Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Olavarria

Kinderhooked?

Recommended Posts

And it could be the case that Clayton's summary of May 17 came through somebody else. We just don't know.

Handwriting?

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, they are.

Argument by mere assertion. I have demonstrated that they are not.

No, I meant that those two passages are parallel, firsthand reports of prophetic utterances by Joseph Smith. They are cut from the same cloth.

In which alternative universe? The May 17 entry records Joseph expounding on doctrine. The May 1 entry records something that William believed, for some reason or other, that Joseph had said. The notion that this even purports to be a "prophetic utterance" is a complete fabrication, and to pretend that the two are of equal stature is grossly counterfactual.

Yes, they are.

Argument by mere assertion. I have demonstrated that they are not.

So, IOW, your dogmatic assertion about how parallel the two passages are now amounts to a bit of wishful thinking about what might be in some portion of the diary that may or may not be missing from the quotes given.

No, in other words, I acknowledge that my judgment on this historical matter, as that of any honest student of history on any historical matter must be, is provisional. Your dogmatic, unnuanced pronouncements like:

. . . it never happened. He made it up. Entirely.

have no place in scholarly discourse. In which, of course, nobody believes you are actually participating.

I assure you that, if the above disqualifies me from participating in scholarly discourse, then the author of such dogmatic, unnuanced pronouncements as:

You may impugn the accuracy of that quote (on what rational, coherent basis I cannot imagine, at least for a believer in D&C 131),

is similarly disqualified, and for at least as compelling reasons. It is a little late for you to try to claim the high ground.

I'm sorry for confusing you with my measured language. I should remember whom I am conversing with.

Had you chosen to use such "measured language" in the first place, there would be no "confusion."

You assume that the pronoun (which Clayton did not see fit to provide with a clear antecedent) includes Joseph. I do too. But it is not explicit. One could argue, in fact, that "Brother Perkins" is the antecedent, and that Clayton and Perkins took a pleasure ride together. I don't think that's very likely. Clayton/Smith seems the simplest, most plausible reading of "we," just as a direct quote of Joseph seems the simplest, most plausible reading of the May 1 entry.

You really must try to break yourself of the habit of presuming to speak for me. You invariably get it wrong. My point in bolding that "we" was simply that it is a first-person pronoun. It doesn't matter what other parties it includes--it unquestionably includes William Clayton. He is describing his activities. And the next sentence, talking about what Joseph preached about, etc. is a complete disconnect that bears no relationship to what went before unless William is still recording his own experiences of the morning.

On May 1, OTOH, he describes examining the plates at Joseph's house. He traces one of them. He records everything he knows about them. That includes something he believed Joseph to have said. For some reason or other.

How can you possibly know this?

I know this because English is my first language, thank you for asking.

Utter hubris.

You'd certainly know about that!

Clayton and Smith are together,

Assumption not available on the evidence.

Clayton quotes Smith.

Assumption not available on the evidence.

Your reading is entirely ad hoc.

No, it is English.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Argument by mere assertion.

Funnily enough, I considered using the phrase "Proof by assertion" in rejoinder to your "No. They are not." I decided that "Yes, they are" better suited the spirit of the occasion. Such are the heights to which your prose inspires me.

The May 17 entry records Joseph expounding on doctrine. The May 1 entry records something that William believed, for some reason or other, that Joseph had said. The notion that this even purports to be a "prophetic utterance" is a complete fabrication, and to pretend that the two are of equal stature is grossly counterfactual.

The conclusion that one is doctrine and the other is some mysterious entity of unknowable provenance is an artifact of retrospective judgment exercised by subsequent church leaders. They could just as easily have canonized the Kinderhook statement, as they did with other salvifically negligible morsels like D&C 116. But Clayton was impressed enough with the statement to record it and attribute it to "Prest. J."

My point in bolding that "we" was simply that it is a first-person pronoun. It doesn't matter what other parties it includes--it unquestionably includes William Clayton. He is describing his activities. And the next sentence, talking about what Joseph preached about, etc. is a complete disconnect that bears no relationship to what went before unless William is still recording his own experiences of the morning.

Just the sort of disconnect you are positing to disattribute his "Prest. J. . . says . . ." from "Prest. J."

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...