Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

[_ELYSAB]

A "BOMB"?: A PROPOSED (TENTATIVE) TRANSLATION PROCEDURE FOR THE KINDERHOOK CHARACTERS.

The work for CARACTORS is basically finished. Now it is more for academic work, as for students of some good and reliable universities, to finish the research. Maybe some LDS university center, like BYU, can do the work. As remain none mystery about the translation of the CARACTORS, their meaning, their origin and evolution through the time. This case is trivial.

What about the KINDERHOOK translation? The same as for CLASSIC NEPHITIC ("based on CARACTORS"), as the CHARACTERS are exactly the same: both the Church would like to exterminate, I guess. There is nothing to add or remove, because the CHARACTERS have the same origin. It is just a matter of intensity of evolution that we can see. As if in one case we can report the language used in the days of Joseph Smith and then we can read the report written in nowadays current English. Some distinction can be noticed.

Also we don't know the PERSONAL purpose that was given when both plates were written. Both documents were not based on the same source, as if originate by copy of some original document. Thus so many effects must be taken into account. Even we have to consider and judge the personal styles in selecting what characters to select or what to stress as more important.

As given more importance to old characters in relation to their surrounding living language of neighbors, of their OLD ITALIC ALPHABETS and ITALIAN/ETRUSCAN friends.

In any way so many of such more recent source of characters are present in KINDERHOOK, and they would be IMPOSSIBLE to have been added, because the TOMBS of such ANCIENT ITALIANS (as the ETRUSCANS) yet were too recent (they had started just in 1830...) and were not yet understood by Italian scientists and thus they were not known by academic/scientists of the World/Britsh/USA to have them been used/handled for practical purposes as a HOAX materials in KINDERHOOK). Mainly because also Kinderhook was a "lost far away place, at the end of the civilized world"... as it was the "FAR WEST".

Only people "mad as a HATTER" could guess in such so mad sick plan...

HOW COULD IT WORKS A TRANSLATION OF A KINDERHOOK PLATE?

For sure some learned LDS, as some of BYU, are not to appreciate this mere SUGGESTION. In fact it is not more than a SPECULATION by now:



If you want to see much more enlarged, click on next URL. (click again on image to make it enlarge even more).
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/2b688d8a81bcdb10dd4a7643975c3453a846b25442eaba626c2d731f755b0c246g.jpg

Consider the ENCLOSED PLATE 1, face 1 (other is the same thing).
Consider it is as if CARACTORS document. Thus it may have been written to the write or to the left or ALTERNATING (system BOUSTROPHEDON, that I concluded it was the case of NEPHITIC language based on CARACTORS document). Also it is KINDERHOOK... The usual is to start at the TOP.

You look at the document and you can see the "R" character, which looks like the modern letter=character "D", is in the reversed way. Thus we must read from Right to Left.

We start with the character "A" which appears "Phoenician", but it is upside down. It was never Phoenician... Probably this was from a manual for CRYPTOGRAPHY. On top of such "A" is an "I". Move to the left is character "I" and "R" and then "d" (signal to end the word). Thus we may have something like AIIRI.

Then we continue after "d" (which is like our "dot" for phrase or blank space between words): W W (they are from Sabellicus Sabina Tiberina of VI-V century BC... ITALY) and I and S (is only from Italic languages) and comes "d" (like an "end point"): the word WWIS ("UIS")

Then continues to left with U and I and S and you reach the END. What happens now? How do you continue to read? The E and S shapes tell us to read as Italic people did: from left to right. We are acting as Boustrophedon...

Thus we continue to read the WORD, that we stopped in UIS (upper line) and now we read E (like Greek EPSILON)... There is an I before character E. Thus we read IE. Continue there is R and the end of course "d". Thus the next possible word is UISIR.

Continuing we have LUTR. And then mark end of course.

Then start with S at the end of 2nd line and goes to the START of 3rd line because the letters/words are to be read toward the right (just examine them). At the very left of 3rd line, the word continues with I and then S and I and I and R. Comes the "d". Thus the word is SISIIR.

Then it continues AIRIAIS. Then comes "d". Then continues SISSE (last E already at the left of 4th line). Then continue ERIAKIS.
"d" A.I. "d" SI SIID.

No doubt, it is very "crude" yet as translation. But quite very much distinct in relation to what we have with CARACTORS, which is basically a LIST of CHARACTERS. And thus no chance of messages.

[_ELYSAB]

GEOGRAPHY of Book of Mormon having KINDERHOOK IN IT x

JOSEPH SMITH DISCLOSURE = UNVEILING about SUCH GEOGRAPHY linked to PUBLIC REVELATION ABOUT ZELPH and GEOGRAPHY OF NEPHITES KINGDOM x

MODERN LDS-BYU GEOGRAPHY OF NEPHITES IN MESO-AMERICA DENYING KINDERHOOK AND JOSEPH SMITH'S REVELATION ABOUT ZELPH geography


What are the BASICS and FUNDAMENTAL "principal" CORNERSTONES of LDS GEOGRAPHY? They are linked to the Book of Mormon text.
As related to the NEPHITIC-LAMANITIC-MULEKITES and JAREDITES people living in "AMERICA", in "SOMEWHERE" geographic told places.

Are them in South America? In Meso-America/Central-America? In Mexico? In the USA? In somewhere Canada? Partly in USA and partly in Canada? In the whole North America continent? In all over the America continent? In just some Island of Sea (as Cuba?)?

What is the relationship of Geography for Nephitic-Lamanitic-Mulekitic events in relation to the Jareditic events? Are them in the same very land, with just other names? Or is just there some overlap of lands?

How can we know that one geographic event, described and located by some toponimic identification (as one name and feature) is the true same land of some other name in the other culture?

I guess there is just one case in which there is one "explicit" link of one Jaredict place being written as the same for Nephites, in Book of Mormon: it was when Jaredite's records were being translated into Nephitic's.

It is like you have the old map of Roman Empire, made as good as possible. Then you get another and modern map of Italy. And you try to identify the place of a plane crash event on both maps and how to go to such place. Probably some things are in common in both maps, as the rivers e peak of mountains, for example... Some towns and roads disappeared...

As in the case of Book of Mormon, some towns probably were burned, as they were made basically of WOOD, the ideal material for very cold places, as NORTH LANDS and thus the "devastation = DESOLATION, Deforestation"... And the bad environmental impacts as lack of animal wild life...

Think about the Japanese, living in places of very severe cold weather. "Guess" if their "dream" (like those described in Book of Mormon) was to live in a "cold" house made of STONES or of BLOCKS OF CEMENT... No! As in Book of Mormon, Their "dream" was to have houses made of WOOD, even if it comes from far away, transported by huge Hagoth's cargo sail ships. Because of CONFORT, as thermal one, provided by wood. Also it is safer if you are subject to earthquakes: I lived in Berkeley (S.F.Bay Area).

For hot climates, it makes no difference in living in a brick house or without wood thermal insulation on floor and walls. Thus in Jerusalem and Israel or Egypt it was reasonable to live in houses made of stones or bricks or "blocks of soil cement = quick lime + sand + pebble stones".

Where did start the KINGDOM OF NEPHITES? Had KINDERHOOK?

WHERE IS THE VERY BASIC MAP of the GEOGRAPHY of Book of Mormon LINKING NEPHITIC DAYS and our MODERNITY DAYS?

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/e23 ... 69f06g.jpg CLICK ON URL

You can see the pathway of Nephites (and also of the CHURCH) from the landing harbor of LIBERTY (statue...). Nephites landed in N.Y. Long Island (point 1), moved through Hudson River to Cumorah Hill on Sea East (Lake Ontario) = Point 2. Next moved to Kirtland, Ohio, L.Erie (point 3). Then to point 10, at the margin of River Illinois, where it was found the skeleton of ZELF (WHITE Lamanite Warrior, who was known all over the NEPHITE KINGDOM, from CUMORAH HILL to the ROCKY MOUNTAINS: disclosure by Joseph Smith). From point they went to point 4=Independence, Mis. ; then to point 5=NAUVOO, Illinois, which is KINDERHOOK location. Well in the Joseph Smith's route from CUMORAH HILL to the ROCKY MOUNTAINS for Nephite's KINGDOM size.

http://img28.mediafire.com/b179bd4047cd ... 6f4b6g.jpg Then click on the image for it become even enlarged.

From point 5 LDS moved to 6=Winter Quarters. The Old Nephites from 6 moved to 8 = LOS LUNAS, a great smooth stiff flat vertical wall with carved religious message in NEPHITIC CHARACTERS of type shown in KINDERHOOK plates. In modernity days the modern Nephites moved from point 6 to the point 6 = Salt Lake Valley, in Rocky Mountains.

JOSEPH SMITH declared very plainly that places like KINDERHOOK, NAUVOO, INDEPENDENCE, KIRTLAND, CUMORAH, etc. all were built over the NEPHITES EMPIRE.... And never told untruth things like that the Nephites empire was sited in Mexico or Meso-America... In very plain words, Joseph Smith told the very truth during the event of ZELPH's skeleton discovery next to River Illinois: point "10" in the enclosed MAPS. One reason why they try to silence KINDERHOOK.

I used such Zelf's CLUE from the GREATEST and New prophet, instead of using so many bad clues from people who are just "curious"... Without powers of God's revelation, just providing Aaron foolished Jews to worship gold calf (even being well informed about Truth and God) and for Balaam’s revelation as to fornicate Jews with Arab's girls.

This is what some are doing and teaching, acting as Aaron, that Nephite's kingdom was in Mexico or Guatemala or "both" or there but with Cumorah's last battle being as in one isolated point in USA, with enemy Armies marching side-by-side, in peace, by thousand of miles just to face the final battle so far away... Could believe in so untruth?

Some good pioneers were of "good heart", like those asking to Aaron, Moses' brother, some way to make it easier to worship God. Providing an easier and more reliable religion, full of idols to touch and make tourism trips to such Nephitic ruins. Quite like going to Israel to see ruins in the "Holly Land" and their tourist religious events.

In fact it is much easier to worship a Gold calf that everybody can "see" (as pyramids in Mexico and Guatemala... They distort their true bloodiest history as being Nephiste's), than to believe in some History that is kept much HIDDEN. As it was to believe in GOLD PLATES that nobody could SEE or TOUCH or examine. It was as if MOSES' God before Israel: they wanted IDOLS, tourism. They had to make choices. Believe in Moses' God, based on Moses' word and disclosure (revelations) and keep marching in the desert during 40 years. Or, ... for sure, they had the option to return to the Egypt and return to the life of slavery. And being slaves of Gold Idols of Egypt, also liars.

Or could return to believe in idols and pyramids of Mexico/Guatemala as being what is the true Geography from Book of Mormon events and IDOLS being added... Free! People like very much idols, statues... mainly if of gold or covered with a thin sheet of gold. See Aaron...

Some old Christians instead of combating some pagan idols, as so many "goddess", Pagan female God, decided to turn all of them into "one": their "Mother of God" (and there is just one God, Mother of the One God). Thus all Pagan female Divinity were turned into just "one" and then accommodated and used to attract so many adepts...

This old practice of "accommodation" and "attraction" may explain the interest in making Meso-America and Mexico also "integrated", even since the old past as part of the Nephitic kingdom and with the ruins.

[_Daniel Peterson]

See: what happened is that I began posting on the old FAIRboard, and you began to get flustered.

Exasperated, not flustered. You've never flustered me in your life. Don't flatter yourself.

I was posting on a thread that dealt with race and the Church, and you dispensed your subtly racist tidbit about how you think interracial couples should be "warned" before getting married.

There's nothing racist about it whatsoever. I think that couples from different cultures should go into marriage fully aware that marriage inevitably brings conflict and stress as the two partners become accustomed to one another, and that cultural differences add yet another potential element of stress to their relationship. And interracial couples should be aware that they (and, perhaps even more so, their children) are likely to face additional external stresses. That's simply realism -- though, fortunately, I think that the stigma and other problems associated with interracial marriage have largely vanished over the past decade or two.

I have, quite happily, signed marriage recommends for several interracial and intercultural couples. You do me a gross injustice -- not, of course, that that will bother or faze you in the slightest -- to suggest that I'm a racist.

I was put on the queue. If anyone initiated aggressive interaction, it was you.

I did not have you suspended or banned. I have never had anybody suspended or banned.

Later, of course, while posting out of the queue, I made some critical remarks about the peer review process at FARMS, and--out of the blue--you asserted there on the board that I had called you a "douchbag" or an "asshat" or something like that. Of course, this was completely false, but it didn't stop you from posting it, or reveling in the "humiliation" that you'd doled out to me.

I don't recall the "reveling," but I do remember saying that you had called me an obscene name on the so-called Recovery board. (The person who did so called himself "Mister Scratch.") I still feel reasonably confident that you did.

You proceeded to essentially label me a liar,

I still think you were lying.

you insisted that I was on a "vindictive crusade,"

LOL. Where on earth would I have gotten that crazy idea?

And it's certainly clear now, half a decade later, that you're not, right?

I have an extremely hard time seeing how you can innocently claim that *I* was someone the one who "started it."

Until "Mister Scratch" appeared on a public message board to anonymously malign me, I'd never heard of him. Ergo, I could not have begun our exchanges.

I, on the other hand, have had a public reputation and presence apart from any message board for many years.

your 25+ year career of pissing all over people who are in enormous amounts of pain.

This is essentially a fictional creation of yours.

your gossip mongering, to the smear campaigns in the FARMS Review, to your SHIELDS stuff, the Skinny-L antics, the stuff with Eric; Ritnergate; the 2nd Watson Letter, and so on.

Again, essentially your invented fictions and grotesquely spun exaggerations and distortions.

the enormous legacy of infamy you've built for yourself

You're delusional.

You've just decided to fixate on me in recent years.

Talk about pretended innocence!

I just arbitrarily singled you out? What unmitigated rubbish.

And *I* am supposed to be the crazy one?

Well, no. Of course not. In an ideal world, you wouldn't be crazy. I certainly get no pleasure out of your condition.

I can't say that I much understand how a group of men would dither away 25+ years of their lives in pursuit of smearing people, plotting "hijacks" of conference presentations, sending random emails to and picking fights with Internet critics, etc.

I wouldn't pretend to understand such behavior, either.

Here's a hint: Don't believe your own fictions.

You guys have actually made a career out of what you do.

I have, indeed, made a career out of what I do. (That seems rather tautological, don't you think?) It's just that what I do scarcely resembles what you say I do. The first issue of the Mormon Studies Review went to press last week. Another volume in the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative will go to press probably next week. BYU's fall term has begun this week, and I'm teaching (on the Qur’an and on Arabic literature). I sent off a new column this morning, and I'm putting the finishing touches on two substantial articles for publication in England. That's what I do.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

There's nothing racist about it whatsoever. I think that couples from different cultures should go into marriage fully aware that marriage inevitably brings conflict and stress as the two partners become accustomed to one another, and that cultural differences add yet another potential element of stress to their relationship. And interracial couples should be aware that they (and, perhaps even more so, their children) are likely to face additional external stresses. That's simply realism -- though, fortunately, I think that the stigma and other problems associated with interracial marriage have largely vanished over the past decade or two.

Skin color is not a culture.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Skin color is not a culture.

Obviously not.

And, just as obviously, I didn't suggest that it is.

My post mentioned two distinct but often interrelated things: intercultural marriage and interethnic marriage.

But every marriage is a merger of conflicting family cultures -- my family certainly did things differently, celebrated holidays differently, ate differently, spent its leisure time differently, etc., than did my wife's family, even though we both come from middle class to upper middle class American backgrounds -- and different ethnicities (sometimes reflected in varying skin colors) often come with cultural differences.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Skin color is not a culture.

Obviously not.

And, just as obviously, I didn't suggest that it is.

My post mentioned two distinct but often interrelated things: intercultural marriage and interethnic marriage.

But every marriage is a merger of conflicting family cultures -- my family certainly did things differently, celebrated holidays differently, ate differently, spent its leisure time differently, etc., than did my wife's family, even though we both come from middle class to upper middle class American backgrounds -- and different ethnicities (sometimes reflected in varying skin colors) often come with cultural differences.

Then why warn interracial couples? Why does skin color play any factor at all?

You simply cannot predict what the cultural differences will be based on differences in skin coloration any more than you can based on hair color, eye color, or any other superficial physical characteristic. So why would this be a criteria you use for warning a couple?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then why warn interracial couples? Why does skin color play any factor at all?

Because, to quote myself from the post above, "they (and, perhaps even more so, their children) are likely to face additional external stresses. That's simply realism -- though, fortunately, I think that the stigma and other problems associated with interracial marriage have largely vanished over the past decade or two."

You simply cannot predict what the cultural differences will be based on differences in skin coloration any more than you can based on hair color, eye color, or any other superficial physical characteristic. So why would this be a criteria you use for warning a couple?

Who said that skin color alone was my "criterion"?

I never did, and it wasn't.

You seem to imagine, moreover, that I go about warning interracial couples that I don't know, in a vacuum.

Scratch is trying to portray as racist the premarital counseling that I did as a bishop. But these were, in every case, couples that I'd known quite well, and for whom I cared deeply, and I counseled with and interviewed them on numerous occasions. And anything that I said regarding the stresses and strains that they might encounter because of ethnic and/or cultural differences was a very small portion of the overall counseling that I did with them.

I don't like divorce. I want couples to go into marriage forewarned and resolved to overcome external challenges as well as the strains intrinsic to their new status. I tried to give realistic, frank, useful advice to the people who came to me to receive it. I don't apologize for that, and I can't think of a single expression, from any of the numerous couples with whom I spent many hours of time, of displeasure or anger at the counsel that I offered.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I was put on the queue. If anyone initiated aggressive interaction, it was you.

I did not have you suspended or banned. I have never had anybody suspended or banned.

That's not my point. My point is that you were the one who started up with the aggressive rhetoric. You've tried to act is if I was the one who "fired the first shot." That just ain't true, Prof. P.

I don't recall the "reveling," but I do remember saying that you had called me an obscene name on the so-called Recovery board. (The person who did so called himself "Mister Scratch.") I still feel reasonably confident that you did.

Yes, I remember you "saying" that, too. I remember you saying this--and repeating it--with no evidence whatsoever. I remember you reacting with great mirth as the more aggressive TBMs, like "Scotty Dog" Lloyd and Pahoran, began raining down their priesthood-sanctioned judgments and condemnations in classic MAD/FAIR/MDD fashion. Of course it didn't matter in the least that you had no evidence--no link; no screen shot; nothing--they happily lapped it all up. When I appeared here to deny it (as I've already said), you sent me a "Mea Culpa" series of emails that consisted of you "interrogating" me about my posting history on RfM, accusing me of lying, and so on. Of course I realize *now* that this is the tactic you've adopted: crap on people in public such that they face ridicule or embarrassment, and then turn on the manipulation behind the scenes. How many other people have you done that to, I wonder?

You proceeded to essentially label me a liar,

I still think you were lying.

Should I say what you say? That you shouldn't "believe your own fictions"? *This* is precisely what I'm talking about, Dan. *I* was not the one who began with the aggressive rhetoric, nor with the accusations. It was you, from day one. Funny how your insistence has now come back to bite you on the rear, isn't it? How many people now think that *you* were lying about getting paid for apologetics, or the 2nd Watson Letter, or the Signature Books Memo, etc., etc., etc.? Karma's a cruel mistress, isn't she?

you insisted that I was on a "vindictive crusade,"

LOL. Where on earth would I have gotten that crazy idea?

After four or so emails that you initiated? I have no idea. I thought at the time that you seemed overly paranoid and reactionary.

I have an extremely hard time seeing how you can innocently claim that *I* was someone the one who "started it."

Until "Mister Scratch" appeared on a public message board to anonymously malign me, I'd never heard of him. Ergo, I could not have begun our exchanges.

You realize what this sounds like, right? It sounds like you got "flustered" or "exasperated" (or however you want to put it) during our exchange on the race thread, and you simply invented this story about me calling you names as a means of attack. Is that really what you did?

But it doesn't matter. I'm sure you understand by now what it's like to have someone insist over and over and over that you're lying, despite your pleas to the contrary.

your 25+ year career of pissing all over people who are in enormous amounts of pain.

This is essentially a fictional creation of yours.

No, not really. The evidence of it is posted all over the Web, thanks to you and your Skinny-L cronies, and your pals at the Maxwell Institute.

I just arbitrarily singled you out? What unmitigated rubbish.

At the outset, yes. That's exactly what you did. Again: you seem to be wandering far, far afield from your claim that I somehow "initiated" things with you. It just ain't so. You were the one who picked this fight. Even now you're still stubbornly clinging to your wrong-headed belief that I was a liar. So it goes; the world turns.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My point is that you were the one who started up with the aggressive rhetoric. You've tried to act is if I was the one who "fired the first shot."

You insinuated that I was a racist.

(You've done so again on this very thread.)

You don't call that aggressive?

You came on the board to attack me. I had never heard of you until you appeared and began to attack me.

Of course it didn't matter in the least that you had no evidence--no link; no screen shot; nothing

Virtually all RFM posts disappear after a few weeks. Of course no evidence survives.

But I simply don't buy the notion that it was just coincidence that a fiercely hostile new poster calling himself "Mister Scratch" appeared on the old FAIR board essentially to criticize me at exactly the same that a new poster calling himself "Mister Scratch" appeared on RFM and devoted his entire effort there to attacking me. Nor do I think that it was merely coincidental that "Mister Scratch" seems never to have posted another item on RFM after I called you on what he had said there.

You realize what this sounds like, right? It sounds like you got "flustered" or "exasperated" (or however you want to put it) during our exchange on the race thread, and you simply invented this story about me calling you names as a means of attack. Is that really what you did?

No. It's not.

But it doesn't matter. I'm sure you understand by now what it's like to have someone insist over and over and over that you're lying, despite your pleas to the contrary.

Indeed. I've always been pretty sure that your now-five-year-long campaign of accusations and defamation against me has been an obsessive attempt at revenge.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Then why warn interracial couples? Why does skin color play any factor at all?

Because, to quote myself from the post above, "they (and, perhaps even more so, their children) are likely to face additional external stresses. That's simply realism -- though, fortunately, I think that the stigma and other problems associated with interracial marriage have largely vanished over the past decade or two."

If the "stigma and other problems... have largely vanished", then there is no need to warn them.

You simply cannot predict what the cultural differences will be based on differences in skin coloration any more than you can based on hair color, eye color, or any other superficial physical characteristic. So why would this be a criteria you use for warning a couple?

Who said that skin color alone was my "criterion"?

I never did, and it wasn't.

You have just admitted that you warn "interracial couples". The only thing that makes a couple interracial is skin color.

You seem to imagine, moreover, that I go about warning interracial couples that I don't know, in a vacuum.

Never suggested any such thing.

Scratch is trying to portray as racist the premarital counseling that I did as a bishop. But these were, in every case, couples that I'd known quite well, and for whom I cared deeply, and I counseled with and interviewed them on numerous occasions. And anything that I said regarding the stresses and strains that they might encounter because of ethnic and/or cultural differences was a very small portion of the overall counseling that I did with them.

I don't like divorce. I want couples to go into marriage forewarned and resolved to overcome external challenges as well as the strains intrinsic to their new status. I tried to give realistic, frank, useful advice to the people who came to me to receive it. I don't apologize for that, and I can't think of a single expression, from any of the numerous couples with whom I spent many hours of time, of displeasure or anger at the counsel that I offered.

I'm not capable of or interested in assessing your overall quality of premarital counseling. I am only commenting on your admitted "warning" that you gave to "interracial couples", which is by definition racist.