Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

[_Kevin Graham]

Maybe William will be there to take notes on how to actually present a true game-changer.

[_George Miller]

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.

Don't give Don too hard a time about that. It is a bit unfair for us to belittle the intellectual integrity of FAIR and at the same time discourage honest scholars from presenting well-reasoned intellectually cogent presentations at their conference. Don believes in a big tent Mormonism and I applaud him for making nice with FAIR while maintaining academic integrity in his presentations. I would love to see the tenor and quality of the active Mormon scholarly community improve in rigor and quality, so lets not discourage any movement in that direction.

[_zeezrom]

This sure makes me want to go to the FAIR conference. All the suspense is killing me! The FAIR guys should give Don a gift for increasing draw to the event.

Same thing happened at the 2010 conference. Thanks to Will, I took time off and paid for a ticket to attend the show.

[_sock puppet]

This sure makes me want to go to the FAIR conference. All the suspense is killing me! The FAIR guys should give Don a gift for increasing draw to the event.

Same thing happened at the 2010 conference. Thanks to Will, I took time off and paid for a ticket to attend the show.

Zeez, PM me about what days it is, and I'll do what I can to make Don's presentation. Then we can go to the Beerhive Pub afterwards to discuss it. It will be 'sock puppet in Zion/summer 2011' or 'puppet-fest '11'.

[_Blixa]

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.

Don't give Don too hard a time about that. It is a bit unfair for us to belittle the intellectual integrity of FAIR and at the same time discourage honest scholars from presenting well-reasoned intellectually cogent presentations at their conference. Don believes in a big tent Mormonism and I applaud him for making nice with FAIR while maintaining academic integrity in his presentations. I would love to see the tenor and quality of the active Mormon scholarly community improve in rigor and quality, so lets not discourage any movement in that direction.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

[Guest]

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

CFR regarding any apologist concurring with your statement.

I assume you're asking me this question, so besides the quotes I already posted...

From Fair:
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kinderhook_plates#note-1

"Most LDS scholars defended the authenticity of the Kinderhook plates until 1981, and now most publicly dismiss them as a fraud."[2]

Regarding the testing, this is a good source:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/resp ... erhook.htm

There the matter rested until 1980, when I had the good fortune to secure permission from the Chicago Historical Society for the recommended destructive tests. These tests, involving some very sophisticated analytical techniques, were performed by Professor D. Lymi Johnson of the Departinent of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the Chicago plate is indeed one of the original Kinderhook plates, which now fairly well evidences them to be faked antiquities

Regarding what apologists do say regarding the translation is intentionally vague. Most will claim "we just don't know" because that's what they're told to believe regarding the story of the descendant of Ham as they ignore the evidence. I've yet to cross paths with a TBM who acknowledges Joseph Smith did attempt a translation (as the historical record shows) and it was a hoax. Instead, once backed in a corner they throw our "might have" to leave themselves an out, before they flee the discussion.

Are there any apologists in here that claim the Kinderhook plate found is not authentic?

[_thews]

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.

That's what I figured you meant, in that you take the stance that Joseph Smith was purely delusional, which is why he believed he could translate things.

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.

I'd be curious to hear an argument that uses data to claim the Kinderhook plate that was tested wasn't authentic. Regarding Don's presentation, the hype card has been played before with some supposedly new reverse engineered argument, but the data will speak for itself; I look forward to it. Thank you for answering the questions.

[_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.

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.

Well George, my point isn't that Mike's not a nice person... I'm sure he is. He is also knowledgeable regarding Mormonism, so I've no doubt you can talk for great lengths regarding Mormon issues. My axe comes from presenting arguments that paint Mormonism as true, like the symbols on Joseph Smith's cane somehow being "Christian". http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot ... ature.html

Since you are a Mason and a Mormon (correct me if I'm wrong), I can see how you would find favor with these arguments. I guess I just don't get how one makes arguments for truth claims in something they believe is untrue.

[_thews]

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.

Ignorance is bliss. To make this statement, you must have researched the evidence. Do you research information outside of the confines of what you're told is acceptable? I ask this because your argument is what Mormons are told to believe.

We simply don't seem to know too much about the affair, at least not details.

Who is "we" in this statement? Mormons? Mormons don't know too much about it, just like they don't know too much about seer stones with head-in-hat. Your argument is far from compelling.

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.

Have you read this Stem?
http://mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm

[_George Miller]

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.

Well George, my point isn't that Mike's not a nice person... I'm sure he is. He is also knowledgeable regarding Mormonism, so I've no doubt you can talk for great lengths regarding Mormon issues. My axe comes from presenting arguments that paint Mormonism as true, like the symbols on Joseph Smith's cane somehow being "Christian". http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot ... ature.html

Since you are a Mason and a Mormon (correct me if I'm wrong), I can see how you would find favor with these arguments. I guess I just don't get how one makes arguments for truth claims in something they believe is untrue.

Thews- You missed the point. I know Mike VERY well. Mike is a non-believer and does not hold to the truth claims of Mormonism. Mike's arguments don't paint Mormonism as true. Mike's argument that the symbols on Joseph Smith's cane are Christian is a historical reality; and irrelevant to Mormonism's truth claims. A cross IS a Christian symbol and the cane in fact contains a cross. The cane is in fact modeled dually on the rod of Moses and the rod of Aaron; and is thus it is Christian, since as you well know most Christians accept the Old Testament. If Satan himself owned Joseph Smith's cane, that wouldn't change the fact that it had a cross and that is was modeled on biblical precedent.

I don't favor Mike's arguments because I am both a Mormon and a Mason, I favor his arguments because they are logically consistent and historically accurate. Your perception of Mike as upholding Mormonism's truth claims is simply inaccurate. Mike is just an honest historian who tries to act without bias as much as possible. Mike has repeatedly argued the case to me that Mormon history as portrayed in Sunday School is inaccurate and misleading. Your belief that Mike argues that Mormonism is "true" in spite of his unbelief is simply out of character with all I know about Mike.