Kinderhooked?

[DonBradley]

Ben,

I am honestly puzzled at your insistence that Clayton's 1) day-to-day intimate contact with Joseph Smith, 2) examining and tracing the plate into his journal while visiting Joseph for dinner, and 3) reporting that "Prest. Joseph has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found," and 4) providing other specific content that "Prest. Joseph...says" was on the plates suggests nothing more than his reporting of "rumor."

The specific way you disqualify Clayton's translation report is also puzzling. You use Clayton's error on details to disqualify his accuracy on central points. At what depth the plates were buried, in which county, and the like, are hardly issues of the same magnitude as whether plates were found, brought to Joseph, and translated from by him.

More significantly, the inaccuracies you use have to do only with the finding of the plates. No one has claimed that William Clayton was intimate with Wilbur Fugate or present at the mound where the plates were found, so his knowledge on the finding of the plates would necessarily be obtained through intermediaries. This has no bearing on Clayton's direct access to Joseph Smith and opportunity to learn the latter's own actions, views, and claims relative to the plates. William Clayton was in as good a position as anyone in Nauvoo to know Joseph Smith's views on the plates and whether he had attempted to translate from them--particularly in light of Clayton's examination of them in the context of a social visit with Joseph.

BTW, I was mistaken about Clayton's plate tracing appearing on the reverse side of the page from his journal entry. It appears in the middle of the entry. Clayton either wrote the entry during his social call at Joseph's, or he traced the plate there in anticipation of recording the entry, including what "Prest. Smith...says they contain."

I'm not sure what lies behind your insistence that the Clayton entry individually, and even the Clayton entry, the Pratt letter, and John Taylor's broadside collectively provide no evidence that Joseph attempted to translate from the Kinderhook plates, but this insistence is simply wrong. Such an insistence is not necessary to defend Joseph Smith's prophethood. The anti-Mormon argument "Only a false prophet translates fake plates" assumes a prophetic translation, not a secular one. If "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such," then Joseph Smith's prophethood is in no way threatened by attempts to translate by more traditional linguistic means.

Wade,

I may be mistaken, but reading your comments I feel pressed to give away what I've specifically stated I'm reserving for formal publication. Please be aware 1) that I won't, and 2) that Mark hasn't either.

BTW, although these points are of no particular consequence to my findings, you may want to that note Clayton's entry regarding the translation precedes May 7, and that facsimiles of the characters had been made while the plates were in the city, and that translation could have continued using the characters alone.

Ben and Wade,

I don't expect you to accept my word, or Mark's view, as now asserted. But I hope you'll keep an open mind till you can examine our published evidence for yourself.

Regards to you both,

Don

[Olavarria]

Intresting, how Joseph belived in gold plates.

[DonBradley]

Oh, as another note, Wade, I'm not sure why the fact that some didn't mention the translation, despite the fact that a few of Joseph's intimates did, has any bearing on whether he translated or not. Given that we have positive evidence in the former cases, the mere absence of evidence in the latter cases has negligible weight in the overall calculus of probabilities.

As to Fugate's account, unlike the contemporaneous accounts I've cited, it has the disadvantages of being given 35 years after the fact, being given by someone who was not in Joseph Smith's confidence, and of not making fine chronological distinctions. If Joseph did react this way when first confronted with the plates, this would not rule out his later attempting the translation. Indeed, Fugate's full sentence communicates his understanding that Smith made a preliminary assessment on how much text the plates would produce; and Fugate's cohort Robert Wiley wrote in a 15 November 1843 letter to J. J. Harding that the plates "were sent [to the antiquarian societies] and the answer was that there were no such Hyeroglyphics known, and if there ever had been, they had long since passed away. Then Smith began his translation."

The point behind these accounts would appear to be that Joseph Smith was a fraud who would not allow his translation abilities to be put to the test. Contemporary accounts among the Nauvoo saints indicate otherwise. But none of the accounts, Mormon or non-Mormon, indicate that Joseph Smith rejected the plates as a hoax, and all the accounts that mention translation at all, except the late Fugate account, indicate that Joseph Smith did translate. And even the Fugate account suggests that Joseph made a preliminary assessment of the language of the plates (as he had with the Abraham and Joseph papyri) and intended to produce a full translation under certain conditions.

I have a couple questions about your general approach, and that of other apologists:

Why do you skeptically interrogate the contemporary LDS sources, but give Fugate's late account the benefit of the doubt?

Why, if the evidence Joseph didn't attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is so clear, no one realized till 150 years later when they were shown to be fraudulent?

FWIW, to clarify my last post, the evidence to which I'm referring goes far beyond anything Mark has thus far put in writing. And you can be sure that if it were faith-threatening, Mark would not be involved.

Don

[DonBradley]

Intresting, how Joseph belived in gold plates.

The Kinderhook plates weren't gold; but, yes, Joseph Smith's apparent acceptance of the Kinderhook plates evidences a belief in the reality of such buried records, and therefore reflects well on the sincerity of his own claim to have uncovered such plates. I don't see that as anything like a decisive evidence, but it is certainly favorable to his overall claims.

Don

[Olavarria]

The Kinderhook plates weren't gold; but, yes, Joseph Smith's apparent acceptance of the Kinderhook plates evidences a belief in the reality of such buried records, and therefore reflects well on the sincerity of his own claim to have uncovered such plates. I don't see that as anything like a decisive evidence, but it is certainly favorable to his overall claims.

Don

agreed.

I sent you a pm but I might as well just repeat it up here. Im intrigued by your secular translation theory. I remember reading in ROugh STone Rolling how upon seeing the KP Joseph asked someone to fetch a hebrew bible.

[bjw]

Why, if the evidence Joseph didn't attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is so clear, no one realized till 150 years later when they were shown to be fraudulent?

I'm wondering if this might work the opposite as well. If these men that made these plates managed to fool JS you would think they would have went to the newspapers, as well as all of the other religions that oppose the Mormons, and they could have shut the whole church down with the evidence, proving it to be a fraud. Many probably would have even paid for the story. That's why I'm wondering what the motives were of the people that made the plates.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I may be mistaken, but reading your comments I feel pressed to give away what I've specifically stated I'm reserving for formal publication. Please be aware 1) that I won't, and 2) that Mark hasn't either.

BTW, although these points are of no particular consequence to my findings, you may want to that note Clayton's entry regarding the translation precedes May 7, and that facsimiles of the characters had been made while the plates were in the city, and that translation could have continued using the characters alone.

Hi Don,

While not intending to "press" you to give away any pre-publication secrets, can you at least intimate how you and/or Mark account for Fugate's claim, in his Letter of April 8th, 1878, that Joseph "would not agree to translate them [the Kinderhook Plates] until they were sent to the Antiquarian Society at Philadelphia, France, and England", and that Mr. Wiley, the owner of the plates, didn't send the plates to the Society until November of 1843, nearly seven months after the five-day period the plates had been at Nauvoo?

In other words, does your and Mark's theory posit the alleged translation as having taken place after November of 1843, using the facsimilies rather than the plates?

Granted, it is possible that facsimilies had been made of the kinderhook plates during the five days when the plates were in Nauvoo (or perhaps even later in June of that year), and that the facsimilies may have been later used for the alleged translation rather than the plates, themselves. And, given the implication in Taylor's handbill, in June of 1843, that the translation had yet to be undertaken; as well the article in the Warsaw Signal, May of 1844 stating that "". . .[Joseph Smith is] busy in translating [the Kinderhook plates]", it was possible that the alleged translation could have occured after November of 1843, though unlikely before then.

Now, were there a translation, wouldn't one expect that the translation would, like other translations, have involved dictation, manuscripts of the dictation, printed versions, etc. (particularly given Taylor's promise to that affect)? Wouldn't there have been a record in Joseph's own journal regarding the translation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

I'm wondering if this might work the opposite as well. If these men that made these plates managed to fool JS you would think they would have went to the newspapers, as well as all of the other religions that oppose the Mormons, and they could have shut the whole church down with the evidence, proving it to be a fraud. Many probably would have even paid for the story. That's why I'm wondering what the motives were of the people that made the plates.

I can't see how the argument would "work the other way."

The participant reminiscences we have say the Kinderhook plates began as a prank on their Mormon neighbors. They didn't expect the plates to be taken to Nauvoo. But once the plates were taken seriously, they hoped to sell them.

Don

[DonBradley]

Wade,

I've already addressed the Fugate and Wiley accounts, which, strangely, you seem to prefer to contemporaneous accounts from Joseph Smith's intimates.

As for translation manuscripts, I'd love for you to show me the manuscripts produced in June 1835 when Joseph Smith translated enough of the papyri to identify them as the Book of Abraham and Book of Joseph.

If (again) you will keep an open mind till the publication of our paper, you'll find that given the nature of the translation, and the size of the "portion" translated, no "translation manuscript" was necessary or would be expected.

BTW, I think a comparison of the significant events in Joseph Smith's Nauvoo life, as reported in the DHC (which draws on various sources) with Joseph Smith's journal alone will disabuse you of the notion that we should "expect" anything of consequence to appear in the journal (which, incidentally, was kept by Willard Richards, not Joseph Smith, and is therefore an outside source just like the William Clayton diary).

One more thing, Wade, while you're raising questions based on absence of evidence and distant non-Mormon sources (which you apparently believe to constitute serious objections), it would be gratifying to see you also deal with the positive evidence offered by William Clayton, et al.

Don

[wenglund]

Oh, as another note, Wade, I'm not sure why the fact that some didn't mention the translation, despite the fact that a few of Joseph's intimates did, has any bearing on whether he translated or not. Given that we have positive evidence in the former cases, the mere absence of evidence in the latter cases has negligible weight in the overall calculus of probabilities.

The way I figure it, not only were there discrepancies regarding the finding of the plates (see: HERE), there were inconsistencies regarding what the plates were about--i.e. inconsistencies regarding what was allegedly "translated". For example, 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."

These inconsistencies raise some questions in my mind about whether the translation actually took place (as opposed to what was reported being a product of rumor or surmizings), and if so, what was the real translation.

Additionally, given a rather consistent, historically documented pattern of how Joseph had previously translated other works, one may reasonably expect there to be at least some elements of the pattern reflected in this case. The conspicuous absence of these reasonable expectations in this case raise similar questions in my mind.

Granted, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it may be grounds for reasonable doubt.

As to Fugate's account, unlike the contemporaneous accounts I've cited, it has the disadvantages of being given 35 years after the fact, being given by someone who was not in Joseph Smith's confidence, and of not making fine chronological distinctions. If Joseph did react this way when first confronted with the plates, this would not rule out his later attempting the translation. Indeed, Fugate's full sentence communicates his understanding that Smith made a preliminary assessment on how much text the plates would produce; and Fugate's cohort Robert Wiley wrote in a 15 November 1843 letter to J. J. Harding that the plates "were sent [to the antiquarian societies] and the answer was that there were no such Hyeroglyphics known, and if there ever had been, they had long since passed away. Then Smith began his translation."

The point behind these accounts would appear to be that Joseph Smith was a fraud who would not allow his translation abilities to be put to the test. Contemporary accounts among the Nauvoo saints indicate otherwise. But none of the accounts, Mormon or non-Mormon, indicate that Joseph Smith rejected the plates as a hoax, and all the accounts that mention translation at all, except the late Fugate account, indicate that Joseph Smith did translate. And even the Fugate account suggests that Joseph made a preliminary assessment of the language of the plates (as he had with the Abraham and Joseph papyri) and intended to produce a full translation under certain conditions.

I have a couple questions about your general approach, and that of other apologists:

Why do you skeptically interrogate the contemporary LDS sources, but give Fugate's late account the benefit of the doubt?

Actually, I have "skeptically interrogated" all the sources, and as explained in my previous post above, I given SOME benefit of the doubt to Fugates late account because of contemporary sources that tend to corroborate that the alleged translation, if it did occur, took place after November of 1843.

Why, if the evidence Joseph didn't attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is so clear, no one realized till 150 years later when they were shown to be fraudulent?

First of all, I haven't said it was "clear". I said that "it is reasonable to assume that the alleged translation never happened". Secondly, as early as 1858, Orson Pratt told an assembly of Elders in the Endowment House that he was convinced the Kinderhook Plates were a fraud. (see: HERE)

FWIW, to clarify my last post, the evidence to which I'm referring goes far beyond anything Mark has thus far put in writing. And you can be sure that if it were faith-threatening, Mark would not be involved. Don

To clarify my own position, I am already quite confident that the kinderhook incident is not the least bit "faith-threatening" to me, regardless of whether the alleged translation actually is shown persuasively to have happened, or whether the alleged translation was via secular or spiritual means. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

He did provide a bit of translation. Despite the attempts to deny this by Stanley Kimball and others, the evidence points decidedly in that direction. William Clayton did not acquire his information about Joseph and the Kinderhook plates from the rumor mill. Clayton was Joseph's personal secretary, and a man as much in his confidence as any at the time. He dined with Joseph at the Mansion House, examined the plates while there, and traced one of them on the reverse of the page where he recorded his journal entry for the day, including this regarding the plates, "Brother Joseph has translated a portion of them, and says they contain...."

But, apologist that I am, I have uncovered the method of translation employed by Joseph Smith--it was not claimed to be revelatory. This finding confirms a hypothesis set out by Mark Ashurst-McGee at the 1996 MHA; and Mark and I may yet publish a collaborative paper on this. I'm not going to spill the beans here; but the evidence is quite definite--Joseph did produce a putative translation, but did so through "secular" means, and not as a prophet.

Keep an eye out for a paper laying this out in a future issue of the Journal of Mormon History.

Don

Don, I do hope that you will indeed publish the paper. I found working through An Intimate Chronicle

The Journals of William Clayton by Signature Books to be very rewarding. I'm convinced that Clayton was correct in reporting the issue. Given Joseph's interest in all things ancient and foreign, I really can't imagine that the Prophet would not have tried his hand at interpreting the plates.

Looking forward to your research.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I've already addressed the Fugate and Wiley accounts, which, strangely, you seem to prefer to contemporaneous accounts from Joseph Smith's intimates.

I am not sure you are reading me correctly regarding the weight I give to Fugate's late account (see my previous post), but should I take this as a "no", you do not believe the alleged translation took place after November of 1843?

As for translation manuscripts, I'd love for you to show me the manuscripts produced in June 1835 when Joseph Smith translated enough of the papyri to identify them as the Book of Abraham and Book of Joseph.

If (again) you will keep an open mind till the publication of our paper, you'll find that given the nature of the translation, and the size of the "portion" translated, no "translation manuscript" was necessary or would be expected.

BTW, I think a comparison of the significant events in Joseph Smith's Nauvoo life, as reported in the DHC (which draws on various sources) with Joseph Smith's journal alone will disabuse you of the notion that we should "expect" anything of consequence to appear in the journal (which, incidentally, was kept by Willard Richards, not Joseph Smith, and is therefore an outside source just like the William Clayton diary).

As I understand things, while Richards kept Joseph's Journal, much of the journal was dictated to Richards by Joseph. So, I am not sure it is accurate to consider Joseph's journal to be an 'outside source" like Clayton's diary.

Can you mention a significant event that wasn't in Joseph's journal? (I am trying to get a sense for what you consider "significant'").

I will have to do some research on what was said in Joseph's journal, from 1835 on, about the papyra. I suspect there would be more than just a single entry mentioning a visit regarding the papyra. ;-)

One more thing, Wade, while you're raising questions based on absence of evidence and distant non-Mormon sources (which you apparently believe to constitute serious objections), it would be gratifying to see you also deal with the positive evidence offered by William Clayton, et al. Don

Actually, I believe I did a thorough job of that in my online article linked to above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

The way I figure it, not only were there discrepancies regarding the finding of the plates (see: HERE), there were inconsistencies regarding what the plates were about--i.e. inconsistencies regarding what was allegedly "translated". For example, 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."

Discrepancies? Only if you make the (unwarranted) assumption that the two lineage categories cannot overlap. (BTW, Roberts was a historian, not a contemporary witness.) The Clayton and Pratt accounts agree that the plates tell the author's lineage, and that this lineage traces to Ham. Since the lineage of the Jaredites is not stated in the Book of Mormon, there is no reason it could not trace to Ham, as Pratt indicates, and also no reason it could not trace to Ham's son or grandson, "Pharaoh" (per BoA 1).

In fact, the Hamitic lineage of the Jaredites has been proposed numerous times throughout church history. It is attested, of course, as early as Parley P. Pratt's letter in 1843, and recorded independently in the Nauvoo era by Joseph's brother William Smith, in an 1845 patriarchal blessing.

Note also that a number of LDS scholars would not necessarily see a dis-connect between Pharaonic lineage and Jaredite lineage, since they have proposed an Egyptian etymology for the Jaredite word "deseret."

These inconsistencies raise some questions in my mind about whether the translation actually took place

This is pure silliness, Wade. Even if the accounts of what was on the Kinderhook plates contradicted, which they plainly do not, this would be a very poor argument. Accounts of historical events routinely vary. This is par for the historical course. What is suspcious is when accounts match too exactly (which suggests a conspiracy in which the participants agree to say the same thing). Based on your reasoning, we would have to reject the occurrence of the First Vision, Anthon incident, and a host of other basic events in LDS history. The directly contradictory accounts of the church's April 6 organization at Fayette, and a day's journey away in Manchester, should raise some questions in your mind" about whether the organization actually took place.

Additionally, given a rather consistent, historically documented pattern of how Joseph had previously translated other works, one may reasonably expect there to be at least some elements of the pattern reflected in this case. The conspicuous absence of these reasonable expectations in this case raise similar questions in my mind.

It should raise questions in your mind, since the "pattern" you believe in exists only there. Joseph Smith's initial translation of content from the papyri left no manuscript, the existing manuscripts appear to date to 4 to 6 months later, and no publication of the text was made till nearly seven years later. Your expectation that a preliminary translation of the Kinderhook plates, to identify what they were, would leave a manuscript, and your expectation that Joseph would definitely have produced a manuscript during the final 13 months of his life, while serving as mayor, lieutenant general, chancellor, land dealer, father, husband of over two dozen wives, and during which time he was kidnapped, completed the organization of the Anointed Quorum, organized the political kingdom of God, ran for president, and was betrayed, imprisoned, and killed is anything but reasonable.

Granted, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it may be grounds for reasonable doubt.

Only when reasonable expectations of positive evidence are not met. You simply ignore the strength of the positive evidence that does exist - that of the testimony of two of the apostles and Joseph's secretary, and then establish your own, unfounded expectations of what evidence "should" exist.

Actually, I have "skeptically interrogated" all the sources, and as explained in my previous post above,

I hate to break it to you, Wade, but you've done no such thing. You've practically given a free pass to the sources you want to believe, while applying an unwarranted hyper-skepticism to those you want to believe. Your anti-bias initiative is a great thing, but perhaps even-handedness, like charity, needs to begin at home. Your evaluations of evidence, on this and other historical issues, are among the most biased I've ever encountered.

I given SOME benefit of the doubt to Fugates late account because of contemporary sources that tend to corroborate that the alleged translation, if it did occur, took place after November of 1843.

Contemporary sources???

The Kinderhook plates came to Nauvoo at the end of April/beginning of May. During the first days of May, we have two Nauvoo sources reporting that preliminary translation had already begun, and in June we have another implying the same. Then in November 1843, which we have one non-LDS participant in the Kinderhook scheme writing a letter to a prospective buyer of the plates claiming that Joseph Smith refused to translate till he knew his translation could not be assessed by anyone else--since the language was unknown.

The May sources are "contemporary." Indeed, the Clayton entriy is written shortly after the plates' arrival in Nauvoo, on the day he examined them on a social visit to Joseph, and likely even at Joseph's house, where they were traced into the entry itself. How much more "contemporary" an account could you ask for? But these truly contemporary accounts contradict your thesis. The retrospective November source (singular), Wiley's letter, follows by a half-year, and is pitched to make a sale and make Joseph Smith look bad. That Fugate, a co-conspirator with Wiley, largely echoes his claim 35 years later hardly puts Wiley's claim on the same footing as the intimate, truly contemporary accounts from Nauvoo.

I would be glad to discuss issues with you regarding bias and building bridges between LDS and former LDS, but I think (again) that I ought to bow out of future discussion with you on historical issues. We have dramatically opposing views of what history is, what constitutes evidence, and by what standards evidence should be weighed, Wade.

I did benefit from some of your input into the Brotherton discussion, but for the most part I feel like we're communicating in different languages. To me, your standards of evidence had might as well be written in the characters of the Kinderhook plates. I can't make heads or tails of them.

Best wishes,

Don

[DonBradley]

OK, parting comments/answers:

There is no evidence that convinces me that Joseph Smith did anything more than a preliminary translation around May 1, 1843, identifying who had written the plates. I'm open to there having been later translation efforts, but don't know. It does seem clear that Joseph intended to do further translation, but he may not have ever fulfilled that intention.

Joseph Smith's journal was not ordinarily dictated to Richards. Richards himself kept it. Joseph is referred to in the third person. It would not be difficult for you to confirm this yourself.

Ciao

[wenglund]

Discrepancies? Only if you make the (unwarranted) assumption that the two lineage categories cannot overlap. (BTW, Roberts was a historian, not a contemporary witness.) The Clayton and Pratt accounts agree that the plates tell the author's lineage, and that this lineage traces to Ham. Since the lineage of the Jaredites is not stated in the Book of Mormon, there is no reason it could not trace to Ham, as Pratt indicates, and also no reason it could not trace to Ham's son or grandson, "Pharaoh" (per BoA 1).

In fact, the Hamitic lineage of the Jaredites has been proposed numerous times throughout church history. It is attested, of course, as early as Parley P. Pratt's letter in 1843, and recorded independently in the Nauvoo era by Joseph's brother William Smith, in an 1845 patriarchal blessing.

Note also that a number of LDS scholars would not necessarily see a dis-connect between Pharaonic lineage and Jaredite lineage, since they have proposed an Egyptian etymology for the Jaredite word "deseret."

This is pure silliness, Wade. Even if the accounts of what was on the Kinderhook plates contradicted, which they plainly do not, this would be a very poor argument. Accounts of historical events routinely vary. This is par for the historical course. What is suspcious is when accounts match too exactly (which suggests a conspiracy in which the participants agree to say the same thing). Based on your reasoning, we would have to reject the occurrence of the First Vision, Anthon incident, and a host of other basic events in LDS history. The directly contradictory accounts of the church's April 6 organization at Fayette, and a day's journey away in Manchester, should raise some questions in your mind" about whether the organization actually took place.

It should raise questions in your mind, since the "pattern" you believe in exists only there. Joseph Smith's initial translation of content from the papyri left no manuscript, the existing manuscripts appear to date to 4 to 6 months later, and no publication of the text was made till nearly seven years later. Your expectation that a preliminary translation of the Kinderhook plates, to identify what they were, would leave a manuscript, and your expectation that Joseph would definitely have produced a manuscript during the final 13 months of his life, while serving as mayor, lieutenant general, chancellor, land dealer, father, husband of over two dozen wives, and during which time he was kidnapped, completed the organization of the Anointed Quorum, organized the political kingdom of God, ran for president, and was betrayed, imprisoned, and killed is anything but reasonable.

Only when reasonable expectations of positive evidence are not met. You simply ignore the strength of the positive evidence that does exist - that of the testimony of two of the apostles and Joseph's secretary, and then establish your own, unfounded expectations of what evidence "should" exist.

I hate to break it to you, Wade, but you've done no such thing. You've practically given a free pass to the sources you want to believe, while applying an unwarranted hyper-skepticism to those you want to believe. Your anti-bias initiative is a great thing, but perhaps even-handedness, like charity, needs to begin at home. Your evaluations of evidence, on this and other historical issues, are among the most biased I've ever encountered.

Contemporary sources???

The Kinderhook plates came to Nauvoo at the end of April/beginning of May. During the first days of May, we have two Nauvoo sources reporting that preliminary translation had already begun, and in June we have another implying the same. Then in November 1843, which we have one non-LDS participant in the Kinderhook scheme writing a letter to a prospective buyer of the plates claiming that Joseph Smith refused to translate till he knew his translation could not be assessed by anyone else--since the language was unknown.

The May sources are "contemporary." Indeed, the Clayton entriy is written shortly after the plates' arrival in Nauvoo, on the day he examined them on a social visit to Joseph, and likely even at Joseph's house, where they were traced into the entry itself. How much more "contemporary" an account could you ask for? But these truly contemporary accounts contradict your thesis. The retrospective November source (singular), Wiley's letter, follows by a half-year, and is pitched to make a sale and make Joseph Smith look bad. That Fugate, a co-conspirator with Wiley, largely echoes his claim 35 years later hardly puts Wiley's claim on the same footing as the intimate, truly contemporary accounts from Nauvoo.

I would be glad to discuss issues with you regarding bias and building bridges between LDS and former LDS, but I think (again) that I ought to bow out of future discussion with you on historical issues. We have dramatically opposing views of what history is, what constitutes evidence, and by what standards evidence should be weighed, Wade.

I did benefit from some of your input into the Brotherton discussion, but for the most part I feel like we're communicating in different languages. To me, your standards of evidence had might as well be written in the characters of the Kinderhook plates. I can't make heads or tails of them.

Best wishes, Don

You made the suggestion earlier that Ben and I keep an open mind about this issue. Apparently, you want us to do as you say, and not as you do (your post above is reeks of closed-mindedness).

It may help you to understand that, given the relative derth of information in the kinderhook case, and thus the wide latitude for historical interpretation and weighing of evidence, that reasonable people can come to differing conclusions. In other words, just because you may see things a certain way, doesn't necessarily make it so. Hopefully, you will be able to make heads or tails of this guiding principle.

As for the Brotherton issue, you neglected to mention that the way I viewed history, and the standards of evidence I employed, helped save you the embarrassment of publishing your own view of history that, as it has turned out, was demonstrably wrong.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

You made the suggestion earlier that Ben and I keep an open mind about this issue. Apparently, you want us to do as you say, and not as you do (your post above is reeks of closed-mindedness).

Nice try, Wade. I'm quite open to any insights and information you may have. I would just prefer to obtain them by reading your website writings and posts in discussion with others than to discuss issues with you when I find your style of general historical argumentation <sic> so maddeningly devoted to maintaining a typical apologetic position.

It may help you to understand that, given the relative derth of information in the kinderhook case, and thus the wide latitude for historical interpretation and weighing of evidence, that reasonable people can come to differing conclusions.

I'm quite aware that reasonable people can differ, and if you presented reasonable arguments for your position, I would respect that. But I am not obligated to respect "reasoning" that gulps down poor sources for hoped-for conclusions while applying Cartesian skepticism to close, contemporaneous sources that point the other way.

In other words, just because you may see things a certain way, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Speaking of walking one's talk, Wade, you would do well to apply this principle to your own ossified positions on LDS historical issues.

Hopefully, you will be able to make heads or tails of this guiding principle.

I would wish the same to you, but I don't believe in an interventionist God.

As for the Brotherton issue, you neglected to mention that the way I viewed history, and the standards of evidence I employed, helped save you the embarrassment of publishing your own view of history that, as it has turned out, was demonstrably wrong.

My criticisms of your reasoning process on the issue were accurate. Your observation on Clayton dating was correct, and I had initially overlooked it. But I did not conclude that the January date was wrong because of the Clayton issue. I concluded this because BY's journal allowed me to pinpoint the correct date. I wrote you to let you know you had been right about the January date because I hoped to rebuild a bridge with you after our scrapping.

Had I known that you would apply the same "reasoning" to future discussion and take my expression of goodwill as a way of trumpeting my supposed need for such "reasoning," I would not have bothered.

Good luck building bridges with those who view things less apologetically, Wade. You are going to need it.

Don

[DonBradley]

Don, I do hope that you will indeed publish the paper. I found working through An Intimate Chronicle

The Journals of William Clayton by Signature Books to be very rewarding. I'm convinced that Clayton was correct in reporting the issue. Given Joseph's interest in all things ancient and foreign, I really can't imagine that the Prophet would not have tried his hand at interpreting the plates.

Looking forward to your research.

Thank you, David. Your openness and graciousness are much appreciated, and renew my often-flagging hope that believers and non-believers can actually discuss aspects of Mormonism, rather than forever butting heads and talking past one another.

Don

[wenglund]

Nice try, Wade. I'm quite open to any insights and information you may have. I would just prefer to obtain them by reading your website writings and posts in discussion with others than to discuss issues with you when I find your style of general historical argumentation <sic> so maddeningly devoted to maintaining a typical apologetic position.

Yes, I suppose it would make sense to you (given how you "reason") to say you are open to insights and information I may have, and this even after you have summarily dismissed my evidence and reasoning as "silly", claimed you can't make heads or tails of how I weigh and view the evidence, then supposedly bowed out of the discussion, and now falsely suggest that I am "maddeningly devoted to maintaining a typical apologetic position". I wonder what you might say were you closed-minded to what I have to say. ;-)

The truth of the matter is, I have no need to view and weigh the evidence in any particular way. As previously indicated, my faith and belief in the restored gospel of Christ would be unaffected regardless of whether Joseph translated the plates or not, partially or fully, using secular or supernatural means. When I wrote my online article, I was not aware of any "apolologetic" devoted specifically to the question of whether the translation took place or not. That is why I wrote it. And, I culled all the evidence that I could find on the subject, and determined to let all the evidence speak for itself. I just happened to come to a different conclusion than you.

Now, I have yet to suggest that your perspective is silly, maddeningly devoted to the typical anti-Mormon position, nor have I, early on, said I would close off the discussion with you. In fact, I haven't even said that your position in wrong. Unlike you, all I have done is posit pieces of evidence, asked exploritory questions, and stated my point of view. Yet, somehow to your way of thinking, I am the one devoted to a certain point of view, and you are the one who is supposedly open to opposing points of view. With "reasoning" like that in this contemporary situation, who can doubt your aptitude in looking back more than 150 years and fairly and open-mindedly evaluating historical events.

I'm quite aware that reasonable people can differ, and if you presented reasonable arguments for your position, I would respect that. But I am not obligated to respect "reasoning" that gulps down poor sources for hoped-for conclusions while applying Cartesian skepticism to close, contemporaneous sources that point the other way.

Perhaps you may not think it reasonable to factor in to the evidence-weighing process such things as discrepencies in testimonies and contemporary corroborative evidence when weighing historical evidence (not to be confused with "gulping down poor sources" or "Cartesian skepticism"), and if so then it is little wonder that you would not be able to make heads or tails of what I said--since I do think it reasonable to factor in those things. I am not of the opinion (and I believe I am in very good company here) that evidence should be weighed mono-dimentionally, using proximity in time as the only criteria. I also believe the following factors should be considered as well: the age of witnesses at time of the alleged events; the age of the witnesses at time of the recording of the alleged events; first-hand vs. second-hand accounts; proximity (sociological, spiritual, as well as physical) of the witnesses to those allegedly involved; opinion vs. fact; certainty vs. uncertainty; corroborating or conflicting evidence with that of neutral, unbiased, or empirical sources; internal consistency; vague vs. specific statements; brief vs. elaborate statements; circumstantial vs. direct knowledge; possible external and internal influences (personal biases, group biases, possible witness leading and tampering), etc.. (see my Methodology Page)

My criticisms of your reasoning process on the issue were accurate. Your observation on Clayton dating was correct, and I had initially overlooked it. But I did not conclude that the January date was wrong because of the Clayton issue. I concluded this because BY's journal allowed me to pinpoint the correct date. I wrote you to let you know you had been right about the January date because I hoped to rebuild a bridge with you after our scrapping.

Had I known that you would apply the same "reasoning" to future discussion and take my expression of goodwill as a way of trumpeting my supposed need for such "reasoning," I would not have bothered.

Color things in whatever self-serving way you may need to, but the indisputable fact is, my reasoning and methodology lead me to the correct conclusion, and your's did not (your blustering all a long notwithstanding).

Good luck building bridges with those who view things less apologetically, Wade. You are going to need it. Don

Hopefully, those with whom I attempt to build bridges will not make the same rash mistake you ccntinue to make, in believing this has to do with "apologetics" rather than simply differing points of view. If so, then there will be no need for luck, but rather open-minded, self-secure, and mutually respectful discourse.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

You win, Wade.

My rejection of your style of argumentation as irrational makes me closed-minded, since open-minded people regard all styles of argumentation as equally reasonable and always continue talking to others no matter how unfruitful, wasteful, and frustrating they find it. My closed-mindedness is also evidenced by my acknowledgment of evidence for Mormonism, my conclusion that the Kinderhook plates episode doesn't reflect poorly on Joseph Smith being a prophet, and my frequent changes of perspective on LDS-related issues, including my big change from belief to nonbelief; while your open-mindedness is evidenced by your repetition of the apologetic party-line on such issues as Martha Brotherton and the Kinderhook plates (and, yes, you have read the standard apologetic on this and cite its originator Stanley Kimball), your unchanging stances and uber-certainty, even in fields like historical reasoning, where you display little or no understanding of the appropriate standards of evidence.

You have humbled me to the point that I will never confront you again.

Don

Note to moderators: I asked you to shut me up in this discussion, but I believe I will be able to shut myself up now. My participation in discussion with Wade is over.

[DonBradley]

[Deleted request to moderators to help me shut up rather than continue in this never-ending vortex.... My lips are sealed.]

[Thinking]

I'm wondering if this might work the opposite as well. If these men that made these plates managed to fool JS you would think they would have went to the newspapers, as well as all of the other religions that oppose the Mormons, and they could have shut the whole church down with the evidence, proving it to be a fraud. Many probably would have even paid for the story. That's why I'm wondering what the motives were of the people that made the plates.

No translation was "published." It's not like Clayton's journal entry and the History of the Church went straight to print for all the world to see. If JS was working on a translation, it ended with his death in June 1844.

[MAsh]

Don, I do hope that you will indeed publish the paper. I found working through An Intimate Chronicle

The Journals of William Clayton by Signature Books to be very rewarding. I'm convinced that Clayton was correct in reporting the issue. Given Joseph's interest in all things ancient and foreign, I really can't imagine that the Prophet would not have tried his hand at interpreting the plates.

Looking forward to your research.

I've previously speculated that JS may have taken a stab at translating the KP as well. It seems only natural that he would have been interested in the plates and hoped that they might provide confirming evidence for the BoM. I've wondered if, perhaps, he produced a partial secular translation-- he studied it out in his mind-- but was unable to receive a spiritual witnesses as to the validity of his "translation" and instead received a "stupor of thought" and ended up dropping the whole thing.

Of course I also find (thus far) that the evidence for a translation of any type to be pretty meager. I'm certainly open to more information and hope that you publish your research.

Mike

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alf writes:

Clayton included secondhand information in his account, it is true, but there is no reason to suppose that when he quotes Joseph ("Prest J. has translated a portion and says . . .") he is relying on secondhand information:

And there is no reason to suppose that he isn't relying on secondhand information. We know that whatever the source or sources of Clayton's information, they were factually wrong on a number of points, and that those errors correspond to rumors that were apparently floating around the community.

I don't believe that this was a translation of any length, but rather a preliminary, seeric announcement of the sort he issued when he first examined the BoA papyri:

The problem with the comments that you quote about the BoA is that those comments were not written contemporary with the events, but were written long after the fact (after Joseph's death) by someone not present. The BoA comments may rely on an unknown source, but that is a lot of speculation.

From George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books/Smith Research Associates, 1995), xxiiâ??xxiii:

The problem with this is that the journal in question doesn't have anything to do with the records kept for the purposes of the History of the Church. And during the period in question, it wasn't Clayton who was keeping these kinds of records, but someone else. So, this isn't really relevant in any way.

So when Clayton says "Prest J. . . . says" it sounds to me like a firsthand account.

It may sound like it, but lexically, and syntactically, it isn't. It's that simple. And do we suppose that Clayton got from Joseph the location that the plates were buried? Or perhaps Clayton just didn't know where Kinderhook was ....

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Don writes:

I am honestly puzzled at your insistence that Clayton's 1) day-to-day intimate contact with Joseph Smith, 2) examining and tracing the plate into his journal while visiting Joseph for dinner, and 3) reporting that "Prest. Joseph has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found," and 4) providing other specific content that "Prest. Joseph...says" was on the plates suggests nothing more than his reporting of "rumor."

And to be honest, Don, I don't understand your insistence in the other direction. This amounts to hearsay. It is all it amounts to. We can speculate as to how accurate it might be, but we still have the difficulty of no evidence of their actually being a real translation. No working papers, nothing.

The specific way you disqualify Clayton's translation report is also puzzling. You use Clayton's error on details to disqualify his accuracy on central points. At what depth the plates were buried, in which county, and the like, are hardly issues of the same magnitude as whether plates were found, brought to Joseph, and translated from by him.

The challenge though is that there is this presumption on your part that the only thing that Joseph would have discussed with Clayton was the actual contents. And I find this a little hard to swallow. Not only that, from the Pratt record we KNOW that there were rumors in circulation. Do we simply suppose that Clayton had no exposure to these? And if so, then were do these other facts come from? It is a difficult proposition to swallow that you offer us. Because there isn't any real reason to accept it. The text is clearly ambiguous. And then we have the larger issue. No one else comments on this. We don't have discussions of a translation elsewhere (at least not one put in the mouth of Joseph Smith). So, did Joseph, or didn't he? I don't think that Clayton is a reliable witness on this point. Certainly its evidence but its inconclusive evidence at best - and no amount of painting Clayton as a confidant of Joseph's is going to change the fact that his being a reliable witness doesn't prevent us from seeing this as a record of a rumor that Clayton had heard. Part of the issue, of course, of the details of the find is its intimate connection with the alleged translation. The record was a record of someone (who wasn't there). And of course, what do we do with Fugate's comments that Joseph agreed to translate only after they had been authenticated. Were they authenticated? Fugate seems to assume that they were - but his comments show a reliance on the published account taken from Clayton's journal (thus the insistence that there was no skeleton). Perhaps he presumed that Clayton's account referred to a later translation and that Fugate could not reveal the hoax ... in any case, without any other evidence, there isn't anything here that we can say definitively, but my instinct suggests that no real translation occured (or even significant speculative translation). The other possibility could be Joseph simply suggesting to Clayton that if it was a record, it must be that of a Jaredite, etc. and Clayton taking that as something more than speculation ....

[wenglund]

You win, Wade.

My rejection of your style of argumentation as irrational makes me closed-minded, since open-minded people regard all styles of argumentation as equally reasonable and always continue talking to others no matter how unfruitful, wasteful, and frustrating they find it. My closed-mindedness is also evidenced by my acknowledgment of evidence for Mormonism, my conclusion that the Kinderhook plates episode doesn't reflect poorly on Joseph Smith being a prophet, and my frequent changes of perspective on LDS-related issues, including my big change from belief to nonbelief; while your open-mindedness is evidenced by your repetition of the apologetic party-line on such issues as Martha Brotherton and the Kinderhook plates (and, yes, you have read the standard apologetic on this and cite its originator Stanley Kimball), your unchanging stances and uber-certainty, even in fields like historical reasoning, where you display little or no understanding of the appropriate standards of evidence.

You have humbled me to the point that I will never confront you again.

Don

Note to moderators: I asked you to shut me up in this discussion, but I believe I will be able to shut myself up now. My participation in discussion with Wade is over.

....oh, the drama!!!!

All that is missing from your prolonged and vaudvillian exit scene is the sound of violins in the background tugging at the heart strings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-