Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

[_thews]

Now you are questioning my motives again?

Please explain your motive to us Mike, because I really don't understand where you're coming from. You believe Mormonism is untrue... correct?

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.

OK, but magical practices argued by someone who believes in them is different than someone who doesn't... correct?

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.

I understand Don's motive, I just don't understand yours... please explain it.

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

I'm all for discussion about topics apologists avoid like the plague, so I'm very interested in Don's viewpoint on the Kinderhook plates, because someone gave the descendant of Ham translation, and apologists won't admit it was in fact Joseph Smith. Admitting it was Joseph Smith and making an argument what he actually meant is different than ignorance of the facts.

[_lostindc]

Please Note: The Kinderhook plates really crushed me, thanks Mike Ash! I never heard of the kinderhook plates until I read Shaken Faith Syndrome. The book had good motives but pretty much crushed my testimony. All the problems were neatly organized into a book and the resolutions to the problems were often times lacking. Also, note that I think Mike did a damn good job writing the book it is just I was not aware of some of the issues.



ALSO, I am looking forward to Mike Reed's works and I believe he is moving on with further grad schooling (if true Congrats!). His motives are good and his writing ability is far better than anything I have ever put together.

[_Mike Reed]

Thews, We have had this discussion before, and page after page I tried to explain it to you. Several other people tried to explain it to you. I finally thought you started to get it... but I guess not. I give up. Sure... I am a believing Mormon just posing as a non-believer. Think what you want.

[_thews]

Thews, We have had this discussion before, and page after page I tried to explain it to you. Several other people tried to explain it to you. I finally thought you started to get it... but I guess not. I give up. Sure... I am a believing Mormon just posing as a non-believer. Think what you want.

How very intellectually dishonest of you Mike. What's the matter Mike... you can't answer a simple question because of your agenda? Let's try once more... do you believe Joseph Smith was a fraud? (yes/no)

[_Mike Reed]

ALSO, I am looking forward to Mike Reed's works and I believe he is moving on with further grad schooling (if true Congrats!).

Thanks Lostindc. Yep. I'm heading to GTU/UC Berkely this fall, starting a joint PhD program in Christian history, focusing my studies in Christianity in North America, Jacksonian era.

[_Mike Reed]

How very intellectually dishonest of you Mike. What's the matter Mike... you can't answer a simple question because of your agenda? Let's try once more... do you believe Joseph Smith was a fraud? (yes/no)

There is nothing dishonest about avoiding a question from someone who will never be satisfied by my answers. Watch: Answer to your question is... I am not sure. I think he was either a fraud with pious motives, delusional, or both (not quite decided yet, but I lean towards both). I certainly don't believe he was an actual prophet of god, or that he restored Christ's church. I also don't believe Jesus is who mainstream Christians or Mormons say he is, or that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record of scripture. But you aren't satisfied with these answers, are you? You will continue to ask accusatory questions and turn this in to a thread about me.

[_jon]

Am I correct in thinking that it is widely acknowledged by both LDS and non-LDS that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud?

And that what we are discussing is:
Did Joseph 'translate' them?
Did Joseph 'translate' them in the same way that he 'translated' the Book of Abraham?

[_ludwigm]

Is/was William Clayton trustworthy or is/was he not? Please evaluate his role!

If he is/was trustworthy, then Joseph Smith has translated the KP, the hoax.

If he isn't/wasn't trustworthy then there is no church history (based on Clayton's diary).

My question is simple.

[_ludwigm]

... I am a believing Mormon just posing as a non-believer. Think what you want.

How very intellectually dishonest of you Mike.

He is not dishonest. I'm sorry to enlighten You.

The role of devil's advocate is necessary. Time to time, people should rethink their principles, and rearrange their priorities. Or remain the same as before.

If anybody can pose the opposite opinion, then he/she is thinking.

[_thews]

Am I correct in thinking that it is widely acknowledged by both LDS and non-LDS that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud?

And that what we are discussing is:
Did Joseph 'translate' them?
Did Joseph 'translate' them in the same way that he 'translated' the Book of Abraham?

Most apologists will admit the plates were a fraud based on the tests performed on the one which was found... except for Yahoo Bot:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15397&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

I take no position on whether the Kinderhook Plates Joseph Smith saw were authentic or not. But, the exemplar plate in the Chicago Museum is not the same size as each of the six Joseph Smith examined. It is almost twice the size as the size reported by the newspaper, and the Clayton and (I think) Young journals. It appears that someone fabricated a plate from the description provided in the facsimiles published by the Church.

That alone is enough to tell me that somebody had a hand in fabricating the story long after Joseph Smith had looked at it, and not before.

And LDS Truthseeker clarified the supposed issue of the size of the plates:

In defense of Yahoo Bot, this is exactly the argument given by the Gospel Doctrine teacher that taught this lesson in my ward many years ago. But why is this not supported by any other apologist or by the church itself.

My gospel doctrine teacher and Yahoo Bot both seem to realize the strength of the evidence in favor of Joseph saying the words attributed to him about the KP. The ONLY way the church can really escape unscathed is if the plates were real but the church has since declared they are not. So the size of the plates argument seems to be a mere typo and not valid.

As I recall the plates were report to be 7x5 but were 2x5. Sounds like someone's 2 looked like a 7.