Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

[_Infymus]

My point exactly. Joseph was not that concerned about posterity. He lived in the moment. It is unfortunate that we have not had much from him personally but needed to rely on second hand sources. And it is a matter of opinion if we accept everything he said from a second hand source.

Therefore, we can reject any arguments made by critics and return to relying on faith, since second hand sources cannot be trusted. Once again, Joseph Smith is exonerated in the eyes of Mormons.

The two statements concerning second hand accounts and the faults of his scribes are not only getting old, but getting pathetic.

[_Mike Reed]

Well OK, but based on the next paragraph I think you are sure.

When I hear the phrase, "Joseph Smith was a fraud," I take that to mean that he intentionally deceived people into believing that he was who he said he was (ie. a prophet). If he were purely delusional, then the deception would have been unintentional.

Regarding the Kinderhook plates, do you believe there are any valid arguments made by respected apologists that reject the Kinderhook plates being a verified hoax?

Yes, I do. But before you fly off the handle now, and accuse me of being a double-minded man... be sure you understand the technical definition of the word "valid" in logic. Also... don't expect me to tell you which arguments I think are valid, since answering such a question would give clues as to what I learned from Don. I promised to not steal his thunder.

[_George Miller]

Hey Guys - After our session at the MHA both Mike and I had privilege to sit join Don Bradley and few others for dinner. During the dinner, Don showed us his planned presentation for the FAIR conference. Can I just say WOW!!!!! I have had the pleasure in the past of working with Don on some of his Masonic research, and he is one the best Mormon scholars I know; and his integrity in my eyes is simply beyond reproach. Don has the ability to objectively look at all the data in a dispassionate way, parse the sum total of the data, and then synthesize the obvious answer that seems to have alluded everyone. The case of the Kinderhood plates is no exception.

Don ties together all of the threads into one and gives a groundbreaking, scholarly and erudite conclusion. If you are anything like me, when you see Don's data your jaw will drop and the answer will be obvious. Good work Don! If you live in the area, I would suggest that admission to the FAIR conference is worth the price of hearing Don alone speak. Good luck my dear friend.

[_George Miller]

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- I have been a good friend of Mike Reed for a few years and I spent almost the entire MHA conference with him. I have talked till the late hours of the night with Mike about Mormonism. I know Mike VERY well. Sorry to say this Thews, but your view and interpretation of Mike is just skewed and inaccurate.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Guys - After our session at the MHA both Mike and I had privilege to sit join Don Bradley and few others for dinner. During the dinner, Don showed us his planned presentation for the FAIR conference. Can I just say WOW!!!!! I have had the pleasure in the past of working with Don on some of his Masonic research, and he is one the best Mormon scholars I know; and his integrity in my eyes is simply beyond reproach. Don has the ability to objectively look at all the data in a dispassionate way, parse the sum total of the data, and then synthesize the obvious answer that seems to have alluded everyone. The case of the Kinderhook plates is no exception.

Don ties together all of the threads into one and gives a groundbreaking, scholarly and erudite conclusion. If you are anything like me, when you see Don's data your jaw will drop and the answer will be obvious. Good work Don! If you live in the area, I would suggest that admission to the FAIR conference is worth the price of hearing Don alone speak. Good luck my dear friend.

Hi George,

I completely agree with your opinion of Don. He is a great man and a great scholar.

I do not want anyone to let the, "cat out of the bag," here so feel free to not answer my questions if they would do so. (smile)

I guess I am a little unsure of the controversy. I thought I knew the basic issue but, having not kept up I guess there has been more discussion of which I am not aware.

Are apologists wanting to show that Joseph Smith really knew how to translate? Or that the whole Kinderhook issue is a non-issue?

Or, let me ask it this way... right now, (prior to Don's work), what is the apologetic stance regarding the Kinderhook plates?

And, what is the current critic argument?

~td~

[_lostindc]

Thews- I have been a good friend of Mike Reed for a few years and I spent almost the entire MHA conference with him. I have talked till the late hours of the night with Mike about Mormonism. I know Mike VERY well. Sorry to say this Thews, but your view and interpretation of Mike is just skewed and inaccurate.

George,

I agree, Mike was one of a few that reached out to me when I started to uncover Church history. He is a good guy (by the way, I have not forgotten others such as ttribe and runtu who both offered support).

[_stemelbow]

It seems to me there are so many issues out there, used by critics to decry the claims of Joseph Smith. The kinderhook plates has always been somewhat of a non-starter to me. There seems to be very little evidence to convict Joseph Smith in the matter, so essentially I shrug off the Kinderhook plates as nothing much of anything. We simply don't seem to know too much about the affair, at least not details. With that, I look forward to hearing/reading what Don has to say on the matter. Maybe there has been far more too it, than Thews generally pulls out and throws at all LDS folks he seems to encounter. We'll see. If there is, then this issue may be more intriguing then I thought.

[_Kevin Graham]

The only problem with Don is that he insists on presenting at such a lame pseudo-intellectual outfit like FAIR.

Please folks, don't let this discourage you from taking Don seriously.

[_sock puppet]

It seems to me there are so many issues out there, used by critics to decry the claims of Joseph Smith. The kinderhook plates has always been somewhat of a non-starter to me. There seems to be very little evidence to convict Joseph Smith in the matter, so essentially I shrug off the Kinderhook plates as nothing much of anything. We simply don't seem to know too much about the affair, at least not details. With that, I look forward to hearing/reading what Don has to say on the matter. Maybe there has been far more too it, than Thews generally pulls out and throws at all LDS folks he seems to encounter. We'll see. If there is, then this issue may be more intriguing then I thought.

If the Kinderhook Plates were the only problem of that type with regards to JSJr, I might too find it somewhat of a 'non-starter'. However, it fits the pattern of his character. What seems to be non-starters are JSJr's claims about translating ancient texts.

[Guest]

I completely agree with your opinion of Don. He is a great man and a great scholar.

I do not want anyone to let the, "cat out of the bag," here so feel free to not answer my questions if they would do so. (smile)

I guess I am a little unsure of the controversy. I thought I knew the basic issue but, having not kept up I guess there has been more discussion of which I am not aware.

The apologist stance has changed over time. Early on the Mormons claimed the Kinderhook plates were authentic, despite Wilbur Fugate's affadavit claiming he had forged the plates to play a trick on the Mormons. In the absence of the original plates it was impossible to test Fugate's claim, until they were found and around 1980 definitive tests showed they were fake. At this point the general consensus amongst conservative Mormon scholars changed.

Knowing that the plates are indeed fraudulent, some Mormon conservative scholars have instead postulated that Joseph Smith never translated the plates. However, the problem with this stance is that both friendly and unfriendly sources claim Joseph Smith did enough translation of the plates to identify the contents of the plates. Apologists have simply claimed that all of these accounts are ill informed stories based on what amount to a runaway rumor of Joseph Smith's translation.

The critics simply argue that the plates are a fraud and they agree with the various accounts and claim Joseph Smith translated the plates.

I will not steal Don't thunder by revealing his research. Suffice it to say that Bradley has uncovered what I believe to be conclusive evidence explaining exactly what Joseph Smith did and did not do.