LDS Freedom Forum

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 9:36 am

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 7:22 am

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 6:00 pm

The timing of Joseph Smith’s interactions with Thurlow Weed is vitally important.

JS claimed to have received the plates in September of 1827.

Weed bought the Rochester Telegraph in 1825 and was forced out by the Masons due to his anti-Masonic activity in 1828. In the spring of 1829 translation of the BofM was said to have just barely begun.

LDS sources have the search for a BofM printer in 1829.

It is very unlikely Thurlow Weed got his dates mixed up due to obvious timeline constraints.

MR. THURLOW WEED'S STATEMENT.
NEW YORK, April 12th, 1880.

In 1825, when I was publishing the "Rochester Telegraph," a man introduced himself to me as Joseph Smith, of Palmyra, New York, whose object, he said, was to get a book published. He then stated he had been guided by a vision to a spot he described, where, in a cavern, he found what he called a golden bible. It consisted of a tablet which he placed in his hat, and from which he proceeded to read the first chapter of the Book of Mormon.

I listened until I became weary of what seemed to me an incomprehensible jargon. I then told him I was only publishing a newspaper, and that he would have to go to a book publisher, suggesting a friend who was in that business. A few days afterward Smith called again, bringing a substantial farmer with him named Harris. Smith renewed his request that I should print his book, adding that it was a divine revelation, and would be accepted, and that he would be accepted by the world as a prophet. Supposing that I had doubts as to his being able to pay for the publishing, Mr. Harris, who was a convert, offered to be his security for payment. Meantime, I had discovered that Smith was a shrewd, scheming fellow who passed his time at taverns and stores in Palmyra, without business, and apparently without visible means of support. He seemed about thirty years of age, was compactly built, about five feet eight inches in height, had regular features, and would impress one favorably in conversation. His book was afterward published in Palmyra. I knew the publisher, but cannot at this moment remember his name. The first Mormon newspaper was published at Canandaigua, New York, by a man named Phelps, who accompanied Smith as an apostle to Illinois, where the first Mormon city, Nauvoo, was started.
(Signed) THURLOW WEED.

Are you saying the dates are important because an author doesn't go looking for a publisher (1825 with Weed) until he has a manuscript to publish (1829). So JS was either publisher hunting in advance of having a manuscript to print, or he had one finished, or partly finished and was shopping it around for publication, but later, changed the timeline of manuscript publication to fit another narrative? Is that what you're saying?

Is that relevant to anything other than changing timelines? We have the manuscript finished and published. Wither or not Joseph Smith was seeking a publisher in advance of having a manuscript or not is probably irrelevant. But the changing timeline narrative points to something else going on. Why is the timeline of events changing? Is it just poor memory? Or is it that the timeline of events has to fit a narrative that wasn't conceived until years later, so the dates had to be changed in order to make the timeline of restoration events fit seamlessly?

I’m saying 1825/26 is too early to be shopping for a publisher of a manuscript that hasn’t been written and one has been made aware that the source material won’t even be available until anticipation of receiving them from an angel in 1827.

Thurlow Weed’s memory is corroborated by traceable events in his public life.

Sidney Rigdon’s grandson would go on record saying the following about what the family understood about his early involvement in the creation of the BofM:

"Well, he tried to understand the prophecies, and the man who does that is sure to go crazy. He studied the prophets and baptism, and of course he got 'rattled.' Daniel and Ezekiel and Revelations will 'rattle' any man who gives in his whole mind to 'em -- at any rate they did him, and he joined Alexander Campbell. Campbell then believed that the end of the world was nigh - his Millennial Harbinger shows that they 'rattled' all who listened to him in Ohio and other places; then grandfather got disgusted and decided on a new deal. He 'found' Joe Smith and they had a great many talks together befores they brought out the plates. None of us ever doubted that they got the whole thing up; but father always maintained that grandfather helped get up the original Spaulding book. At any rate he got a copy very early and schemed on some way to make it useful. Although the family knew these facts, they refused to talk on the subject while grandfather lived. In fact, he and they took on [a] huge disgust at the whole subject...." (7 April 1888, NY, reporter J.H. Beadle of the Tribune in an interview with Walter Sidney Rigdon, a son of Algernon)

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 11:12 pm

Shaffer89 wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 10:32 pm

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 10:08 pm

Peel it back a tad and let’s reframe. Mine is not an attempt to “discredit” anything. I want to know the facts as they actually exist.

I’m not sure why the word “conspiracy” keeps getting used when maybe the word “con” would be more suitable since it would have required very few to keep the secret and, instead, would have called for charisma and salesmanship. This is not really an “uncovering” either since these facts have attempted to prevail upon the public since the beginning of JS’s career.

These statements made by the individuals in question simply exist. You can take them or leave them but they will still be there…150 years ago, today and forever.

Your right, I'm sorry i got upset since I let myself believe there was more to this than there was.

The statements are fine, taking those statements as more truthful than the other statements is what I dont see value in.

So what will you do with these facts when you discover them? Will your publish8ng of these "facts" do more harm or good for the souls of men? It seems like for a seeker of facts you have to use alot of assumptions words like rumor, thought, heard, remembered, and other things that are contrary to facts.

What you have to understand about my perspective is that, for decades, my starting point was that the BofM was God’s truth and I only really saw the data that conformed.

About the souls of men and what does harm or good…what if you were to become aware that there were themes and teachings, explicit and implied, in the BofM that were actually harmful to your soul’s connection with and knowledge of God and the way of happiness and Life? Fear of knowledge goes hand in hand with delusion.

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 1:18 pm

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 9:36 am

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 7:22 am

Are you saying the dates are important because an author doesn't go looking for a publisher (1825 with Weed) until he has a manuscript to publish (1829). So JS was either publisher hunting in advance of having a manuscript to print, or he had one finished, or partly finished and was shopping it around for publication, but later, changed the timeline of manuscript publication to fit another narrative? Is that what you're saying?

Is that relevant to anything other than changing timelines? We have the manuscript finished and published. Wither or not Joseph Smith was seeking a publisher in advance of having a manuscript or not is probably irrelevant. But the changing timeline narrative points to something else going on. Why is the timeline of events changing? Is it just poor memory? Or is it that the timeline of events has to fit a narrative that wasn't conceived until years later, so the dates had to be changed in order to make the timeline of restoration events fit seamlessly?

I’m saying 1825/26 is too early to be shopping for a publisher of a manuscript that hasn’t been written and one has been made aware that the source material won’t even be available until anticipation of receiving them from an angel in 1827.

Thurlow Weed’s memory is corroborated by traceable events in his public life.

Sidney Rigdon’s grandson would go on record saying the following about what the family understood about his early involvement in the creation of the BofM:

"Well, he tried to understand the prophecies, and the man who does that is sure to go crazy. He studied the prophets and baptism, and of course he got 'rattled.' Daniel and Ezekiel and Revelations will 'rattle' any man who gives in his whole mind to 'em -- at any rate they did him, and he joined Alexander Campbell. Campbell then believed that the end of the world was nigh - his Millennial Harbinger shows that they 'rattled' all who listened to him in Ohio and other places; then grandfather got disgusted and decided on a new deal. He 'found' Joe Smith and they had a great many talks together befores they brought out the plates. None of us ever doubted that they got the whole thing up; but father always maintained that grandfather helped get up the original Spaulding book. At any rate he got a copy very early and schemed on some way to make it useful. Although the family knew these facts, they refused to talk on the subject while grandfather lived. In fact, he and they took on [a] huge disgust at the whole subject...." (7 April 1888, NY, reporter J.H. Beadle of the Tribune in an interview with Walter Sidney Rigdon, a son of Algernon)

So you're implying that Joseph Smith had a working manuscript of the Book of Mormon (or partial manuscript) already in 1825-26, two to three years before receiving the plates. In other words, he had been working on a book that would help create a new religion.

In the opening chapter of "By the Hand of Moroni", Terryl Givens makes the comment that all great religions begin with a book. The koran of Islam. The Bible of Christianity. The Vyasa & Valmiki of Hinduism. The Tripitaka and the Mahayana Sutras of Buddhism. And now the Book of Mormon. Is it possible that Jospeh Smith and some of his counter parts noticed that link between a book and the founding of a religion, and decided to follow that pattern and create a book that would then allow them to create a religion? And, thereby, profit from converts. Whenever you get converts to a religion, you end up milking them for some free ride money....hate to say that, but it's been the way of religious movements since they began.......milking converts for money.

A point of interest is that it was about this time (1826) where Joseph Smith Sr., on the witness stand, in the money digging trial of his son Joseph Jr., implored his son to stop illegal treasure digging and use his gifts and talents in religion. I'm surmising that Joseph Sr. realized that you could go to jail for money digging, or leading digs as a scrier or seer with a seer stone, but religion offered a profession where a charismatic story teller could preach faith and god and repentance, offer heavenly divine worlds-without-end rewards which the preacher never had to deliver on in this life unlike money digging where the diggers expected to find a treasure, and the pay in religion was much better than the hourly rate for a treasure digging seer. Plus the work was more consistent. There's always more sinners in need of reptence, but there's only so many Spanish treasure digs you can fake until your profession is exposed as a fraud.

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 10:01 am

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 12:22 am

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 11:12 pm

What you have to understand about my perspective is that, for decades, my starting point was that the BofM was God’s truth and I only really saw the data that conformed.

About the souls of men and what does harm or good…what if you were to become aware that there were themes and teachings, explicit and implied, in the BofM that were actually harmful to your soul’s connection with and knowledge of God and the way of happiness and Life? Fear of knowledge goes hand in hand with delusion.

Maybe you could start a new thread about teachings in the Book of Mormon that are harmful to your soul’s connection with and knowledge of God, etc? Or if you’ve already done so, point me to it? Never heard this before.

Here’s the gist:
The BofM perpetuates and reinforces a faulty understanding of Biblical content and ancient religion due to the fact that it is obviously man’s attempt at religionizing

What’s missing and distorted in the BofM? The absolute biggest is the absence of the female principle of divinity, which affects the BofM’s slant on the means and acquisition of knowledge, a Garden myth that promotes the disrespecting of Creation, and locks in a toxic societal power structure.

Shaffer89 wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 3:29 pm

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 11:12 pm

Shaffer89 wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 10:32 pm

Your right, I'm sorry i got upset since I let myself believe there was more to this than there was.

The statements are fine, taking those statements as more truthful than the other statements is what I dont see value in.

So what will you do with these facts when you discover them? Will your publish8ng of these "facts" do more harm or good for the souls of men? It seems like for a seeker of facts you have to use alot of assumptions words like rumor, thought, heard, remembered, and other things that are contrary to facts.

What you have to understand about my perspective is that, for decades, my starting point was that the BofM was God’s truth and I only really saw the data that conformed.

About the souls of men and what does harm or good…what if you were to become aware that there were themes and teachings, explicit and implied, in the BofM that were actually harmful to your soul’s connection with and knowledge of God and the way of happiness and Life? Fear of knowledge goes hand in hand with delusion.

You make an important point here, it was your starting point. I Have yet to find anyone who provides a better starting point to understand the scriptures and Christ than the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. By trying to throw stumbling blocks in front to those who need the same starting point that you and i did, you are essentially pulling the ladder up behind you.
I get that you are trying to hide the malicious intent behind the facade of "truth seeking" but there is a difference between seeking and truth and what you are doing here.
Have you posted, not only contrarian views, but also historical letters and documents that show other viewpoints? It would seem that a fear of knowledge because of delusion is more of a projection of your own insecurity than any kind of comment about me.

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 3:42 pm

Shaffer89 wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 3:29 pm

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 11:12 pm

What you have to understand about my perspective is that, for decades, my starting point was that the BofM was God’s truth and I only really saw the data that conformed.

About the souls of men and what does harm or good…what if you were to become aware that there were themes and teachings, explicit and implied, in the BofM that were actually harmful to your soul’s connection with and knowledge of God and the way of happiness and Life? Fear of knowledge goes hand in hand with delusion.

You make an important point here, it was your starting point. I Have yet to find anyone who provides a better starting point to understand the scriptures and Christ than the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. By trying to throw stumbling blocks in front to those who need the same starting point that you and i did, you are essentially pulling the ladder up behind you.
I get that you are trying to hide the malicious intent behind the facade of "truth seeking" but there is a difference between seeking and truth and what you are doing here.
Have you posted, not only contrarian views, but also historical letters and documents that show other viewpoints? It would seem that a fear of knowledge because of delusion is more of a projection of your own insecurity than any kind of comment about me.

Look at what your mind is doing to cope with data sets outside of your paradigm. You have to demonize me and my motives. It has now become a moral issue. You can’t just counter the information with what you think contradicts it.

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 1:18 pm

Pazooka wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 9:36 am

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 7:22 am

Are you saying the dates are important because an author doesn't go looking for a publisher (1825 with Weed) until he has a manuscript to publish (1829). So JS was either publisher hunting in advance of having a manuscript to print, or he had one finished, or partly finished and was shopping it around for publication, but later, changed the timeline of manuscript publication to fit another narrative? Is that what you're saying?

Is that relevant to anything other than changing timelines? We have the manuscript finished and published. Wither or not Joseph Smith was seeking a publisher in advance of having a manuscript or not is probably irrelevant. But the changing timeline narrative points to something else going on. Why is the timeline of events changing? Is it just poor memory? Or is it that the timeline of events has to fit a narrative that wasn't conceived until years later, so the dates had to be changed in order to make the timeline of restoration events fit seamlessly?

I’m saying 1825/26 is too early to be shopping for a publisher of a manuscript that hasn’t been written and one has been made aware that the source material won’t even be available until anticipation of receiving them from an angel in 1827.

Thurlow Weed’s memory is corroborated by traceable events in his public life.

Sidney Rigdon’s grandson would go on record saying the following about what the family understood about his early involvement in the creation of the BofM:

"Well, he tried to understand the prophecies, and the man who does that is sure to go crazy. He studied the prophets and baptism, and of course he got 'rattled.' Daniel and Ezekiel and Revelations will 'rattle' any man who gives in his whole mind to 'em -- at any rate they did him, and he joined Alexander Campbell. Campbell then believed that the end of the world was nigh - his Millennial Harbinger shows that they 'rattled' all who listened to him in Ohio and other places; then grandfather got disgusted and decided on a new deal. He 'found' Joe Smith and they had a great many talks together befores they brought out the plates. None of us ever doubted that they got the whole thing up; but father always maintained that grandfather helped get up the original Spaulding book. At any rate he got a copy very early and schemed on some way to make it useful. Although the family knew these facts, they refused to talk on the subject while grandfather lived. In fact, he and they took on [a] huge disgust at the whole subject...." (7 April 1888, NY, reporter J.H. Beadle of the Tribune in an interview with Walter Sidney Rigdon, a son of Algernon)

So you're implying that Joseph Smith had a working manuscript of the Book of Mormon (or partial manuscript) already in 1825-26, two to three years before receiving the plates. In other words, he had been working on a book that would help create a new religion.

In the opening chapter of "By the Hand of Moroni", Terryl Givens makes the comment that all great religions begin with a book. The koran of Islam. The Bible of Christianity. The Vyasa & Valmiki of Hinduism. The Tripitaka and the Mahayana Sutras of Buddhism. And now the Book of Mormon. Is it possible that Jospeh Smith and some of his counter parts noticed that link between a book and the founding of a religion, and decided to follow that pattern and create a book that would then allow them to create a religion? And, thereby, profit from converts. Whenever you get converts to a religion, you end up milking them for some free ride money....hate to say that, but it's been the way of religious movements since they began.......milking converts for money.

A point of interest is that it was about this time (1826) where Joseph Smith Sr., on the witness stand, in the money digging trial of his son Joseph Jr., implored his son to stop illegal treasure digging and use his gifts and talents in religion. I'm surmising that Joseph Sr. realized that you could go to jail for money digging, or leading digs as a scrier or seer with a seer stone, but religion offered a profession where a charismatic story teller could preach faith and god and repentance, offer heavenly divine worlds-without-end rewards which the preacher never had to deliver on in this life unlike money digging where the diggers expected to find a treasure, and the pay in religion was much better than the hourly rate for a treasure digging seer. Plus the work was more consistent. There's always more sinners in need of reptence, but there's only so many Spanish treasure digs you can fake until your profession is exposed as a fraud.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am

Dusty Wanderer wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 5:30 pm The Kinderhook Plates being used as a case study proving Joseph couldn't have supernaturally produced the Book of Mormon is low-informed and logically not applicable **.

** 1.He didn't try to translate under any supernatural medium/method. He used a Hebrew lexicon to try and validate the characters. The only thing we know beyond that is that he never tried to obtain them for further investigation or translation.
** 2. Even if he did claim to have tried supernaturally, which he did not, all that would logically prove is that he had lost his ability to do so.

Any appeal today to the Kinderhook Plates wreaks a little like desperation.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Were the K plates were presented to Joseph as ancient writings?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Did Joseph "translate" any part and claim they were a history of the person with whom they were found and that person was a descendant of Ham?
Aye, all that.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am But who is Wilbur Fugate, Bridge Whitten, and Robert Wiley?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Who is Sharp?
Who is M. Wilford Poulson?
Welby W. Ricks?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am What destructive testing happened in 1981?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am What was published on May 22 1844 in the Warsaw Signal?
What is a sequel to the BoM?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am And W T F is the "Prophet... prophet?" doing sending for a lexicon and dictionary anyway?

kinderhook.JPG

Dusty Wanderer wrote: ↑October 30th, 2023, 3:23 pm

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am

Dusty Wanderer wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 5:30 pm The Kinderhook Plates being used as a case study proving Joseph couldn't have supernaturally produced the Book of Mormon is low-informed and logically not applicable **.

** 1.He didn't try to translate under any supernatural medium/method. He used a Hebrew lexicon to try and validate the characters. The only thing we know beyond that is that he never tried to obtain them for further investigation or translation.
** 2. Even if he did claim to have tried supernaturally, which he did not, all that would logically prove is that he had lost his ability to do so.

Any appeal today to the Kinderhook Plates wreaks a little like desperation.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Were the K plates were presented to Joseph as ancient writings?

Yes, of course.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Did Joseph "translate" any part and claim they were a history of the person with whom they were found and that person was a descendant of Ham?
Aye, all that.

Apparently, according to Clayton and Pratt. It would be only logical to associate an Egyptian character about heritage w/ the possible heritage of the body they were allegedly found with.

I suspect it was much more impactful to Clayton than it ever was to Joseph. Here's some reasons why:

1. There is a single brief mention to it in the Times and Season (not attributed to Joseph).
2. An even briefer mention in the Nauvoo Neighbor saying "will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed", which the Times and Seasons did not say was the case.
3. Joseph's personal journal is completely silent about it
4. The only remarks about it that some interpret as being Joseph's are what is said in the History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372. Interesting thing here is that they are almost word for word what William Clayton recorded in his journal, but changed to sound like it was being said by Joseph.

Clayton Journal: "I have seen 6 brass plates…covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest. J. [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendent of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

JS Jr (allegedly), HotC: “I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... 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.”

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am But who is Wilbur Fugate, Bridge Whitten, and Robert Wiley?

These guys went to a lot of effort to stage an elaborate "joke" (their words). After doing so, it all went quiet. Why didn't they pursue it? There were plenty of papers that would've told the whole story. And why didn't the fool Joseph request to buy the plates or send someone to see the body or continue to "translate", etc?

Perhaps there wasn't much to the story contemporarily, even from the fabricators' perspective. I mean, they didn't even talk about until 1879 when zealous Church representatives reached out to them hoping for a faith-promoting story. Perhaps the significance is simply in the noise or static that has accumulated around it over time.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Who is Sharp?
Who is M. Wilford Poulson?
Welby W. Ricks?

Not sure why you bring up Sharp. But where do these other academics say there were no valid Egyptian characters on the plates?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am What destructive testing happened in 1981?

I never argued for the legitimacy of the plates themselves in my quoted comments above.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am What was published on May 22 1844 in the Warsaw Signal?
What is a sequel to the BoM?

Easy,
“The new work which Jo. Is about to issue as a translation of these [Kinderhook] plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon…”
– Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844

But what do you suppose this proves? It's generally uncontested that the Warsaw Signal (between 1840-1850) was "vigorously anti-mormon". Further, the claim isn't attributed to "Jo" or any of his colleagues, and is not corroborated by any other source for that matter.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am And W T F is the "Prophet... prophet?" doing sending for a lexicon and dictionary anyway?

kinderhook.JPG

I get it, I am seeking the truth about Joseph, too, and recognize the seemingly paradoxical things. However this last question of yours is more about your expectations of what a prophet should be than it is about what a prophet actually is -- or more importantly, what Joseph claimed a prophet is: "only when he's acting as such". So, was he acting as such in this case. His actions would suggest not, as he appealed to Egyptian lexicon and didn't pursue it further.

-----

Just wanted to expand a little bit more what I said in my quoted post...

I find it interesting that this is a bigger deal to us now than it was even to those who went to great lengths to set the whole thing up back then. As I stated earlier, when the facts have been exhausted and all we're left with are assumptions, we set aside objectivity and the conjecture becomes more revealing about where the peddler is at than they are about the subject (ie. Joseph in this case).

There's much stronger cases to be made than this one, which is not conclusive in any way. So why push it as if it is? I think the final paragraph in the quote you posted above (image) sums up why perfectly.

ithink wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 7:20 am

Dusty Wanderer wrote: ↑October 30th, 2023, 3:23 pm

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Were the K plates were presented to Joseph as ancient writings?

Yes, of course.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Did Joseph "translate" any part and claim they were a history of the person with whom they were found and that person was a descendant of Ham?
Aye, all that.

Apparently, according to Clayton and Pratt. It would be only logical to associate an Egyptian character about heritage w/ the possible heritage of the body they were allegedly found with.

I suspect it was much more impactful to Clayton than it ever was to Joseph. Here's some reasons why:

1. There is a single brief mention to it in the Times and Season (not attributed to Joseph).
2. An even briefer mention in the Nauvoo Neighbor saying "will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed", which the Times and Seasons did not say was the case.
3. Joseph's personal journal is completely silent about it
4. The only remarks about it that some interpret as being Joseph's are what is said in the History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372. Interesting thing here is that they are almost word for word what William Clayton recorded in his journal, but changed to sound like it was being said by Joseph.

Clayton Journal: "I have seen 6 brass plates…covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest. J. [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendent of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

JS Jr (allegedly), HotC: “I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... 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.”

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am But who is Wilbur Fugate, Bridge Whitten, and Robert Wiley?

These guys went to a lot of effort to stage an elaborate "joke" (their words). After doing so, it all went quiet. Why didn't they pursue it? There were plenty of papers that would've told the whole story. And why didn't the fool Joseph request to buy the plates or send someone to see the body or continue to "translate", etc?

Perhaps there wasn't much to the story contemporarily, even from the fabricators' perspective. I mean, they didn't even talk about until 1879 when zealous Church representatives reached out to them hoping for a faith-promoting story. Perhaps the significance is simply in the noise or static that has accumulated around it over time.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am Who is Sharp?
Who is M. Wilford Poulson?
Welby W. Ricks?

Not sure why you bring up Sharp. But where do these other academics say there were no valid Egyptian characters on the plates?

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am What destructive testing happened in 1981?

I never argued for the legitimacy of the plates themselves in my quoted comments above.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am What was published on May 22 1844 in the Warsaw Signal?
What is a sequel to the BoM?

Easy,
“The new work which Jo. Is about to issue as a translation of these [Kinderhook] plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon…”
– Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844

But what do you suppose this proves? It's generally uncontested that the Warsaw Signal (between 1840-1850) was "vigorously anti-mormon". Further, the claim isn't attributed to "Jo" or any of his colleagues, and is not corroborated by any other source for that matter.

ithink wrote: ↑October 28th, 2023, 9:05 am And W T F is the "Prophet... prophet?" doing sending for a lexicon and dictionary anyway?

kinderhook.JPG

I get it, I am seeking the truth about Joseph, too, and recognize the seemingly paradoxical things. However this last question of yours is more about your expectations of what a prophet should be than it is about what a prophet actually is -- or more importantly, what Joseph claimed a prophet is: "only when he's acting as such". So, was he acting as such in this case. His actions would suggest not, as he appealed to Egyptian lexicon and didn't pursue it further.

-----

Just wanted to expand a little bit more what I said in my quoted post...

I find it interesting that this is a bigger deal to us now than it was even to those who went to great lengths to set the whole thing up back then. As I stated earlier, when the facts have been exhausted and all we're left with are assumptions, we set aside objectivity and the conjecture becomes more revealing about where the peddler is at than they are about the subject (ie. Joseph in this case).

There's much stronger cases to be made than this one, which is not conclusive in any way. So why push it as if it is? I think the final paragraph in the quote you posted above (image) sums up why perfectly.

Smith declared what the Kinderhook plates were. What he declared they were, they were not.

Why would these men choose fake plates to fool Joseph? He clearly was fooled. If you don't agree, that is fine with me. But he was fooled.

You ask who was Sharp?
I'll ask was there a planned excavation of the plates?
I'll ask again who was Sharp?
I'll ask also who is the devil?
Does Lucifer ever appear as an angel of light?
Details matter.
Has the serpent from the Garden of Eden given up his task? I'm talking about THE serpent. The one who was capable of deception in the Garden of Eden itself. If you're not worried about that, then that's fine with me. But it should worry all of us.
Anyway, who was Sharp, and what is the treasure?
I could just tell you but I don't want to bias your thinking.

Dusty Wanderer wrote: ↑November 1st, 2023, 12:57 pm

ithink wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 7:20 am

Dusty Wanderer wrote: ↑October 30th, 2023, 3:23 pm


Yes, of course.


Apparently, according to Clayton and Pratt. It would be only logical to associate an Egyptian character about heritage w/ the possible heritage of the body they were allegedly found with.

I suspect it was much more impactful to Clayton than it ever was to Joseph. Here's some reasons why:

1. There is a single brief mention to it in the Times and Season (not attributed to Joseph).
2. An even briefer mention in the Nauvoo Neighbor saying "will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed", which the Times and Seasons did not say was the case.
3. Joseph's personal journal is completely silent about it
4. The only remarks about it that some interpret as being Joseph's are what is said in the History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372. Interesting thing here is that they are almost word for word what William Clayton recorded in his journal, but changed to sound like it was being said by Joseph.

Clayton Journal: "I have seen 6 brass plates…covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest. J. [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendent of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

JS Jr (allegedly), HotC: “I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... 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.”



These guys went to a lot of effort to stage an elaborate "joke" (their words). After doing so, it all went quiet. Why didn't they pursue it? There were plenty of papers that would've told the whole story. And why didn't the fool Joseph request to buy the plates or send someone to see the body or continue to "translate", etc?

Perhaps there wasn't much to the story contemporarily, even from the fabricators' perspective. I mean, they didn't even talk about until 1879 when zealous Church representatives reached out to them hoping for a faith-promoting story. Perhaps the significance is simply in the noise or static that has accumulated around it over time.


Not sure why you bring up Sharp. But where do these other academics say there were no valid Egyptian characters on the plates?


I never argued for the legitimacy of the plates themselves in my quoted comments above.


Easy,
“The new work which Jo. Is about to issue as a translation of these [Kinderhook] plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon…”
– Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844

But what do you suppose this proves? It's generally uncontested that the Warsaw Signal (between 1840-1850) was "vigorously anti-mormon". Further, the claim isn't attributed to "Jo" or any of his colleagues, and is not corroborated by any other source for that matter.



I get it, I am seeking the truth about Joseph, too, and recognize the seemingly paradoxical things. However this last question of yours is more about your expectations of what a prophet should be than it is about what a prophet actually is -- or more importantly, what Joseph claimed a prophet is: "only when he's acting as such". So, was he acting as such in this case. His actions would suggest not, as he appealed to Egyptian lexicon and didn't pursue it further.

-----

Just wanted to expand a little bit more what I said in my quoted post...

I find it interesting that this is a bigger deal to us now than it was even to those who went to great lengths to set the whole thing up back then. As I stated earlier, when the facts have been exhausted and all we're left with are assumptions, we set aside objectivity and the conjecture becomes more revealing about where the peddler is at than they are about the subject (ie. Joseph in this case).

There's much stronger cases to be made than this one, which is not conclusive in any way. So why push it as if it is? I think the final paragraph in the quote you posted above (image) sums up why perfectly.

Smith declared what the Kinderhook plates were. What he declared they were, they were not.

Why would these men choose fake plates to fool Joseph? He clearly was fooled. If you don't agree, that is fine with me. But he was fooled.

You ask who was Sharp?
I'll ask was there a planned excavation of the plates?
I'll ask again who was Sharp?
I'll ask also who is the devil?
Does Lucifer ever appear as an angel of light?
Details matter.
Has the serpent from the Garden of Eden given up his task? I'm talking about THE serpent. The one who was capable of deception in the Garden of Eden itself. If you're not worried about that, then that's fine with me. But it should worry all of us.
Anyway, who was Sharp, and what is the treasure?
I could just tell you but I don't want to bias your thinking.

I'm not trying to argue that the plates were real. And we are in agreement about angels of light and about our susceptibility to being deceived by evil forces. I'm not blind to the possibility that Joseph and others around him were susceptible to the same influences, and that we have error and darkness in our traditions because of that fact.

Having said that, I'm merely pointing out that there are other actors involved around Joseph that contributed to the majority of "evidence" surrounding these plates. And that the accounts surrounding this event actually do not make this a strong case for either of these things:

1. that the alleged "translation" Joseph did for the K. Plates was using the same method as what he did with the Book of Mormon
2. and that if he couldn't "translate" the K. Plates or see past the foolery, then he never had the ability to "translate" the Book of Mormon

As for the questions, which I appreciated, BTW...

I can't find anywhere that says Joseph sent Sharp and Marsh. Who sent them? Or is it your position that Frugate's remarks about what Sharp said at the dig site means they went on their own doing, perhaps having been told to do so by a devil? However, if Joseph didn't send them, how can we say their presence there is a reflection on Joseph?

You claim Smith declared that the K. Plates were real. Where did he do this? Source please. It's not in my notes and I can't find it anywhere else.