DiscussMormonism.com

Ludd, I have a question related to the investigation you have been sent to do by some mysterious person who has some interest in the goings on in Mormon apologetics:

In 2010, William Schryver presented a theory at the FAIR conference that the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language was a project Joseph Smith undertook to create a cipher. Schyver's theory was touted in the Deseret News and MADB as a "game changer" that would forever prove that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers do not demonstrate that Joseph Smith was trying to translate the writings on the Chandler papyri (and thus corroborate that the Book of Abraham is a hoax). It was also asserted that Schryver's decisive work to solve the KEP mystery was driving critics of the Book of Abraham crazy."

"Schryver has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP are the 'translation documents' of the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates." --Greg Smith

However, one year later at the very next FAIR conference, LDS scholar Don Bradley demonstrated that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to attempt a "secular" translation of the Kinderhook Plates.

FAIR now acknowledges that Joseph Smith used the GAEL in attempt to translate the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates. It makes no sense that Joseph Smith would use a cipher key he had invented to try translating what he thought was an ancient record. In other words, FAIR tacitly admits that Schryver's "game changer" has been negated.

In addition to negating Schyver's "game changing" cipher theory, FAIR's new admission based on research presented at its 2011 conference negates FAIR's previous talking point that Joseph Smith never at any point tried to translate the Kinderhook Plates, and his scribes were just making up statements about the Kinderhook Plates and attributing it to him. This "Joseph never tried to translate the plates" argument was asserted in the 1981 Ensign, after the Kinderhook Plates had been scientifically determined to be a forgery. And yet prior to the scientific determination that the Kinderhook Plates were a forgery, the LDS Church claimed that Joseph Smith DID start a translation, and that the Kinderhook Plates were evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

"Certain bell-shaped plates are said to have been discovered in a mound, in the vicinity of Kinderhook, Pike county, Illinois, by Robert Wiley, in 1843, and taken to Joseph Smith. Now, I wish to ask: 1. Were these plates translated by Joseph Smith? 2. If so, what were their contents? 3. Where are they? 4. Are they considered of any value in confirming the Book of Mormon? 5. Is there anything about them in any of the Church works?

"1 and 2. Near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois-between fifty and sixty miles south and east of Nauvoo-on April 23, 1843, a Mr. Robert Wiley, while excavating a large mound, took from said mound six brass plates of bell shape, fastened by a ring passing through the small end, and fastened with two clasps, and covered with ancient characters. Human bones together with charcoal and ashes were found in the mound, in connection with the plates which evidently had been buried with the person whose bones were discovered. The plates were submitted to the Prophet, and speaking of them in his journal, under date of May 1, 1843, he says: "I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. 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 plates were later placed in a museum in St. Louis, known as McDowell's, which was afterwards destroyed by fire, and the plates were lost.

"4. The event would go very far towards confirming the idea that in very ancient times, there was intercourse between the eastern and western hemispheres; and the statement of the prophet would mean that the remains were Egyptian. The fair implication, also, from the prophet's words is that this descendant of the Pharaohs possessed a kingdom in the new world; and this circumstance may account for the evidence of a dash of Egyptian civilization in our American antiquities.

"5. The whole account of the finding of the plates, together with the testimony of eight witnesses, besides Mr. Wiley, who were acquainted with the finding of the relics, as also the statement from the prophet's history, is found in the Millennial Star, vol. 21: pp. 40-44." (Improvement Era. Vol. VII. March 1904. No. 5.)

So in its 2011 conference, FAIR managed to contradict it 2010 position about the apologetic "game changer" cipher theory as well as its previous apologetic position that Joseph Smith never tried to translate the Kinderhook Plates (which in turn contradicts the position the Church took prior to the discovery that the Kinderhook Plates were a forgery). It seems that FAIR is fairly successful at making presentations that undermine its previous answers to challenging issues about the Church.

FAIR is currently hitting people up for contributions to continue its "serious scholarship" in defense of the Restored Gospel.

Is the unnamed principal whom you represent interested interested in any of this? Or just naughty words on message boards?

Just how did scientists determine anything about the Kinderhook plates is they were destroyed by a fire in a St. Louis museum?
I will allow that they were fraudulent. Just wondering about the science.

Joseph carried a considerable 'attitude' I'd say he was down right irascible about his prophetic mantel in the Nauvoo period. He did not like being the Prophet knowing the hit he was going to take for polygamy. It irked him. And he could not wait to be appointed elsewhere.
I would not put prank for prank beneath him.

Synonyms: choleric, crabby, cranky, cross, crotchety, fiery, grouchy, grumpy, irritable, peevish, perverse, pettish, petulant, prickly, quick-tempered, raspy, ratty, short-tempered, snappish, snappy, snarky, snippety, snippy, stuffy, testy, waspish

Nightlion wrote:Just how did scientists determine anything about the Kinderhook plates is they were destroyed by a fire in a St. Louis museum?
I will allow that they were fraudulent. Just wondering about the science.

Joseph carried a considerable 'attitude' I'd say he was down right irascible about his prophetic mantel in the Nauvoo period. He did not like being the Prophet knowing the hit he was going to take for polygamy. It irked him. And he could not wait to be appointed elsewhere.
I would not put prank for prank beneath him.

Synonyms: choleric, crabby, cranky, cross, crotchety, fiery, grouchy, grumpy, irritable, peevish, perverse, pettish, petulant, prickly, quick-tempered, raspy, ratty, short-tempered, snappish, snappy, snarky, snippety, snippy, stuffy, testy, waspish

Didn't one survive and was subsequently scientifically tested?

One plate survived and was tested at BYU in the 60's and then in the early 80's.

Bob Loblaw wrote:One plate survived and was tested at BYU in the 60's and then in the early 80's.

How sound was the provenance of the surviving plate? Someone could have just gone in the garage and made one ya know.

Interesting too that this came to light at the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri.
Twas the time and the season for the test, a test, is coming. Anyone who does not know independently the God of the Restoration for himself by the power of the Holy Ghost would fall. The Church has been agenda driven away from the power of the gospel for ten generations. It is done. Not all who fall go away. So long as the money is good, ya know, and the praise of men and the honors of office and secret abominations abounding............

Nightlion wrote: How sound was the provenance of the surviving plate? Someone could have just gone in the garage and made one ya know.

From the Ensign:

Because the whereabouts of the plates since at least 1844 had been unknown, their authenticity remained a matter of conjecture. But in 1920, one of them came into the possession of the Chicago Historical Society. Only then did direct testing become possible.

How the one remaining plate got to Chicago is an interesting story in itself—a story that is consistent with physical evidence (to be discussed later) that this plate is indeed one of the original Kinderhook plates brought to Nauvoo in 1843.

In 1845, a Dr. Joseph Nash McDowell established a college of medicine in St. Louis. The college had a museum of natural history that contained 3,000 items, among them “Antiquities, &c. of our country.” W. P. Harris, in his letter of 1855, said he had heard from a fellow physician “that R Wiley graduated [from the college] since finding the plates … and that Dr. Professor McDowell on surgery has the plates now in his office.” It is now apparent that Wiley either sold or gave the Kinderhook plates to McDowell for the museum.

McDowell was a southern sympathizer who left St. Louis to serve the Confederacy as a physician during the Civil War. This made him very unpopular in St. Louis, and when the U.S. Army seized his college in 1861 for use as a prison, the 2nd Iowa Reserve Regiment sacked it. 7

The Chicago Historical Society received one of the plates in 1920 as a gift from Charles F. Gunther, a noted collector of historical artifacts. Gunther had acquired it on 15 July 1889 from F. C. A. Richardson, M.D. (a member of both the St. Louis and the Chicago Academies of Science). Richardson in turn received it from a Dr. J. W. McDowell (not the same man as Dr. Joseph Nash McDowell), who got it from a soldier in the 2nd Iowa Reserve Regiment.

Darth J wrote:Ludd, I have a question related to the investigation you have been sent to do by some mysterious person who has some interest in the goings on in Mormon apologetics:

**********

Is the unnamed principal whom you represent interested interested in any of this? Or just naughty words on message boards?

First of all, I wasn't sent to do any "investigation". When this acquaintance of mine learned that I participate on this message board, he asked for links to examples of Peterson, Hamblin, and Schryver engaging in nasty online behavior. I sent the link to Mormon Apologetics and Misogyny thread. Then I was asked if there were other examples besides that thread. That's when I started the other thread. It wasn't a formal request to do an "investigation" and I told him I hadn't been here long enough to have ever seen any of those three posting here. As far as I'm concerned, that thread I started that is still going is all the "investigation" I'm going to do about the matter.

As for your question about FAIR and the Kinderhook Plates and Schryver's cipher theory, none of that was mentioned. I don't think he knows anything about any of that, although I could be wrong. He has no relationship to FAIR or FARMS, is not a Mormon apologist or a critic. All I know is that he is looking into the MI shake-up. When I wrote this in the OP of the other thread:

I've been told that this is intended for people "high up the ladder" (what exactly that means, I'm not sure) who are investigating the FARMS shake-up. It isn't clear if the "ladder" he mentioned is at BYU or in Salt Lake City.

I should have made clear that I was not told that by the same person ("A") who wanted the information. I was told it by someone else ("B") who I told about the request for the information. Person "B" was giving his opinion about why person "A" would be asking for the information because person "B" apparently knows that person "A" is well-acquainted with a certain person "C" (unknown to me) who is supposedly "high up the ladder" somewhere. But person "B" didn't make clear to me where the ladder was on which person "C" was supposedly "high up".

I hope that has been sufficiently confusing.

Ludd:

Okay, so you have an unnamed (to anyone but you) third party contacting you on behalf of an unnamed (to you) fourth party asking you---who are not very familiar with this board---to find out information from other people so you can pass it on to the third party who can pass it on to the fourth party. And you don't know who this is ultimately for, or why, but the third party, or the fourth party, or both, already knows enough to evaluate how many instances of "antics" they think there are, and that the ones they know of so far are, for unspecified reasons, not credible or meaningful. And the third party or the fourth party or you is perfectly capable of using the search feature on the board, or Google. So it's important enough for some person of authority at either BYU or Church headquarters to take notice and ask for more information, but not important enough for you to put any effort into it. Instead, the burden of research will be placed on the board in general, and it is up to random people who may or may not be interested in your homework assignment to "impress" your mysterious third and/or fourth party. And if other people don't do your homework for you, then the third party and the fourth party, who want this information for unknown reasons, will dismiss it all because random people on a message board don't feel like doing their homework for them.

Right?

Also, you said this:

Ludd wrote: I do not want to reveal my in real life identity, for what I think should be obvious reasons, but there are people I know who I happened to tell that I participate on this board, and so I have had a "special request" made to me by someone who is doing an investigation of the online antics of Daniel Peterson, William Hamblin, and William Schryver, or anyone else associated with FARMS. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24746

William Schryver is not associated with FARMS. He has published a grand total of nothing with the Maxwell Institute. He has just given a presentation at a FAIR conference. And all of that "meaning and purpose of the KEP" episode is highly relevant to William Schryver's "online antics." Greg Smith, who IS involved with the MI, and who authored the lengthy hit piece on Rodney Meldrum and wrote the unpublished article on John Dehlin, commented extensively on the merits of Schyver's "game changer" theory positing that the GAEL was a cipher project.

So what you're implying is that your mysterious third and fourth parties are not interested in substantive apologetic work that reflects on the credibility of Mormon apologetics as a whole, and indirectly on the Church, and is being reported in a church-owned newspaper (the Deseret News). The third and fourth parties only care about saying naughty words on the internet.

Right?

So, Ludd, further to your seeking information from the board:

How is it that you have been able to familiarize yourself with Doctor Scratch's posting history, but not with the subject matter that an intermediary has asked you to look into on behalf of some unknown person at either BYU or Church headquarters? And how is it that you are familiar with Kishkumen posting under two different screen names, one of which he has barely used in over a year?

Ludd wrote: Look, I may be wrong about thinking you and Doctor Scratch are the same person. It's just what I thought based on your posts. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. But I'm certainly not involved in "apologetic warfare and smearing." I don't understand what the big deal is either way. So what if you post under two different handles? I love Doctor Scratch's posts. They're great. He's one of the great critics on all the Mormon boards. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24337&p=598445#p598445

How could you have "always" thought Kishkumen and Doctor Scratch are the same person when don't know much about the board?

Ludd wrote: How do you know?

I've always thought Doctor Scratch and Kishkumen are the same person. In fact, I'm pretty certain of it. But it doesn't surprise me that Kishkumen is denying it to high heaven.

Where's Doctor Scratch? He seems to have disappeared. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24337&p=598425#p598425

Ludd wrote:Huh? I'm not sure what you're reading, but their tone, attitude, and vocabulary are VERY much alike. That's why I always thought they were the same person. And what's really hilarious is that "Trevor" thought so too and made posts saying as much. Did you read the 2009 thread that Ray linked to? You need to. It's all so obvious. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24337&p=598600#p598600

How is it that you have gone through threads from years ago on this board, but you aren't familiar enough with it to figure out what people have said about Schryer and Hamblin and Peterson?

Ludd wrote: Isn't that thread an amazing bit of sock puppetry gone wild?

I'll bet Trevor/Kishkumen/Mister Scratch/Doctor Scratch/?????? never thought anyone would be reading that thread again after all these years.

From what I can figure, Mister Scratch left the board for some reason. Then "Kishkumen" appears, but everyone fingers him immediately as Mister Scratch's sock puppet. The funniest part is that "Trevor" is among those who recognize that "Kishkumen" is "Mister Scratch's" sock puppet, and he joins in with teh crowd that is giving "Kishkumen" such a hard time. Then "Kishkumen" and "Trevor" carry on a long conversation with each other. You especailly gotta love how Kishkumen calls Trevor "Little Ms. Trevor". Nice touch, don't you think?

Then Droopy drops by and asks "Kishkumen," point blank: "Scratch, is this sockpuppet thing really necessary. I mean, actually speaking of Scratch as if he weren't you? And the point is?"

"Kishkumen" then replies (in the last post on the thread): "To have some fun, lad. That's what it's all about."

So Kishkumen outright admits to Droopy that he is Scratch's sock puppet. "To have some fun, lad. That's what it's all about."

Problem is that at some point "Trevor" decided that he would be "Kishkumen". I don't know when that happened and when Trevor acknowledged the fact that he was "Kishkumen". But it's obvious that Trevor/Kishkumen/Mister Scratch/Doctor Scratch/?????? lost track of what his various sock puppets had said. Man, I hate it when that happens. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24337&p=598560#p598560

How can Blixa be one of your favorite posters, while you are so utterly unfamiliar with the board that you can't figure out how to find what people have said about certain Mormon apologists?

Ludd wrote:

I see ScratchKumen has called in some reinforcements.

Sorry Blixa. You're one of my favorite posters here. But you're wrong on this one. It's down right obvious as hell that Kishkumen and Doctor Scratch have been the same person. Did you check out the thread Ray linked to earlier? I mean how much more obvious do you want it to be?

I still don't understand why this is a big deal to Kishkumen. Is this like the first time a sock puppet has been unmasked on this board? Really? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24337&p=598543#p598543

And you seem to have a vaguely familiar idea that nobody can really know anything for sure. I just can't quite put my finger on it......

Ludd wrote: Just as I thought. You don't know anything for certain.

I don't know anything for certain, either. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24337&p=598429#p598429

Holy cats! I wish I had a great deal of money, Darth, then I'd hired you to be my PA. I think I might just be able to get things done, then.