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

[Guest]

I'd like to address this to Dr. Peterson, Wade Englund, Benjamin McGuire and Wiki Wonka, but I'd appreciate an answer from any TBM who chooses to answer the question asked.

It’s common knowledge that in Mormon churches people bear their testimony starting out with, “I know the church is true…” While they may believe the church is true, they clearly don’t “know” it’s true. The power of suggestion and community is its purpose, as those who feel the burning in the bosom and share it with others, but the question I’m asking is in this thread deals with the false witness, or those who say the words but don’t actually mean them… are they breaking the 9th commandment?
Consider the following:
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandm ... ment09.htm

This commandment is somewhat unusual: whereas other commandments probably had shorter versions that were later added to, this one has a slightly longer format that tends to be shortened. Most of the time when people cite it or list it, they use only the first six words: Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Leaving off the ending, “against thy neighbor” isn’t necessarily a problem, but it does avoid difficult questions about just who qualifies as one’s “neighbor” and who doesn’t. One might, for example, plausibly argue that only one’s kinsmen, co-religionists, or fellow countrymen qualify as “neighbors,” thus justifying “bearing false witness” against non-relatives, people of a different religion, people of a different nation, or people of a different ethnicity.

Semantics of what constitutes a neighbor aside, the definition of a false witness is someone who knowingly states something false under the pretense that they believe it’s true. I’ve debated Mormons on the internet for a few years now and believe I know when they’re making an argument based upon winning the debate rather than coming to the conclusion of what’s actually true vs. false. The two main points of contention in my opinion, is the Kinderhook plate translation and the Book of Mormon translation method. Dr. Peterson fully admitted the use of seer stones in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11896&start=21 ) which I found most admirable.

Regarding the Kinderhook plate translation however, I haven’t found a single TBM willing to acknowledge the truth regarding who said the words about who the descendant of Ham was. Some facts:

How Mormon history reads:
http://www.mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm

"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."
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

The main point brought out by pro-Mormon websites is the use of “I” instead of “President J.” as written by William Clayton. William Clayton’s journal is where these words come from, and a close friend of Joseph Smith he was his primary scribe. It wasn’t uncommon for William Clayton to use “President” when referring to Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, so logic would dictate that when William Clayton used “President J.” he was referring to Joseph Smith.
From the Fair website:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_rela ... ook_Plates

William Clayton's journal entry becomes Joseph's first-person account
Some critics have tried to show that Joseph did actually attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates, based on a passage in the History of the Church that was supposedly written by Joseph himself:
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.[6]
However, this account of Joseph translating the plates was not written by Joseph, but is the work of an editor who, following Joseph's death, reworked William Clayton's journal entry and wrote it as if Joseph Smith had spoken it. Stanley Kimball explains:
Although this account appears to be the 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. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words "I have translated a portion" originally read "President J. has translated a portion...."
Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However...speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from 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.[7]

In the above, how can one conclude, “Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown” based on the fact that William Clayton is the one who wrote it down when quoting Joseph Smith? There is no doubt whatsoever that Joseph Smith made that translation in my opinion, but layers of extra data piled on top of this fact is hardly a foundation for making this conclusion, unless one attempts to paint William Clayton as an evil-doer.

To Wade Englund: This link is broken. Is it posted somewhere else? http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai026.html

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

Thanks

[_thews]

This is what LDS.org has to say about the Kinderhook plate translation:
http://LDS.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhoo ... x?lang=eng

A month and a half later the Nauvoo Neighbor press published a 12″ x 15″ broadside entitled Discovery of the Brass Plates. 2 (See p. 72.) This handbill contained a reprint of the Times and Seasons story, with the addition of facsimiles of all twelve sides of the six plates. Nothing further regarding the Prophet’s opinion of the plates appeared on the broadside—only a statement that “the contents of the plates … will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed.”

Note the above reference to a “translation” published in the Times and Seasons.

“[May 1, 1843:] I insert fac similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. R. Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton, and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.
“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.” (Then followed a reprint of material from the Times and Seasons article.)

The money shot published in the Times and Seasons… someone did the translation, mentioning he was descendent of Ham.

Although this account appears to be the 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. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. …” 3

Note in the above, the attempt is made to paint the ruse that the writing “appears” to be the writing of Joseph Smith, but is actually the writing of William Clayton. This is William Clayton’s journal, so one would expect to be the writing of the person who owned it, especially when the the function of William Clayton was to write everything down. Pro Mormon website use this little trick often, which is an attempt to fool the reader into believing someone is actually making the bogus claim, they then iron out with the “actual” truth. Who ever said the writing was ever thought to be of Joseph Smith?

Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However, as will be pointed out later, speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from 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.

In this paragraph, the statement is made “Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown” is an outright lie. William Clayton is quoted often when referencing what Joseph Smith said. Why would anyone claim that the words he wrote down by “President J.” that was quoted in the Times and Seasons would not be from Joseph Smith?

Charlotte Haven, a somewhat antagonistic non-Mormon who was visiting her sister (a Mormon) in Nauvoo at the time, wrote a letter on May 2 that gives the following account:
“We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore, who passes through that place and this in his monthly zigzag tours through the State, traveling horseback. His last call on us was last Saturday [April 29] and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of brass, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like writing, and strange figures like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them.”

Here we have a second account claiming that Joseph Smith was to “translate” the plates. Mormons will often use “Anti-Mormon” to describe Charlotte Haven, but it’s only for the intended purpose of TBM’s to reject what she said, which was the same thing that William Clayton said.

The elements that these two accounts have in common suggest a basic jist to the hearsay stories circulating in Nauvoo and also that Joseph Smith with others saw and wondered about the nature of the material that had been brought to Nauvoo. But there is, obviously, leagues of difference between an actual translation of sacred records and a consideration of artifacts of uncertain origin—the former requiring study, prayer, and revelation; the latter characterized perhaps by an examination for points of similarity, etc., in a setting where various suggestions are likely aired by those present and elaborated on as discussion continued. And the actual presence of William Clayton or Parley P. Pratt in any discussion on the topic with Joseph Smith is simply unknown.

Note in the above the injection of “hearsay” in an attempt to imply the facts that William Clayton is the one who wrote down what Joseph Smith said was hearsay. Is William Clayton a bad guy now?

It is hard to imagine that the Prophet Joseph Smith wouldn’t have been intrigued by the plates. When they were first shown to him, he may well have noted certain correspondence between some characters on the plates and “reformed Egyptian” and contemplated the possibility of authenticity and translation, as the Charlotte Haven letter suggests[u]. 17 But how much of the [u]conjecture that was current in Nauvoo at the time might be attributable to him would be a speculation in itself, impossible to verify from the available accounts. The one account that was published in the Times and Seasons, whose editors were equally as intimate with Joseph Smith as William Clayton and Parley P. Pratt, could only report that “Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is we have not yet ascertained.”

Note in the above how they acknowledge the facts, yet use “may well have” and might/possibly/conjecture to imply they should reject the truth as a lie. On what ground is one supposed to reject two stories that say the same thing without introducing even a motive to imply someone is lying? No one is lying, because it was in fact Joseph Smith, or “President J.” that made the translation about the descendant of Ham.

The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected “translation” did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting—that it was never carried to completion. That the Kinderhook plates were not authentic artifacts is no longer in doubt; but if the plates were faked, why wasn’t the hoax revealed right away?

Why not ask a question that is irrelevant? Why not ask, how was it Joseph Smith made a “translation” of a bogus artifact if he was supposed to be a prophet of God? Does this support his other truth claims regarding his other “translations”?

Significantly, there is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever took up the matter with the Lord, as he did when working with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. And this brings us to the other side of the story, for those of us who believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet: Isn’t it natural to expect that he would be guided to understand that these plates were not of value as far as his mission was concerned? That other members may have been less judicious and not guided in the same way cannot be laid at the Prophet’s feet. Many people, now as well as then, have an appetite for hearsay and a hope for “easy evidence” to bolster or even substitute for personal spirituality and hard-won faith that comes from close familiarity with truth and communion with God.

Note in the above the outright lie that Joseph Smith ever took up the matter with the Lord. If he believed the Lord sent him something to translate and he did for the benefit of mankind, just as he did with a common funerary text from the pagan Book of the Dead to come up with the Book of Abraham, then how can one possibly claim there is “no evidence” to support this, when there are two pieces of direct account to back it up, and one of them is from the primary scribe of joseph Smith in his (William Clayton’s) own writing?

I can’t wait to hear from Wade Englund and Benjamin since they have both written articles on this subject.

[_thews]

And what does Jeff Lindsay say about the Kinderhook plates… let’s break his argument down as he twists and turns the facts into a jumbled pile of distortion…
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BM ... tml#fooled

Wasn't Joseph Smith fooled by the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates? Doesn't that prove he didn't translate by the power of God?
I'm surprised this old argument continues to be used. An excellent and thorough article on the Kinderhook plates is "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax" by Dr. Stanley B. Kimball in the Ensign, August 1981, pp. 66-74, now available online (or see it here at LDS.org).
The bottom line is that there is no proof that Joseph Smith fell for the apparent fraud of the Kinderhook plates. He apparently showed no interest in them after his initial exposure - if he even personally saw them at all.

And the Mormons just keep stating the same lie. There is evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates. For one, the journal of William Clayton and the other account of Charlotte Haven. The posters found here: http://www.rickgrunder.com/VanNorman/Ki ... erhook.htm
And John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were excited about the translation by Joseph Smith.
http://www.rickgrunder.com/VanNorman/Ki ... erhook.htm

John Taylor was unable to provide an illustration of these plates for his early report in the Times and Seasons, but he and Wilford Woodruff were naturally eager to publicize the wonderful discovery. Accordingly, a few weeks later, they printed the broadside now at hand, and reproduced the encouraging editorial from Quincy, along with the affidavits from Kinderhook. The plates are shown in three horizontal rows of four sides each (fronts and backs of the six plates); they are apparently woodcuts, with white hieroglyphics against black backgrounds in the shape of the plates.

Just above the facsimile of the plates, we find the promise that "The contents of the Plates, together with a Fac-Simile of the same, will be published in the ' Times & Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed."

This is all hard evidence as noted in the History of the church… I would categorize it as evidence, and every Mormon argument I’ve read states the same lie, which is there is no evidence to support Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook plates, when it’s a fact he did to come up with the descendent of ham story.
http://www.mormonthink.com/img/page372.jpg

Critics point to an entry apparently made by Joseph Smith in the official History of the Church dated May 1843, which states that Joseph translated part of the Kinderhook plates and found them to be written by a descendant of Ham and of the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, this statement is actually from the journal of William Clayton. Clayton's journal entry was added to the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" printed in the Deseret News in Utah in 1856, long after the death of Joseph, though it was changed to be in the first person from Joseph's perspective: "I have translated..." instead of "President J. has translated...." It is well known, according to Kimball, "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.'" Kimball notes that this poor practice was common in that century for biographers.

And once again the parroting of the it’s actually the writing of William Clayton and not Joseph Smith!. We all know this, but the Mormon apologists just keep repeating it as if it means something.

The source of the ideas expressed by Clayton is unknown, but seems consistent with the high level of speculation among many members of the Church about the significance of the Kinderhook find. Some said those plates dealt with Book of Mormon peoples, others said Egyptians. Many spoke of a translation that they hoped would be undertaken. The significant thing is that there is no evidence that Joseph showed any serious interest in them. No translation was undertaken. No attempt was made to purchase the plates (as did occur with the authentic Egyptian scrolls and mummies that were brought to Joseph, part of the story of the Book of Abraham). They left Nauvoo without fanfare and apparently without objection - a strange reaction if Joseph had felt they were a sacred treasure of some kind. Perhaps Joseph or others may have noted some superficial similarity between the characters on the fake Kinderhook plates and those they had seen on the plates of gold or on Egyptian papyri. But no apology is needed for Joseph Smith.

And again another series of blatant lies claiming the source of ideas expressed by Clayton is unknown and there is no evidence… it is known, it was made by Joseph Smith and this is a fact as recorded in the history of the church.

The details of the Kinderhook plates story are interesting and puzzling. They appear to have been made by several conspirators in a possible attempt to gain money by selling them as ancient artifacts. It is commonly assumed that they were made to expose the alleged frauds of Joseph Smith and that Joseph did fall for them. For example, a popular but outlandishly deceitful anti-Mormon book, The God Makers, claims that a group "carefully manufactured" the plates and placed them in a mound to be discovered, that Joseph fell for the hoax, and that three men involved confessed that it was a hoax 3 months after Joseph was killed. The God Makers provides no documentation for these unfounded claims. Indeed, the earliest known reference (correct me if there is an earlier one) to the Kinderhook plates as a fraud is in a private letter from W.P. Harris dated April 25, 1855, a letter which was not discovered and made known until 1912. In that letter, Harris claimed that he was one of 9 men who orchestrated the hoax to expose Joseph Smith. Another man who claimed to be in on the hoax, W. Fugate, wrote an affidavit in 1879 claiming it was a fraud. Both of these sources are puzzling. If Joseph fell for Fugate's trap in 1843, why did he wait 36 years to announce it? Why did he wait until after the deaths of the other 8 men he claimed to work with on the Kinderhook hoax? Likewise, if Harris's 1855 letter is authentic, why did he wait 12 years to write down that he had exposed Joseph Smith? If nine men had achieved their goal and successfully proven in 1843 that Joseph Smith could fall for a clumsy hoax, you can bet that nearly all of them would have been making it known far and wide right away - not years after Joseph had died. It would have been in publications, letters, newspapers, all over the place. But nothing is in the record until many years later. It really doesn't make any sense.

It was a hoax and that fact is all one needs to know about it. Adding distortion in a pile of what if statement is intended to cast doubt. Again, there is no doubt who made the translation and came up with the Ham portion… it was in fact Joseph Smith.

Gilbert Scharffs in The Truth About "The God Makers" (Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1986, pp. 146-148 - now available online at FAIRLDS.org) offers as one possibility that Joseph did say and mean what is found in the History of the Church (though he seems unaware of the finding that Clayton's journal was apparently the source for the text attributed to Joseph). The plates "disappeared" after their "discovery" and attempted selling (one of the finders, R.S. Wiley, tried to sell them to the National Institute in 1843 - perhaps a profit motive rather than an "expose Joseph Smith" motive needs to be considered). Much later, 1920, a single plate purported to be one of the Kinderhook plates was obtained by the Chicago Historical Society. This brass plate does appear to be a hoax - but Scharffs wonders if it is really one of the Kinderhook plates. Fugate said they were copper, not brass. It is also different in size from the description of the originals. To Scharffs, it remains unclear what the Kinderhook plates really were and whether they were a fraud. Personally, though, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they were fraudulent.

More distortion, with the added distortion that he was unaware of the blatantly obvious source of the translation “one possibility that Joseph did say and mean what is found in the History of the Church (though he seems unaware of the finding that Clayton's journal was apparently the source for the text attributed to Joseph).”

Certainly there are no known original documents from Joseph Smith mentioning the Kinderhook plates, which ought to have been of great importance to him if he really thought new ancient records had been discovered.

And again another lie stating the previous lies repetitively. There is an original document, it is the journal of William Clayton who quoted President J., or Joseph Smith. Continued ignorance of the obvious is the Mormon apologists foundation, which is bearing a false witness in my opinion.

The Kinderhook plates are really a non-issue. If Joseph Smith were a fraud, he gave us 500 pages of detailed information in the Book of Mormon which ought to make it ludicrously easy to expose him. No need to rely on spurious, unverifiable sources presenting weak material like the Kinderhook plates. Neither you nor I could write 10 pages of "scripture" based in a totally foreign setting about which we knew nothing and achieve anything but offer proof to everyone that we were laughable frauds. The power and magnificence of the word of God in the Book of Mormon is ample proof that something deeper is going on here that a young farm boy perpetuating a hopeless fraud. My opinion, of course - but try it on yourself and see how it fits. It's an amazing and wonderful book.

If you want an example of spurious, unverifiable sources presenting weak material then just read the above. Unless one discounts the facts based on William Clayton being an evil-doer. William Clayton was a close friend of Joseph Smith and wrote down his translation.

Rebuttals from the Critics?
In response to my comments above, one critic pointed out that B.H. Roberts assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the journal entry that was contributed by William Clayton, and asked if this invalidates my discussion. Absolutely not - almost everyone who has read published entries for Joseph's journal has assumed he wrote them. It was later work that showed the sloppy practices involved in the serialized publication of Joseph's journal long after his death. Now we know that William Clayton wrote that 1843 entry on the Kinderhook plates. B.H. Roberts did not know that.

Note in the above tripe Jeff Lindsay uses “one critic” without identifying him/her. That’s because he makes up a lot of things to make a point that isn’t worth addressing, except to point out something obvious as a correction made on his part.

The same critic noted that B.H. Roberts quotes Joseph's journal on the Kinderhook plates as coming from the Millennial Star, vol. XXI (see New Witnesses for God, Vol.3, p.62) and asks why I didn't show the Millennial Star as the source for Joseph's entries, apparently believing that the Millennial Star was a contemporary publication from Joseph's days in Nauvoo, and that I was obfuscating by saying that Clayton's entry for Joseph's journal was only published long after Joseph's death.

This paragraph makes no sense. The history of the Mormon church published what the prophet translated.

The Millennial Star did begin as a contemporary periodical from the Nauvoo era, with volume one occurring in 1840, while Joseph was alive. But it continued for many years. Volume 86, for example, is dated 1926, and the periodical continued several more years until 1937. Volume 21, the source cited by B.H. Roberts, is from around 1860 (I don't have the exact date). It is hardly a primary source, but obviously was used as a means of publishing at least parts of Joseph's journal - including many parts worked in or added by well-meaning writers like William Clayton, whose practices with historical documents were not up to twenty-first century standards. The fact that B.H. Roberts cited the periodical in which Joseph's journal was published, long after his death, doesn't change a thing. The argument made by the critic is immaterial.

More blather that doesn’t have anything to do with the argument.

In 2004, the LDS apologist Barry Bickmore received and answered a couple of related questions regarding the Kinderhook plates. He was asked why Brigham Young would support the History of the Church if it had errors, and asked why Clayton would believe inaccurate rumors about the Kinderhook plates since he was a close ally of Joseph Smith. He is Barry's brief response, used with permission, quoting from e-mail of March 2004:
Hmm. Those are good questions.
Here are some more good questions.

A very typical Mormon retort is to “answer” questions with questions. This isn’t an answer and is just a ruse to imply there is an actual answer by planting what if scenarios.

1) Why Did Parley Pratt, who was also a close associate of Joseph Smith, record a completely different story about what the KP [Kinderhook Plates] contained?
2) If Clayton's version was correct, and based on firsthand knowledge of a definite translation of the plates, why was no translation ever published?
3) If Clayton's version was correct, do we have to also believe that the plates were found next to the skeleton of a nine foot man?
4) If Joseph Smith really thought the KP were what Clayton reported, why didn't he purchase them, instead of letting them leave town soon after viewing them? After all, he spent a lot of money to buy the papyri associated with the Book of Abraham.
5) If Joseph Smith really fell for a hoax designed to expose him, why did Wilbur Fugate wait until Joseph Smith and all his co-conspirators were long dead to expose the prophet?

I have a question… who was William Clayton referring to when he used President J.?

My best guess is that Joseph Smith may have offered some preliminary guesses about what the plates might contain, based on similarity with the Book of Mormon plates, or whatever. Maybe he speculated BOTH that they were written by a descendant of Ham (as Clayton reported) AND by a Jaredite (as Pratt reported). Clayton and others assumed these speculations were revelations, or maybe heard about them second hand through the grapevine (hence the 9-foot skeleton). But then he never followed through because the hoax was revealed to him. Therefore, he sent the conspirators on their way, and never said anything else about it. They knew Joseph Smith had not fallen for the hoax, so they never brought it up again, until 36 or so years later, it came to Wilbur Fugate's attention that there were second-hand reports that the Prophet had "translated" something from the plates. Therefore, he finally revealed the hoax.
No matter how you slice this one, there will be unanswered questions. However, I don't think it is anything for Mormons to worry about. [/u]

And it’s here where Jeff Lindsay claims Joseph Smith may have made “some preliminary guesses” about what the plates contained… isn’t that nice. He lies multiple times claiming there is no evidence, only to conclude that Joseph Smith may have made some guesses.

In conclusion, there is no doubt who made the translation of the descendants of Ham, and that would be Joseph Smith. I can’t find the article by Wade Englund. Can someone link me to it? I’m sure Wade knows a lot about this topic.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
It’s common knowledge that in Mormon churches people bear their testimony starting out with, “I know the church is true…” While they may believe the church is true, they clearly don’t “know” it’s true. The power of suggestion and community is its purpose, as those who feel the burning in the bosom and share it with others, but the question I’m asking is in this thread deals with the false witness, or those who say the words but don’t actually mean them… are they breaking the 9th commandment?
...

Between 1979 and 1981 I regularly attended the LDS branch (now ward)
in Delaware, Ohio -- as a guest, and not as a member.

On several occasions, at F&T meetings, I saw parents bringing their
toddlers and pre-schoolers up to the podium, to announce:
"I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true, etc."

I asked how it was that these youngsters could voice a "God-given"
testimony, which was obviously being whispered into their little ears,
for their repetition through the meetinghouse microphone?

I never did get a satisfactory answer, to my question. When I mentioned
that such swearing on the name of Jesus Christ could be a case of
disobedience to the commandments, the answer I received was that the
testimony-bearing toddlers were "below the age of accountability," and
therefore could testify to such Divine knowledge, even if they themselves
had no such basis for a testimony.

It all sounded like double-talk to me.

But, if that answer was the doctrinally correct one, then an 8-year-old
testifier to the same “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the church
is true…” would be bearing false witness, (if merely repeating instructions).

Correct?

UD

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It all sounded like double-talk to me.

Mopologia.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Uncle Dale]

It all sounded like double-talk to me.

Mopologia.

V/R
Dr. Cam

I suppose -- I never did receive a straight answer.

I'm fairly well informed on the Kinderhook Plates story and can see some
odd inconsistencies there also. But the frequent bearing of testimonies in
the LDS meetinghouse was something more tangible and direct, that I
could observe in the midst of faithful Mormons themselves.

I suppose that none of them would have known anything about the
Kinderhook Plates. I doubt that any of the members there had ever read
the "History of the Church."

UD

[Guest]

I suppose -- I never did receive a straight answer.

I'm fairly well informed on the Kinderhook Plates story and can see some
odd inconsistencies there also. But the frequent bearing of testimonies in
the LDS meetinghouse was something more tangible and direct, that I
could observe in the midst of faithful Mormons themselves.

Thanks for the observation UD. I've not heard the beyond a shadow of a doubt testimony before.

I suppose that none of them would have known anything about the
Kinderhook Plates. I doubt that any of the members there had ever read
the "History of the Church."

UD

I agree, as they get their data from Mormon sources that distort the truth by claiming that the source of William Clayton's journal "is not known" when it's a fact who he was quoting when he said President J. The false witness can be identified by the stance one takes in defending an argument, which is why I asked this question directly to Dr. Peterson, Wade, Benjamin and Wiki Wonka, (Simon Belmont and Pahoran also make the same incorrect argument) because they defend the argument that the history of the church is wrong and continue to claim the source of the "translation" (descendant of Ham) was not made by Joseph Smith. In this defense of the facts, they are making the statement that they in fact believe in it. If they don't believe what they're defending as the truth, then they are bearing a false witness to the truthfulness of their claims.

I wonder if one of them would be brave enough to state their reasoning in making an argument for anyone else but Joseph Smith making the translation?

[_thews]

I'm fairly well informed on the Kinderhook Plates story and can see some
odd inconsistencies there also.

UD

One more think UD, do you know where I can find a picture of journal entry made by William Clayton on 1 May 1843?

[_Uncle Dale]

I'm fairly well informed on the Kinderhook Plates story and can see some
odd inconsistencies there also.

UD

One more think UD, do you know where I can find a picture of journal entry made by William Clayton on 1 May 1843?

I was searching for just such a photo. I think that Sandra
Tanner has access to photos of the Clayton journals.



UD

[_wenglund]

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

Thanks

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-