote: http://www.buchabraham.de.tl/Reine-Phantasie.htm

Dr. Habachi, another scholar, also saw the joseph Smith's document, and in a letter dated January 15, 1967, he commented on his findings as:

"Now send me a film, an Egyptian grammar, some quotes about Egyptians and people of color. These, I must say, are simply fantasy, and not a scholar can ever recognize anything in these Mormon documents. Long ago, Mormons were able to buy some chapters of the Book of the Dead, which can be found everywhere in many tombs of the New Kingdom. These are designed in a rather fun way without a scientific basis... I don't want to shake their faith. There is no question that the Mormons planned a wonderful organization, but I must tell you, as an Egyptologist, that their claim to understand hieroglyphics is pure fantasy. So forget this claim and continue with a true Christian spirit in the life you lead." (Letter from Dr. Labib Habachi to Grant Heward, January 15, 1967).

And Richard A. Parker of Brown University wrote after also studying the manuscript of Joseph Smith's alleged Egyptian grammar:

"I saw Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. The interpretation of the signs that are said to be Egyptian bears no resemblance to the meaning attributed to them by Egyptologists." (Letter from Richard A. Parker to Marvin Cowan dated January 9, 1968)

Thus, this example also proves Joseph Smith's inability to translate something from The Egyptian.
How did Mormons respond to this realization?

"Some scholars today think that part of the papyri that Joseph owned actually contained a fibula of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar, which was previously prepared by the ancient authors for the benefit of future translators." (Improvement Era, Jan. 1968, p. 16).

Psychologists call this "dissonance - management," the hiding of facts that contradict one's own thinking or belief.

 

[LindaBerlin]

Did you read anything I linked you do?

All of the evidence says that Joseph halted the process after only a token effort to translate them.

Joseph "always horny" Smith said that the kinderhook plates came from a descendant of Ham (one of Abraham's sons). History of the Church, Volume 5. Page 372 says it.
In the book "The changing world of Mormonism", by J. & S. Tanner, I found this interesting statement:

As of now, the original source of Joseph Smith's statement, under the date of May 1, 1843, concerning the Kinderhook Plate, not be found. Much of Volume V of the Documentary History of the Church was recorded by Leo Hawkins in 1853, after the saints were in Utah, and was collected by Willard Richards from journals. (Dean Jesse, Church Historian's office, Appendix #2) Liberty was taken by historians of those days to put the narrative in the first person, even though the source was not as such. Verification of the Joseph Smith's statement is still under study. In examining the diary of Willard Richards, the compiler of Volume V, the Kinderhook story is not found there. Our research has taken us through numerous diaries and Letters written at this particular time, and the Kinderhook story is not "An Analysis Of The Kinderhook Plates," by Paul R. Cheesman, March, 1970, Brigham Young University Library.

Now that Mormon writers are willing to admit that Joseph Smith's history was not finished until after his death and that many sources not written by Joseph were put in "the first person" to make it appear that they were written by Smith, they will have to face the serious implications of this whole matter. Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley says that "a forgery is defined by specialists in ancient documents as 'any document which was not produced in the time, place, and manner claimed by it or its publishers" (Since Cumorah, p.160).
Under this definition the History of the Church must be classed as a forgery. While it does contain some very important information about Joseph Smith, most of it "was not produced in the time, place, and manner claimed by it or its publishers." (p.416)

History of the Church a forgery? Because it was written mostly LONG AFTER THE EVENTS?
I think that shows once again how inaccurate and one-sided Mormon historiography is!

 

[LindaBerlin]

@ Ironhold,

The fact that Smith have had translated the Kinderhook plates is confirmed elsewhere:

The above plates were exhibited in this city last week and are now, as we hear, in Nauvoo to be examined by the Mormon Prophet. The public interest is aroused, and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will shed more light on the early history of this continent than any living person." (Times and Seasons, 1843, Volume 4, p.186)

"Why will the circumstances of the plates and bones recently found in a hill in Pike County, Illinois, and a thousand other things, prove the Book of Mormon to be true? — Answer: Because it is true! ( Times and Seasons, Volume 5, p.406)

That much is certain. Joseph Smith Jr. is confirmed as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means, and all the world is invited to examine the truth that came from the earth not only with the Kinderhook plate, but also with the Book of Mormon." (Welby W. Ricks: The Kinderhook Plates, reproduced in Improvement Era, September 1962)

By the way, all quotes are quotes from the Mormon media.

Since Joseph Smith must never be a liar or a fraudster in public, and even the Mormons have now accepted that the Kinderhook plates were a forgery (Ensign August 1981), to whom did they blame alone?
His secretary William Clayton! So they now present it as if Clayton were the bad guy (Professor William J. Hamblin, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, p.269-270). Mormons do everything they can to protect their own image. Even lies and deceit are allowed for them!

 

[LindaBerlin]

To all the LDS folks here,

I'm here for a short time, I've also written some posts here, mostly on LDS topics. And I noticed two things.
On one hand, Mormons do not defend their faith with facts, but only sources that come from the LDS (such as FairMormon). On the other hand, they reject anything that contradicts their faith and their teachings.
Psychologists call this "dissonance management".
An old article in a German Mormon magazine shows how this works:

"All my life I have learned that the Church is true. But when I set out to gain a testimony myself, I thought I had to approach the matter from a different point of view than my teachers and friends did. So I asked, What if the gospel is not true? What if my well-meaning friends and parents had been seduced? What if the Book of Mormon is a novel? What if there were no living prophets today and the family could not stand forever?
As I pondered such questions, my mind was darkened. It was as if there were doors inside me that were now closing. For a whole day I was depressed and trapped in a state of thought, had uneasy thoughts and was unkind to my fellow human beings.
The next morning I realized that I couldn't get any further. Then I came up with a seminary lesson on prayer. I knew that in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9 there are guidelines on how to receive an answer. As I read these verses, I realized that I had asked the wrong questions. And as I worked through my questions with my mind and heart, I believed with all my heart that what I had learned was true. So I prayed again, but this time I asked if what I believed in was right. Was I really a child of God? Was there a celestial empire? Was the priesthood the power of God?
The darkness gave way to the light. The Spirit confirmed to me that my faith was not in vain. It was as if the doors inside my house were wide open again, and I could see everything more clearly. I developed a desire to serve and bear witness. The Lord had answered my sincere prayer. Now I know for myself that what I had believed in all the time is really true." (The Star (Der Stern), February 1998, p. 24)

What does this story mean for Mormons?

1. Do I have a good feeling, it is true.

2. If there are no good feelings, I have done something WRONG, or asked false questions.

3. If my mind prevails over my feeling while studying, the feeling is true. Feelings are much more safe indicators in Mormon eyes as scientific facts.

4. Negative feelings, or similar, are signs that something is a lie.

5. Negative feelings come from the devil, the father of lies. And that's why Mormons need to turn away from it.

6. When church leaders speak, independent thinking ceases.

These two quotations show that this is really the case:

... learn to do what they are told; whether old or young: they learn to do what they are told for the future ... But if they get told by their leader they should do something, then they do. They don't care if it's right or wrong. (Heber C. Kimball, 1857)

When our leaders speak, the thinking has ceased. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. If they show the way, then there is no one else who would be safe ... Thinking differently, without immediate repentance, can cost you faith, destroy his testimony, and leave him as a stranger in the kingdom of God. (Home Teaching Message, "Supporting the General Authorities of the Church," 1945)

 

[He is the way]

In a previous posting I mentioned the sources. You only need to read them. Smith claimed to have translated the kinderhook plates, and that they came from a descendant of Ham. Here for YOU again the sources:

History of the Church, Volume 5, p.372

However, the former president of the Archaeologic Society at BYU, Welby Ricks, had a very different opinion on this. In September 1962, he said:

"The recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates reviewed by Joseph Smith Jr. confirms his prophetic vocation and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders ...
These plates are now back in their original category of authenticity.
What scholars may learn from this ancient record in future years, or what may be translated by divine power, is an uplifting thought for contemplation.
That much is certain. Joseph Smith Jr. is confirmed as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means, and all the world is invited to examine the truth that came from the earth not only with the Kinderhook plate, but also with the Book of Mormon." (Welby W. Ricks: The Kinderhook Plates, reproduced in Improvement Era, September 1962)

Joseph Smith a "true translator"? I'm laughing dead!
Even the story of the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price shows that Smith mastered as well as Egyptian as I master Chinese - not at all!
It has been proven that the book of Abraham does not come from Abraham or one of his descendants, but belongs to the cult of the ancient Egyptians. Here are the opinions of some experts on Smith's ability to translate in relation to the book of Abraham (from my unpublished manuscript):

After the Church handed over to Joseph Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Gammar" leading Egyptologists, believing that they would confirm Joseph Smith's translation ability, they experienced a painful surprise.
Thus, the then head of the Egyptian Antiquities department of the British Museum, I. E. S. Edwards, wrote that this manuscript of Joseph Smith:
"... is largely a piece of imagination and has no scientific value in any respect... The whole document reminds me of the writings of psychic practitioners that are sometimes sent to me." Source of quote: http://www.buchabraham.de.tl/Reine-Phantasie.htm

Dr. Habachi, another scholar, also saw the joseph Smith's document, and in a letter dated January 15, 1967, he commented on his findings as:

"Now send me a film, an Egyptian grammar, some quotes about Egyptians and people of color. These, I must say, are simply fantasy, and not a scholar can ever recognize anything in these Mormon documents. Long ago, Mormons were able to buy some chapters of the Book of the Dead, which can be found everywhere in many tombs of the New Kingdom. These are designed in a rather fun way without a scientific basis... I don't want to shake their faith. There is no question that the Mormons planned a wonderful organization, but I must tell you, as an Egyptologist, that their claim to understand hieroglyphics is pure fantasy. So forget this claim and continue with a true Christian spirit in the life you lead." (Letter from Dr. Labib Habachi to Grant Heward, January 15, 1967).

And Richard A. Parker of Brown University wrote after also studying the manuscript of Joseph Smith's alleged Egyptian grammar:

"I saw Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. The interpretation of the signs that are said to be Egyptian bears no resemblance to the meaning attributed to them by Egyptologists." (Letter from Richard A. Parker to Marvin Cowan dated January 9, 1968)

Thus, this example also proves Joseph Smith's inability to translate something from The Egyptian.
How did Mormons respond to this realization?

"Some scholars today think that part of the papyri that Joseph owned actually contained a fibula of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar, which was previously prepared by the ancient authors for the benefit of future translators." (Improvement Era, Jan. 1968, p. 16).

Psychologists call this "dissonance - management," the hiding of facts that contradict one's own thinking or belief.

Joseph Smith didn't translate the Kinderhook plates. If you believe he did please show me the transcript. I know there is NO transcript for the Kinderhook plates. The proof you posted is nothing more that opinion. Egyptology is NOT an exact science. There are differing opinions as to the the meanings of the Egyptian manuscripts. In other words you haven't got any proof, only the opinions of these Egyptologists.

"The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected “translation” did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting—that it was never carried to completion. That the Kinderhook plates were not authentic artifacts is no longer in doubt; but if the plates were faked, why wasn’t the hoax revealed right away?

It has been suggested that the whole Kinderhook plate incident was, as Wilbur Fugate said in his 1878 and 1879 letters, a heavy-handed, frontier-style “joke.” On the other hand, the conspirators’ objective might have been more pointed—to produce a bogus set of plates and then reveal the hoax in a shower of ridicule after the Prophet made a purported “translation.” In either case, they were frustrated in their scheme because no translation ever appeared. In fact, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever concluded the plates were genuine, other than conflicting statements from members who hoped that a translation would come forth—and in fact no evidence that the Prophet manifested real interest in the “discovery” after his initial viewing of the plates. The statement taken from William Clayton’s journal didn’t appear until September 1856 in Salt Lake City’s Deseret News. At that point, time itself had eroded away the opportunity for a hearty joke, if that were the hoaxers’ intent; and the absence of an actual translation in spite of the Clayton entry in the “History of Joseph Smith” could only have added to their frustrations—assuming that the hoaxers even knew of the Deseret News account, which appeared thirteen years later and a thousand miles away.

Another possible explanation for the hoax never having been carried through may lie in Robert Wiley’s desire to sell the plates as genuine artifacts. For him to have exposed the hoax before the attempted sale would, of course, have scuttled any negotiations; and to expose it afterward may have landed the sellers and conspirators in jail for attempted fraud—turning the tables and making them the object of ridicule instead of Joseph Smith.

Significantly, there is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever took up the matter with the Lord, as he did when working with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. And this brings us to the other side of the story, for those of us who believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet: Isn’t it natural to expect that he would be guided to understand that these plates were not of value as far as his mission was concerned? That other members may have been less judicious and not guided in the same way cannot be laid at the Prophet’s feet. Many people, now as well as then, have an appetite for hearsay and a hope for “easy evidence” to bolster or even substitute for personal spirituality and hard-won faith that comes from close familiarity with truth and communion with God.

So it is that in the 100-year battle of straw men and straw arguments, Joseph Smith needs no defense—he simply did not fall for the scheme. And with that understood, it is perhaps time that the Kinderhook plates be retired to the limbo of other famous faked antiquities."

More at: Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax

 

[He is the way]

@ Ironhold,

The fact that Smith have had translated the Kinderhook plates is confirmed elsewhere:

The above plates were exhibited in this city last week and are now, as we hear, in Nauvoo to be examined by the Mormon Prophet. The public interest is aroused, and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will shed more light on the early history of this continent than any living person." (Times and Seasons, 1843, Volume 4, p.186)

"Why will the circumstances of the plates and bones recently found in a hill in Pike County, Illinois, and a thousand other things, prove the Book of Mormon to be true? — Answer: Because it is true! ( Times and Seasons, Volume 5, p.406)

That much is certain. Joseph Smith Jr. is confirmed as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means, and all the world is invited to examine the truth that came from the earth not only with the Kinderhook plate, but also with the Book of Mormon." (Welby W. Ricks: The Kinderhook Plates, reproduced in Improvement Era, September 1962)

By the way, all quotes are quotes from the Mormon media.

Since Joseph Smith must never be a liar or a fraudster in public, and even the Mormons have now accepted that the Kinderhook plates were a forgery (Ensign August 1981), to whom did they blame alone?
His secretary William Clayton! So they now present it as if Clayton were the bad guy (Professor William J. Hamblin, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, p.269-270). Mormons do everything they can to protect their own image. Even lies and deceit are allowed for them!

The translation of the Kinderhook plates were going to be published in The Times and Seasons, but it never happened. There is NO transcript from the Kinderhook plates.

 

[He is the way]

To all the LDS folks here,

I'm here for a short time, I've also written some posts here, mostly on LDS topics. And I noticed two things.
On one hand, Mormons do not defend their faith with facts, but only sources that come from the LDS (such as FairMormon). On the other hand, they reject anything that contradicts their faith and their teachings.
Psychologists call this "dissonance management".
An old article in a German Mormon magazine shows how this works:

"All my life I have learned that the Church is true. But when I set out to gain a testimony myself, I thought I had to approach the matter from a different point of view than my teachers and friends did. So I asked, What if the gospel is not true? What if my well-meaning friends and parents had been seduced? What if the Book of Mormon is a novel? What if there were no living prophets today and the family could not stand forever?
As I pondered such questions, my mind was darkened. It was as if there were doors inside me that were now closing. For a whole day I was depressed and trapped in a state of thought, had uneasy thoughts and was unkind to my fellow human beings.
The next morning I realized that I couldn't get any further. Then I came up with a seminary lesson on prayer. I knew that in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9 there are guidelines on how to receive an answer. As I read these verses, I realized that I had asked the wrong questions. And as I worked through my questions with my mind and heart, I believed with all my heart that what I had learned was true. So I prayed again, but this time I asked if what I believed in was right. Was I really a child of God? Was there a celestial empire? Was the priesthood the power of God?
The darkness gave way to the light. The Spirit confirmed to me that my faith was not in vain. It was as if the doors inside my house were wide open again, and I could see everything more clearly. I developed a desire to serve and bear witness. The Lord had answered my sincere prayer. Now I know for myself that what I had believed in all the time is really true." (The Star (Der Stern), February 1998, p. 24)

What does this story mean for Mormons?

1. Do I have a good feeling, it is true.

2. If there are no good feelings, I have done something WRONG, or asked false questions.

3. If my mind prevails over my feeling while studying, the feeling is true. Feelings are much more safe indicators in Mormon eyes as scientific facts.

4. Negative feelings, or similar, are signs that something is a lie.

5. Negative feelings come from the devil, the father of lies. And that's why Mormons need to turn away from it.

6. When church leaders speak, independent thinking ceases.

These two quotations show that this is really the case:

... learn to do what they are told; whether old or young: they learn to do what they are told for the future ... But if they get told by their leader they should do something, then they do. They don't care if it's right or wrong. (Heber C. Kimball, 1857)

When our leaders speak, the thinking has ceased. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. If they show the way, then there is no one else who would be safe ... Thinking differently, without immediate repentance, can cost you faith, destroy his testimony, and leave him as a stranger in the kingdom of God. (Home Teaching Message, "Supporting the General Authorities of the Church," 1945)

There is a way to judge and KNOW that your judgement is correct:

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 7:3 - 22)

3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.
4 And now my brethren, I judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.
5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.
6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.
8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.
10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.
11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing?
21 And now I come to that faith, of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.
22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

 

[Ironhold]

Joseph "always horny" Smith said that the kinderhook plates came from a descendant of Ham (one of Abraham's sons). History of the Church, Volume 5. Page 372 says it.

You mean the citation that is suspected of having been written by his secretary rather than Joseph himself?

Until you're willing to address this point at least, the issue is at loggerheads.

The simple truth of the matter is that the actual evidence -> the hype crashing down almost instantly, Joseph himself barely putting any effort into translating a single plate, the people behind the plates waiting until decades after the fact to say anything, et cetra -> indicates that Joseph never attempted a full translation, and that when Joseph stopped work on the plates they largely quit being a matter of interest.

The fact that the people behind the plates never went public while Joseph was alive is indeed a major issue, as they could have taken him down then and there if he had indeed tried to translate them in full. It's basic human psychology, and you can take it from someone who basically minored in "applied psychological warfare".

This is one of many, many canned arguments that critics of the church like to throw out, only to flinch upon realizing that the evidence is against them.

 

[Ironhold]

By the way, all quotes are quotes from the Mormon media.

You do realize that two of your quotes are from before he attempted any sort of translation, correct?

That's the problem with quote-mining.

 

[LindaBerlin]

Joseph Smith didn't translate the Kinderhook plates. If you believe he did please show me the transcript. I know there is NO transcript for the Kinderhook plates. The proof you posted is nothing more that opinion. Egyptology is NOT an exact science. There are differing opinions as to the the meanings of the Egyptian manuscripts. In other words you haven't got any proof, only the opinions of these Egyptologists.

Your "dissonance management" works excellently. You hide all the facts and, as the Swedish-German Pippi Longstocking movies of the 60s say, "make the world as you like it".
I have provided you with evidence from mormon as well as non-Mormon sources that Smith translated these plates. If you decide not to believe them, it's yours, not my problem anymore.
Speaking of Egyptian! You will be interested in this:

In the days of Joseph Smith, Egyptology was still in its infancy, why this "translation" could not be verified at that time. Centuries of knowledge about the hieroglyphs were lost, and one feared forever. Until 1799, some French soldiers found a stone with different characters of different languages. The "Rosetta Stone", as it was henceforth called (after the site of the discovery), contained a decree in honor of King Ptolemy Epiphane, which was erected by priests in all parts of the country.
It was quickly realized that this stone was a key to better understanding the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
However, it was only Jean Francis Champollion who was the first person to decipher the hieroglyphs.
Only scientists were interested in this, and so publications on the grammar of Egyptian hieroglyphs were initially reserved for only a small circle and had not been printed frequently.
In his book on Mormon church history, B.H.Roberts described and wrote about a "translation test" given by Joseph Smith:
"The Prophet translated some of the hieroglyphics that Mr. Chandler presented to him, certifying that the translation of the Prophet was consistent with that made by scholars in other places where the mummies and papyrus rolls had been exhibited." (A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints, by B. H. Roberts, Vol. 2, p. 126).
Mr Chandler, himself not an Egyptologist, attested to the authenticity and correctness of the translation.
After the violent death of Joseph Smith in 1844, which Mormons like to incorrectly call "martyrdom," and the trek to Utah, in which neither Joseph Smith's mother nor widow participated, the Mormon Church lost control of the papyri that remained in the widow's possession.
However, since the book of Abraham included three drawings from the papyri (so-called faxilmilia), as well as his interpretations of it, it was possible to begin to deal with what she was able to do in 1860.
Mormon scholar B.H. Roberts wrote:
"It should be said to the reader that these fragments of the book of Abraham, the facsimiles published with this chapter, were presented to a young French scholar in 1860,... The young French scholar of the Louvre Museum, to whom the facsimiles of the fragments of the book of Abraham were presented, was M. Theodule Deveria. His explanations differ from the translations made by Joseph Smith, but the writer cannot make a judgment on the merits of M. Deveria's translation..." (A Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, Vol. 2, p. 130, footnote.)
Today, much more is known about hieroglyphics than in the time of Joseph "Liar" Smith. At that time it could not be verified, today!
By the way, according to one of its inventors, a Mr Fugate, the writing of the Kinderhook plates had been copied from a fruit can from China.
So Smith did not know the difference between Chinese and hieroglyphics, nor the difference between old and new material.

 

[LindaBerlin]

The translation of the Kinderhook plates were going to be published in The Times and Seasons, but it never happened. There is NO transcript from the Kinderhook plates.

Wrong, my dear. They were published in the first issues of the magazine, but not in later editions.
But this is not an isolated case for Mormons. Let's just look at the changes in the various editions of the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants. Jerold and Sandra Tanner have published many evidence of this in their book "The Changing World of Mormonism," including photocopies of the first editions. Here is just an example:

Mosiah 21:28. In this verse the name of the king has been changed from Benjamin to Mosiah. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon we read: "... king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings ..." (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p.200).
In modern editions of the Book of Mormon, this verse has changed to read: "... king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such "It's a great way to get there. (Book of Mormon, 1981 ed., p.188, v.28)

Interestingly, many changes were made to the pretext of the Book of Mormon.
In previous editions, Joseph Smith was mentioned only as an author and editor, and in later editions only as an editor.
It was also secretly removed in the preliminary text that the Indians are the descendants of the Israelites, as well as slight changes to the testimony of the three and eight witnesses. You can see it well when you compare the 1830 edition with that of today.
By the way, Mormons also have something to say about the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon. In a mock poem about Oliver Cowdery, published in the "Times and seasons, vol 2, page 482". According to the poem, Cowdery had denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon. And the other two witnesses? Martin Harris and David Whitmer?

David Whitmer:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions."
Source: AN ADRESS TO ALL BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, p. 27

Martin Harris:

"... I have never seen the golden plates, only in a visionary or foggy state ... After about three days I went into the forest to pray so that I could see the plates. As I prayed, I fell into a state of fog, and in this state I saw the angel and the plates" (Anthony Metcalf: Ten Years Before the Mast, not dated, microfilm copy, p.70f.).

Stephen Burnett, a former Mormon leader, wrote a letter on April 15, 1838, recounting how he heard Martin Harris publicly say that he had seen the Golden Plates only visionarily, and therefore hesitated to sign the statement, but was persuaded to do so by Joseph Smith and the other witnesses. (Stephen Burnett: Letter in Joseph Smith Papers, Letter Book. Copy and typed transcript in the documents in the office of the Institute of Religious Research.)
David Whitmer later testified that he saw the translators in a vision. When Martin Harris was later asked if he had seen the Golden Plates and touched them, he said that he had seen everything with his "spiritual" eyes (Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Volume 1, 1958, Introduction. It is a photomechanical reprint of the first edition [1830] of the Book of Mormon.
So all three witnesses testified that they saw the Golden Plates not with their actual eyes, but with their visionary eyes, which is contrary to the Mormons' claims that they actually saw the plates and the angel. David Whitmer "saw" the records for the first time that day, unlike Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, who in a vision days before and Oliver even several times before, which is also concealed by the Mormons. And Martin Harris saw the records alone, three days later when Whitmer and Cowdery allegedly saw them. Such a testimony would not be credible in court!
Church publications often show an image that the other eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon see together the Golden Plates in the forest. But, as John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses credibly testified, Joseph Smith "showed" the plates in his house to the first four witnesses, and later another four people, which in itself makes their testimony implausible (Deseret Evening News, August 6, 1878, letter to the editor of Fr. Wilhelm Poulson, M.D., typed transcript, p.2). The first group consisted of the four Whitmer brothers, while the second group consisted of the father and two brothers of Joseph Smith (Hyrum and Samuel), and Hiram Page, who was married to one of the Sisters of the Whitmers. All witnesses of the Book of Mormon, with the exception of Martin Harris, were related. A rogue who thinks Arges!
Only three of the eight witnesses, Samuel and Hyrum Smith, and John Whitmer testified that they touched the plates. And it is alleged that the two's brother, William, saw, touched and lifted the plates (Zion's Ensign, p.6, January 13, 1894). Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses, never testified in person that he saw the plates, but instead repeatedly confirmed the "supernatural powers" of Joseph Smith in writing the book. Among other things, he said:
"And to say that these holy angels who came and showed themselves to me as I walked through the field to confirm the work of the Lord in the last days— three of them came to me later and sang a song in their own pure language; yes, one would be punished with contempt for the God of heaven if these testimonies were to be denied." (Ensign of Liberty, 1848, quoted in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 7:4, Winter 1972, p.84.)
Even Joseph Smith believed that some of his Golden Plates witnesses were very "uncertain and bad candidates." Here he wrote:

Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris are too shabby to be mentioned; and we would have liked to have forgotten them." (History of the Church, volume 3:232

 

[He is the way]

Your "dissonance management" works excellently. You hide all the facts and, as the Swedish-German Pippi Longstocking movies of the 60s say, "make the world as you like it".
I have provided you with evidence from mormon as well as non-Mormon sources that Smith translated these plates. If you decide not to believe them, it's yours, not my problem anymore.
Speaking of Egyptian! You will be interested in this:

In the days of Joseph Smith, Egyptology was still in its infancy, why this "translation" could not be verified at that time. Centuries of knowledge about the hieroglyphs were lost, and one feared forever. Until 1799, some French soldiers found a stone with different characters of different languages. The "Rosetta Stone", as it was henceforth called (after the site of the discovery), contained a decree in honor of King Ptolemy Epiphane, which was erected by priests in all parts of the country.
It was quickly realized that this stone was a key to better understanding the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
However, it was only Jean Francis Champollion who was the first person to decipher the hieroglyphs.
Only scientists were interested in this, and so publications on the grammar of Egyptian hieroglyphs were initially reserved for only a small circle and had not been printed frequently.
In his book on Mormon church history, B.H.Roberts described and wrote about a "translation test" given by Joseph Smith:
"The Prophet translated some of the hieroglyphics that Mr. Chandler presented to him, certifying that the translation of the Prophet was consistent with that made by scholars in other places where the mummies and papyrus rolls had been exhibited." (A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints, by B. H. Roberts, Vol. 2, p. 126).
Mr Chandler, himself not an Egyptologist, attested to the authenticity and correctness of the translation.
After the violent death of Joseph Smith in 1844, which Mormons like to incorrectly call "martyrdom," and the trek to Utah, in which neither Joseph Smith's mother nor widow participated, the Mormon Church lost control of the papyri that remained in the widow's possession.
However, since the book of Abraham included three drawings from the papyri (so-called faxilmilia), as well as his interpretations of it, it was possible to begin to deal with what she was able to do in 1860.
Mormon scholar B.H. Roberts wrote:
"It should be said to the reader that these fragments of the book of Abraham, the facsimiles published with this chapter, were presented to a young French scholar in 1860,... The young French scholar of the Louvre Museum, to whom the facsimiles of the fragments of the book of Abraham were presented, was M. Theodule Deveria. His explanations differ from the translations made by Joseph Smith, but the writer cannot make a judgment on the merits of M. Deveria's translation..." (A Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, Vol. 2, p. 130, footnote.)
Today, much more is known about hieroglyphics than in the time of Joseph "Liar" Smith. At that time it could not be verified, today!
By the way, according to one of its inventors, a Mr Fugate, the writing of the Kinderhook plates had been copied from a fruit can from China.
So Smith did not know the difference between Chinese and hieroglyphics, nor the difference between old and new material.

I still don't see the full transcript of the Kinderhook plates. Some of the Chinese markings may have looked similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics. As I said before "Joseph Smith did not know they were fake and even tried to translate them at first thinking they could be real, but he did NOT translate the Kinderhook plates." It does not mater to me that M. Theodule Deveria explanations differ from the translations made by Joseph Smith. M. Theodule Deveria explanations probably differ from those of other Egyptologists as well. Egyptology is NOT an exact science.