Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

[_thews]

Although many LDS will find apologetic value in portions of my book (when it is finally published... sigh), I am pretty certain critics will find portions useful as well.

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?

I think such will be the case for Don's FAIR paper too. Personally, what I am excited about is that Don's presentation will finally move the discussion forward for all sides involved in the dialogue.

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.

[_Madison54]

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?

And,

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

Thanks to anyone who responds!

[_moksha]

I am afraid if I answered this question, I would give clues as to what Don plans to present. I really wish I could tell ya... but I don't want to steal Don's thunder. Sorry.

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.

[Guest]

It will be worth taking Don's work seriously when President Monson pronounces it as 'the official Church position'....hmm....so never then.

It's just the work of yet another Mormon hack trying to make money out of excuses for the fraudulence of Mormonism.

I prophesy (no rock involved) that when it is published there will be nothing new...

[Guest]

-

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

One thing is certain, the piece will be well researched, based on sound historical methodology, and will be presented in a kind, Christlike manner. I once met DB and was very impressed with the man. I even asked him rude questions and he turned all his attention to me, to be certain that I understood him. I am a fan.

[_thews]

Maybe someone could provide a summary of the issue as it is currently viewed by critics?

Here's FairMormon's conclusion:

http://www.fairwiki.org/Forgeries_relat ... ook_Plates

The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time.

For a good breakdown look here: http://mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm

In a nutshell, someone said the words written down by William Clayton regarding the descendant of Ham. While Mormon apologists will fail to acknowledge it, it was the words of Joseph Smith.



Here's what Wade had to say...
posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=426628

I don't know that your perception here is completely accurate, but I am willing to entertain the prospect that Joseph translated the plates.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And this from Pahoran as he evades the answer...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17070

who was "I" in the Ham part of the Kinderhook translation as posted from Mormon history on page 372 in May of 1843? The name of the person who said those words, was _____________________ (insert name here).

Unknown. The fact is that the "I" upon which you rest the entire weight of your intellectually dishonest argument is not found in the document from which that passage is sourced. Naturally the truth doesn't serve your dishonest agenda, so you, in the ultimate act of intellectual dishonesty, try to exclude the truth from the discussion; but it didn't work.

And this from Simon as he claims the use of "I" instead of "President J." somehow paints a conflict. While Simon will be as vague as possible in claiming Joseph Smith "might" have translated the Kinderhook plates, he won't commit to a stance on whether or not he did attempt to translate them.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=294

That's the truth of the matter; I made no assertion to whether Clayton's account was accurate or not.

The problem here is that we have only two accounts, one from Clayton, and one from Pratt. They conflict with each other. So who do we believe? Are either of them correct?

And this from Daniel Peterson as he pleads ignorance...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

My answer would be that, off the top of my head, I didn't know, and that I would have to do some checking on the matter.

In the meantime, I suggest Don Bradley as the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He may be speaking on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and you're certainly welcome to attend his presentation.

Best wishes.

Thanks for responding to the question Dr. Peterson, but I find it hard to believe you don't know and have no opinion.

Difficult to believe or not, I don't know, haven't researched the matter, don't particularly care, and prefer not to speak off the top of my head regarding questions of straightforward historical fact to which I've paid no attention at all.

To summarize, when the apologists attempt to throw William Clayton under the bus, what they won't do is answer the question regarding who said the words regarding the descendant of Ham.

[_truth dancer]

Thanks Hasa,

Which will be claimed makes it reasonable that Joseph Smith could have thought he saw hebrew from the study he had made into it in the Kinderhook plates. The words were translated by comparing symbols in his hebrew lexicons and grammars and when he thought he saw a pattern he translated it.

According to the apologist view of this it would show that Joseph believed there could be plates in america with hebrew on them, did not receive God's help and so wasn't acting as a prophet and attempted a basic "translation" by comparing the characters to hebrew and thought he saw patterns. So Joseph Smith according to their logic wasn't caught in a lie because he was genuinely attempting a translation. It also has no bearing on his miraculous translations because it wasn't performed in the same way (namely revelation).

I think that will be Don's argument at the FAIR LDS presentation.

Thanks Hasa!

Makes sense. This sort of apologetic seems to help struggling members with an issue but in my opinion, it begs the question, can't a prophet get a little heads up from the HG alerting him to the truth that the plates were bogus?

I mean, if a prophet can channel Jesus Christ (think the D&C), use a stone in a hat to translate an obscure language, and see angels in all their variety, it doesn't make sense that he can't get a little spark of revelation regarding something like phony plates.

Oh well... :-)

Thanks for your insights!

~td~

[_truth dancer]

So, if Joseph Smith was using a Hebrew lexicon, how did he come up with this translation? In other words, how did he come up with his translation based on the symbols on the K plates? The translation and the Hebrew letters do not match.

Also, maybe Don came up with something to suggest the , "I," was someone else other than Joseph Smith?

That would certainly get Joseph Smith off the hook.

~td~

[_jon]

td,

Makes sense. This sort of apologetic seems to help struggling members with an issue but in my opinion, it begs the question, can't a prophet get a little heads up from the HG alerting him to the truth that the plates were bogus?

The Holy Ghost is nothing but consistent...
Hofmann constructed his version to fit Anthon's description of the document, and its "discovery" made Hofmann's reputation. Dean Jessee, an editor of Joseph Smith's papers and the best-known expert on handwriting and old documents in the Historical Department of the LDS Church, concluded that the document was a Joseph Smith holograph. The LDS Church announced the discovery of the Anthon Transcript in April and purchased it from Hofmann for more than USD$20,000. Appraised by the LDS church for $25,000, it was purchased on October 13 in exchange for several artifacts the church owned in duplicate, including a $5 gold Mormon coin, Deseret banknotes, and a first edition of the Book of Mormon.