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

[_wenglund]

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?

No. But, I hardly think your analogy is appropose.

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.

No. I am not contradicting myself. Rather, I am open to exploring multiple explanations. I have yet to form a firm position one way or another, though for a time I leaned away from the plates being translated for the reasons I outlined in my article.

Also, your "descendant of Ham" argument, while reasonable in support of a translation by Jospeh Smith, is not definitive evidence that a translation occurred or that the alleged translation was actually regarding the descendents of Ham. There are ways to reasonably explain the "descendant of Ham" evidence, just as there are ways to explain the various discrepancies in what was being reported around Nauvoo about the plates, that comport with arguments against a translation.

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.

To be honest, this topic isn't generally viewed as all that tough by LDS apologists. In fact, for the most part, it is viewed as of little significance--not relatively significant enough to warrant much if any consideration. I, personally, find it quite meaningless to the verity of the restored gospel, and I have only pursued it because I saw that it was meaningful to some waivering and former believers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_thews]

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?

No. But, I hardly think your analogy is appropose.

Ok, let me break it down some more. You claim it’s reasonable to conclude that Joseph Smith did not translate the Kinderhook plates to come up with the descendants of Ham story, but offer nothing in response to support the counter conclusion, other than claim one could conclude it if they chose, and you claim this is a reasonable conclusion.

I contend it’s not reasonable to conclude anyone other than Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates to come up with the descendants of Ham story, because you would have to discount the accounts of William Clayton, Charlotte Haven, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. So, Wade, please elaborate on these key points in support of your counter reasonable logical conclusion of who made the translation:
1) If it wasn’t Joseph Smith who said the words written down by William Clayton regarding the descendants of Ham, then what other evidence would be used to form a possible scenario that someone else did? Who would that person be?
2) How could the accounts of four different people (William Clayton, Charlotte Haven, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff) all be wrong, and your alternative reasonable scenario be correct?
3) Why was it that Mormon history states “Comment of the Prophet on the Kinderhook plates”?

However, you will 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.

It’s here where you state, as a matter of fact, that Joseph Smith did make an attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates. How then, could it possibly be reasonable to conclude anyone else made the translation, when all the evidence states it was in fact Joseph Smith who made the translation?

No. I am not contradicting myself. Rather, I am open to exploring multiple explanations. I have yet to form a firm position one way or another, though for a time I leaned away from the plates being translated for the reasons I outlined in my article.

I haven’t read your article yet and I owe you this, I apologize.

Also, your "descendant of Ham" argument, while reasonable in support of a translation by Jospeh Smith, is not definitive evidence that a translation occurred or that the alleged translation was actually regarding the descendents of Ham. There are ways to reasonably explain the "descendant of Ham" evidence, just as there are ways to explain the various discrepancies in what was being reported around Nauvoo about the plates, that comport with arguments against a translation.

I disagree with the use of “reasonable” here. We’re talking about Mormon history stating facts. Attempting to reverse engineer history because you don’t like what it states is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. The fact that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates is a fact. Back to my analogy, if I were to claim one could believe Elvis was actually dead but stated there are other reasonable conclusions that one could choose to draw this conclusion he was still alive, then the burden of proof would be in my court to present some evidence to thwart the existing evidence… would you agree? What evidence do you have that is so compelling that we should discount three prominent Mormon figures and the History of the Mormon church?

To be honest, this topic isn't generally viewed as all that tough by LDS apologists. In fact, for the most part, it is viewed as of little significance--not relatively significant enough to warrant much if any consideration. I, personally, find it quite meaningless to the verity of the restored gospel, and I have only pursued it because I saw that it was meaningful to some wavering and former believers.

I assure you that 99% of all TBM’s have never heard of the Kinderhook plate translation. Just as Dr. Peterson sated when commenting on the use of seer stones on the MADB board before they deleted it… I save it as noted here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11896&start=21

What are the reasons the church does not accurately show how the translation took place?

Here are three reasons:

1) Most members don't know much about Church history.

2) Mormon artists and their editors are pretty representative, in this sense, of the general membership.

3) Artistic representations of historical events are often quite inaccurate, in and out of the Church.

So you see Wade, just because you choose to claim this is a meaningless argument, you haven’t acknowledged the FAIR breakdown I did along with Jeff Lindsay’s lies claiming that “we just don’t know” based on the evidence, or that there is no evidence. We absolutely do know who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to come up with the descendants of Ham story, and that was in fact “President J.” or Joseph Smith. You have yet to even offer an alternative argument, and since most Mormons don’t know the truth, it’s because the truth is presented to them in a skewed manner that hides the truth based on the facts. This is why I used the reference to a false witness in the OP of this thread. If one knows the truth and intentionally skews it to guide the gullible into making an incorrect conclusion, then the act of deception on the part of the false witness is intentional… would you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you Wade. You at least have the guts to answer the questions that Dr. Daniel Peterson, Wiki Wonka, and Benjamin McGuire have failed to answer. I’ll read your article this weekend and comment on it, but I don’t have time right now.

[_thews]

The answer from Simon Belmont
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17070&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=336

No one that I know of claims that Joseph successfully translated any portion of the Kinderhook plates. I am perfectly fine with accepting that he attempted, in good faith, thinking his gift applied to all encounters with supposed artifacts.

[_thews]

Pahoran's "answer" posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=422197

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise I was supposed to read it with microscopic pharisaical legalism. Had I known that, however, I would still have answered the question truthfully and honestly, instead of allowing you to set up an intellectually dishonest false dilemma.

The "I" is obviously William Clayton; he traced the plates into his journal.

There is no "I" in the original version of that passage. That is the only "intellectually honest" answer, which explains why you don't want to hear it.

who was "I" in the Ham part of the Kinderhook translation as posted from Mormon history on page 372 in May of 1843? The name of the person who said those words, was _____________________ (insert name here).

Unknown. The fact is that the "I" upon which you rest the entire weight of your intellectually dishonest argument is not found in the document from which that passage is sourced. Naturally the truth doesn't serve your dishonest agenda, so you, in the ultimate act of intellectual dishonesty, try to exclude the truth from the discussion; but it didn't work.

...and then he ran away.

[_wenglund]

Ok, let me break it down some more. You claim it’s reasonable to conclude that Joseph Smith did not translate the Kinderhook plates to come up with the descendants of Ham story, but offer nothing in response to support the counter conclusion, other than claim one could conclude it if they chose, and you claim this is a reasonable conclusion.

This is false. In my article, posted earlier in the thread, I go to great pains laying out a reasonable argument against a translation.

I contend it’s not reasonable to conclude anyone other than Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates to come up with the descendants of Ham story, because you would have to discount the accounts of William Clayton, Charlotte Haven, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff.

You are confusing two separate issues: 1) Whether there was a translation; and 2) Who did the translation. Arguing the former (which is what I have done--see my article), renders the second issue moot.

I disagree with the use of “reasonable” here.

That's okay. I don't require your buy-in in order to view it myself as reasonable, nor am I pursuaded by your argument against its reasonableness. To each their own.

[Delete uncharitable and false rant about lying...]

Thank you Wade. You at least have the guts to answer the questions that Dr. Daniel Peterson, Wiki Wonka, and Benjamin McGuire have failed to answer. I’ll read your article this weekend and comment on it, but I don’t have time right now.

For them, I am quite certain it isn't about guts. Rather, it is about the issue lacking significance and nominal chances of productive results in discussing this with you. Given your dogmatic, sweepingly dismissive, and falsely accusatory responses thus far, I am beginning to have my doubts as well--though I am still inclined to give you second and third chances. But, I do appreciate that you will be taking time to read my article. I will be interested to hear what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Hades]

For them, I am quite certain it isn't about guts. Rather, it is about the issue lacking significance and nominal chances of productive results in discussing this with you. Given your dogmatic, sweepingly dismissive, and falsely accusatory responses thus far, I am beginning to have my doubts as well--though I am still inclined to give you second and third chances. But, I do appreciate that you will be taking time to read my article. I will be interested to hear what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apologist answer to Kinderhook Plate issue, "Look away, nothing to see here. Look away, nothing to see."

[_wenglund]

Apologist answer to Kinderhook Plate issue, "Look away, nothing to see here. Look away, nothing to see."

Yes, and rightly so, though we prefer to use the Savior's words: don't strain at the gnats.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_LDS truthseeker]

Why would anyone believe that William Clayton said this and not Joseph? Was Clayton a prophet? Who else would have been able to make these grand claims? Why would a scribe think this Indian was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth. Why not a descendant of Noah or Abraham?

This seems way too unusual and too specific to be made by anyone other than the Prophet Joseph Smith. Also, Joseph's scribe William Clayton, was a trusted, official scribe for the church and was noted for being a stickler for details and accuracy and not in the habit of making stuff up and attributing it to Joseph.

Why would Joseph Smith, an editor of the Times and Seasons, allow the article with pictures of the plates be published if it wasn't true? Even hardcore LDS admit that Joseph must have known the article was published and did not dispute it. The LDS book History of the Church makes it very clear that Joseph translated a portion of the Kinderhook Plates.

Certainly Joseph would have retracted the story printed in the Times and Seasons at some point if he was misquoted about something this important. Can you imagine The Ensign printing a totally bogus article and then a hundred years from now, the faithful members of the church claim that the prophet and apostles didn’t have any knowledge of that article and it was just made up by some editors and went completely unnoticed by the General Authorities?