Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Don,

Your theory that Smith matched the boat (NEB) character to the Kinderhook plate because of the explanation of that character in the GAEL is only a facet of this thread and really does little to further what Smith claimed and was attempting to do through translation and creative thinking as he constantly claimed he was led by the Spirit. It’s basically a sidenote and remains inconclusive. Holes have certainly been poked into your “air tight” theory in which your case is made by circumstantial evidence but there is no hard evidence to prove your case. I pointed out that the journals of Clayton and Young ONLY show tracing of a plate with no direct link to characters of the GAEL other than inference to the explanation of the character in question. Vice versa, there is nothing recorded in the GAEL to update that record to reflect the discovery on the Kinderhook plate. Thus, hard evidence is wholly lacking and lot’s of air has been let out of your balloon. Nonetheless, for me it remains circumstantial evidence and a theory that is inconclusive.

With that said, feel free to invite RFM, REEL, and SHIRTS to come here and convince me otherwise. In the meantime, I’m standing my ground on this issue and feel that my MODEL deserves a closer look by both the critics and believers.

In other words, I’m right and you’re wrong.

Just teasing, my friend.

;)

Paul
Marcus
God
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:01 pm
...This is fun and somewhat tedious.
:D but much appreciated! No time to comment but im reading along and you are answering exactky the questions i was having about teasing out the likelihoods with your context info . Thank you.

(And thank you for the distraction. Weddings are lovely and stressful.
:evil: :twisted: :evil: i express that here in order to maintain my serene face in public. Thank you again. 8-)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:31 pm
Shulem wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:01 pm
...This is fun and somewhat tedious.
:D but much appreciated! No time to comment but im reading along and you are answering exactky the questions i was having about teasing out the likelihoods with your context info . Thank you.

(And thank you for the distraction. Weddings are lovely and stressful.
:evil: :twisted: :evil: i express that here in order to maintain my serene face in public. Thank you again. 8-)

Glad you chimed in!!

:D
Themis
Priest
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Character vs. characters

Post by Themis »

Don Bradley wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:02 am
Clayton didn't merely say there was a skeleton buried with the plates; he said there was a spectacular skeleton buried with the plates--one nine feet tall. Even had there been a skeleton buried with the plates, this would have been an extraordinary find to say the least. Clayton cannot have been accurate about this. Nor was he accurate about there having been a skeleton at all, or about where the plates were found.

From my vantage point, this is not a problem, since as a historian I've seen over and over how historical sources also have variability and "noise." I treat historical sources, per Robin Collingwood, as evidence, rather than as authorities. So if a particular historical source demonstrates itself to not be to be a clear "authority" on what happened, that's fine, since I don't regard any of them as authorities in the first place. Rather, I search the sources for evidence.

However, on the rule that you've suggested, that one can't rely crucially on one part of a source while rejecting another part, we would have to reject Clayton as reliable in the first place, so we would have no strong evidence that Smith translated from the Kinderhook plates at all.

Thankfully, this is not how historical research works. Because historical sources have noise, we need to take into account fudge factors in assessing all sources.
I agree with variability noise and fudge factors. I'm not a historian, but I would think they might break Clayton's account into at least two parts. The evidence as I understand it does not have him at the place where the plates were found, so he would rely completely on someone else for details about where and what was found with the plates he does get to look at. If that source is Joseph it causes no problem since Joseph was also not where the plates were dug up and would rely on information from others about where it was found and what was found with it. That information can be wrong and would not impact Joseph telling Clayton what he though was on the plates. The only way Clayton is going to get wrong what Joseph may have said about the plates was if Clayton did not get that information from Joseph and relied on another source. Based on what we know that is extremely improbable so his comments on what Joseph claimed is good evidence he probably said what Clayton claimed while being wrong about the details of where and what was found with the plates.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Kinderhook Testimony from the Church

Post by Shulem »

Front Cover of Improvement Era, September, 1962; President David O. McKay

Image

THE KINDERHOOK PLATES, WELBY W. RICKS, PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY ARCHELOGICAL SOCIETY, BYU

Page 636

Image

Page 637
WELBY W. RICKS, PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY ARCHELOGICAL SOCIETY, BYU wrote:A recent discovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders.

What they found solved a seventy-four-year-old controversy and put the plates back into the category of ‘genuine’ which Joseph Smith, Jun., had said they were in the first place.
Image

Page 656

Image

Page 658

Image

Page 660
WELBY W. RICKS, PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY ARCHELOGICAL SOCIETY, BYU wrote:The plates are now back in their original category of genuine.

What scholars may learn from this ancient record in future years or what may be translated by divine power is an exciting thought to contemplate.

This much remains. Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well.
Image
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3510
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Moksha »

So in light of this 1962 barrage of evidence from the Ensign, will apologists give the heave-ho to NHM and embrace the Kinderhook Plates as the strongest proof of LDS Church truthfulness?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:55 pm
So in light of this 1962 barrage of evidence from the Ensign, will apologists give the heave-ho to NHM and embrace the Kinderhook Plates as the strongest proof of LDS Church truthfulness?

That’s my point, Mormons love to embrace and believe things that simply are NOT true. That’s Mormonism in a nutshell. Joseph Smith believed the plates were authentic as did every single member of the Twelve and the entire Latter-day Saint Church which was informed of the discovery in the periodical of the Church (Times and Seasons) and other publications as well as by word of mouth. The Kinderhook plates were heralded as another record of the former inhabitants of this continent. It was said to contain a record and genealogy of Egyptian royalty mingling with the Jaredites and be taken with them to the promised land. Now how insane is that? I can’t begin to tell you how easy it is to destroy that theory from a scientific and historical point of view. Joseph Smith and the Mormons were wrong. Brigham Young and John Taylor took the false beliefs with them as well into the next generation.

In modern times, Church leaders such as David O. McKay also believed the lie. Top officials of the Church educational system believed the lie. All Mormons believed the lie. Mormonism is what it is. It’s all a lie and was founded in lies whereby the so-called gift of discernment is NOT found at all. It’s an open and shut case demonstrating just how corrupt the Church really is.

I am so thankful I had the courage to get OUT of Mormonism and I feel privileged to speak out against it today by warning everyone of the original deception. I KNOW the Church is not true. I know it with every fiber of my being and so testify.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Kinderhook Testimony from the Church

Post by Shulem »


Dear President Welby W. Ricks of BYU:

Please be advised that the Kinderhook plates were not genuine or authentic plates of ancient origin. Those plates were forgeries as attested by testimonial from one who helped construct them in order to fool the prophet Joseph Smith. There is nothing that scholars today can learn now or in the future by attempting to translate bogus characters. The surviving plate serves no value in understanding anything about former inhabitants of this continent. The statement Joseph Smith made about the plates and their ancient origins and historicity is pure fiction made up by the prophet. The Kinderhook plates are not truth that sprung out of the earth! Neither are the alleged gold plates that were said to also spring out of the earth.

Investigation into the authentic nature of the Kinderhook plates will prove they truly are fake and were created in the 19th century for the sole purpose of proving that Joseph Smith lacked discernment and was willing to use them to invent new stories based on fiction within his own mind. Statements made to the effect that the plates were made to fool the prophet are verily true. The plates are not genuine but the Church to this day continues to be fooled by a false spirit emanating from the desire to defend Joseph Smith’s ability to translate ancient languages. Therefore, I respectfully request that you advise your educational department and ecclesiastical leaders that the plates are a fraud and that Smith made a grave error into thinking they were genuine. Whatever Smith said about the Kinderhook plates is dead wrong. Please relay this message to President David O. McKay in order to afford him an opportunity to set the record straight.

Sincerely,

Shulem
Discuss Mormonism
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Ridiculous apologetics of Jeff Lindsay in just two sentences!!

Post by Shulem »

Apologetics of Jeff Lindsay go beyond the pale whereby this man stoops to any level to try and explain things away.

LDS FAQ: Wasn't Joseph Smith fooled by the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates? Doesn't that prove he didn't translate by the power of God?

Jeff starts out by answering the above question with:

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Perhaps he was fooled, for a moment.

A moment?

Here, Jeff is willing to concede that “perhaps” (maybe, could be, it’s possible) that Smith was fooled for a moment; just a moment, only a single moment. Not two moments, not three, not four, not for an hour or a day or God forbid, for the rest of his life!

Jeff continues in his next sentence:

Jeff Lindsay wrote:He did not immediately dismiss the fraudulent plates when they were brought to him and it appears that he even attempted to assign meaning to one character that resembled an Egyptian character from some of the Joseph Smith papyri.

Now it seems that the “moment” has extended itself for a considerable amount of time. The moment was not immediately dismissed! Therefore, it’s no longer a moment but something much longer. Lindsay now concedes that Smith “appears” to attempt to “assign meaning to one character” or in other words provide a translation in which to interpret the hieroglyph. Isn’t that right, Jeff? It certainly seems that the moment turned into something far more then just a moment and that Joseph Smith was translating yet again!
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3510
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Kinderhook Testimony from the Church

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 4:35 pm
Sincerely,

Shulem
Discuss Mormonism
With the entire truthfulness of the LDS Church hanging on the Kinderhook Plates, shouldn't some metallurgical test be run or a team of BYU Proto-Mayan-Finno-Ugric experts be called in to bear their testimonies?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply