User:InProgress/Website reviews/KP - Revision history

RogerNicholson: redirect

2012-05-05T21:24:11Z

redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 5 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}		#REDIRECT [[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Kinderhook Plates]]
	~~__NOTOC__~~
	~~{{FAIRAnalysisHeader~~
	~~\|title=~~[[../\|MormonThink]]
	~~\|author=Anonymous~~
	~~\|noauthor=~~
	~~\|section=The Kinderhook Plates~~
	~~\|previous=~~
	~~\|next=~~
	~~\|notes=~~
	}}
	~~==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Kinderhook Plates"==~~

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{Website response summary}}~~

	~~{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader\|The Kinderhook Plates}}~~
	*That new data showing how Joseph actually ''did'' attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates is actually a "ploy" and should be ignored in favor of the more inaccurate data that it replaced.

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{Website response label}}~~

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{MormonThinkIndexClaim~~
	\|claim=The latest apologist ploy is to say that Joseph tried to do a secular translation of the plates because one of the characters from the KP resembles a character from the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar book by Joseph Smith. This is on FAIR’s website and was presented at FAIR's conference in 2011 by Don Bradley. The theory is interesting but not valid as there is no part of the Book of Abraham that talks about 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. Find that phrase in the BOA.
	~~\|think=~~
	*{{antispeak\|apologist}}
	*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...
	*Don Bradley (who, by the way, is ''not'' an apologist) demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. This is not an apologetic—it is a conclusion based upon well-researched data. The ~~correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...~~
	*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!
	~~\|quote=~~
	~~\|response=~~
	~~\|link=Forgeries related to Mormonism/Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook Plates~~
	~~\|subject=~~Kinderhook Plates
	\|summary=A set of small plates, engraved with characters of ancient appearance, were purported to have been unearthed in Kinderhook, Illinois, in April 1843. The so-called "Kinderhook plates" have been something of an enigma within the Mormon community since they first appeared. While there are faithful LDS who take a number of different positions on the topic of these artifacts, most have concluded that they were fakes. This article summarizes some key information that critics often exclude from their discussion of the Kinderhook plates, and the extent of Joseph Smith's involvement.
	}}

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{MormonThinkIndexClaim~~
	\|claim=Since the plates have been proven to have been manufactured in the 1800s as a hoax, how could the prophet Joseph Smith have translated a portion of these plates and say that they give an account of a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt?
	~~\|think=~~
	*See above. Don Bradley demonstrated how it was done. Joseph was attempting to translate manually (without inspiration) and matched a character found on the plates with a character found in the GAEL. The "translation" Joseph produced, as reported by William Clayton, matches the explanation given for that character in the GAEL.
	~~\|quote=~~
	}}

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{MormonThinkIndexClaim~~
	~~\|claim=[T~~]he church backed off on its claims that the Kinderhook Plates were real. The LDS historians quickly changed their story and stopped defending that the plates and Joseph's translation of them were true. Now the LDS apologists say it was all a hoax, and Joseph never fell for it, and someone other than Joseph must have said that the plates tell a story of a descendant of Ham.
	~~\|think=~~
	*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}} Why would the Church continue to defend the plates once they were proven to be a hoax?
	*No, apologists now say that Joseph attempted to translate the plates manually, but never continued beyond the single character that he ''did'' manage to "translate."
	*You need to ''bring your data up to date.'' We understand that you would ''like'' apologists to stick with the old data, but it isn't going to happen. That ship has sailed.
	~~\|quote=~~
	}}

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{MormonThinkIndexClaim~~
	\|claim=Critic's Point: Even if you don't believe that Joseph was fooled by the Kinderhook Plates in 1843, the LDS Church itself was fooled for the next one hundred and thirty years. The Kimball article [Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66-74] ~~mentioned the Church's response each time the issue of the plates came up, but it failed to recognize that each response up to 1981 was the same, that the plates were genuine.~~
	~~\|think=~~
	*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
	*Nothing was said of the plates during all those years. Everyone was only "fooled" as long as there was nothing to prove otherwise. Once proof was found that the plates were indeed fake, then everyone updated their position to account for the new information.
	~~\|quote=~~
	}}

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{MormonThinkIndexClaim~~
	~~\|claim=Critic's response.~~
	Why wasn't this ever the church's position before scientists proved the plates were fake? If the Kinderhook Plates were really just a hoax, then why didn't the church ever say that in the first 130 years since the KP were unearthed? It's clear from the evidence above that the Church leaders believed the KP were real and that Joseph translated a portion of them. Why did it take finding evidence that proved the KP were fake to have the church change their mind on whether or not Joseph tried to translate them? The church only seems to change their beliefs (like the limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, location of Hill Cumorah, American Indians are the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, etc.) when contradictory evidence disproves their recorded history. This seems inconsistent with a church run by modern-day prophets with modern revelation.

	~~\|think=~~
	*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
	*What you are ''really'' saying is "why didn't someone receive a revelation that stated that the plates were fake," right? There was never a translation produced beyond the single short phrase recorded by Clayton. The plates were lost. Nobody cared any longer, and the plates were simply a part of the historical record.
	*MormonThink seems to believe that ''real'' prophets need to issue a revelation to answer ''every unanswered question'', such as where the Book of Mormon took place and where the Hill Cumorah is located. Why?
	~~\|quote=~~
	}}

	~~==== ====~~
	~~{{MormonThinkIndexClaim~~
	~~\|claim=Critic's response.~~
	Who else would have been able to make these grand claims? Why would a scribe think this Indian was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth? Why not a descendant of Noah or Abraham? This seems way too unusual and too specific to be made by anyone other than the Prophet Joseph Smith. Also, Joseph's scribe William Clayton, was a trusted, official scribe for the church and was noted for being a stickler for details and accuracy and not in the habit of making stuff up and attributing it to Joseph.

	~~\|think=~~
	*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
	* Does MormonThink's high opinion of William Clayton's accuracy and trustworthiness carry over to ''everything'' Clayton said and wrote about Joseph Smith? We suspect not--they're willing to praise Clayton only when they think it will help them. If Clayton produces data that doesn't help their critical efforts, how long do you think it will take for Clayton to be rejected as a "biased Mormon source"?
	~~\|quote=~~
	}}

RogerNicholson: mod

2012-05-05T21:10:12Z

mod

Show changes

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-05-05T20:57:55Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 5 May 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{Website response summary}}		{{Website response summary}}

	The ~~positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:~~		{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader\|The Kinderhook Plates}}
	*		*

RogerNicholson: /* */ add

2012-05-05T06:49:28Z

: add

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:49, 5 May 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:
	*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!		*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!
	\|quote=		\|quote=
			\|response=
			\|link=Forgeries related to Mormonism/Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook Plates
			\|subject=Kinderhook Plates
			\|summary=A set of small plates, engraved with characters of ancient appearance, were purported to have been unearthed in Kinderhook, Illinois, in April 1843. The so-called "Kinderhook plates" have been something of an enigma within the Mormon community since they first appeared. While there are faithful LDS who take a number of different positions on the topic of these artifacts, most have concluded that they were fakes. This article summarizes some key information that critics often exclude from their discussion of the Kinderhook plates, and the extent of Joseph Smith's involvement.
	}}		}}

GregSmith at 05:58, 5 May 2012

2012-05-05T05:58:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 5 May 2012
Line 51:		Line 51:
	\|claim=Critic's Point: Even if you don't believe that Joseph was fooled by the Kinderhook Plates in 1843, the LDS Church itself was fooled for the next one hundred and thirty years. The Kimball article [Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66-74] mentioned the Church's response each time the issue of the plates came up, but it failed to recognize that each response up to 1981 was the same, that the plates were genuine.		\|claim=Critic's Point: Even if you don't believe that Joseph was fooled by the Kinderhook Plates in 1843, the LDS Church itself was fooled for the next one hundred and thirty years. The Kimball article [Ensign, Aug. 1981, 66-74] mentioned the Church's response each time the issue of the plates came up, but it failed to recognize that each response up to 1981 was the same, that the plates were genuine.
	\|think=		\|think=
			*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	}}		}}
Line 60:		Line 61:

	\|think=		\|think=
			*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	}}		}}
Line 69:		Line 71:

	\|think=		\|think=
			*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
			* Does MormonThink's high opinion of William Clayton's accuracy and trustworthiness carry over to ''everything'' Clayton said and wrote about Joseph Smith? We suspect not--they're willing to praise Clayton only when they think it will help them. If Clayton produces data that doesn't help their critical efforts, how long do you think it will take for Clayton to be rejected as a "biased Mormon source"?
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	}}		}}

GregSmith: /* */

2012-05-05T05:55:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 5 May 2012
Line 43:		Line 43:
	\|claim=[T]he church backed off on its claims that the Kinderhook Plates were real. The LDS historians quickly changed their story and stopped defending that the plates and Joseph's translation of them were true. Now the LDS apologists say it was all a hoax, and Joseph never fell for it, and someone other than Joseph must have said that the plates tell a story of a descendant of Ham.		\|claim=[T]he church backed off on its claims that the Kinderhook Plates were real. The LDS historians quickly changed their story and stopped defending that the plates and Joseph's translation of them were true. Now the LDS apologists say it was all a hoax, and Joseph never fell for it, and someone other than Joseph must have said that the plates tell a story of a descendant of Ham.
	\|think=		\|think=
			*{{Antispeak\|change opinion}}
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	}}		}}

RogerNicholson: mv

2012-05-03T04:55:43Z

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==== ====
 {{Website response label}}
 ==== ====
@@ Line 57: / Line 68: @@
 |think=
 |quote=
 }}

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-05-03T04:53:48Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:53, 3 May 2012
Line 66:		Line 66:
	*{{antispeak\|apologist}}		*{{antispeak\|apologist}}
	*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...		*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...
	*Don Bradley (who, by the way, is ''not'' an apologist) demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...		*Don Bradley (who, by the way, is ''not'' an apologist) demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. This is not an apologetic—it is a conclusion based upon well-researched data. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...
	*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!		*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!
	\|quote=		\|quote=

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-05-03T04:52:48Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:52, 3 May 2012
Line 66:		Line 66:
	*{{antispeak\|apologist}}		*{{antispeak\|apologist}}
	*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...		*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...
	*Don Bradley demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...		*Don Bradley (who, by the way, is ''not'' an apologist) demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...
	*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!		*If we are to accept MormonThink's dismissal of this data because the explanations of the character in the GAEL are ''not'' found in the Book of Abraham, then logic dictates that we would have to conclude that the ''GAEL'' itself has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham!
	\|quote=		\|quote=

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-05-03T04:50:41Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:50, 3 May 2012
Line 64:		Line 64:
	\|claim=The latest apologist ploy is to say that Joseph tried to do a secular translation of the plates because one of the characters from the KP resembles a character from the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar book by Joseph Smith. This is on FAIR’s website and was presented at FAIR's conference in 2011 by Don Bradley. The theory is interesting but not valid as there is no part of the Book of Abraham that talks about 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. Find that phrase in the BOA.		\|claim=The latest apologist ploy is to say that Joseph tried to do a secular translation of the plates because one of the characters from the KP resembles a character from the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar book by Joseph Smith. This is on FAIR’s website and was presented at FAIR's conference in 2011 by Don Bradley. The theory is interesting but not valid as there is no part of the Book of Abraham that talks about 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. Find that phrase in the BOA.
	\|think=		\|think=
			*{{antispeak\|apologist}}
	*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...		*Wait a minute...let's follow the logic here...
	*Don Bradley demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...		*Don Bradley demonstrated that a character found on the Kinderhook plates matched a character found in the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The explanation for the deconstructed components of that character in the GAEL corroborates the "translation" given by Joseph for the same Kinderhook character. The correlation between this character on the Kinderhook plates and a similar character in the GAEL is a fact, therefore...