Fooling the Prophet with the Kinderhook Plates
TJ Hall
of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April
23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound"
are displayed. According to the account, Wiley and others, "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." The plates were then given
to Joseph Smith to translate. Though Smith described Wiley as a "respectable
merchant" (p.374), he was unaware that Wiley was part of a conspiracy to
expose Smith as a fraud.
The ruse was a success. Page 372 of the History of the Church (DHC) reads:
"I [Joseph Smith] 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" (DHC 5:372).
In 1879, Wilbourn Fugate, one of the conspirators working with Wiley,
admitted "that the plates were a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge
Whitton, and myself. Whitton (who was a blacksmith) cut the plates out of
some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making
impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid, and putting it on the
plates. When they were finished, we put them together with rust made of
nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron,
covering them completely with rust." (New Witnesses for God, Vol.3, p.63).
LDS Seventy B.H. Roberts refused to believe it. Wrote Roberts, "The fact
that Fugate's story was not told until thirty-six years after the event, and
that he alone of all those who were connected with the event gives that
version of it, is rather strong evidence that his story is the hoax, not the
discovery of the plates, nor the engravings upon them" (New Witnesses for
God 3:64). Why the nine conspirators did not expose Smith earlier is a
mystery, but the fact remains that Mr. Roberts was clearly misled into
thinking his founder had indeed translated ancient plates.
According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Vol. 2, KINDERHOOK PLATES),
interest in the forged plates waned following Smith's death in 1844.
"Decades later two of the alleged discoverers announced that the plates were
a hoax; an attempt to discredit Smith. By then, however, the Church was
headquartered in Utah and little attention was paid to these strange
disclosures." The article continues by saying, "Interest was kindled again
in 1920 when the Chicago Historical Society acquired what appeared to be one
of the original Kinderhook plates. Later the Chicago plate was subjected to
a number of nondestructive tests, with inconclusive results. Then in 1980,
the Chicago Historical Society gave permission for destructive tests, which
were done at Northwestern University. Examination by a scanning electron
microscope, a scanning auger microprobe, and X-ray fluorescence analysis
proved conclusively that the plate was one of the Kinderhook six; that it
had been engraved, not etched; and that it was of nineteenth-century
manufacture. There thus appears no reason to accept the Kinderhook plates as
anything but a frontier hoax."
An abundant number of Mormon apologists have come to the aid of Joseph Smith
in this matter. For instance, Diane Wirth, writing in Review of Books on the
Book of Mormon (4: 210), actually goes so far as to try and discredit the
DHC account by writing: "Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the
Kinderhook plates were authentic and that they were the "records of the
descendants of Ham," came from the journal of William Clayton, who wrote in
the first person, as though from the mouth of Joseph Smith. A first-person
narrative was apparently a common practice of this time period when a
biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were never penned by
the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words or his
opinion."
Wirth’s conclusion is incredible given the fact that many statements in the
DHC are not from the mouth of Joseph Smith, even though it reads that way.
Wirth’s comment also undermines the credibility of 10th President Joseph
Fielding Smith, who wrote, "The most important history in the world is the
history of our Church, and it is the most accurate history in all the world"
(Doctrines of Salvation 2:199).
The Kinderhook Plate incident gives us a number of reasons to pause before
accepting the prophetical calling of Joseph Smith and the validity of
Mormonism. In a direct sense, it shows us that Smith was not a very
discerning man. Apparently he was just as gullible as many of those who
followed him. If men such as Wiley, etc. could hoodwink Smith, could an
angel claiming to be a messenger from God not also deceive him? Even if we
could excuse Smith's lack of discernment, it does not take away from the
fact that Smith insisted he had the ability to "translate" the bogus pieces
of metal. Whether Smith knowingly tried to deceive his followers or was
deluded himself is of little consequence; certainly it shows he is not a man
worthy of people's trust.
Would you follow this man as a "prophet of God"?
PEACE
Elizabeth & Dale
You know something, Brother Tim?
(He dons his armor for the inevitable Unkish attack.)
You're right.
Brother Broadhurst
R. L. Measures
> On pages 374-6 of the Documentary History of the Church, (Vol. 5) facsimiles
> of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April
> 23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound"
> are displayed. .........
€ A well written piece, Timothy. Did you write it perchance?
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures. Remove plus in e-mail address.
Matthew L Reed
In April 1843 some alleged New World antiquities were presented to Joseph Smith
for his opinion. The six 2 7/8-by-2 1/4-inch bell-shaped brass plates with
strange engravings were reported to have been excavated in Kinderhook, Illinois,
about seventy miles south of Nauvoo (HC 5:372-79). They were shown to Smith
because of his claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from ancient gold
plates taken from a New York hill in 1827.
The Kinderhook plates created a stir in Nauvoo; articles appeared in the Church
press, an illustrated handbill was published, and some Latter-day Saints even
claimed Joseph Smith said he could and would translate them. No translation
exists, however, nor does any further comment from him indicating that he
considered the plates genuine. After his assassination in June 1844, the
incident was largely forgotten. Decades later two of the alleged discoverers
announced that the plates were a hoax; an attempt to discredit Smith. By then,
however, the Church was headquartered in Utah and little attention was paid to
these strange disclosures.
Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic and
that they were the “records of the descendants of Ham,” came from the journal of
William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of
Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of this
time period when a biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were
never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words
or his opinion.
Joseph Smith did not make a translation of the fraudulent plate. The translation
attributed to him has proven to be an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton.
In fact, after viewing the Kinderhook plate, Joseph Smith never showed any
interest in it.
Where were the immediate denounciations that should have followed Joseph's
supposed translation of the plates? If Joseph had actually translated them, you
would think that the perpetrators of the scam would have immediately published
this loud and long, as that is what they were after. But history seems to be
silent about it. One can only conclude that Joseph ingored the plates, and most
certainly never made any attempts to translate them. The Kinderhook plates were
nothing more than another failed attempt to discredit Joseph, perpetrated by
liars and men of little or no integrity.
TJ Hall wrote:
> <snip plagarized Kinderhook material>
> Would you follow this man as a "prophet of God"?
Yes!
Peace
Clifford Statum
>In article <78nl80$e46$1...@remarQ.com>, "TJ Hall" <hal...@idworld.net> wrote:
>> On pages 374-6 of the Documentary History of the Church, (Vol. 5)
facsimiles
>> of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on
April
>> 23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large
mound"
>> are displayed. .........
>€ A well written piece, Timothy. Did you write it perchance?
Surely, you jest.
Doug M
this thread, but I would like to know one thing -- where did the
hieroglyphics come from that were used to make the "beeswax mold"?
Did Wily just draw chicken scratches to resemble hieroglyphics, or did he
copy them from some Egyptian text?
>Though Smith described Wiley as a "respectable
>merchant" (p.374), he was unaware that Wiley was part of a conspiracy to
>expose Smith as a fraud.
>
>The ruse was a success. Page 372 of the History of the Church (DHC) reads:
>"I [Joseph Smith] 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" (DHC 5:372).
>
>In 1879, Wilbourn Fugate, one of the conspirators working with Wiley,
>admitted "that the plates were a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge
>Whitton, and myself. Whitton (who was a blacksmith) cut the plates out of
>some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making
>impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid, and putting it on the
>plates. When they were finished, we put them together with rust made of
>nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron,
>covering them completely with rust." (New Witnesses for God, Vol.3, p.63).
>
>"Interest was kindled again
>in 1920 when the Chicago Historical Society acquired what appeared to be
one
>of the original Kinderhook plates. Later the Chicago plate was subjected to
>a number of nondestructive tests, with inconclusive results. Then in 1980,
>the Chicago Historical Society gave permission for destructive tests, which
>were done at Northwestern University. Examination by a scanning electron
>microscope, a scanning auger microprobe, and X-ray fluorescence analysis
>proved conclusively that the plate was one of the Kinderhook six; that it
>had been engraved, not etched; and that it was of nineteenth-century
>manufacture. There thus appears no reason to accept the Kinderhook plates
as
>anything but a frontier hoax."
If the tests were "inconclusive", then it would appear the hieroglyphics
were not just mere chicken scratches, but did actually have meaning;
however, I do not know one way or the other.
So the next question is -- was Joseph Smith's "translation" of the
Kinderhook plates accurate?
>The Kinderhook Plate incident gives us a number of reasons to pause before
>accepting the prophetical calling of Joseph Smith and the validity of
>Mormonism. In a direct sense, it shows us that Smith was not a very
>discerning man. Apparently he was just as gullible as many of those who
>followed him. If men such as Wiley, etc. could hoodwink Smith, could an
>angel claiming to be a messenger from God not also deceive him? Even if we
>could excuse Smith's lack of discernment, it does not take away from the
>fact that Smith insisted he had the ability to "translate" the bogus pieces
>of metal. Whether Smith knowingly tried to deceive his followers or was
>deluded himself is of little consequence; certainly it shows he is not a
man
>worthy of people's trust.
Since we don't know the circumstances behind the whole encounter between
Joseph Smith and Wiley, or how much attention JS gave to these plates, we
don't really know JS's exact opinion of the man, do we?
From all my understanding of Joseph Smith, he gave everybody the benefit of
the doubt until they proved to be untrustworthy. He was not looking for the
evil in people, but the good.
Some may ask why Jesus allowed Judas Iscariot to be one of his twelve
apostles? Judas was allowed to carry out his evil plan for silver, the Lord
did not stop him and Judas is accountable for his actions, just as Wiley
will be if he committed fraud, or for bearing false witness. People have
their free agency to proceed in whatever path they desire, whether it be
good or not-so-good.
You seem to be making a great deal about these Plates, which has no bearing
to the gospel or anything spiritual. Did Joseph take anything from these
plates and incoporate it into the LDS Church? NO. In other words, were these
Kinderhook plates deemed important to Joseph? It might be hypothesized that
he considered them of no great import, especially if he did not attempt to
make a "full and in-depth" translation, but rather found it sufficient to
give an "overview" of what he read. Heck, since we don't really know the
actual thoughts of Joseph, we could even hypothesize that he played along
with Wiley's ruse just to see what Mr. Wiley was trying to do. It appears
that Mr. Wiley, in the end, didn't really try to do anything after playing
his "joke."
Maybe I am also just too "gullible" to trust and like people whom I don't
really know. And maybe I'm too gullible to think that people will actually
put forth sufficient effort to study, pray and ponder and to exercise a
little faith to obtain their own personal testimony of truth. To understand
and accept the Divinity of Christ, the assurance that God has not left us to
man's interpretation of His word, but continues to provide us with a prophet
today as He did from the beginning with Adam. To know that God loves all his
children on the earth and has given His word to them through the ages. That
His priesthood is being used to perform ordinances that will last through
eternity and seal us to Him, if we will just follow Him and DO his will.
I look to Joseph Smith, Jr. as a true prophet of God as he was God's
instrument in establishing His full and everlasting gospel upon the earth in
these latter days. The CoJCoLDS still continues on, without Joseph, even 155
years after his death, and why so, because the real leader of the church is
Jesus Christ and He continues to work through His living prophets, and even
though a prophet passes on, the gospel stays the same and continues forward
to meet the challenges of the present day.
>Would you follow this man as a "prophet of God"?
What prophet are you following?
May God Bless,
R. L. Measures
<clif...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures wrote in message ...
> >In article <78nl80$e46$1...@remarQ.com>, "TJ Hall" <hal...@idworld.net> wrote:
>
> >> On pages 374-6 of the Documentary History of the Church, (Vol. 5)
> facsimiles
> >> of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on
> April
> >> 23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large
> mound"
> >> are displayed. .........
>
> >€ A well written piece, Timothy. Did you write it perchance?
>
> Surely, you jest.
€ There seems to be no end in sight to Timothy's unattribution. My
guess is that he is a pro torpedo, hired by big bro, whose purpose is to
blow a hole in the credence of the antimormon movement. Alas, if we
don't go after one ripoff artist, how can we possibly criticize another?
- later, Cliff.
Elizabeth & Dale
> guess is that he is a pro torpedo, hired by big bro, whose purpose is to
> blow a hole in the credence of the antimormon movement. Alas, if we
> don't go after one ripoff artist, how can we possibly criticize another?
But then I've expressed similar thoughts about your one
true love, Fawn McKay (who like me married a Jew and was
never again the same) -- and made downright dirty accusations
against the Tanners for being Mormonite moles in the
Decker movement.
Can't get an anti to refute me, nor one of the faithful
either. I'm almost starting to believe myself, in fact.
Too bad Diogenes only spoke in quarter-paragraphs, his
sharp wit would probably make mincemeat of the ol' Unk,
(given a page or two of Cynic critique).
Dale's mean stuff about Jerry and Sandy:
http://HOME1.gte.net/dbroadhu/Restor/SS/SSrv005a.htm
http://HOME1.gte.net/dbroadhu/Restor/SS/SSrv005b.htm
Unka Dale
(The pro torpedo, hired by the international YHWHist
movement to infiltrate the Saints, Jews, and Gentiles.)
TJ Hall
Elizabeth & Dale wrote in message <78nm7d$fe0$5...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>> On pages 374-6 of the Documentary History
>
>
>
>You know something, Brother Tim?
>(He dons his armor for the inevitable Unkish attack.)
>
>
>You're right.
>
>Brother Broadhurst
Why, certainly.
:]
PEACE
TJ Hall
R. L. Measures wrote in message ...
>In article <nuOr2.163$gU1...@axe.netdoor.com>, "Clifford Statum"
><clif...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>
>> R. L. Measures wrote in message ...
>> >In article <78nl80$e46$1...@remarQ.com>, "TJ Hall" <hal...@idworld.net>
wrote:
>>
>> facsimiles
>> >> of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on
>> April
>> >> 23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large
>> mound"
>>
>> >€ A well written piece, Timothy. Did you write it perchance?
>>
>> Surely, you jest.
>
>guess is that he is a pro torpedo, hired by big bro, whose purpose is to
>blow a hole in the credence of the antimormon movement. Alas, if we
>don't go after one ripoff artist, how can we possibly criticize another?
>
Step aside.
<snort>
PEACE
TJ Hall
Matthew L Reed wrote in message <36AF9D58...@SpamNot.compuserve.com>...
>...The Kinderhook plates were
>nothing more than another failed attempt to discredit Joseph, perpetrated
by
>liars and men of little or no integrity.
>
Ehh, err, Matthew. You've just described the 'ol peeper stoner himself.
Thanks.
PEACE
TJ Hall
Doug M wrote in message <78ofur$8n$1...@news.cet.com>...
>...You seem to be making a great deal about these Plates, which has no
bearing
>to the gospel or anything spiritual. Did Joseph take anything from these
>plates and incoporate it into the LDS Church? NO. In other words, were
these
>Kinderhook plates deemed important to Joseph...
€ It has everything to do with his credibility, Doug.
- Tim..., 223.445.6777, www.vcnet.com/hall. Remove plus in e-mail address.
:]
Williams
There is no conclusive proof that what is nowadays supposed to be one of
the Kinderhook plates is actually the one of the ones found in the mound.
If your employer ever requires you to take a urine test, I hope the sample
disappears for about eight weeks, and then suddenly
and mysteriously reappears full of cocaine metabolites. I think you would then
begin to understand what "chain of custody" means.
A man who seriously quotes a statement saying that "chemical tests showed
it to be one of the Kinderhook 6" is somewhat unhinged. Chemical assays merely
prove the chemical composition of matter. If there was no chemical test run on
the plates in the 1840's you have nothing to compare the present tests.
No need to go any further with this. A man who has committed himself to use
logic and science to clear up false information about any subject would be
better off dropping a story that starts to show this many inconsistencies.
Otherwise, he may begin hearing it said of him, "Is this man worthy of public
trust?"
Regards,
George
--
|Fidonet: Williams 1:106/7861
|Internet: Will...@7861.conchbbs.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
TheJordan6
>Church
>press, an illustrated handbill was published, and some Latter-day Saints even
>claimed Joseph Smith said he could and would translate them. No translation
>exists, however, nor does any further comment from him indicating that he
>considered the plates genuine. After his assassination in June 1844, the
>incident was largely forgotten. Decades later two of the alleged discoverers
>announced that the plates were a hoax; an attempt to discredit Smith. By
>then,
>however, the Church was headquartered in Utah and little attention was paid
>to
>these strange disclosures.
>
>Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic
>and
>that they were the “records of the descendants of Ham,” came from the journal
>of
>William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of
>Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of
>this
>time period when a biographical work was being compiled.
Matthew, this oft-repeated assertion is made moot by your above true statement,
that the KP were advertised in the "Times and Seasons" and the "Nauvoo
Neighbor," both papers which were controlled by JS, and the papers were
published during JS' lifetime, not years later, as some of the DHC apparently
was. Therefore, the premise that the statements on the KP came from the mind
and pen of Clayton rather than JS is moot, since JS had ample time to deny the
published reports, but did not do so.
Since such words
>were
>never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his
>words
>or his opinion.
If you wish to disavow all the words and teachings of JS that were written by
his secretaries, rather than his own hand, you will have to disavow about 90%
of all Mormon writings, including the BOM, D&C, and PGP.
>Joseph Smith did not make a translation of the fraudulent plate. The
>translation
>attributed to him has proven to be an excerpt from a journal of William
>Clayton.
But the statement "I have translated a portion of them" could have only come
from the mouth of the person who claimed to have the power to translate ancient
languages.
Incidentally, the only person who could swear that the "revelation on celestial
marriage" was given by JS, rather than BY, was William Clayton. His affidavit
swore that he, JS, and Hyrum were the only ones present on July 12, 1843, when
that "revelation" was composed. If you want to disavow Clayton on his KP
journal entry, you're impeaching his credibility on the "celestial marriage"
issue as well.
>In fact, after viewing the Kinderhook plate, Joseph Smith never showed any
>interest in it.
>
>Where were the immediate denounciations that should have followed Joseph's
>supposed translation of the plates? If Joseph had actually translated them,
>you
>would think that the perpetrators of the scam would have immediately
>published
>this loud and long, as that is what they were after. But history seems to be
>silent about it.
The answer is simple. JS knew the source of the BOM and the BOA. Those
writings were "controlled" by him. He did NOT know the source of the KP, or
whether they were authentic or not. When the KP were presented to him, he HAD
to make a statement claiming to know what they were, or his shaky credibility
would have been questioned even more. However, if he had published an actual
"translation," that is when the perpetrators would have come forth. Therefore,
JS made his initial claim of the KP authenticity, then wisely declined to
pursue a "translation." Remember, he had just published his "BOA" the previous
year, knowing full well that it was a hoax, and if he had come forth with a
"translation" of the KP, (without knowing the source), his game might have been
up. Of course, his game was up a year later anyhow.
One can only conclude that Joseph ignored the plates, and
>most
>certainly never made any attempts to translate them. The Kinderhook plates
>were
>nothing more than another failed attempt to discredit Joseph, perpetrated by
>liars and men of little or no integrity.
As opposed to a "failed" attempt, I believe that it succeeded quite well. The
perpetrators admitted that it was a hoax of their own making, to publicly
embarrass JS. When JS was killed a year later, Wiley, Fugate and co. probably
decided that publicizing their practical joke, when the object of the joke had
been murdered, had very little purpose.
Wiley had also tried to sell the KP to the St. Louis Museum as "authentic." If
he had admitted that he had conned JS with them, his hoped-for sale to the
Museum would have no value.
Thus, he had good reason to keep quiet about his hoax until it was obvious that
no one would buy them from him.
Randy J.
janma...@my-dejanews.com
Will...@7861.conchbbs.com (Williams) wrote:
> A man who has committed himself to use
> logic and science to clear up false information about any subject would be
> better off dropping a story that starts to show this many inconsistencies.
> Otherwise, he may begin hearing it said of him, "Is this man worthy of public
> trust?"
> Regards,
> George
Well put, George! Joseph Smith lied about his ability to interpret the
Egyptian and furthered the fraud by publishing his Alphabet & Grammar. How
many times does a man have to be proven a flim-flam artist to lose that
valuable "...public trust"?
Jan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lpau...@nas.edu
"TJ Hall" <hal...@idworld.net> wrote:
>
> R. L. Measures wrote in message ...
> >In article <nuOr2.163$gU1...@axe.netdoor.com>, "Clifford Statum"
> ><clif...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> R. L. Measures wrote in message ...
> >> >In article <78nl80$e46$1...@remarQ.com>, "TJ Hall" <hal...@idworld.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> facsimiles
> >> >> of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on
> >> April
> >> >> 23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large
> >> mound"
> >>
> >> >€ A well written piece, Timothy. Did you write it perchance?
> >>
> >> Surely, you jest.
> >
> >€ There seems to be no end in sight to Timothy's unattribution. My
> >guess is that he is a pro torpedo, hired by big bro, whose purpose is to
> >blow a hole in the credence of the antimormon movement. Alas, if we
> >don't go after one ripoff artist, how can we possibly criticize another?
> >
> Yes, that's it! I'm a government agent with an agenda.
>
> Step aside.
>
> <snort>
>
> PEACE
It seems to make as much sense as believing you're a messenger of God's word.
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Evolution. It's a fact of life.**
R. L. Measures
> Tim, I think you have hoodwinked yourself:
> There is no conclusive proof that what is nowadays supposed to be one of
> the Kinderhook plates is actually the one of the ones found in the mound.
>...............
€ As I understand it, scientific analysis indicated that the plate was
likely produced in the mid-1800s. The surviving plate undoubtedly matches
the facsimile and description that appeared in *Times and Seasons* (May 1,
1843, pp.185-7)
- later, George.
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures. Remove plus in e-mail address.
TTaylor224
In article <36AF9D58...@SpamNot.compuserve.com>, Matthew L Reed
<emb...@SpamNot.compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic
>and
>that they were the “records of the descendants of Ham,” came from the journal
>of
>William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of
>Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of
>this
>time period when a biographical work was being compiled. Since such words
>were
>never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his
>words
>or his opinion.
>
>Joseph Smith did not make a translation of the fraudulent plate. The
>translation
>attributed to him has proven to be an excerpt from a journal of William
>Clayton.
>In fact, after viewing the Kinderhook plate, Joseph Smith never showed any
>interest in it.
>
William Clayton was Joseph Smith's personal secretary for some time.
Much of the History of the Church and several sections of the D&C
were actually written by William Clayton. Are you as willing to dismiss
all the rest of Clayton's writtings as you are his writtings on the
Kinderhook plates?
Tom
TTaylor224
>
>I generally don't post anything to this NG and I do not have an opinion on
>this thread, but I would like to know one thing -- where did the
>hieroglyphics come from that were used to make the "beeswax mold"?
>Did Wily just draw chicken scratches to resemble hieroglyphics, or did he
>copy them from some Egyptian text?
>
It is claimed they were copied from a Chinese tea box.
Tom
Williams
m> In article <ce7_990...@conchbbs.com>, Will...@7861.conchbbs.com
m> (Williams) wrote:
> Tim, I think you have hoodwinked yourself:
> There is no conclusive proof that what is
> nowadays supposed to be one of
> the Kinderhook plates is actually the one of the
> ones found in the mound.
>...............
m> C As I understand it, scientific analysis indicated that the plate was
m> likely produced in the mid-1800s. The surviving
m> plate undoubtedly matches
m> the facsimile and description that appeared in
m> *Times and Seasons* (May 1,
m> 1843, pp.185-7)
m> - later, George.
But there is no way to prove conclusively that the plate is the same. It
has no serial numbers. There is absolutely no way of getting a credible
identification of it short of having the original witnesses of the discovery
point it out as one of the ones that they saw. With the Mark Hoffman forgery
thing going around, I am extremely skeptical of evidence of this type.
Alvin Knisley (sp.) of the RLDS Restorationists has constructed a full
scale replica of the Book of Mormon plates, and guess what--it looks exactly
like the book the witnesses described. Could it be one and the same?
R. L. Measures
(Williams) wrote:
> rlmeasures wrote":
> m> In article <ce7_990...@conchbbs.com>, Will...@7861.conchbbs.com
> m> (Williams) wrote:
>
> > Tim, I think you have hoodwinked yourself:
> > There is no conclusive proof that what is
> > nowadays supposed to be one of
> > the Kinderhook plates is actually the one of the
> > ones found in the mound.
> >...............
>
> m> C As I understand it, scientific analysis indicated that the plate was
> m> likely produced in the mid-1800s. The surviving
> m> plate undoubtedly matches
> m> the facsimile and description that appeared in
> m> *Times and Seasons* (May 1,
> m> 1843, pp.185-7)
>
> m> - later, George.
> But there is no way to prove conclusively that the plate is the same. It
> has no serial numbers.
€ And if it did have a matching serial number, it could be claimed that a
fake plate was fabricated by devilish antimormons who were somehow able to
locate a supply of brass-plate stock that was produced in the mid 1800s.
> There is absolutely no way of getting a credible
> identification of it short of having the original witnesses of the discovery
> point it out as one of the ones that they saw.
€ Not if a well made replica were constructed.
> With the Mark Hoffman ...
€ (Hofmann)
>
> ... forgery thing going around, I am extremely skeptical of evidence of
this type.
€ Hofmann's forgery was on paper. Doing so on brass is way trickier,
thanks to modern scientific analysis. .
Doug M
"hierglyphics"?
R. L. Measures
> In article <ce7_990...@conchbbs.com>,
> Will...@7861.conchbbs.com (Williams) wrote:
> > A man who has committed himself to use
> > logic and science to clear up false information about any subject would be
> > better off dropping a story that starts to show this many inconsistencies.
> > Otherwise, he may begin hearing it said of him, "Is this man worthy of
public
> > trust?"
> > Regards,
> > George
>
>
> Well put, George! Joseph Smith lied about his ability to interpret the
> Egyptian and furthered the fraud by publishing his Alphabet & Grammar. How
> many times does a man have to be proven a flim-flam artist to lose that
> valuable "...public trust"?
>
> Jan
>
€ He promised 'em Godhood / Godesshood, advised closing their eyes, and
their wallets opened wide. He fooled 'em real good, Jan, even unto the
seventh generation.
- Alas
Williams
j> Will...@7861.conchbbs.com (Williams) wrote:
> A man who has committed himself to use
> logic and science to clear up false information
> about any subject would be
> better off dropping a story that starts to show
> this many inconsistencies.
> Otherwise, he may begin hearing it said of him, "Is this man worthy
> of public
> trust?"
> Regards,
> George
j> Well put, George! Joseph Smith lied about his ability to interpret the
j> Egyptian and furthered the fraud by publishing his
j> Alphabet & Grammar. How
j> many times does a man have to be proven a flim-flam artist to lose that
j> valuable "...public trust"?
j> Jan
j> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
j> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read,
j> Discuss, or Start Your Own
-
You are getting very close to the target, here, Jan. If Joseph Smith was
proved a fraud over and over, then why would anyone have to resort to using the
Kinderhood Plates as proof? They are a pretty poor example, since the facts are
very fuzzy. Why not rely on straight-forward, knock 'em dead proof, and leave
the fuzzy, wishy-washy stuff alone? The use of such material makes it appear
that the one using the Kinderhook material doubts the power of his "sure-fire"
material, and is trying to pad it with a little roughage to fill it out.
My proof that Joseph Smith is a fraud works like this:
Science has proven that dead people do not spontaneously (or by any other
means) come back to life.
The Book of Mormon says that Jesus came back to life after having been
executed.
Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was doctrinally correct about
religious matters to the point of being "the most correct book," and said book
is the foundation of his prophetic credentials.
Ergo, Joseph Smith is a liar, false prophet, and con artist.
Unfortunately, a sure-fire proof is nuclear in nature, and results in total
devastation for all concerned. Trying to prove Joseph Smith is a fraud without
addressing the real issue of what religion is, and dancing around with stuff
like the kinderhook plates is like trying to commit suicide with a slingshot.
Matthew L Reed
I think the biggest problem with the Kinderhook plates is that most of the info is
very old, second or third hand and who knows how reliable it is? Timmy posts his
boiler plate, I post my boiler plate, but what is Truth? Does Timmy think that
many will take his post seriously? I'm certainly not naive enough to think that
mine will be universally accepted<g>.
What are the facts? I don't think anyone really knows, I think there are very few
truths and facts available on this subject. On the one hand you have statements
saying that Joseph translated, on the other hand you have statements saying that
he didn't. Not all of William Claytons writings were approved or accepted by
Joseph Smith or the Church. I'm not even sure that everything attributed to
William Clayton was actually written by him. Too many people are willing to
believe the writings they want to, and disregard what they don't want to believe,
which is why there is such a controversy over many stories and even doctrinal
issues. Take the Bible, for example. One book, many different interpretations.
TJ Hall
Williams wrote in message ...
>Tim, I think you have hoodwinked yourself:
George, sorry, but no.
A weak defense of an incident that clearly and convincingly showed that
Smith was a scam artist and had zero credibility.
Such a bizarre post by you is rare.
PEACE
Elizabeth & Dale
>>"J. Bruce McCrary" <bmcc...@infoave.net> wrote:
>>>Hmmm. I do have wide feet, and a high instep as well. I've got a pair
of
>>>High Point GP's that are about 5 years old, the things are TOUGH to get
on,
>>>but once on they fit well. My only problem with them is that they didn't
>>>seem to hold up very well.
>>
>>>I've got to get a new pair of boots before March, and thought I'd
narrowed
>>>it down to the Tech 5's or 8's. Now I'm not so sure. Anyone else with
>>>simular shaped feet got any comments?
>>
>>>Bruce McCrary
>>>Lexington,NC
>>>'99 300 EXC
>One of my customers was having a hard time getting his tech 8s on....
>Until I told him to put the bootie on before he put his feet in the
>boot. :-]
>
>Bruce, my feet are wide and have a high instep. The Tech 8s are worth
>it.
>
>Jim Cook - Wudsracer
>Jim Cook - Wudsracer
>Gas Gas EC 250
>Team Cheesy Poof
>Smackover Motor Sports
>
>http://www2.arkansas.net/~toyhouse/debsplace.html
Thanks Jim. I sure like the way they look, I'm hoping I can talk one of my
friendly dealers into ordering a pair and letting me try them on, and go
from there.
Bruce McCrary
Lexington,NC
'99 300 EXC
Williams
h> Williams wrote in message ...
>Tim, I think you have hoodwinked yourself:
h> George, sorry, but no.
h> A weak defense of an incident that clearly and convincingly showed that
h> Smith was a scam artist and had zero credibility.
h> Such a bizarre post by you is rare.
h> PEACE
-
Tim, I still stand by what I said. You would be better off to leave the
marginal stuff alone, and go for the "undeniable proof." Why dance around when
you can administer the "coupe de gras"?
The Kinderhook thing is way low on the list of things you could use against
Smith.
Sort of like prosecuting Clinton for perjury, when he is guilty of high
treason.
janma...@my-dejanews.com
"Doug M" <win...@cet.com> wrote:
> Can you answer the questions I brought up in my post concerning the
> "hierglyphics"?
The sure-fire method to assure yourself of the "most correct" translation
would be to use Joseph Smith's Alphabet & Grammar--written by the prophet
himself and revered worldwide as THE standard in Egyptian decipherment.
(Mormons don't like to brag about it, though).
Jan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
janma...@my-dejanews.com
Will...@7861.conchbbs.com (Williams) wrote:
> You are getting very close to the target, here, Jan. If Joseph Smith was
> proved a fraud over and over, then why would anyone have to resort to using
the Kinderhood Plates as proof? They are a pretty poor example, since the
facts are very fuzzy. Why not rely on straight-forward, knock 'em dead proof,
and leave the fuzzy, wishy-washy stuff alone?
Well-put, George. To show fraud, we have the many "First Visions", the silly
Book Of Abraham, the (mimicked) Masonic rituals....
To me, that shows proof of fraud (big time).
> My proof that Joseph Smith is a fraud works like this:
> Science has proven that dead people do not spontaneously (or by any other
> means) come back to life.
> The Book of Mormon says that Jesus came back to life after having been
> executed.
> Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was doctrinally correct about
> religious matters to the point of being "the most correct book," and said book
> is the foundation of his prophetic credentials.
> Ergo, Joseph Smith is a liar, false prophet, and con artist.
Without going back to Jesus and the cross, why not point out that Joseph Smith
stole the King James text (including the interpreter's italics)?? Shows Joseph
Smith as a flim-flam man deluxe, supports your point just as well and allows
you address the many flaws in the Bible on another forum (alt. Joseph Smith's
"Inspired"-yet-uncanonized-Bible, perhaps).
> Unfortunately, a sure-fire proof is nuclear in nature, and results intotal
> devastation for all concerned. Trying to prove Joseph Smith is a fraud without
> addressing the real issue of what religion is, and dancing around with stuff
> like the kinderhook plates is like trying to commit suicide with a slingshot.
> Regards,
> George
I am satisfied to investigate "...what true religion isn't."
It isn't an oversexed quack prophet whose adherents jump through a series of
hoops to disprove the obvious--the cat was a compulsive liar.
dar...@my-dejanews.com
You have read from anti-Mormon sources the
story of the Kinderhook Plates, and decided
Joseph Smith must be a fraud, because (as the
early 20th century anti-Mormon Charles Shook
once wrote, "Only a Bogus Prophet can translate
Bogus Plates!" Well, life just ain't that simple.
There are only two theories in what happened
regarding the Kinderhook Plates. I'll review both
here.
1) BOGUS PLATES=LOLO CHARACTERS
The claim was that the *characters* on the
Kinderhook Plates were copied from a Lolo
Chinese Tea Chest (see *Mormonism--Shadow or
Reality?*--subchapter on Kinderhook Plates).
The characters "could" be translated; because
they were from a translatable language. The lolo
Chinese tea chests contained either Lolo poety
or royal genealogies.
Many Lolo name have Egyptian sounds to
them; which may explain why Joseph thought
they were Egyptian. The Lolos are known as the
"Black Chinese" because they have a dark skin-
tone, and some rather un-Chinese features.
Some scholars believe they came originally from
ancient Sumer; because there are many
affinities between ancient Sumerian writing and
that of the Sacred Bone Inscriptions of China;
which are the oldest Chinese writing known, and
they are also closely related to Lolo. The ancient
Sumerians had "silk"; which could have only
come from China; which means there was a
trade-roote between Sumer and ancient China.
The ancient Sumerian pictographs and the
ancient Chinese sacred bone-inscriptions are
essentially the same.
Some scholars believe that the Lolo are the
descendants of some ancient Chinese and
Sumerians. You may know, that 5,000 year old
Caucasian mummies have been found buried in
China. These two were traders; who established
tradding colonies there.
The Sumerians, on the other hand, were a
Hamitic people. As you know, Pharoah, as well as
the ancient Egyptians, were also descendants
from Ham. This probably explains why Lolo
names have many Egyptian similarities.
In any case, your claim will be "but if Joseph
Smith was a Prophet, he would have KNOWN that
the Kinderhook Plates were fake, and that those
that tried to deceive him were lying to him." It
doesn't work. Because, in Joshua chapter 9;
where the Gibeonites (a Canaanite tribe)
successfully deceive the Prophet Joshua. The
translaters of the NIV (New International
Version) title Joshua 9 "The Gibeonite Deception"
(NIV, p.163).
Of course, anti-Mormons and their dupes have
two standards: one for Biblical Prophets, and
one for Mormon Prophets. The Biblical Prophets
must also be declared "false" if anti-Mormons
use the same standards for both. There are
hundreds of examples why.
True, "bogus pieces of metal" cannot be
translated, but Lolo inscriptions can. The reason
why only a 'portion' could be translated is
because the guy doing the copying did a very
sloppy job. The characters on the 6th plate were
simply repeats and slight alterations of the last
two characters he found on the Chinese tea
chest. This is why only a "portion" was
translatible.
2) TRUE KINDERHOOK PLATES vs. BOGUS "PLATE"
FOUND IN 1968
There is also the fact that the Kinderhook
Plates were presumed destroyed in the great
Chicago Fire. In the mid 1960s, a former BYU
professor (who was fired from BYU) left the
Church, and decided to "find" the Kinderhook
Plates. He claimed to have "found" one in the
Chicago Museum; which was a shock to the
curators; who'd never seen it before. Sure
enough, the plate was a fake; just like the man
wanted it. What luck! The plate tested in 1980
was the one the former BYU professor "found".
You may recall, from 1980 to 1986, Mark
Hofmann claimed to have "found" many old
documents which placed very bad light on
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. When one
Mormon bishop (Steve Christensen) began to
discover this deception (Hofmann was forging
the documents) Hofmann murdered him with a
pipe-bomb. Then Hofmann murdered the wife of
Christensen's business parter; just to through
police off from suspecion from him. He was on
his way to murder another man, but his pipe-
bomb blew-up on himself. After many months of
intense police and forensic investigations, they
discovered the documents were fakes, and that
Hofmann was the murder (anti-Mormons, and
Hofmann, claimed that the murders were
ordered by the Church, or done by "fanatical
Mormons"). Hofmann confessed all--to escape
the death-penalty. Some anti-Mormon literature
even to this day uses his phoney "Salmander
Letter" to "prove" Joseph Smith a fraud or at
least an occultist. In truth, Hofmann fabricated
the documents; as a way to make money, and
create "evidence" that Joseph Smith was a
fraud. Many other anti-Mormons have
fabricated evidence that is now exposed as such
(see Richard Turley, *Victims*, chapter one--
from the University of Illinois Press--can order
from any bookstore).
There is also some circumstantial evidence in
this theory. Why DID Whiley wait until the others
were dead until "confessing"? Why didn't the
Chicago Museum know they had one of the
plates until the ex-BYU professor (and ex-
Mormon) miraculously "found it"? Why do the
inscriptions on the plates (as recorded in the
HIstory of the Church) resemble closely Linear B;
a written language closely related to Minoan,
which is based upon Demotic Egyptian writing?
Why was only one "plate" found? Why have
other bell-shapped copper plates been found in
other mounds along in the Mississippi Valley?
Why did the Bogus "Plate" appear to be machine
cut when machine cutters weren't invented until
long after the so-called manufactur in the early
1840s?
In truth, there are only TWO possibilities:
1) Bogus plates/true characters--a portion is
translatible.
2) True plates/bogus plate--fabricated by
embittered ex-Mormon, who miraculously
"finds" it in Chicago Museum (which the Museum
didn't know it had).
Either way, using the same standards that
biblical prophets must pass (i.e. Joshua chapter
9) there can be only one verdict: Not Guilty!
Someday, we hopefully will know the full truth.
But, again, either way, this doesn't convict
Joseph Smith as a fraud. If it did, then we must
likewise convict Joshua, and therefore
throughout the entire Bible; Jesus and all.
Darrick Evenson
In article <78nl80$e46$1...@remarQ.com>,
"TJ Hall" <hal...@idworld.net> wrote:
> On pages 374-6 of the Documentary History of the Church, (Vol. 5) facsimiles
> of "brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April
> 23, [1843] by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound"
> are displayed. According to the account, Wiley and others, "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." The plates were then given
> to Joseph Smith to translate. Though Smith described Wiley as a "respectable
> merchant" (p.374), he was unaware that Wiley was part of a conspiracy to
> expose Smith as a fraud.
>
> The ruse was a success. Page 372 of the History of the Church (DHC) reads:
> "I [Joseph Smith] 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" (DHC 5:372).
>
> In 1879, Wilbourn Fugate, one of the conspirators working with Wiley,
> admitted "that the plates were a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge
> Whitton, and myself. Whitton (who was a blacksmith) cut the plates out of
> some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making
> impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid, and putting it on the
> plates. When they were finished, we put them together with rust made of
> nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron,
> covering them completely with rust." (New Witnesses for God, Vol.3, p.63).
>
> LDS Seventy B.H. Roberts refused to believe it. Wrote Roberts, "The fact
> that Fugate's story was not told until thirty-six years after the event, and
> that he alone of all those who were connected with the event gives that
> version of it, is rather strong evidence that his story is the hoax, not the
> discovery of the plates, nor the engravings upon them" (New Witnesses for
> God 3:64). Why the nine conspirators did not expose Smith earlier is a
> mystery, but the fact remains that Mr. Roberts was clearly misled into
> thinking his founder had indeed translated ancient plates.
>
> According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Vol. 2, KINDERHOOK PLATES),
> interest in the forged plates waned following Smith's death in 1844.
> "Decades later two of the alleged discoverers announced that the plates were
> a hoax; an attempt to discredit Smith. By then, however, the Church was
> headquartered in Utah and little attention was paid to these strange
> disclosures." The article continues by saying, "Interest was kindled again
> in 1920 when the Chicago Historical Society acquired what appeared to be one
> of the original Kinderhook plates. Later the Chicago plate was subjected to
> a number of nondestructive tests, with inconclusive results. Then in 1980,
> the Chicago Historical Society gave permission for destructive tests, which
> were done at Northwestern University. Examination by a scanning electron
> microscope, a scanning auger microprobe, and X-ray fluorescence analysis
> proved conclusively that the plate was one of the Kinderhook six; that it
> had been engraved, not etched; and that it was of nineteenth-century
> manufacture. There thus appears no reason to accept the Kinderhook plates as
> anything but a frontier hoax."
>
> An abundant number of Mormon apologists have come to the aid of Joseph Smith
> in this matter. For instance, Diane Wirth, writing in Review of Books on the
> Book of Mormon (4: 210), actually goes so far as to try and discredit the
> DHC account by writing: "Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the
> Kinderhook plates were authentic and that they were the "records of the
> descendants of Ham," came from the journal of William Clayton, who wrote in
> the first person, as though from the mouth of Joseph Smith. A first-person
> narrative was apparently a common practice of this time period when a
> biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were never penned by
> the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words or his
> opinion."
>
> Wirth’s conclusion is incredible given the fact that many statements in the
> DHC are not from the mouth of Joseph Smith, even though it reads that way.
> Wirth’s comment also undermines the credibility of 10th President Joseph
> Fielding Smith, who wrote, "The most important history in the world is the
> history of our Church, and it is the most accurate history in all the world"
> (Doctrines of Salvation 2:199).
>
> The Kinderhook Plate incident gives us a number of reasons to pause before
> accepting the prophetical calling of Joseph Smith and the validity of
> Mormonism. In a direct sense, it shows us that Smith was not a very
> discerning man. Apparently he was just as gullible as many of those who
> followed him. If men such as Wiley, etc. could hoodwink Smith, could an
> angel claiming to be a messenger from God not also deceive him? Even if we
> could excuse Smith's lack of discernment, it does not take away from the
> fact that Smith insisted he had the ability to "translate" the bogus pieces
> of metal. Whether Smith knowingly tried to deceive his followers or was
> deluded himself is of little consequence; certainly it shows he is not a man
> worthy of people's trust.
>
> Would you follow this man as a "prophet of God"?
>
> PEACE
Joe Steve Swick III
In any case, your claim will be "but if Joseph Smith was a Prophet, he
would have KNOWN that the Kinderhook Plates were fake, and that those that
tried to deceive him were lying to him." It doesn't work. Because, in Joshua
chapter 9; where the Gibeonites (a Canaanite tribe) successfully deceive the
Prophet Joshua. The translaters of the NIV (New International Version) title
Joshua 9 "The Gibeonite Deception"
(NIV, p.163).
Of course, anti-Mormons and their dupes have two standards: one for Biblical
Prophets, and one for Mormon Prophets. The Biblical Prophets must also be
declared "false" if anti-Mormons use the same standards for both. There are
hundreds of examples why.
-----
Yes, but the Joshua and the Gibeonites is one of my personal favorites. I
love to remind critics of this particular juicy tidbit whenever they get too
uppity about some of Joseph Smith's choices for friends.
JSW