Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

[_Infymus]

Finally, the apologists can get this out of the way, and then start concentrating on the skeleton of Zelph.

[_jon]

Finally, the apologists can get this out of the way, and then start concentrating on the skeleton of Zelph.

LOL...

When you think about it, if you take the position that Joseph made it all up, then and only then, does Mormonism make sense...

[_Joseph]

So, he rode out after borrowing Twenty dollars?

Did he ever pay back the loan?

[_Buffalo]

Finally, the apologists can get this out of the way, and then start concentrating on the skeleton of Zelph.

LOL...

When you think about it, if you take the position that Joseph made it all up, then and only then, does Mormonism make sense...

It's the only theory that is consistent with all known evidence

[_Mike Reed]

Why anyone would find any value in your book is the real question. Just exactly what motivates a Ex-Mo who makes Pro-Mormon arguments?

Now you are questioning my motives again? I thought we got past that. :) My point is that objective research on provocative topics often produces dicey finds that all sides can make use of. Think of Quinn's book on Magic, for example. Critics have used Quinn's book to prove the Smith family's involvement in magical practices, Joseph's use of seer stones before he received the U&T from the angel, etc. Apologists, however, have used Quinn's opening chapter, to explain that many Christians had been involved in "magical" practices of their own.

It is not all black and white. Think in shades of grey. If grey is really the answer... and you are debating against a person saying "white," you will be able to prove them wrong. But if you are debating "black," then you will need to concede some, since the shade was not as dark as you assumed. Does that make sense? Don't think that when I say "grey" is the answer, that I am talking about fogginess/blurrieness. I am not. All sides will be able to perceive the controversy more accurately after Don's presentation is given.

What does "finally" mean here? It's cut and dry... Joseph Smith translated the plates, William Clayton wrote it down and that's the truth. All these hidden cryptic arguments to attempt to explain away the obvious is an exercise in futility.

The controversy won't end. I am just saying that Don's paper will bring the controversy to a higher level of discussion.

[_Mike Reed]

This doesn't have anything to do with that burst sequence encryption recently received by SETI does it? Wait, don't say anything. Let it be a surprise to all the attendees and they in turn will let us know.

Finally knowing the secret of the bees hidden on the plates will be something to savor for a long time afterward.

LOL! You crack me up Moksha...

[_Inconceivable]

Finally, the apologists can get this out of the way, and then start concentrating on the skeleton of Zelph.

..and then the facsimiles of the book of Abraham
..and then the first vision accounts
..and then figuring how to fit a saddle on a tapir
..and then finding 250,000 human remains around the hill Cumorah
..and then typing them with Lehite DNA
..and then discovering any evidence at all of Nephites in the Yucatan
..and then deciding what color the leadership wore on their faces at MMM
..and then determining how many mistresses Joseph Smith didn't have sex with..
etc.
etc.
etc..
wow. Sounds like FAIR has a lot on their plate for the next 100 years.

[_Mike Reed]

A couple of questions (sorry, I'm not on here often enough to be as informed as most of you are!):

- When is the FAIR conference?

Hi Madison. Here is FAIR's link about the event: http://www.fairlds.org/conf11a.html

And,

- What is the subject of Mike Reed's book?

The book's title will be Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo (John Whitmer Books). The book explores how and why the taboo against the Christian symbol developed in Mormon culture to become what it is today. If you are interested, here are two newspaper articles covering my research: Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune.

Thanks to anyone who responds!

My pleasure.

[_LDS truthseeker]

Who else would have been able to make these grand claims about the Kinderhook Plates except Joseph Smith, the prophet? 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.

Why would Joseph Smith, an editor of the Times and Seasons, allow the article with pictures of the plates be published if it wasn't true? Even hardcore LDS admit that Joseph must have known the article was published and did not dispute it. The LDS book History of the Church makes it very clear that Joseph translated a portion of the Kinderhook Plates.

Certainly Joseph would have retracted the story printed in the Times and Seasons at some point if he was misquoted about something this important. Can you imagine The Ensign printing a totally bogus article and then a hundred years from now, the faithful members of the church claim that the prophet and apostles didn’t have any knowledge of that article and it was just made up by some editors and went completely unnoticed by the General Authorities?

[_EAllusion]

Presuming the popular theory that Don's presentation will be that Smith endeavored to engage in a normal translation is the crux of the argument, I do have one question that I think would call into question the apologetic value of this fact. But I'll have to wait and see what the historical case is and if he's preempted what I would think would be a problem for this as far as J. Smith's reliability as a revelator is concerned.