Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _Themis »

stemelbow wrote: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.


The interesting things is that the church thought there was enough evidence to say Joseph did identify the plates until the plates were proved a hoax. :)
42
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _thews »

George Miller wrote: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 Mormonisms 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 as most Christians accept the Old Testament.

I disagree outright with your assertion that Joseph Smith's cane is Christian in any way shape or form. From Mike's blog...

http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot ... ature.html
Historian D. Michael Quinn, in his ground breaking book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, argues that this symbolism on the cane reveals Joseph Smith’s belief and involvement in astrology and talismanic magic. Quinn brings his reader’s attention to an “x” on the crown found directly above the shield, and says that although some may think this is Saint Andrew’s cross, there are no other Christian symbols on the cane—unless you interpret the serpent as a symbol of the devil (which he thinks unlikely)—and so it is more probable that the “x” is instead the magic sigil of Jupiter.[1]


This is where is gets weird...

Another cross—one which seems to have been overlooked by all scholars thus far—is also found on Smith’s serpent cane: a large inverted cross fills the shield.

This almost certainly is the cross of Peter; an intriguing addition to the symbolic context of the cane, testifying further (it seems) of Joseph Smith’s ecclesiastical authority. The serpent-rod of Aaron and the “x” on the crown speak to the idea that Smith was a great high priest after the order of Aaron, and the inverted cross, a testimonial that Smith had also received priesthood keys from Peter in order to properly preside over Christ’s Church.


So George, since you are a Mason and a Mormon, I see how you come to the conclusion that Mike's argument is correct in its assumptions; I'll respectfully disagree. Talsimanic magic is of the occult and not Christian... would you agree?

George Miller wrote: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.

Again I'll disagree. An answer to an anonymous poster (it wasn't me)...

Anonymous,
We agree that the cane has relevance to both freemasonry and folk-magic. But you also assert that it has "Nothing to do with Jesus Christ". Really? What makes you say that? Didn't you read my evidence to the contrary? By all means, if you find my argument weak, provide a rebuttal of some sort. If you have counter-evidence to refute my position, please present it to me. Unsupported denials won't convince me of my error. I hope you understand.
Best regards,
Mike


In a nutshell George, you are biased... how can you not be? If you agree with Mike's argument, as a Mason and Mormon, then your bias would dictate that somehow concocting taslimanic magic (like the Jupiter talisman) as somehow Christian is understandable. I get your stance... I don't get Mike's stance. Mike believes Joseph Smith was delusional to the point he believed he could translate things. The Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates and Greek Psalter don't bode well for this claim, and making an inverted cross Christian defies logic in my opinion.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_George Miller
_Emeritus
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _George Miller »

thews wrote:In a nutshell George, you are biased... how can you not be? If you agree with Mike's argument, as a Mason and Mormon, then your bias would dictate that somehow concocting taslimanic magic (like the Jupiter talisman) as somehow Christian is understandable. I get your stance... I don't get Mike's stance. Mike believes Joseph Smith was delusional to the point he believed he could translate things. The Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates and Greek Psalter don't bode well for this claim, and making an inverted cross Christian defies logic in my opinion.

Frankly Thews I don't have any desire to go round the circle again with you on this matter. You have time and time again shown that you refuse to read and understand the relevant academic literature on this subject. Frankly, by YOUR definition every Catholic and Anglican or any Christian who participates in high church worship is not Christian; and for that matter Jesus Christ himself was not Christian. Believe as you wish and continue trundling down your myopic road talking to yourself as I have no desire to continue yet again this endlessly repeating monologue.
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _thews »

George Miller wrote:Frankly Thews I don't have any desire to go round the circle again with you on this matter. You have time and time again shown that you refuse to read and understand the relevant academic literature on this subject. Frankly, by YOUR definition every Catholic and Anglican or any Christian who participates in high church worship is not Christian; and for that matter Jesus Christ himself was not Christian. Believe as you wish and continue trundling down your myopic road talking to yourself as I have no desire to continue yet again this endlessly repeating monologue.

You're entitled to your opinion George, but your parallel arguments must be accepted before the supposed "academic" value is acknowledged. Occult magic (folk magic as Mike calls it) isn't Christian. Can you at least acknowledge this? If you did, then you could see my point. Since you believe in magic (seer stones placed in a hat), I understand why you don't. The crux of this is that you agree with Mike's arguments, while he believes Joseph Smith was delusional. Out of curiosity George, regarding the Kinderhook plates, what's your take on Joseph Smith's translation of them?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_Joseph
_Emeritus
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _Joseph »

The plates were and are real. Real fakes.

Josephs translation is real. Real embarassing.

Maybe since the plates are fake his translation was fake also?
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
_Mike Reed
_Emeritus
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _Mike Reed »

thews wrote:
George Miller wrote:Frankly Thews I don't have any desire to go round the circle again with you on this matter. You have time and time again shown that you refuse to read and understand the relevant academic literature on this subject. Frankly, by YOUR definition every Catholic and Anglican or any Christian who participates in high church worship is not Christian; and for that matter Jesus Christ himself was not Christian. Believe as you wish and continue trundling down your myopic road talking to yourself as I have no desire to continue yet again this endlessly repeating monologue.

You're entitled to your opinion George, but your parallel arguments must be accepted before the supposed "academic" value is acknowledged. Occult magic (folk magic as Mike calls it) isn't Christian. Can you at least acknowledge this? If you did, then you could see my point. Since you believe in magic (seer stones placed in a hat), I understand why you don't. The crux of this is that you agree with Mike's arguments, while he believes Joseph Smith was delusional. Out of curiosity George, regarding the Kinderhook plates, what's your take on Joseph Smith's translation of them?

Round and round we go...

Guess it is best to put you on my ignore list again. Done.
Hey George... in case you want to dignify Thew's post by responding to him again, you might want to read this thread first: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... &sk=t&sd=a

There is no sense in talking sense to the senseless.

Edit to add:
I take that back, George. I actually read your post above this time, rather than scan past it, and it appears that you've already given up. Smart man. :)
Last edited by Hawkeye on Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:08 am, edited 4 times in total.
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _thews »

Mike Reed wrote:Round and round we go...

Guess it is best to put you on my ignore list again.

Hey George... in case you want to dignify Thew's post by responding to it, you might want to read this thread first: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12999&start=210&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

There is no sense in talking sense to the senseless.

Need a tag team to back you up Mike? What's your take on the Kinderhook plates Mike? You don't answer direct questions... typical. As you acknowledge Joseph Smith was (in your opinion) delusional enough to believe he could translate them, does this make them "Christian"?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_lostindc
_Emeritus
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _lostindc »

thews wrote:Occult magic (folk magic as Mike calls it) isn't Christian. Can you at least acknowledge this? If you did, then you could see my point. Since you believe in magic (seer stones placed in a hat), I understand why you don't.


I know I should not bite but what the hell. So a rock in a hat is more magical than multiplying bread? Is a rock in a hat more magical than walking on water? Is a rock in a hat more magical than coming back to life? These all sound like a great David Blaine show.

What makes Thews faith any less dramatic or magical than say the early Mormon faith?
2019 = #100,000missionariesstrong
_George Miller
_Emeritus
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _George Miller »

thews wrote:You're entitled to your opinion George, but your parallel arguments must be accepted before the supposed "academic" value is acknowledged. Occult magic (folk magic as Mike calls it) isn't Christian.

Your welcome to your opinion Thews. However, the scholastic world disagrees with you completely. You made the same mistaken argument when you began discussing Cornelius Agrippa's work, despite the fact that every academic scholar I have read agrees that he was Christian. [For heaven's sake 80% of his written corpus is about Christian theology] As I said, round and round, no thanks.
thews wrote:Since you believe in magic (seer stones placed in a hat), I understand why you don't. The crux of this is that you agree with Mike's arguments, while he believes Joseph Smith was delusional.

Your statement here clearly shows that, as with Mike's view, you completely misunderstand what I think and believe. Round and round, no thanks.
thews wrote: Out of curiosity George, regarding the Kinderhook plates, what's your take on Joseph Smith's translation of them?

As I stated above, I wholeheartedly agree with Don Bradley's interpretation of the evidence. It is well reasoned, scholarly, academic and above all honest.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
_George Miller
_Emeritus
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: Kinderhook Plates... what is up with this?

Post by _George Miller »

Mike Reed wrote:Guess it is best to put you on my ignore list again. Done.

There is an ignore feature? :o)
You mean I don't have to go in circles? Weeeeeeeeeee!!!!! Life is looking up.
Post Reply