Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb

[_thews]

Exactly what do you mean by "non-revelatory means" WW?

Please read the thread above.

Don

Please elaborate Don, as I fail to understand what you mean by a prophet of God using "non-revelatory means" to "translate" a known hoax.

Thanks

[_thews]

It was a good, solid presentation. Congratulations to Don.

Are you now willing to offer up an opinion regarding Joseph Smith's attempted translation of the Kinderhook plates Dr. Peterson?

Thanks for responding to the question Dr. Peterson, but I find it hard to believe you don't know and have no opinion.

Difficult to believe or not, I don't know, haven't researched the matter, don't particularly care, and prefer not to speak off the top of my head regarding questions of straightforward historical fact to which I've paid no attention at all.

[_Socrates]

Analytics: why did you refer to it as a "bomb?" Are you trying to be a jerk?

Was Don Bradley's theory and presentation a complete demolition of the critical arguments? That was the advance boast, wasn't it?

[_Fence Sitter]

Is there any more information on the symbol that was found on both the KP and the GAEL? Wouldn't that mean that whom ever forged the plates had access to the GAEL?

[_honorentheos]

Is there any more information on the symbol that was found on both the KP and the GAEL? Wouldn't that mean that whom ever forged the plates had access to the GAEL?

This is an aspect I am curious about as well, Fence Sitter. I've wondered if the symbol in question is one that was simple enough that they randomly created something like it or if it is something they may have taken from a source. My understanding is that Don's presentation included images of the symbol in question.

[_honorentheos]

Analytics: why did you refer to it as a "bomb?" Are you trying to be a jerk?

I think Analytics was trying to underscore a few simple facts is all.

Following this thread is a surreal experience. Here we have grown men who are pretending to engage in research and scholarship. They speculate about and discuss new evidence or recent findings related to a proven hoax and the responses of a proven liar and fraud to that hoax.

These individuals claim that some incidental insight related to the whole sorry saga is a "game changer".

When one ascends from the weeds, the facts are these:

1. The Kinderhook plates were forged with the express purpose of showing Joseph Smith to be a fraud.

2. Joseph Smith took the bait, and according to William Clayton "-- has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was 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."

3. The LDS Church itself was taken in by the forgers and maintained that the Kinderhook plates were ancient records until it was proven that they were not.

Where is the game changer?

Are the Kinderhook plates not longer forgeries?

Has it been shown that Joseph Smith was other than a transparent fraud or that he could translate anything from Egyptian or any other ancient language?

Has the LDS Church reverted to its former assertion that the plates were genuine and contained the information that Joseph Smith claimed?

Has any skeptic been provided with any evidence that could possibly make them re-evaluate their view of the whole Kinderhook plates debacle?

Unbelievable.

Titling the thread "Don Bradley's Kinderhook Bomb" was a true act of kindness.

For consideration

Setting aside the potential offensiveness of the title, the thoughts behind Phil Plait's comments are worth considering.

My opinion is that it can only help to be able to accurately articulate how LDS see the matter before formulating an argument against it.

[_DrW]

For consideration

Setting aside the potential offensiveness of the title, the thoughts behind Phil Plait's comments are worth considering.

My opinion is that it can only help to be able to accurately articulate how LDS see the matter before formulating an argument against it.

honorentheos,

Thanks for the link to the video. I certainly agree that Dr. Plait had some relevant points and made them well.

What do you think that a believing LDS member would take away from that lecture? Would such an individual really be able to say to himself or herself that they held no such unfounded or demonstrably false beliefs?

If they could then what more could a critic do than to point out where the beliefs are unfounded and false and suggest that the victim do some research and reading on their own?

I am continually amazed at the number of members (including my wife) who refuse to look at objective documented historical material unless it is "correlated" or "faith promoting". Even though my wife no longer believes, she has been so strongly conditioned to be uncomfortable in the face of "uncorrelated" or "anti-Mormon" (Church unapproved) material that she refuses to look at it in any serious way.

Given that one was raised in the LDS Church and was able to finally see the lies, misrepresentations and mythology promoted by the Church for what they are, why would one not simply point out the facts to folks when they make silly assertions of unfounded belief?

Do you see it as insufficient that a critic simply point out the facts as I did above, or is it really necessary and worthwhile to the time to enter into a
"nuanced" discussion and pretend that the baloney being discussed is in any way related to objective reality or any more than a waste of time?

As Sigmund Freud asked, "Am I to believe every absurdity? If not, why this one in particular?"

Once an assertion has failed the baloney test, is it really necessary to spend the additional time to determine the exact attributes and details regarding the baloney?

If someone comes to me as an inventor and claims that they have come up with a perpetual motion machine, am I obligated to spend the time to explain to them in detail why they have not really done so?

[_honorentheos]

Do you see it as insufficient that a critic simply point out the facts as I did above, or is it really necessary and worthwhile to the time to enter into a "nuanced" discussion and pretend that the baloney being discussed is in any way related to objective reality or any more than a waste of time?

DrW,

Your comment above gets at something I've thought about regarding my own participation on Mormon-related boards. That being, if I participate on the boards do I have a responsibility to treat another persons' perspective as valid, even if I may think it is so much baloney as you say?

My response for myself is that I do. Because if, as you also state, I were to honestly view it as a waste of time, then it's really a poor comment on my motives or the way I value time to participate by engaging LDS members with that particular frame of mind.

Otherwise as your comment suggests a person who does not view it as worthwhile to enter into a nuanced discussion, taking seriously the claims of the other side, is essentially wasting their own time. And at that point, I am not sure what I could tell myself that would justify further participation.

Of course, that is my own view of the matter and how I choose to frame my own participation. YMMV.

[_honorentheos]

I should also add that I do not believe a Mormon would agree your comments above are "facts". I think that is at the heart of why we are obligated to engage in nuanced discussions.

[_DrW]

Do you see it as insufficient that a critic simply point out the facts as I did above, or is it really necessary and worthwhile to the time to enter into a "nuanced" discussion and pretend that the baloney being discussed is in any way related to objective reality or any more than a waste of time?

DrW,

Your comment above gets at something I've thought about regarding my own participation on Mormon-related boards. That being, if I participate on the boards do I have a responsibility to treat another persons' perspective as valid, even if I may think it is so much baloney as you say?

My response for myself is that I do. Because if, as you also state, I were to honestly view it as a waste of time, then it's really a poor comment on my motives or the way I value time to participate by engaging LDS members with that particular frame of mind.

Otherwise as your comment suggests a person who does not view it as worthwhile to enter into a nuanced discussion, taking seriously the claims of the other side, is essentially wasting their own time. And at that point, I am not sure what I could tell myself that would justify further participation.

Of course, that is my own view of the matter and how I choose to frame my own participation. YMMV.

honorentheos,

You make some excellent points. I have thought about whether the time spend on these boards is wasted, as I suppose most of us have.

I also understand why you feel that you are obligated to engage in nuanced discussions. As you have probably gathered, I feel no such obligation.

The answer I come up with as to the question of wasted time would be "yes", except for the fact that (I believe) there are lurkers here who are in the process of making up their minds (perhaps again) about the validity of the LDS truth claims.

I participate on another board where these folks are much more likely to "unmask" because it is pretty much a post-mormon environment. These people invariably say that they have had doubts, been lurking on the boards, have finally recognized the LDS Church for what it really is, and are finally ready to participate as post Mormons.

For such people (who I believe lurk here as well), I think it is important to challenge with facts the magical thinking, unfounded belief and fantastical assertion of some believers who post here, and many more who post on similar thread topics over on MADB/MDD (from which I have been banned several times).

That being said, I do appreciate your position and think that you often make a good case for those who wish to continue to believe.