Testimony vs. false witnesses ????? A simple Kinderhook question

[_Joseph]

It is interesting that lds-inc has no problems with Claytons entries for anything until this. Then he becomes 'unreliable, possibly an alcholic, maybe even the second shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas, etc'.

Attack the reputation of one who was a 'good member', Joseph Smiths friend and scribe when what was written is not popular.

From the records it appears all of Josephs close associates and fellow church leaders beleived he was translating the plates. Do you really think they came to this conclusion through the rumor mill?

[_Buffalo]

Fascinating stuff.

[_wenglund]

It is interesting that lds-inc has no problems with Claytons entries for anything until this. Then he becomes 'unreliable, possibly an alcholic, maybe even the second shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas, etc'.

Attack the reputation of one who was a 'good member', Joseph Smiths friend and scribe when what was written is not popular.

Just for the record, I am the only currently believing LDS who has participated so far on this thread, and your caractiture above doesn't come within light-years of accurately representing what I have said.

From the records it appears all of Josephs close associates and fellow church leaders beleived he was translating the plates. Do you really think they came to this conclusion through the rumor mill?

I don't know that your perception here is completely accurate, but I am willing to entertain the prospect that Joseph translated the plates.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_thews]

My question to you all, is who said these words written down in William Clayton’s journal on May 1, 1843 regarding the translation of the plates referencing the descendant of Ham?
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries

1 May 1843, Monday
Nauvoo 2

May 1st. A.M at the Temple. at 10. m J to L.W. P.M at prest. Josephs
... I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County ...
Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of
the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham
through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his
kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth
Allen 2, p. 117

One can reasonably induce that it was William Clayton who wrote in the first person for Joseph Smith for the first sentence above, and he also wrote in the third person for the underlined portion above.

In other words, one can reasonably induce that the quote above was Clayton's record of what Joseph Smith had said.

Was Clayton's record an accurate representation of what Joseph said? One can reasonably conclude in both the affirmitive or the negative, and reasonably be uncertain either way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the response Wade, but I'm not following you. What sort of reason would one have to discount William Clayton's journal entry of what Joseph Smith said, when Charlotte Haven said the same thing and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff also mention it on the poster (regardless of who was the editor of the time and Seasons)? In other words, there is no reason to doubt this historical fact, other than Mormon apologists who continue to conclude there is no evidence to support it, when all the evidence supports it?

One more thing Wade, can you either link me your article or post it here?

Thanks

[_wenglund]

Thanks for the response Wade, but I'm not following you. What sort of reason would one have to discount William Clayton's journal entry of what Joseph Smith said...

I didn't discount it. I mearly pointed out various conclusions that may reasonably be draw from it.

...there is no reason to doubt this historical fact, other than Mormon apologists who continue to conclude there is no evidence to support it, when all the evidence supports it?

I understand that is your dogmatic view. Reasonable people have reasonably determined otherwise.

However, you wil be pleased to note that in my previous post above, I intimated that I was willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Joseph did make at least some attempt ro translate the kinderhook plates.

One more thing Wade, can you either link me to your article or post it here?

My article has been off-line for several years due to closing out my former IP account. And, I have yet to post it online again. It is currently housed on the harddrive of an old computer of mine (or at least I think it is), and I am not in a position at the moment to retrieve it. Maybe I will in the next few days. If so, then I will be sure and post it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_brade]

My article has been off-line for several years due to closing out my former IP account. And, I have yet to post it online again. It is currently housed on the harddrive of an old computer of mine (or at least I think it is), and I am not in a position at the moment to retrieve it. Maybe I will in the next few days. If so, then I will be sure and post it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is this the article?

Kinderhook Plates
Putting an end to the Hoax

By: Wade Englund

Since 1843, when the Kinderhook plates were first brought to Nauvoo, both critics and a few proponents of the restored gospel of Christ (the vast majority of LDS have known little or nothing of the Kinderhook plates, and fewer still have opinions one way or another about them) have used this event to their respective advantages. (for a historical background, see Stanley B. Kimball, "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax." Ensign 11, Aug. 1981 :66-74, the section on History)

In 1980, test were performed on the plates, and they were conclusively determined to be of 19th century origin, and thus a hoax. (See: ibid., the section on Authenticity)

This effectively ended what little use we LDS have had for the matter. For our part, we have been willing for several decades now to let this relatively unknown hoax die once and for all--though freely admitting that some of us (including several prominent members) have been fooled into thinking the plates were authentic and even believed them to be evidence supporting the truth-claims about the Book of Mormon, thus giving the world a brief chortle at our expense.

However, the same is not true for the critics. They wish to see this hoax continued to be played out for all its worth (which is precious little).[1]

Their fomenting and ruminations can be boiled down to the question of whether Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates or not. The critics contend that since the plates have been scientifically confirmed to be 19th century fakes, and if Smith supposedly translated the fake plates, this raises issue as to the legitimacy of Smith's professed translation abilities, taints his prior claimed translations, thus undermining the Church he restored, and even casts a shadow of suspicion of fraud on his part (allegedly one hoax built on top of another).

Setting aside for the moment the obvious fallacies and the striking lack of reasonableness of this contention [2], it may logically be rejected outright if it were to be determined that Joseph didn't translate the plates. Similarly, it may be considered highly doubtful if it is deemed uncertain whether Joseph translated them or not--or, at the very least, considerable room would be allowed for faith in Joseph as a prophet and seer of God, faith in the ancient records he translated as scripture, and faith in the verity of the gospel of Christ he helped restore.

With this in mind, let's look at all the fact (as opposed to cherry picking quotes like the critics have done) and see what they tell us. Let's see if this hoax should end once and for all for the critics as well:

* First, the plates were only in Nauvoo about five days (April 29th through May 3rd, 1843).[3] When exactly during that time they were given to Joseph, and where they were kept (at his office or residence?) is indeterminate (though it is likely that he was shown them at his residence on May 1st--see statements below).

* Second, during those 5 days Joseph was busy riding about the prairie apportioning land (Sat. 29th), attending Church services (Sun. 30th), riding out to William Allen's to pay off some debt on the Nauvoo House (Mon. 1st), picking up his wife at the ferry dock and meeting with the Apostles (Tue. 2nd), finally going to his office to meet with Sister Richards and to review the conference minutes, holding a Mayor's Court, and directing a letter be written to Gen. Adams (Wed. 3rd).[4]

* Third, Joseph (the person intended to translate the plates) said nothing about translating the plates in his journal, nor was there mention of a translation by Willard Richards (the Recorder who took dictation from Joseph for the History of the Church) in the History of the Church that was being compiled at that time.[5] (The May 1st entry in the History of the Church that is written in the first person for Joseph, was actually a modified extract from William Clayton's journal--see below--that was added by Church historians over 12 years after Joseph's decease. [6]) The only mention of the Kinderhook plates in the prophet's journal was regarding a meeting he had with several unnamed people about the plates on the 7th of May, four days after the plates had been taken from Nauvoo. (See journal entry) Were the translation to have actually occured, one would expect there to have been multiple entries in Joseph's journal and history, just as there was with the translation of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham (see below).

* Fourth, on the day that Joseph rode to W. Allen's (May 1st), William Clayton, the prophet's secretary, wrote in his (Clayton's) personal journal that Joseph had translated "a portion" of the plates. He also included in his journal a tracing of one of the plates along with a general description of what the plates were said to have been about. (See journal entry)

* Fifth, of the two or more men known to have come from Kinderhook or Quincy to deliver the plates: 1) Mr. Savage gave no known account of the meeting or alleged translation.(See Fugate letter--1879) 2) Joshua Moore implied that the translation was not done at that time, though it would be attempted if the plates were left with Joseph. Moore merely indicated that Joseph had said that the figures on the plates were similar to those on the gold plates (See Charlotte Haven letter). 3) Mr. Sharp, who was said to be Mormon (See Fugate letter--1879), and according to a signed certificate of those present at the Kinderhook find, had been given the plates to take to Nauvoo (See Certificate). However, according to Mr. Fugate, Sharp and another alleged Mormon (Marsh) "wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go." (See Fugate letter--1879) Whatever the case may be, Sharp and Marsh gave no known account of the meeting or the alleged translation.

* Sixth, the next day (May 2nd), after Joseph had met with the apostles, and of the four apostles that have since made mention of the plates: 1) John Taylor, in his Times and Seasons article published on the 3rd or 4th of May, had yet to ascertain Joseph's opinion on the plates, and implied that the translation had not been done, but would be undertaken once the plates were returned (See Times and Seasons article). Even as late as June 24th, after the plates had been returned to Nauvoo for a brief period, Taylor implied in a handbill that he was still anticipating that a translation would yet be completed (See handbill). 2) Brigham Young made no mention of the translation, but simply traced one of the plates for his journal on the 3rd of May (See journal entry). 3) Parley Pratt made no mention of a translation, but merely described in a letter sent on the 7th of May the appearance of the plates, what they may have contained, and a description of the bones they were buried with (See letter). 4) Orson Pratt made no mention of the translation, but years later indicated that he thought the plates were fake (See statement).

* Seventh, W. Allen, Emma Smith, Sister Richards, and those involved in the Mayor's Court, each of whom met with Joseph from the 1st to the 3rd of May (See: History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.19, p.371-382), as well as several unnamed gentlemen who met with him on the 7th, after the plates had been taken (See journal), have made no known mention of a translation, let alone the kinderhook plates.

* Eighth, over a year later (May 22, 1844), the Warsaw Signal claimed that Joseph was "still busy translating" (See article). While this can't possibly be correct--given that the owner of the plates, R. Wiley of Kinderhook, had them in his possession during the whole of the year (with the exception of a brief period in the June of 1843 when Taylor presumable had them so as to print up his handbill) and later given them to Professor McDowell, who had them in his possession as late as 1855 (see Wiley letter, Harris letter and Fugate letter--1879), it suggests that Joseph hadn't translated the plates during the five or less days in 1843 when he actually had possession of them.

* Nineth, Mr. Fugate, the key conspirator in the hoax (See Harris letter), indicated in 1878 that Joseph "would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian Society at Philadelphia, France, and England." (See Fugate letter--1878) He also stated that Mr. Wiley, the owner of the plates, had sent the plates to the Society in November of 1843, and "the answer was that there were no such Hyeroglyphics known, and if there ever had been, they had long since passed away." (ibid.) Fugate then asserted that "Smith began his translation" (ibid.). However, as explained above, Smith couldn't have translated the plates at that time since Wiley, and later McDowell, had them.

* Tenth, Unlike with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, there is: 1) No extant manuscript of the alleged Kinderhook plates--even a "partial translation." 2) No record of a dictation of the alleged translation or indication of anyone taking dictation. 3) No record of how the alleged "partial translation" was done or what type of "translation" it allegedly was--i.e. no indication of prayer or spiritual mediums (such as the Urim and Thummim or the Seer Stone being used, though Charlotte Haven claimed that Joseph was at the time no longer using the Seer Stone--see Haven letter), or language aids (such as an Egyptian alphabet), or that the alleged translation was anything more than just an off-hand guess about the content (based on what had been disclosed about the find, and rumors swirling about Nauvoo) or even a stab at humor on Joseph's part (talk of "nine foot" tall descendants of Ham inhabiting the Americas and having the priesthood--see Clayton and Pratt, and that the six small plates would result in over 1200 pages of English text--see Fugate, seems a bit outlandish even by LDS standards). 4) No attempt to purchase the Plates so as to enable a substantive translation. 5) No real time to undertake a formal translation (as indicated previously, Joseph had the Kinderhook plates at most for 5 days, whereas it took over three months of concerted effort (most all day and every day) for him to translate the Book of Mormon from the gold plates (See History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp.17 - 104 ) and approximately 7 years (1835 to 1842) to translate and publish the Book of Abraham from a portion of the Egyptian papyra (See History of the Church, Vol.2, pp.235, and Vol. 4, p.524). 6) No printed version of the alleged "translation" or history of the "translation" in the Church-run newspapers or Church History (only the anticipation by John Taylor of a translation, and the journal entry by Clayton that gave a general description of what the plates were allegedly about, which was added years after the decease of the prophet). 7) And, no canonization of the alleged translation.

In summary, there was but a single claim of a "partial translation," which was contradicted by several claims (both LDS and non-LDS) that the translation hadn't take place at the time claimed, but was anticipated to be done later (though from then on there wasn't a chance for a translation to have occurred), and there was marked silence from all quarters where considerable information would be expected--particularly from the one alleged to have done the "translation," the apostles with whom Joseph met with at the time, and various Church publications that had been used extensively in regards to the verifiable translations of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. There is also circumstantial evidence that no translation could have taken place--at least not of a serious and formal kind.

Not only was the single claim about a "partial translation" contradicted by others, but there are other discrepancies between the Clayton account and that given by Pratt and others [7]. This, along with other factors mentioned above, as well as there being no indication that Clayton heard what he wrote in his journal directly from Joseph, strongly suggests that Clayton's journal entry may have been hearsay and based on fallible rumor--though Clayton is known for his accuracy, particularly when his accounts as personal secretary for the prophet had been verified by Joseph, which likely did not occur in this instance.

Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the alleged translation never happened, and thus the contention outlined above from the critics may be rejected and the hoax finally laid to rest on all sides.

However, even if one wishes to be especially charitable in granting the possibility of a "partial translation," the lack of certainty as to what that "translation" entailed (was it done in earnest or in jest; an off-hand surmising based on rumors and what was disclosed about finding, or a general description based on divine-assisted examination of the characters?), and the uncertainty of whether the alleged translation did take place, renders the critics' contention highly doubtful even if the fallacies and unreasonableness are removed. This, then, leaves ample room for faith in: the verity of Joseph as a prophet and seer, the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as authentic ancient scritpure, and the restored gospel of Christ.

Footnotes:

1. Web sites which continue to harp on the Kinderhook issue include: UTLM.org (Jerald and Sandra Tanner), MRM.org (Bill McKeaver), IRR.org (Mormons In Transition), 20 Truths About Mormonism, Mark Hines, "Dr." Shades Mormonism Page.

2. Not only does this uncharitable argument cast the issue in the worst possible light, but: a) each of the premises are as questionable as the conclusion; b) only one of the premises has any supportive evidence (and that is highly selective and debatable--see above), making the rest hasty generalizations; c) it fallaciously equates the alleged "partial translation" with legitimate full translations of canonized scripture (see the last item above for a list of striking differences); d) irrationally making the verity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and the Church all dependant upon what is determined about the alleged translation; e) thus rendering the critics' argument non-sequitur and an illegitimate casting of aspercions on the otherwise excellent character of Joseph Smith and the gospel of Christ he helped to restore.

Furthermore, for there to be a reasonable and fair determination whether a given translation is correct, that translation needs to be judged on its own merits. For that to happen, there needs to be a thorough comparison made by an authoritative linquist between the source document and the translated text. Absent either of those things, no valid judgement can be rendered. And, since there is no known translation text for the Kinderhook plates, no valid judgement can be made as to its correctness, thus rendering moot the argument above from the critics.

3. According to Stanley Kimball: " "The plates were apparently in Nauvoo, then, from Saturday the 29th [April, 1843] through Wednesday the 3rd [May, 1843]- a period of five days- and were then taken away."Later however, they were evidently returned to Nauvoo for a time, for by June 24 the Nauvoo Neighbor press had access to them and was thus able to produce facsimiles for the published broadside. (Kimball, Stanley B. "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax." Ensign 11 (Aug. 1981):66-74.)

4. See: History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.19, p.371-382

5. The Nauvoo Neighbor, a publication edited and printed by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, ran an add in the weekly publication from May 24th, 1834 to at least June 14th of the same year, indicating that the History of the Church was then being compiled, and for anyone with materials that would aid in that compilation to bring them by Joseph's office. (Nauvoo Neighbor, 1834 to 1845, microfilm, Harold B. Lee library, BYU campus)

6. Stanley Kimball explains: "These two oblique references to a 'translation' were followed thirteen years later by a more direct published statement that until recently was wrongly thought to have been written by Joseph Smith himself. On September 3 and 10, 1856 (12 years after Joseph Smith was murdered) the following paragraphs appeared in the 'Deseret News' as part of the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith': [see HoC, Clayton Journal entry]. . . .Although this account was given as a writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life 'in his own words.' It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. 'William Clayton's journal was reprinted in the Millennial Star of 15 January 1859 and unfortunately was finally carried over into official Church History when the 'History of Joseph Smith' was edited into book form as the History of the Church in 1909.' (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1932-51), 5.372-79. Formerly widely known as the Documentary History of the Church.)(Cited by Kimball, Stanley B. "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax." Ensign 11 (Aug. 1981):66-74.)

7. Discrepancies:

* Clayton said the plates were found in Adam county, whereas the other accounts say it was in Pike county or near Quincy or Kinderhook.
* Clayton spoke of a 9-foot skeleton, whereas Pratt and others only mention a few bones in the last stages of decomposition, and Fugate indicated that there was no skeleton.
* Clayton's account said the skeleton was found six feet from the surface, whereas Pratt said the bones were 15 feet underground, Fugate said 8 feet, Roberts and Harris said around 12 feet.
* Clayton said the plates were found on the breast of the skeleton, whereas Harris said they were found in a bundle near the head (encephalon), and he and Fugate, and Roberts said they were found under rocks and among a few bones in the last stages of decomposition, though no skeleton.
* Clayton said the plates were about "the history of the person with whom they were found and 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." Whereas, Pratt said they contained "the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah," and Roberts said, "these plates contain the history of the times, or of a people, that existed far -- far -- beyond the memory of the present race."

For a spreadsheet comparing the different accounts, see: kcomparison.htm

[_wenglund]

Hi Brade,

Yes, that is part of my article (I also had linked documents on my website that included a list of all the relevant statements as well as the discrepancy spreadsheet).

However, I am not sure if it is the latest version. Three or four years ago during a discussion I was having at FAIR with Don Bradley, I investigated the plausibility (prompted by Bradley) that the Egyptian Alphabets and Grammar (EA and GAEL), or Greek, Latin, and Hebrew lexicons, may have been appealed to in coming up with a partial translation. As a result of that investigation, I determined that several of the characters on the Kinderhook Plates resembled some of the characters in the EA/GAEL, and given the English explanations associated with the EA/GAEL characters, it may have formed the basis for a partial academic translation of the Kinderhook Plates mentioned by Clayton and/or Pratt. If memory serves me correctly, I believe I ammended my article acknowledging this plausibility.

I am not sure if I kept the documentation for my research or links to the FAIR thread in question (I will have to check the harddrive of my old computer), but Bradley and another respected historian (I believe it was Amherst-McGee) were supposed to formally publish their own similar findings, though I don't know if that has happened yet or not.

But, I appreciate you posting my article nevertheless. It gives us at least something to work with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_thews]

Thanks for the response Wade, but I'm not following you. What sort of reason would one have to discount William Clayton's journal entry of what Joseph Smith said...

I didn't discount it. I merely pointed out various conclusions that may reasonably be draw from it.

That was my point Wade, which is what is reasonable? If I claimed that Elvis was still alive, would it be reasonable for me to draw that conclusion? If I added that there never was a funeral for Elvis, and you then provided proof that there was, then would my conclusion still be reasonable?

My point in breaking down the pro-Mormon websites was to show that they are in denial of the evidence, and I see no reasonable reason to discount that Joseph Smith made the descendant of Ham translation. If you can explain a scenario where it's reasonable to discount the matching accounts of William Clayton, Charlotte Haven, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, then that's what I'm asking you.

...there is no reason to doubt this historical fact, other than Mormon apologists who continue to conclude there is no evidence to support it, when all the evidence supports it?

I understand that is your dogmatic view. Reasonable people have reasonably determined otherwise.

I accept that you are a reasonable person and have some reason to conclude that it was not Joseph Smith who translated the Kinderhook plates to come up with the Ham portion... please explain that reason.

However, you wil be pleased to note that in my previous post above, I intimated that I was willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Joseph did make at least some attempt to translate the kinderhook plates.

Thank you for this, but it sort of contradicts your position on a reasonable doubt. What you;re doing is what Jeff Lindsay did, which is to "sort of" admit that facts but continuing to claim "may have" in doing so. That is my question, as I see no other logical conclusion as to who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to claim it was from a descendant of Ham, because it was in fact Joseph Smith, or "President J." as noted by William Clayton.

One more thing Wade, can you either link me to your article or post it here?

My article has been off-line for several years due to closing out my former IP account. And, I have yet to post it online again. It is currently housed on the harddrive of an old computer of mine (or at least I think it is), and I am not in a position at the moment to retrieve it. Maybe I will in the next few days. If so, then I will be sure and post it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Someone posted it, so I'll look it over. I appreciate your input Wade and I mean that sincerely. While Dr. Peterson, Ben or Wiki won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole (I'd happily admit to being incorrect here), you take on the tough subjects and I admire that.

[_Joseph]

Wade wrote: "I don't know that your perception here is completely accurate, but I am willing to entertain the prospect that Joseph translated the plates."
***********************************************************

Wade, if the plates were a made up hoax... what did Joseph Smith 'translate'?

[_wenglund]

Wade wrote: "I don't know that your perception here is completely accurate, but I am willing to entertain the prospect that Joseph translated the plates."
***********************************************************

Wade, if the plates were a made up hoax... what did Joseph Smith 'translate'?

He may have academically "translated" some seemingly Egyptian characters that were on the made-up hoax.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-