@@MormonBookReviews Do you know if Jonathan has his own channel or a website. I am becoming a heartlander ever since I found Wayne May about six or so years ago and little by little am becoming more and more convinced.
At 27:33 you mention the stone box (Just like Saints Vol I which does NOT mention cement because the scholars can't stand to recognize that ancient Americans had an understanding of working with cement.) keeping the plates dry. Joseph Smith said it was a "cement" and "stone" box. The JSH in the Pearl of Great Price states, "52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the aplates, the bUrim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them." The items were also kept dry by placing them in the cement and stone box on two stones crossways. I believe the Kinderhook plates are authentic. Sadly, they went from authentic to not authentic just like the Michigan tablets because 1 clueless man in both cases said so. I believe the Jaredites were descendants of Ham and it was not uncommon to have ivory beads or a gorget or pendant around the neck of the skeleton. Also, "characters on the plates do not match any known language and were likely invented by Fugate and Wiley." is preposterous because the Jaredite language was unique. The Urim and Thummin was given to the Brother of Jared to translate languages. Mosiah, Moroni, and Joseph Smith used it to translate. Joseph Smith did NOT use a seer stone in a hat like the foolish scholars proclaim.
Emma, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and many more all testify to the magic rock. It's a thing. There's even a video of Russell M Nelson putting his face in a hat. The "church" has the magic rock!
@@3thingsfishing427 Emma and David are lying and Nelson is overly influenced by the scholars. Nelson said it was only a suggestion. I call the seer stone in a hat a satanic lie. Joseph and Oliver were the most familiar with the translation and they always said Urim and Thummim.
You really are a terrific interviewer. I so much respect the way you respect your guests and don't try to put words in their mouth. I just subscribed. Thanks.
I don't know much about the Kinderhook Plates controversy, but Jonathan Neville does bring out some good points. I agree it is suspicious to wait 40 years to then say it's a fraud, not to mention only one of them claimed that. Great point how JS was distinguishing between two groups long before archeologist started to. Thought provoking point about waterproofing.
Your comment about Joseph being a man "who thinks out loud alot" touched on a MASSIVE problem with the time we are living in today. In today's society thinking out loud is opening yourself up to instant/anonymous attack. What a shame. When you stifle thought, you stifle discussion. And when you stifle discussion, you stifle growth. We are all mortal and all stumble. The sooner all we cut ourselves and others some slack, the better.
Unfortunately, regardless of how one looks at the Kinderhook plates scenario, Joseph Smith was either deceived, a deceiver, or both. -If he believed the Kinderhook plates were real, he was deceived. -If he believed the Kinderhook plates were a hoax and provided that partial translation of the plates, he was a deceiver. -If he did not know whether the Kinderhook plates were real or a hoax and provided that partial translation of the plates, he was a deceiver. -If he did not provide that partial translation of the Kinderhook plates but allowed those around him to believe that he did, he was a deceiver. -If he knew the translations for the Egyptian symbols in the GAEL were fake/made-up and used them for his partial translation of the Kinderhook plates, he was a deceiver. -If he believed the translations for the Egyptian symbols in the GAEL were accurate translations and used them for his partial translation of the Kinderhook plates, he was deceived. -If he did not intend to provide a full translation of the Kinderhook plates but allowed those around him to believe that he would, he was a deceiver.
@@iknovate "Twisted logic and projected assumptions"? LOL. Not at all. It's you who should "Try again". You can start by trying to explain how what I posted is "Twisted logic and projected assumptions". And, thank you ahead of time because I need a good laugh. :)
Was Smith’s “grammar book” not his created material? Egyptian had not yet been cracked yet at this time. We know Smith’s grammar book is also incorrect concerning the Egyptian book of the dead we now have as the Book of Abraham. No where close to what the Egyptian texts actually were
As you move towards monetizing your channel, and as your subscribers and all of that increases, I hope that you can stay true to your desire to be a bridge-builder between the LDS/Evangelical communities. I think there is a strong desire on the LDS side for this to take place. There is a lot of $ when it comes to monetizing anti-mormonism, as I am sure John Dehlin can tell you all about. In spite of our potential disagreements in belief/theology/opinion, I hope you can remain a friend of the church and not alienate the faithful as people like John Dehlin have done.
@@MormonBookReviews I think that you give us Latter-day Saints a fair shake. I am a big fan of your shows. You come off as a friend. I think you provide a welcoming space for all, including other branches of the restoration movement and those who are more critical, which I think is fine. There needs to be room for respectful pushback and dialogue. I think Dehlin once upon a time was more peaceful and more of a bridgebuilder when it came to faith-crises dialogue (for both those who remain and leave the Church). But his show, in my opinion, followed the money which is in hate/division/faith explotation/gas-lighting/ and fanning the flames of anger/disappointment/sense of betrayal and other types of feelings that come when one feels like their church/faith lied to them.
@@MormonBookReviews I try not to watch Dehlin anymore. Bad for my mental health. But I did check out parts of your episode (I don't have the time that I used to, with 5 kids, 2 jobs, coaching little league, and all of that). The parts I did watch, I enjoyed. You disagree respectfully, and I hope that we can continue to do so. I agree with you that the current mainstream lds faith could use a bit more of the 1830-1840s evangelical-type vibes. A decrease in the miraculous is usually a sign of decreased faith. But it still exists. Just not as openly published. But every now and then, either during a sacrament meeting, or during Sunday School, or sometimes over the keyboard, somebody will share more personally matters that, culturally, we tend to keep to ourselves. Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:"....Numbers 12:6 "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, will speak unto him in a dream."
@@MormonBookReviews I really hope that you can get on with Midnight Mormons. They are more open to the "weirdness" that you spoke of in your "consulting" episode with Dehlin. And I agree with you....although I can pass on the drums and the smokescreens at mega-church worship services, I can agree that we need to be more open with regards to ways we express our joy in worship. I do enjoy a quiet reverence, but I do feel like there should be more clapping and dancing and singing and joyful noises. We definitely do dance and clap and shout at home, for sure. With regards to tithing, I don't view like I have to. But I do. Even when I was poor, I felt like I couldn't afford to skip tithing. I want the blessings of the windows of heaven being open in my home. And they have been. When I was a missionary in South America, I was teaching a very poor family during the Great Recession of around 2009-2010. The town I was in probably had 70-80% unemployment. The breadwinner for the family left on a bicycle with a weedwacker each morning, to go door to door, asking to mow their lawn. If he did not get work, his family of about 7 did not each lunch (their biggest meal of the day). Before he was baptized, we taught them about tithing, and how God would bless them. The day after he paid tithing, he was one of the lucky few to have gotten a full-time offer of employment, at a hotel as a cook. They paid enough for his family to not have to worry about being starved. Again, if people don't want to tithe, they don't have to. I don't know anyone else's tithing status other than my own. But I am 100% A-OK with tithing being a standard expectation/teaching within the church at this point in time.
Mr. Neville claims at 23:30 that “we don’t have the rest of [the plates]” so we can’t tell if they’re authentic or not. Um, my dude: One of the plates does exist and destructive metallurgical testing has been performed on it. Wanna guess what the results were?
@@jonathann3d No, you didn't. You mentioned the metallurgical testing (at 9:15), but you didn't mention the destructive testing with the scanning electron microscope.
He’s puzzled as to why some guys in the 19th century would go through the trouble of getting that much brass just to expose a con-man, but has no issue believing the Jaredites had access to brass without a problem. Just Google the supposed timeframe of the Jaredites and also the invention of brass, as well as its use in the Americas. Do your own simple research, and you'll see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is. I'm thankful this guy so clearly showed he has no credibility on the subject.
@@aisaxonawiat6484 want some more evidence? here you are en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates. You probably believe that he translated using a stone in a hat too.
A prophet would know if it was legitimate or not. The Kinderhook Plates are 1843, Smith had already now completed his Book of Abraham and his “grammar book” composed of the characters he was trying to translate off the Egyptian book of the dead he bought.
The forensics of the metallurgy prove that the plates were of contemporary origin. They were not ancient. Sorry, Neville. Thank you for your mental gymnastics.
The Kinderhook Plates can be troubling for some Latter-day Saints. But when one reviews all of the facts in context, this particular subject is often not a deal-breaker within our faith.
@@LavaMan60 I don't think so. Learning and growing often involves experimentation. As a baseball coach, I have kids who hold the bat backwards, place it on the wrong shoulder, move their feet in ways they shouldn't. They are learning. It's a part of the learning curve. Learning how to listen to God, learning how to pray, learning how to receive revelation, it takes time, faith, practice, and patience. When I was a child, I am sure that I prayed for a million bucks to show up in my closet more than once. I think onetime I was swimming and I prayed to be able to walk on the water. Obviously, that prayer didn't come true. I imagine that with translation, some trial and error was involved.
@@Ether-pb5gb Google logical fallacy. There was NO real translation here. He consulted the GAEL (look that up) Facts are stubborn things and so is Mormon Church's continued purposeful dishonesty with its' history.
@@LavaMan60 facts are stubborn things. Just ask David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Mary Whitmer, the 8 witnesses, Lorenzo Snow's grandaughter, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, BY, Joseph F, and so many others who have encountered the divine
This interview is about the Mormon Kinderhook Plates but honestly, it was a waste of sober time. It's just bad arguments and faulty logic. The interviewer does not challenge the obvious problems. Maybe the purpose of the interview was to show ignorance and misinformation on full display (like Rod Meldrum's interviews). Listening to this was difficult for me because the person being interviewed is far from an expert and speaks in vagaries. Among other baseless speculation, the "expert" guest argues the Kinderhook plates just might be ancient and authentic because: 1)The Jaredites (2,200 BC - 18 BC) were mining, smelting and working with complex metal alloys. (Unfortunately, Jaredites are fictional and the indigenous people of that era WERE NOT producing metal). 2)The 1843 era American farmers who dug up the plates were too ignorant to cut out the metal shapes and carve the nonsensical characters. (It was easier and more likely the ancient natives were?) 3)As evidence of authenticity he cites one of the modern "reproductions" of the plates shows a carving resembling a little boat, a character Smith also had in his made-up Egyptian Grammar Book. (Like nonsense proves the validity of hogwash). There are better sources of information on this subject, foreinstance mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/kinderhook-plates/
You struggled with the interview because you are entrenched in your own views and completely deny others. It was a great interview because Jonathan had a perspective that was original and makes sense. You can say all you want that Jaredites don't exist and remain ignorant of the claim forever at least until you are proven wrong, or you can entertain the idea as Steven does and evaluate the narrative from a different angle without getting butt hurt that not everyone believes as you do. If you actually open your ears and hear that Jonathan wasn't trying to prove or disprove any of the narratives as they played little to no significance to the doctrines and revelations given to Joseph Smith, it is a discussion that is worthwhile to consider historically as attempts to slander and discredit Joseph Smith even at an early age of Church History, Would it be cool if the kinderhook plates were authentic? Absolutely! Does it matter if they were or not? Apparently not.
As I mentioned in the interview, I favor considering multiple working hypotheses. If you can't handle consideration of alternatives because you're convinced you "know the truth," then you're right, you're wasting your time learning and thinking about different perspectives.
I've already been through the forgery theory. He brings out some things to think about. Aa far as your thoughts, the boat on the plates would have nothing to do with the JS drawing. They would be independent and coincidental independently. So, you're actually proving thw theory of authenticity may be true.
L. Jensen How much time have you spent looking at Wilbur Fugates testimony? As far as I could find his is the only 1st hand testimony we have. We don't have a statements from Wiley nor Bridge Whitten the Blacksmith. JP Harris makes a statement in a letter in 1855 that Whitten told him they were false. If you look at Fugate as a witness he is a complete disaster. Also, the process to authenticate items like this is not all objective. There is a lot of subjectivity involved. My grandfather was one of the experts who examined the only remaining plate back in the 60's under Paul Cheesman. His finding was inconclusive regarding the writing on the plates being etched or engraven. My grandfather also made a replica of the plate which is still at BYU is my understanding. Great interview!
I really enjoy your interviews with Jonathan . He so freely shares his thoughts for people to decide.
I hope he comes on again soon. Thanks
He will. Have you been watching his interviews on Gospel Tangents?
@@MormonBookReviews No, I just found your channel and have been watching and this time he was on. I will check out Gospel Tangents. Thanks.
@@MormonBookReviews Do you know if Jonathan has his own channel or a website. I am becoming a heartlander ever since I found Wayne May about six or so years ago and little by little am becoming more and more convinced.
Rick Bennett is a cool guy and you'll love his channel as well!
At 27:33 you mention the stone box (Just like Saints Vol I which does NOT mention cement because the scholars can't stand to recognize that ancient Americans had an understanding of working with cement.) keeping the plates dry. Joseph Smith said it was a "cement" and "stone" box. The JSH in the Pearl of Great Price states, "52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the aplates, the bUrim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them."
The items were also kept dry by placing them in the cement and stone box on two stones crossways.
I believe the Kinderhook plates are authentic. Sadly, they went from authentic to not authentic just like the Michigan tablets because 1 clueless man in both cases said so. I believe the Jaredites were descendants of Ham and it was not uncommon to have ivory beads or a gorget or pendant around the neck of the skeleton.
Also, "characters on the plates do not match any known language and were likely invented by Fugate and Wiley." is preposterous because the Jaredite language was unique. The Urim and Thummin was given to the Brother of Jared to translate languages. Mosiah, Moroni, and Joseph Smith used it to translate. Joseph Smith did NOT use a seer stone in a hat like the foolish scholars proclaim.
Emma, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and many more all testify to the magic rock. It's a thing. There's even a video of Russell M Nelson putting his face in a hat. The "church" has the magic rock!
@@3thingsfishing427 Emma and David are lying and Nelson is overly influenced by the scholars. Nelson said it was only a suggestion. I call the seer stone in a hat a satanic lie. Joseph and Oliver were the most familiar with the translation and they always said Urim and Thummim.
@@3thingsfishing427 President Nelson said it was only a suggestion. The lying scholars have thrown Joseph and Oliver under the bus.
You really are a terrific interviewer. I so much respect the way you respect your guests and don't try to put words in their mouth. I just subscribed. Thanks.
Thanks for subscribing and for all of your feedback!
Always enjoy your interviews with Jonathan.
He's the best!
I don't know much about the Kinderhook Plates controversy, but Jonathan Neville does bring out some good points. I agree it is suspicious to wait 40 years to then say it's a fraud, not to mention only one of them claimed that.
Great point how JS was distinguishing between two groups long before archeologist started to.
Thought provoking point about waterproofing.
brass is made of zinc and copper, not tin. Anciently the word brass can also mean a bronze alloy.
Another great interview, very interesting!
Thanks!
Jonathan has great insights.
Steven my evangelical man love your channel, love you from the Philippines
I thought the church has said they were fake!
Great episode!!!
Thanks!
Berry Suspicious Indeed. The guest and the host as well.
Your comment about Joseph being a man "who thinks out loud alot" touched on a MASSIVE problem with the time we are living in today. In today's society thinking out loud is opening yourself up to instant/anonymous attack. What a shame. When you stifle thought, you stifle discussion. And when you stifle discussion, you stifle growth. We are all mortal and all stumble. The sooner all we cut ourselves and others some slack, the better.
So, is it reasonable to think that the kinderhook plates are actually ancient, but Joseph Smith had no idea what the writing meant on them?
He started to translate but stopped. Said something about being the son of Ham.
Neville has a good mind.
Joseph didn't understand cement
Unfortunately, regardless of how one looks at the Kinderhook plates scenario, Joseph Smith was either deceived, a deceiver, or both.
-If he believed the Kinderhook plates were real, he was deceived.
-If he believed the Kinderhook plates were a hoax and provided that partial translation of the plates, he was a deceiver.
-If he did not know whether the Kinderhook plates were real or a hoax and provided that partial translation of the plates, he was a deceiver.
-If he did not provide that partial translation of the Kinderhook plates but allowed those around him to believe that he did, he was a deceiver.
-If he knew the translations for the Egyptian symbols in the GAEL were fake/made-up and used them for his partial translation of the Kinderhook plates, he was a deceiver.
-If he believed the translations for the Egyptian symbols in the GAEL were accurate translations and used them for his partial translation of the Kinderhook plates, he was deceived.
-If he did not intend to provide a full translation of the Kinderhook plates but allowed those around him to believe that he would, he was a deceiver.
Twisted logic and projected assumptions. Try again.
@@iknovate "Twisted logic and projected assumptions"? LOL. Not at all.
It's you who should "Try again".
You can start by trying to explain how what I posted is "Twisted logic and projected assumptions". And, thank you ahead of time because I need a good laugh. :)
Was Smith’s “grammar book” not his created material? Egyptian had not yet been cracked yet at this time. We know Smith’s grammar book is also incorrect concerning the Egyptian book of the dead we now have as the Book of Abraham. No where close to what the Egyptian texts actually were
As you move towards monetizing your channel, and as your subscribers and all of that increases, I hope that you can stay true to your desire to be a bridge-builder between the LDS/Evangelical communities. I think there is a strong desire on the LDS side for this to take place. There is a lot of $ when it comes to monetizing anti-mormonism, as I am sure John Dehlin can tell you all about. In spite of our potential disagreements in belief/theology/opinion, I hope you can remain a friend of the church and not alienate the faithful as people like John Dehlin have done.
Thank you for the advice. I hope to remain true to the original intent of this channel. Let me know if you ever think I'm straying from that path.
@@MormonBookReviews I think that you give us Latter-day Saints a fair shake. I am a big fan of your shows. You come off as a friend. I think you provide a welcoming space for all, including other branches of the restoration movement and those who are more critical, which I think is fine. There needs to be room for respectful pushback and dialogue. I think Dehlin once upon a time was more peaceful and more of a bridgebuilder when it came to faith-crises dialogue (for both those who remain and leave the Church). But his show, in my opinion, followed the money which is in hate/division/faith explotation/gas-lighting/ and fanning the flames of anger/disappointment/sense of betrayal and other types of feelings that come when one feels like their church/faith lied to them.
@@MormonBookReviews I try not to watch Dehlin anymore. Bad for my mental health. But I did check out parts of your episode (I don't have the time that I used to, with 5 kids, 2 jobs, coaching little league, and all of that). The parts I did watch, I enjoyed. You disagree respectfully, and I hope that we can continue to do so. I agree with you that the current mainstream lds faith could use a bit more of the 1830-1840s evangelical-type vibes. A decrease in the miraculous is usually a sign of decreased faith. But it still exists. Just not as openly published. But every now and then, either during a sacrament meeting, or during Sunday School, or sometimes over the keyboard, somebody will share more personally matters that, culturally, we tend to keep to ourselves. Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:"....Numbers 12:6 "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, will speak unto him in a dream."
@@MormonBookReviews I really hope that you can get on with Midnight Mormons. They are more open to the "weirdness" that you spoke of in your "consulting" episode with Dehlin. And I agree with you....although I can pass on the drums and the smokescreens at mega-church worship services, I can agree that we need to be more open with regards to ways we express our joy in worship. I do enjoy a quiet reverence, but I do feel like there should be more clapping and dancing and singing and joyful noises. We definitely do dance and clap and shout at home, for sure. With regards to tithing, I don't view like I have to. But I do. Even when I was poor, I felt like I couldn't afford to skip tithing. I want the blessings of the windows of heaven being open in my home. And they have been. When I was a missionary in South America, I was teaching a very poor family during the Great Recession of around 2009-2010. The town I was in probably had 70-80% unemployment. The breadwinner for the family left on a bicycle with a weedwacker each morning, to go door to door, asking to mow their lawn. If he did not get work, his family of about 7 did not each lunch (their biggest meal of the day). Before he was baptized, we taught them about tithing, and how God would bless them. The day after he paid tithing, he was one of the lucky few to have gotten a full-time offer of employment, at a hotel as a cook. They paid enough for his family to not have to worry about being starved. Again, if people don't want to tithe, they don't have to. I don't know anyone else's tithing status other than my own. But I am 100% A-OK with tithing being a standard expectation/teaching within the church at this point in time.
And I would argue that some of these rules/regulations do help with regards to helping build a relationship with Jesus.
Great interviewer! Please get a different background:) it looks like a prison block! I know, its just me:)
I have since switched!
Mr. Neville claims at 23:30 that “we don’t have the rest of [the plates]” so we can’t tell if they’re authentic or not.
Um, my dude: One of the plates does exist and destructive metallurgical testing has been performed on it. Wanna guess what the results were?
No need to guess. I explained those results during the interview. :)
@@jonathann3d No, you didn't. You mentioned the metallurgical testing (at 9:15), but you didn't mention the destructive testing with the scanning electron microscope.
@@MrWhipple42 ..... Jonathan runs circles around you, ....put up or shut up...... He is a known commodity, you are not.
@@MrWhipple42 Even the LDS church acknowledges they are fake
@@brucegillingham2793 Exactly. Which puts Jonathan Neville at odds with Church leaders. (A position he seems to find himself in regularly.)
He’s puzzled as to why some guys in the 19th century would go through the trouble of getting that much brass just to expose a con-man, but has no issue believing the Jaredites had access to brass without a problem.
Just Google the supposed timeframe of the Jaredites and also the invention of brass, as well as its use in the Americas. Do your own simple research, and you'll see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.
I'm thankful this guy so clearly showed he has no credibility on the subject.
Muriatic acid.
sorry but, the kinderhook plates have been proven to be false through metallurgical analysis.
What is that? Prove him wrong then.
@@aisaxonawiat6484 want some more evidence? here you are en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates. You probably believe that he translated using a stone in a hat too.
@@joeycarter2994 ..... Both of your stories and your source is garbage.
Wikipedia Joey? 😂 never a falsehood has passed that platform.
@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 doesn’t the LDS church claim these plates aren’t genuine?
More like Kinder-Gay plates
A prophet would know if it was legitimate or not. The Kinderhook Plates are 1843, Smith had already now completed his Book of Abraham and his “grammar book” composed of the characters he was trying to translate off the Egyptian book of the dead he bought.
Must a prophet always be told by God everything about everything?
The forensics of the metallurgy prove that the plates were of contemporary origin. They were not ancient. Sorry, Neville. Thank you for your mental gymnastics.
Engraved not etched..
Source?
The episode addressed this.
The Kinderhook Plates can be troubling for some Latter-day Saints. But when one reviews all of the facts in context, this particular subject is often not a deal-breaker within our faith.
Absolute deal breaker when Joseph Smith consults the Egyptian Alphabet to translate.
@@LavaMan60 I don't think so. Learning and growing often involves experimentation. As a baseball coach, I have kids who hold the bat backwards, place it on the wrong shoulder, move their feet in ways they shouldn't. They are learning. It's a part of the learning curve. Learning how to listen to God, learning how to pray, learning how to receive revelation, it takes time, faith, practice, and patience. When I was a child, I am sure that I prayed for a million bucks to show up in my closet more than once. I think onetime I was swimming and I prayed to be able to walk on the water. Obviously, that prayer didn't come true. I imagine that with translation, some trial and error was involved.
@@Ether-pb5gb Google logical fallacy. There was NO real translation here. He consulted the GAEL (look that up) Facts are stubborn things and so is Mormon Church's continued purposeful dishonesty with its' history.
@@LavaMan60 facts are stubborn things. Just ask David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Mary Whitmer, the 8 witnesses, Lorenzo Snow's grandaughter, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, BY, Joseph F, and so many others who have encountered the divine
This interview is about the Mormon Kinderhook Plates but honestly, it was a waste of sober time. It's just bad arguments and faulty logic. The interviewer does not challenge the obvious problems. Maybe the purpose of the interview was to show ignorance and misinformation on full display (like Rod Meldrum's interviews). Listening to this was difficult for me because the person being interviewed is far from an expert and speaks in vagaries.
Among other baseless speculation, the "expert" guest argues the Kinderhook plates just might be ancient and authentic because:
1)The Jaredites (2,200 BC - 18 BC) were mining, smelting and working with complex metal alloys. (Unfortunately, Jaredites are fictional and the indigenous people of that era WERE NOT producing metal).
2)The 1843 era American farmers who dug up the plates were too ignorant to cut out the metal shapes and carve the nonsensical characters. (It was easier and more likely the ancient natives were?)
3)As evidence of authenticity he cites one of the modern "reproductions" of the plates shows a carving resembling a little boat, a character Smith also had in his made-up Egyptian Grammar Book. (Like nonsense proves the validity of hogwash).
There are better sources of information on this subject, foreinstance mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/kinderhook-plates/
You struggled with the interview because you are entrenched in your own views and completely deny others. It was a great interview because Jonathan had a perspective that was original and makes sense. You can say all you want that Jaredites don't exist and remain ignorant of the claim forever at least until you are proven wrong, or you can entertain the idea as Steven does and evaluate the narrative from a different angle without getting butt hurt that not everyone believes as you do. If you actually open your ears and hear that Jonathan wasn't trying to prove or disprove any of the narratives as they played little to no significance to the doctrines and revelations given to Joseph Smith, it is a discussion that is worthwhile to consider historically as attempts to slander and discredit Joseph Smith even at an early age of Church History, Would it be cool if the kinderhook plates were authentic? Absolutely! Does it matter if they were or not? Apparently not.
As I mentioned in the interview, I favor considering multiple working hypotheses. If you can't handle consideration of alternatives because you're convinced you "know the truth," then you're right, you're wasting your time learning and thinking about different perspectives.
I've already been through the forgery theory. He brings out some things to think about. Aa far as your thoughts, the boat on the plates would have nothing to do with the JS drawing. They would be independent and coincidental independently. So, you're actually proving thw theory of authenticity may be true.
L. Jensen How much time have you spent looking at Wilbur Fugates testimony? As far as I could find his is the only 1st hand testimony we have. We don't have a statements from Wiley nor Bridge Whitten the Blacksmith. JP Harris makes a statement in a letter in 1855 that Whitten told him they were false. If you look at Fugate as a witness he is a complete disaster. Also, the process to authenticate items like this is not all objective. There is a lot of subjectivity involved. My grandfather was one of the experts who examined the only remaining plate back in the 60's under Paul Cheesman. His finding was inconclusive regarding the writing on the plates being etched or engraven. My grandfather also made a replica of the plate which is still at BYU is my understanding. Great interview!
The Adena civilization who were probably the Jaradite’s were mining copper during the book of Ether days.
No.