Book Of Mormon---Fact Or Fiction

[carbon dioxide]

 

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.

 

 

What is the difference between the the book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates.  Could it be we have a published translation of the Abraham text but not the Kinderhook plates. 

[JLHPROF]

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. 

 

Agreed.

When I read the Bible I find pretty much all the prophets were flawed and made mistakes.  Noah, Moses, Jonah, Jacob, Solomon, Peter, Paul, the list goes on and on.  Some were far more serious than ANY accusation made against Joseph, and yet God approved them as his mouthpieces.

Only Christ was perfect.  Joseph restored the gospel and was approved of by God.

Edited April 19, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

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.

And we are supposed to take your word that any apologist that shows that JS had limited interested in the plates and was more interested in sending them off to experts to be examined then putting much time in himself is lying based on what info?

Accusing Don Bradley of lying/being dishonest given his background, his care and thoroughness in his research shoots your credibity to pieces as to actually having any knowledge of the ongoing discussion over the KP or claims of being a Truth seeker.

Why is it that so often it is those trying so hard reassuring everyone that they care so much about the Truth that are so quick to label others as liars? Why feel the need to assure so strongly that one does indeed possess a quality that would normally be self evident in one's writing?

Edited April 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[omni]

It should be noted that William Clayton was an experienced and well respected scribe for Joseph who was known for his accuracy and attention to detail. It would be incredibly unlikely for someone of his experience and stature to make up a backstory or completely misrepresent Joseph's beliefs on the Kinderhook plates. Of course, if he is capable of so completely misrepresenting Joseph's thoughts on this subject, do we then bring into question the accuracy of his other scribal work, including sections of the D&C?

The Kinderhook plates weren't a secret at the time and in fact mention of their discovery can be found in the church publications Times and Seasons and The Nauvoo Neighbor. Joseph would have been well aware of the excitement surrounding the discovery and the expected translation. If he didn't believe them to be genuine or intend some type of translation, why not squash any expectation of a forthcoming translation?

Edited April 19, 2015 by omni

[Kenngo1969]

... Why is it that so often it is those trying so hard reassuring everyone that they care so much about the Truth that are so quick to label others as liars? ...

 

Projection?

[Kevin Christensen]

Odd that the thread starts with a question about the Book of Mormon, and we get no reading of and no test of the Book of Mormon itself, a large, widely published, eminently testable text.

 

It's as though the question of the historicity and truth of the Bible and Christianity were approached by ignoring the Bible altogether and instead exploring gossipy  tales about the authenticity of early Medieval relics or pieces of the true cross, which kinds of things were far more important in the history of Christianity than the Kinderhook plates ever were to the Mormons, as the 1981 Ensign essay and Don Bradley's presentation show. 

 

The irrelevance to topic delivered with such gusto and zeal is revealing though.  Isaiah made some pointed observations about those "That make a man an offender for a word, and lay snare for him that reproveth within the gate, (Isaiah 29:21). I see a telling contrast in the picture from Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonia in that they received the word with readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so."

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 19, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

It should be noted that William Clayton was an experienced and well respected scribe for Joseph who was known for his accuracy and attention to detail. It would be incredibly unlikely for someone of his experience and stature to make up a backstory or completely misrepresent Joseph's beliefs on the Kinderhook plates. Of course, if he is capable of so completely misrepresenting Joseph's thoughts on this subject, do we then bring into question the accuracy of his other scribal work, including sections of the D&C?

The Kinderhook plates weren't a secret at the time and in fact mention of their discovery can be found in the church publications Times and Seasons and The Nauvoo Neighbor. Joseph would have been well aware of the excitement surrounding the discovery and the expected translation. If he didn't believe them to be genuine or intend some type of translation, why not squash any expectation of a forthcoming translation?

With Clayton, I would think there would be a difference between stuff he recorded in his personal journal and stuff he acted as a scribe on.  Are you aware of any evidence that shows he treated both as the same and so we can assume the same standards of care for both?

 

For me the issue of the KH plates are completely bound up in if there is any indication JS claimed any insight into them or any translation attempt was done through revelation or "by the Gift and Power of God".  IOW, I am most interested in the type of methodolgy at this point.  Attempting secular translation (one done by assuming one knew what symbols stood for and then comparing them like anyone can do using a language dictionary) is significantly different than receiving the meaning of words from the Spirit.  Anyone can do the first as long as they are literate enough...even prophets, seers and revelators.  However, the second class of translation is limited to those who God appoints and can only happen according to God's wishes for place and time and product.

Edited April 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Projection?

Possibly...it is certainly one of the first cases that springs to my mind (given certain of my experiences where I find out quite a bit about those making such accusations), but we have too little information to determine that imo.  I would be interested in other possibilities as it would help imo indicate how probable projection was in many cases.

[Vance]

 

 My Truth comes from revelation in the Bible---.

LOL!!!

 

What you really mean is that your truth is what you have been told what a few of the verses in the Bible mean.  In other words, your truth is someones personal interpretation.  Maybe it is Martin Luther's or John Calvin's or a mixture of them with perhaps some of the other reformers interpretations thrown in for good measure.

 

I have found that people like you don't really know what is in the Bible.  Nor do your "go to" verses actually say what you interpret them to say.

 

So, Yeah!  I agree with Keengo.

 

[DonBradley]

First, this is relevant (again Jeff Lindsay-He makes it so easy to present info because it's all in one place and concise) on the issue of whether or not JS believed these plates to contain gospel truth or theological information-

 

In 2011, Don Bradley, a Mormon, uncovered evidence that Joseph Smith attempted to translate a character on the Kinderhook plates that was similar to a character in the so-called Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar book that Joseph and/or his scribes made in an apparent effort to figure out the Book of Abraham translation on his own, before the translation was given through revelation. See A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page 'The Kinderhook Plates'." Perhaps there was initial interest and perhaps he took them seriously for a brief while, but then they were abandoned. I don't know if he concluded they were a fraud or not, but after that initial interest, they were apparently dropped."

 

Second, (again from Jeff Lindsay) on whether or not JS actually translated some of it-

 

"Critics point to an entry apparently made by Joseph Smith in the official History of the Church dated May 1843, which states that Joseph translated part of the Kinderhook plates and found them to be written by a descendant of Ham and of the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, this statement is actually from the journal of William Clayton. Clayton's journal entry was added to the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" printed in the Deseret News in Utah in 1856, long after the death of Joseph, though it was changed to be in the first person from Joseph's perspective: "I have translated..." instead of "President J. has translated...." It is well known, according to Kimball, "that the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith' consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life 'in his own words.'" Kimball notes that this poor practice was common in that century for biographers."

 

Joseph never states himself that he translated any of these plates, and he spent very little time and energy on them.  In this issue, i don't believe that can be ignored.

 

Whether the History of the Church text was written by Joseph is not nearly as relevant a question as the reliability of the source from which it came.

 

William Clayton is incredibly reliable, and was with Joseph that day, in Joseph's house, had his diary with him, and was adding entries while at Joseph's house. And he had sealed a plural wife to Joseph that morning.

 

And his journal has been considered sufficiently reliable that entries from it were used in Doctrine and Covenants Sections 130 and 131.

 

If he says, "President Joseph has translated a portion and says they contain...," we can be pretty certain that Joseph told him just that.

 

By the way, the report that I developed this interpretation of the Kinderhook plates episode in 2011 is mistaken. I developed it long before and finalized it during the period I was out of the church and an atheist.

 

Don

[DonBradley]

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?

 

Darren,

 

Yes.

 

BTW, Mark Ashurst-McGee and I have a piece coming out on Joseph Smith's work on the Kinderhook plates, that will better document this, next year. And then we'll have a fuller publication of our research a while later.

 

Don

[Calm]

Look forward to it, Don.

 

And thanks for adding info.

[omni]

With Clayton, I would think there would be a difference between stuff he recorded in his personal journal and stuff he acted as a scribe on. Are you aware of any evidence that shows he treated both as the same and so we can assume the same standards of care for both?

He was alive when the History of the Church (I believe then it was referred to as History of Joseph Smith) was published and would have been aware it his claim's inclusion. I can't imagine if he had any reservations about its accuracy that he would have allowed it to remain in what was then considered an official church publication. Had the claim been made by a known anti-Mormon or some yokel who overheard Joseph then I don't think we would even be having this conversation.

For me the issue of the KH plates are completely bound up in if there is any indication JS claimed any insight into them or any translation attempt was done through revelation or "by the Gift and Power of God". IOW, I am most interested in the type of methodolgy at this point. Attempting secular translation (one done by assuming one knew what symbols stood for and then comparing them like anyone can do using a language dictionary) is significantly different than receiving the meaning of words from the Spirit. Anyone can do the first as long as they are literate enough...even prophets, seers and revelators. However, the second class of translation is limited to those who God appoints and can only happen according to God's wishes for place and time and product.

I think what makes this incident so difficult is the specificity. We're not talking about a generic claim along the lines of "I imagine the writings could belong to that of an ancient Lamanite". Clayton's claim sounds definitive, with specifics that would have been unlikely for Joseph to have made unless he actually believed (or was trying to convince others) he could translate the writings. We should remember too that this wasn't something out of character for Joseph to do. He was able to provide similar backstories for Zelph the Lamanite and Adam's Altar. I imagine there might have been others as well.

Edit: I see Don has already answered this.

Edited April 19, 2015 by omni

[Calm]

I can't remember if you have read Don's presentation or not.  All the details are accounted for by his analysis, imo.  What do you think about it?

[rodheadlee]

 

First off I want to make clear that my intention is not to bash LDS. If at times I come across as over-zealous---my apologies ahead of time. I am NOT anti-LDS.  I am anti-deception and a truth seeker. My Truth comes from revelation in the Bible---. 

 

Here is just a snippet of a comment I received the other day.... from someone on this site,  from someone I actually find interesting and have a degree of admiration.

Here is the comment:

 

" Because you're unprepared to receive it, you're gagging and choking on the strong spiritual meat of the gospel in fulfillment of Paul's warning that if the mysteries of the gospel are served to the unprepared they will, as it were, spit them out of their mouths and tell all who will hear that the deeper things of God are evil." 

 

Yes, I am left gagging and choking  when I do historical research using LDS own historical recordings.  And Yes I am not willing to gloss over such findings as if they are irrelevant.

 

Below are facts that I can not just brush aside and pretend they have not importance in revealing the character of JS. 

 

"Here is a simple example of how Joseph Smith was a fraud. You can read this in the official Mormon History, but few Mormons ever bother to read it. Some farmers in Kinderhook devised a hoax in 1843 and made up some copper plates which they claimed contained ancient writings. They planted them in an Indian burial mound and later dug them up again. When Smith saw the plates, he immediately "translated" part of them, which (he claimed in his diary) identified the writings as from "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh...". Here is the exact quote from the Documentary History of the Church:

"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters."

"I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth. "

For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings, in spite of the fact that the farmers later admitted the hoax - evidently the fact that Smith had translated part of them made it too embarrassing to accept the hoax. After resorting to more and more "implausible" and "desperate" arguments, the church flip-flopped about 10 years ago, now ADMITS that the plates are PHONY. The 1981 August Ensign has the statement where the church admits that the plates were a hoax. Of course, this leaves them with the embarrassing quote from Smith's diary.... In spite of the fact that this quote is confirmed by contemporary newspaper reports, they conclude that THIS has to be a false report (indeed, many supposed entries in Smith's diary are generally regarded as fraudulent -- something that church historians don't like to emphasize).

The essential problem here is not the Kinderhook plates themselves, of course. The problem is that since Smith is revealed as credulous or deceitful in cases where he CAN be checked, the Book of Mormon translation, where he cannot be checked, is rendered highly suspicious."

Is JS credible or deceptive?

 

 

Wow that's pretty cut and paste. Have you actually read the whole Book of Mormon? if so what are your own thoughts?

[omni]

I can't remember if you have read Don's presentation or not. All the details are accounted for by his analysis, imo. What do you think about it?

.

I've read parts of it and I'm aware of the main arguments, but I do need to take some time when I have it to read the entire presentation. I'm curious what others think about Joseph using the Egyptian Grammar? Doesn't that open up a Pandora's Box of new problems with the BoA?

[Calm]

Not really in my view.  It probably depends on what your view of the EG is.

[The Nehor]

I look forward to more exciting cut and paste jobs from this talented copy and paste enthusiast/pseudo scholar.

[The Nehor]

Here's a great cut and paste from a guy posting on a another site. 

 

The Google-fu is strong in this one.

[mfbukowski]

The Google-fu is strong in this one.

He has no conception of why his entire argument is totally unimportant to anything.

Gobbling up bandwidth for no reason. It's positively un-ecological or something. Get Al Gore on the line right away. All those electrons going to waste!

Maybe if he takes up all the space on every thread the mods will finally get wise

[Sevenbak]

I thought he was already banned, or was that someone else?

[Calm]

Holy Catholic (the nonCatholic) is banned, this guy looks to be limited for now but if he doesn't change his style with all the copy/pasting without proper attribution, linking to sites that carry temple content, etc, probably is heading for a banning.

Edited April 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[Avatar4321]

What do the kinderhook plates have to do with anything. How does not translating a bunch of phoney plates and making absolutely no effort to even keeping them in the churches possession change the fact that the Book of Mormon is true?

Is the Holy Spirit a liar simply because someone tried to sell Joseph Smith fraudulent plates and he didn't by them? Meanwhile the Egyptian papyrus was bought at a time the church was young and broke.

If you want to know the Book of Mormon is true, read it and ask the Lord. You will only learn spiritual things by the Spirit.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

Dude he did not TRY to translate them...He DID translate a portion...please get your facts and history in order. He did NOT abandon them...frankly he would have continued his  fraudulant translation if he hadn't died a month later.

And yet he managed to stay alive far more.than a month after the k. Plates left the area. How was he going to translate plates that were not in town? Why did he make no effort to keep them there?

[Avatar4321]

I don't care how numerous any topic has been discussed...and that would be any topic.....sometimes a new thought by someone, a new idea can come forth....yet all knowing Garden Girl knows it all...wow then shows a jackass being BEATEN with a stick....NICE

Are you suggesting GG is insulting you by showing you beating a dead horse with a stick? It's hardly a uniquely Mormon expression or even slightly insulting. It seems to me, that despite your claims you have no genuine interest in getting genuine answers, truth, or not stirring up contention. Not when you refuse to listen to answers and you try to pretend a nice sister is picking on you for using a common expression to say you're rehashing an old and answered issue