Correlating the mass of information

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because Kinderhook plates are cheesey, I dpn't put much stalk in them. I understand the argument but as soon as you invoke KH, you lose credibility. Have you ever really looked at them?

The only thing about KH that seems troublesome are the reports (3rd hand, admittedly) that Joseph mentioned he would translate them. It would seem to parallel the Papyri in that regard... externally produced "documents" that Joseph translated (or intended to)

The plates themselves certainly look cheesy, laughable, really... which makes the alleged reports - if there is any credibility to them - that much more troublesome, I would think.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

The only thing about KH that seems troublesome are the reports (3rd hand, admittedly) that Joseph mentioned he would translate them. It would seem to parallel the Papyri in that regard... externally produced "documents" that Joseph translated (or intended to)

The plates themselves certainly look cheesy, laughable, really... which makes the alleged reports - if there is any credibility to them - that much more troublesome, I would think.

So you're troubled by alleged third hand reports that JS may have wanted to translate something of no value?

I agree there are things to trouble one, but KH is not one of them, IMHO.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because Kinderhook plates are cheesey, I dpn't put much stalk in them. I understand the argument but as soon as you invoke KH, you lose credibility. Have you ever really looked at them?

The problem with the Kinderhook plates is that the church stood by them and Josephs claims that

"...I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He ws 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"

After this declaration Wilber Fugate, Robert Wiley and others came forward declaring that they had fabricated the plates to make them look old in an attempt to out Joseph as a tranlating fraud.

This did not stop the church from standing by Joseph's statements. Even into modern times articles appeared in the Improvement Era supporting Joseph's claims and poo pooing Fugate and Wiley as anti-mormon liars.

It wasn't until the 60's that the plates were re-discovered and were carbon dated that the hoax was proven. Still the LDS refused to believe the tests because they weren't performed by a Mormon scientist. This was finally done in 1981 and the church admited that it proved them to be the hoax that they were.

The church quickly moved to the unreliable third person account card because it was recorded in William Clayton's journal. In other words Joseph never said it, move along, nothing to see here. This sets up William Clayton as either a unreliable source of historical information or a flat out liar. However, the church still believes in other things only found recorded in William Clayton's journal as it was one of the major source materials for writing the History of the Church.

Joseph got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and its obvious to anyone not devoted to defending him.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

The problem with the Kinderhook plates is that the church stood by them and Josephs claims that

"...I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He ws 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"

After this declaration Wilber Fugate, Robert Wiley and others came forward declaring that they had fabricated the plates to make them look old in an attempt to out Joseph as a tranlating fraud.

This did not stop the church from standing by Joseph's statements. Even into modern times articles appeared in the Improvement Era supporting Joseph's claims and poo pooing Fugate and Wiley as anti-mormon liars.

It wasn't until the 60's that the plates were re-discovered and were carbon dated that the hoax was proven. Still the LDS refused to believe the tests because they weren't performed by a Mormon scientist. This was finally done in 1981 and the church admited that it proved them to be the hoax that they were.

The church quickly moved to the unreliable third person account card because it was recorded in William Clayton's journal. In other words Joseph never said it, move along, nothing to see here. This sets up William Clayton as either a unreliable source of historical information or a flat out liar. However, the church still believes in other things only found recorded in William Clayton's journal as it was one of the major source materials for writing the History of the Church.

Joseph got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and its obvious to anyone not devoted to defending him.

I don't really care to debate this with an anti. Believe as you wish. Your role here is tiresome. You know no "translation" of the fraudulent plates was ever produced, even the scheme was not disclosed until much later, and that the Clayton diary made numerous mistakes regarding the "skeleton". Clayton's notes are problematic but not of the magnitude which you attribute. Your all or nothing attitude reminds me of childish emotionality. It's very binary and tiresome.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I haven't studied this specific issue, but it does not shake my testimony of the restoration to think that Joseph got fooled by these plates and in his hubris went too far in saying what he thought the plates might say. That they never said the things Joseph thought they said is evidenced by the lack of a translation ever being produced. Joseph was wrong. This does not preclude other things he said being true.

It's an old issue. I had to dredge up some notes to remember them.

William Clayton wrote in a journal a few thoughts apparently attributable to JS. As you point out, no "translation" ensued. JS probably thought he could translate anything maybe engaged in a Zelph moment. Who knows.

The anti song, of if anything is erroneous, it's all wrong grows tiresome. Taq and Hyrum act as if they are these fountains of new knowledge for college graduates.

[malapert]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

This also explains modern problems with BOM story... it didn't literally occur.

Are you basing this statement of opinion on DNA studies, which you opine to be conclusive?

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by malapert

Are you basing this statement of opinion on DNA studies, which you opine to be conclusive?

Do you think the DNA studies are inconclusive? That is going to be a pretty hard sell.

Simon Southertons responses to the apologists:

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon391.htm

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Do you think the DNA studies are inconclusive? That is going to be a pretty hard sell.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon391.htm

Posting a link to a bitter ex-Mormon site doesn't help your argument.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's an old issue. I had to dredge up some notes to remember them.

William Clayton wrote in a journal a few thoughts apparently attributable to JS. As you point out, no "translation" ensued. JS probably thought he could translate anything maybe engaged in a Zelph moment. Who knows.

The anti song, of if anything is erroneous, it's all wrong grows tiresome. Taq and Hyrum act as if they are these fountains of new knowledge for college graduates.

The KH Plates and DNA issues fall apart so easily that it is dissapointing that Taq raises them here. Sure, they show that The Church overextended to the point of error in either defending something they didn't need to or adding editorial to the BofM that was unnecessary. 40+ years as a Mormon has shown me plenty of screw ups, this is nothing new. Hopefully we have learned. I know I have.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Posting a link to a bitter ex-Mormon site doesn't help your argument.

Grow up.

It is the forum Simon Southerton (the author of the DNA controversy presently before us) chose to post his responses in. Don't shoot the messenger.

If a source doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church then it has no credibility???????

I guess that premise would work both ways wouldn't it. How would you like to be dismissed outright before you were listened to simply because you identified yourself as a believing Mormon? An argument is either well reasoned or poorly reasoned, pro or anti Mormon is (or should be) irrelevant.

Grow up.