Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Kinderhook Plates

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Translation of the Book of Mormon

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

The Witnesses

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Kinderhook Plates"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "The Kinderhook Plates" appears to take are the following:

• That new data from a non-apologist historian showing how Joseph actually did attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates is actually an "apologist ploy" and should be ignored in favor of the inaccurate data that it replaced.
• That MormonThink wishes to pass off such a conclusion as "research".

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The latest apologist ploy is to say that Joseph tried to do a secular translation of the plates because one of the characters from the KP resembles a character from the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar book by Joseph Smith. This is on FAIR’s website and was presented at FAIR's conference in 2011 by Don Bradley. The theory is interesting but not valid as there is no part of the Book of Abraham that talks about 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. Find that phrase in the BOA.

FairMormon commentary

•   Dismissal of apologists' use of new data as simply a desperate ploy  —When the facts don't stack up in the critics' favor, simply imply that apologists are executing a desperate ploy to try and distract you.
  
• Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...
• Don Bradley (who, by the way, is not an apologist) demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. This is not an apologetic—it is a conclusion based upon well-researched data. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...
• If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are not found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the GAEL itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!

Additional information

• Kinderhook Plates—A set of small plates, engraved with characters of ancient appearance, were purported to have been unearthed in Kinderhook, Illinois, in April 1843. The so-called "Kinderhook plates" have been something of an enigma within the Mormon community since they first appeared. While there are faithful LDS who take a number of different positions on the topic of these artifacts, most have concluded that they were fakes. This article summarizes some key information that critics often exclude from their discussion of the Kinderhook plates, and the extent of Joseph Smith's involvement. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Since the plates have been proven to have been manufactured in the 1800s as a hoax, how could the prophet Joseph Smith have translated a portion of these plates and say that they give an account of a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt?

FairMormon commentary

• See above. Don Bradley demonstrated how it was done. Joseph was attempting to translate manually (without inspiration) and matched a character found on the plates with a character found in the GAEL. The "translation" Joseph produced, as reported by William Clayton, matches the explanation given for that character in the GAEL.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
[T]he church backed off on its claims that the Kinderhook Plates were real. The LDS historians quickly changed their story and stopped defending that the plates and Joseph's translation of them were true. Now the LDS apologists say it was all a hoax, and Joseph never fell for it, and someone other than Joseph must have said that the plates tell a story of a descendant of Ham.

FairMormon commentary

•   Believers aren't allowed to change their opinions:  —If believers don't abandon their faith because of the critics' arguments, they are "ignoring the evidence." When believers change their opinions as new data become available, the critics declare that this means the believers are being inconsistent or caving in.
  Why would the Church continue to defend the plates once they were proven to be a hoax?
• No, apologists now say that Joseph attempted to translate the plates manually, but never continued beyond the single character that he did manage to "translate."
• You need to bring your data up to date. We understand that you would like apologists to stick with the old data, but it isn't going to happen. That ship has sailed.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Point: Even if you don't believe that Joseph was fooled by the Kinderhook Plates in 1843, the LDS Church itself was fooled for the next one hundred and thirty years. The Kimball article [Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66-74] mentioned the Church's response each time the issue of the plates came up, but it failed to recognize that each response up to 1981 was the same, that the plates were genuine.

FairMormon commentary

•   Believers aren't allowed to change their opinions:  —If believers don't abandon their faith because of the critics' arguments, they are "ignoring the evidence." When believers change their opinions as new data become available, the critics declare that this means the believers are being inconsistent or caving in.
  
• Nothing was said of the plates during all those years. Everyone was only "fooled" as long as there was nothing to prove otherwise. Once proof was found that the plates were indeed fake, then everyone updated their position to account for the new information.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response. Why wasn't this ever the church's position before scientists proved the plates were fake? If the Kinderhook Plates were really just a hoax, then why didn't the church ever say that in the first 130 years since the KP were unearthed? It's clear from the evidence above that the Church leaders believed the KP were real and that Joseph translated a portion of them. Why did it take finding evidence that proved the KP were fake to have the church change their mind on whether or not Joseph tried to translate them? The church only seems to change their beliefs (like the limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, location of Hill Cumorah, American Indians are the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, etc.) when contradictory evidence disproves their recorded history. This seems inconsistent with a church run by modern-day prophets with modern revelation.

FairMormon commentary

•   Believers aren't allowed to change their opinions:  —If believers don't abandon their faith because of the critics' arguments, they are "ignoring the evidence." When believers change their opinions as new data become available, the critics declare that this means the believers are being inconsistent or caving in.
  
• What you are really saying is "why didn't someone receive a revelation that stated that the plates were fake," right? There was never a translation produced beyond the single short phrase recorded by Clayton. The plates were lost. Nobody cared any longer, and the plates were simply a part of the historical record.
• MormonThink seems to believe that real prophets need to issue a revelation to answer every unanswered question, such as where the Book of Mormon took place and where the Hill Cumorah is located. Why?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response. Who else would have been able to make these grand claims? Why would a scribe think this Indian was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth? Why not a descendant of Noah or Abraham? This seems way too unusual and too specific to be made by anyone other than the Prophet Joseph Smith. Also, Joseph's scribe William Clayton, was a trusted, official scribe for the church and was noted for being a stickler for details and accuracy and not in the habit of making stuff up and attributing it to Joseph.

FairMormon commentary

•   Believers aren't allowed to change their opinions:  —If believers don't abandon their faith because of the critics' arguments, they are "ignoring the evidence." When believers change their opinions as new data become available, the critics declare that this means the believers are being inconsistent or caving in.
  
• Does MormonThink's high opinion of William Clayton's accuracy and trustworthiness carry over to everything Clayton said and wrote about Joseph Smith? We suspect not--they're willing to praise Clayton only when they think it will help them. If Clayton produces data that doesn't help their critical efforts, how long do you think it will take for Clayton to be rejected as a "biased Mormon source"?