Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I thought I had heard Don (super nice guy) had come up with some fairly revolutionary information on this. In reading his paper just now, I'm a bit disapointed. The ouch was jackson stating the church believed them authentic for many years ... he was called on it, and it appears he was correct.No, he wasn't correct. 1
Stargazer Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Yes there is ---it's called plagiarism in the BOM.....don't worry Bobbie we will explore that later. As they say " the proof is in the puddin' " Well Bobbie I solemnly testify that JS was fraudulent with his kinderhook plate fiasco. Although no testimony is necessary when so much proof is in the puddin' Your church held firm to it's belief in the kinder hook plates until 1981. NOT one prophet during that 140 years period had the Descernment to know otherwise.Kind of makes one wonder what else they didn't descern. I've been a member of this church since 1966, and have dug deep into every teaching of the church that I could find, and have never found anything being taught about these Kinderhook plates. Pre-1981 or ever. How can the church hold firm to a belief that has never been taught as doctrine? You seem to be triumphantly crowing about something that nobody cares much about. Joseph never "translated" the Kinderhook plates, though he may have examined them (or a facsimile) to see if there was something to the plates. Br. Clayton notwithstanding, there is no evidence that Joseph fell for the hoax. Just a lot of hearsay. 1
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 I found this podcast fascinating, very informative and certainly up to date. Kind of left me speechless....I definitely have to listen to it again--- there is so much history. The Kinderhook Plates for Dummies - Mormon Expression mormonexpression.com/2012/.../189-the-kinderhook-plates-for-dummie... This closing statement reveals the every changing apologists stance. "In closing this definitely appears to give apologists a black eye ---- for 30 years they said that those words in the history of the church are just William Claytons, that Joseph Smith did not attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates. But now in 2011 they did a 180 and right on the Fair website they say that Joseph Smith DID attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates and those are his words in the history of the church, but he tried a secular translation. But if they can just change like that after being so adamant for 30 years----you just wonder what are they going to change next." One thing I have learned today.....some people on here say they have heard it all before...BUT judging from some of the questions directed at me, it is very apparent that is not the case.
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I've been a member of this church since 1966, and have dug deep into every teaching of the church that I could find, and have never found anything being taught about these Kinderhook plates. Pre-1981 or ever. How can the church hold firm to a belief that has never been taught as doctrine? You seem to be triumphantly crowing about something that nobody cares much about. Joseph never "translated" the Kinderhook plates, though he may have examined them (or a facsimile) to see if there was something to the plates. Br. Clayton notwithstanding, there is no evidence that Joseph fell for the hoax. Just a lot of hearsay. Correct. Joseph Smith was never in Nauvoo when the Kinderhook plates were present there. He did take initial interest in them but never translated any of them. Kengo 1969's #12 post's link explains as much. Jackson 20's claims are bunk.
CCRW Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Correct. Joseph Smith was never in Nauvoo when the Kinderhook plates were present there. He did take initial interest in them but never translated any of them. Kengo 1969's #12 post's link explains as much. Jackson 20's claims are bunk.seems they were in his house?
CCRW Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I found this podcast fascinating, very informative and certainly up to date. Kind of left me speechless....I definitely have to listen to it again--- there is so much history. The Kinderhook Plates for Dummies - Mormon Expression mormonexpression.com/2012/.../189-the-kinderhook-plates-for-dummie... This closing statement reveals the every changing apologists stance. "In closing this definitely appears to give apologists a black eye ---- for 30 years they said that those words in the history of the church are just William Claytons, that Joseph Smith did not attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates. But now in 2011 they did a 180 and right on the Fair website they say that Joseph Smith DID attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates and those are his words in the history of the church, but he tried a secular translation. But if they can just change like that after being so adamant for 30 years----you just wonder what are they going to change next." One thing I have learned today.....some people on here say they have heard it all before...BUT judging from some of the questions directed at me, it is very apparent that is not the case. There are so many other good topics to go after Mormons with, this one is lame ... why are you so fasinated with this one?
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I found this podcast fascinating, very informative and certainly up to date. Kind of left me speechless....I definitely have to listen to it again--- there is so much history. The Kinderhook Plates for Dummies - Mormon Expression mormonexpression.com/2012/.../189-the-kinderhook-plates-for-dummie... This closing statement reveals the every changing apologists stance. "In closing this definitely appears to give apologists a black eye ---- for 30 years they said that those words in the history of the church are just William Claytons, that Joseph Smith did not attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates. But now in 2011 they did a 180 and right on the Fair website they say that Joseph Smith DID attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates and those are his words in the history of the church, but he tried a secular translation. But if they can just change like that after being so adamant for 30 years----you just wonder what are they going to change next." One thing I have learned today.....some people on here say they have heard it all before...BUT judging from some of the questions directed at me, it is very apparent that is not the case. If you look at the FAIR website link it does claim Joseph Smith attempted to translate "a single character". It does not claim Smith attempted to "translate the plates". http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates 2
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 seems they were in his house? Sorry, I specifically meant that when the supposed translation took place he was not there. As I noted, he did take an initial interest in them and, yes, did actually view them.
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 I've been a member of this church since 1966, and have dug deep into every teaching of the church that I could find, and have never found anything being taught about these Kinderhook plates. Pre-1981 or ever. How can the church hold firm to a belief that has never been taught as doctrine? You seem to be triumphantly crowing about something that nobody cares much about. Joseph never "translated" the Kinderhook plates, though he may have examined them (or a facsimile2 to see if there was something to the plates. Br. Clayton notwithstanding, there is no evidence that Joseph fell for the hoax. Just a lot of hearsay.Stargazer please .... in 2011 Fairmormon did a 180 and right on the Fairmormon website they say that Joseph Smith DID attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates and that those are his words in the history of the church. Go to Fairmormon and check for yourself.
CCRW Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Sorry, I specifically meant that when the supposed translation took place he was not there. As I noted, he did take an initial interest in them and, yes, did actually view them.ah, yea, I was kind of surprised Don and crew did not just leave it with the rumors, which was covered pretty well in his presentation
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 If you look at the FAIR website link it does claim Joseph Smith attempted to translate "a single character". It does not claim Smith attempted to "translate the plates".http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_PlatesSeems to me JS sure obtained a lot of information from that single character. Other places it says a portion was translated.Joseph Smith's personal secretary, William Clayton said,"President Joseph has translated a portion [of the Kinderhook plates], and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found; and he was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom through the ruler of heaven and earth."
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 There are so many other good topics to go after Mormons with, this one is lame ... why are you so fasinated with this one?Interesting comment there CCRW...any suggestions lolWhen we encounter objective evidence that overturns previous beliefs or at least calls them into question, is it honest or reasonable to then reassess and reinterpret the historical facts so the belief can stand, or is it time to reassess our beliefs and assumptions? The Kinderhook Plates are a known hoax. Joseph Smith identified them as ancient artifacts and claimed to translate a portion of them. An honest wrestling with the issues seems necessary where there is a commitment to spiritual and intellectual integrity.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Shhh! You keep going on about this, and you're going to interrupt my nap! Oh, and ... (Thanks, Garden Girl! ) Edited April 19, 2015 by Kenngo1969
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 No, he wasn't correct.What was I not correct about-----was it that the Church believed the kinderhook plates were authentic for years. Listen to the podcast ...it's very clear the churches stance...it absolutely touted those plates were authentic for 140 years.
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 Shhh! You keep going on about this, and you're going to interrupt my nap! Oh, and ... (Thanks, Garden Girl! )Awesome lol
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 What was I not correct about-----was it that the Church believed the kinderhook plates were authentic for years. Listen to the podcast ...it's very clear the churches stance...it absolutely touted those plates were authentic for 140 years.What do you mean by, "the Church"?
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) I just read through Bradley's presentation. He frequently amazes me with his historical insights.Am I correct to summarize Bradley by saying Joseph Smith compared characters of the Kinderhook Plates and from his Egyptian alphabet in the presence of several others? Edited April 19, 2015 by Darren10
Calm Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 This closing statement reveals the every changing apologists stance. "In closing this definitely appears to give apologists a black eye ---- for 30 years they said that those words in the history of the church are just William Claytons, that Joseph Smith did not attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates. But now in 2011 they did a 180 and right on the Fair website they say that Joseph Smith DID attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates and those are his words in the history of the church, but he tried a secular translation. But if they can just change like that after being so adamant for 30 years----you just wonder what are they going to change next.Because it would be so very wrong to change our understanding of history when someone comes across something new and provides credible evidence because why?
Calm Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) "those are his words in the history of the church"What specific words are you referring to as Joseph's as opposed to Clayton's Edited April 19, 2015 by calmoriah
Calm Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) What was I not correct about-----was it that the Church believed the kinderhook plates were authentic for years. Listen to the podcast ...it's very clear the churches stance...it absolutely touted those plates were authentic for 140 years. I don't do podcasts, they do not usually present research in a very organized way and citations for confirmation of accuracy of interpretation of references can be difficult to trackdown, in not impossible at times. I can read 3 times or more as much infomation as I can get in the same time I have to waste on listening to chit chat and talk about one's sex life, etc. etc. If you want impress, provide something in writing from an original source that demonstrates your claim. If the podcast does this as well as you claim, it should be easy to do. If it doesn't then I see no reason why we should take the podcast as some sort of an authority on positions the Church has held in the past. Edited April 19, 2015 by calmoriah 4
oremites Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 ... Joseph Smith identified them as ancient artifacts ... Did Joseph Smith identify them as ancient artifacts? Or did he accept them as ancient artifacts because that's what he was told they were?
jackson20 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 To bring some more context to the Kinderhook plates in 1843, this is after the Book of Abraham papyri or the JS papyri had been discovered back in 1835, when the Church acquired them and when JS had still been in the process of translating them.These Kinderhook plates seem to play two roles. One they cooroborated (confirm or give support to) the idea that these small metal plates of gold or brass would buttress (support) the Book of Abraham---because even then people were skeptical ie. did people really write on these metal plates, the way the Book of Mormon describes it. AND second it gives credence to the idea that there was Egyptian hieroglyphics and Egyptian artifacts that could be found in the new world----which would support the BOM and would support JS being able to interpret it ----which would give more credence to his translation of the Book of Abraham. For those that state these kinderhook plates held little significance or that JS casually looked at them are incredibly mislead----given the ramification they could potentially hold at that time...ie the weight they would hold in backing(supporting) the validity of the BOA and the BOM. An opinion to suggest they were only of slight interest to JS is at the very least dishonest, white washed apologetics.
readstoomuch Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 My brain is so toast ... who was it, name is on the tip of my tounge ... went in active for a spell, came back to the church a few fews back and in the last two years or so did a paper on this? Don Bradley?
readstoomuch Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 good question. curiosity in how people's minds work....just being honest.....it's been an eye opener...... interesting observing who stretches their thoughts and is not locked down with fear or complacency or habit.mostly just a Truth seekercertainly I am aware that I get over zealous at times....over zealous at times? let`s find out what your religion is and start picking it to pieces or would you want someone to talk respectfully about your beliefs and have a dialogue. 1
carbon dioxide Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Interesting comment there CCRW...any suggestions lolWhen we encounter objective evidence that overturns previous beliefs or at least calls them into question, is it honest or reasonable to then reassess and reinterpret the historical facts so the belief can stand, or is it time to reassess our beliefs and assumptions? The Kinderhook Plates are a known hoax. Joseph Smith identified them as ancient artifacts and claimed to translate a portion of them. An honest wrestling with the issues seems necessary where there is a commitment to spiritual and intellectual integrity.An honest investigator would also look at the counter arguments as well. You take one hearsay statement and run with it. Probably because you already consider him to be a fraud so any evidence no matter how little is good enough. Where is the evidence of any meaningful translation? Perhaps it is possible that Joseph made an initial statement about fake plates based on his limited knowledge but afterwards discovered it to be a fraud. Perhaps the spirit informed Joseph not to bother with it. You expect perfection from Joseph. I don't expect perfection. I my belief, only Jesus was perfect. I will not demand perfection from anyone else. If you demand perfection from Joseph, we might have to demand perfection from you. I am sure you probably will not like that. If Joseph made an initial mistake that is fine. The evidence suggest that he did not continue that mistake by producing a translation and publishing that translation.
Recommended Posts