Kinderhooked?

[wenglund]

I realize that Don is now committed to no longer "confront" me, but for anyone else who may think that Joseph partially translated the kinderhook plates using secular means, may I propose the following challenge:

Using a Hebrew Bible and Lexicon, attempt to do your own partial translation of the kinderhook plates and see what you come up with.

If that doesn't work, feel free to consult with someone relatively familiar with Egyptian, and see what they can make of it.

Good luck!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

I'd like to propose this challenge to readers of this thread:

Keep an open mind till you know exactly what the argument is, rather than foreclosing it because another poster wrongly thinks he does.

Don

[selek]

I'd like to propose this challenge to readers of this thread:

Keep an open mind till you know exactly what the argument is, rather than foreclosing it because another poster wrongly thinks he does.

Don

Don- I thought you were done with this thread. Have you been diagnosed with an OCD?

[DonBradley]

Don- I thought you were done with this thread. Have you been diagnosed with an OCD?

Actually, Selek, I said I was through talking with Wade. Unless Wade simply is the thread, that has little to do with continuing to post on the topic.

Don

[selek]

Actually, Selek, I said I was through talking with Wade. Unless Wade simply is the thread, that has little to do with continuing to post on the topic.

Don

So....you're saying that your "challenge to readers" posted immediately after a very similar one posted by Darth Englund wasn't a back-handed response to the content of his post?

[DonBradley]

Don writes: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.

I'll respond further later, Ben. For now, I'll just comment on the above. Rather than clarify things for me, this mystifies me even more. Been studying history at Perry Mason University, have we?

"Hearsay" is not a term or even concept typical of historical discourse. Consider the following:

David Hackett Fischer's prominent and thorough enumeration of errors in historical reasoning, Historians' Fallacies mentions "hearsay" on only one page--to give an example of a fallacious argument dismissing a source as "hearsay twice-removed." Fischer corrects the maker of this argument as follows: "Hearsay evidence is not categorically invalid in historical research, nor is it always inadmissable in a court of law, popular belief notwithstanding" (Fischer, p. 54).

The Wikipedia article on "Historical Method" mentions "hearsay" only while citing Louis Gottschalk in the same vein:

Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else (A Guide to Historical Method, 292). Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." (Understanding History, 165)

Oddly, however, a certain subset of the population is convinced that the invalidity of "hearsay" is an element of the historical method. While David Hackett Fischer's Historian's Fallacies actually debunks this view, and a Google search of "Historian's Fallacies" with "hearsay" produces only 37 hits, several of these few instances are in papers by LDS apologists, who treat the use of "hearsay" (i.e., the vast bulk of all our sources about the past) as illegitimate in the same way as the genuine fallacies enumerated by Fischer. Six of these hits are FARMS publications; with Bill Hamblin offering one of them, and John Gee offering the remaining five; in one case the term is even used in the title of his paper, and sixteen times more in the body). And a search of the FARMS site, omiting all references to Gee's paper with "hearsay" in the title, produces 78 hits (with a hit indicating, not a single use of the term, but to a paper using the term at least once). About half of these hits appear to be duplicates, giving us approximately 39 of FARMS' papers, chapters, and reviews that employ the term--a surprising number considering that "hearsay" is not staple concept of history, ancient studies, Egyptology, linguistics, or exegesis. Any bets on how many such hits we'd find searching journals of biblical studies, non-legal texts of American history, and scholarly works on Egyptology?

You are part of an intellectual subculture in which the idea that "hearsay" is negligible evidence is erroneously accepted and used to defend cherished beliefs. You won't find this attitude in the broader historical profession.

For a more complete demolition of your mistaken understanding of historical reasoning, and an exposition of how historical reasoning actually does work, please read the Epilegomena of Robin Collingwood's classic The Idea of History.

Finally, Ben, I would question your very identification of Clayton's journal entry as hearsay. Clayton, as Joseph Smith's personal secretary and known confidant, examined the Kinderhook plates and (at minimum) began his journal entry on them while making a social call on Joseph and then recorded what Joseph "says" they contain. In this context, his likely source was Joseph Smith. While one might argue that Joseph Smith alone was in a position to know whether he really translated from these plates, Clayton's journal offers presumptive evidence that Smith claimed to have so translated. Based on the evidence provided by Clayton's journal, the most reasonable conclusion, by far, is that Clayton experienced Joseph Smith's translation claim firsthand.

But, firsthand or "hearsay," Clayton's account, as well as those of Pratt and Taylor, constitute, not mere "speculation," but historical evidence.

Don

[DonBradley]

So....you're saying that your "challenge to readers" posted immediately after a very similar one posted by Darth Englund wasn't a back-handed response to the content of his post?

Selek,

My post was clearly in response to Wade's. It was not, however, directed to Wade (nor did I use the icon to equate Wade with the Lord of the Sith, as you insinuate). Wade addressed his challenge to readers of this thread. Rather than have those readers think his proposed challenge really addressed the argument I'll be making, I indicated that it does not, and asked them to keep their minds open despite Wade's attempt to prematurely close them.

The spirit of my response has been expressed in wisdom literature for ages, for example:

Proverbs 18: 13

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I have no intention of talking to Wade, nor any intention of continuing to follow up on Wade's comments to other posters. I just didn't want to let this "challenge" mislead anyone into rejecting an argument that they have yet to read, and Wade has yet to telepathically intuit.

Besides, Selek, what's it to you?

Don

[Alf O'Mega]

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.

Wow. I'm just not seeing it. Compare:

I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. [At this point there is a tracing of a plate in the journal.] The plates were on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and 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 and earth (Trials of Discipleship, 117).

with:

[May 17, 1843. Wednesday.] Breakfast at Brother [] Perkins, after which we took a pleasure ride through Fountain Green. At 10 President Joseph preached on 2nd Peter Chap[ter] 1. He shewed that knowledge is power and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also that salvation means a mans being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. He said the more sure word of prophecy meant, a mans knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy through the power of the Holy priesthood. He also showed that it was impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. Paul had seen the third heavens and I more. Peter penned the most sublime language of any of the apostles (Intimate Chronicle, 103).

I don't see how the lexical or syntactic content of either excerpt implies anything but a firsthand account. It's good enough for canon in the latter case, but unreliable in the former. I just don't get it.

[DonBradley]

It may sound like it, but lexically, and syntactically, it isn't. It's that simple.

Wow. I'm just not seeing it. Compare:

with:

I don't see how the lexical or syntactic content of either excerpt implies anything but a firsthand account. It's good enough for canon in the latter case, but unreliable in the former. I just don't get it.

Thanks, Alf, for pointing out the double standard.

Don

[wenglund]

My apologies. I neglected to add the caveat below to my GENERIC challenge (i.e. a challenge that does not presume a specific "argument", but merely speaks to the GENERAL question of translation of the Kinderhook Plates using secular means intimated or implied in the historical record--accusations to the contrary notwithstanding):

Caveat: if my challenge does not suite your fancy, feel free to "foreclose" discussion with me by: 1) claiming to have an "argument" that you can't discuss because you plan to publish it some day; 2) accuse me of being silly, maddening devoted to the typical apologetics, lacking reasoning, thinking I know something when I supposedly don't, etc.; 3) repeatedly and melodramatically refuse to "confront" me; 4) all the while calling for open-mindedness and non-foreclosure of discourse on ideas relative to this case."

Now, I recognize that exercising this caveat may take no small measure of schutzpah. But, there is at least one person who has demonstrated that it can be done--and done in a way that the person exercising the caveat may think others will buy into it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alf O'Mega]

Caveat: if my challenge does not suite your fancy, feel free to "foreclose" discussion with me by: 1) claiming to have an "argument" that you can't discuss because you plan to publish it some day; 2) accuse me of being silly, maddening devoted to the typical apologetics, lacking reasoning, thinking I know something when I supposedly don't, etc.; 3) repeatedly and melodramatically refuse to "confront" me; 4) all the while calling for open-mindedness and non-foreclosure of discourse on ideas relative to this case."

I've always found it helpful to read Wade's posts in the voice of Homer Simpson.

[wenglund]

...And a search of the FARMS site...giving us approximately 39 of FARMS' papers, chapters, and reviews that employ the term--a surprising number considering that "hearsay" is not staple concept of history, ancient studies, Egyptology, linguistics, or exegesis.

Would someone with whom Don is still conversing please ask him to provide at least several specific examples that supposedly bear his point out?

I ask because, given his response to Ben above, I am not sure Don is adept at distinguishing between weighing and invalidating "hearsay" as historical evidence. Ben didn't suggest in the least that "hearsay" was not valid historical evidence. Rather, I viewed him as merely considering the stated historical evidence for what it was and is: "hearsay". The probative value, even for historians, of rumor, gossip, or hearsay, does not change by legitimately considering it as "historical evidence". It is still rumor, gossip, and hearsay nevertheless, and should be weighed accordingly (as Garraghan is quoted as saying).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Don,

Your post about "hearsay" was one of the best posts I've read on this board of late. I am filing it for future reference.

-CK

[wenglund]

I've always found it helpful to read Wade's posts in the voice of Homer Simpson.

Could that be because you have an intellectual affinity with Marg?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

I believe the Transmission Theory which suggests the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates. Namely, when Robert Wiley etched the plates himself, he was inspired to re-create long lost writings of Ham and his descendants. So while the plates themselves may show a 19th century origin, their record was ancient, and Joseph Smith's translation accurate.

The real tragedy is that Joseph died before being able to complete the translation (as with his translations of the Book of Joseph and the Bible). Not to mention modern Church members' (and leaders') inability to recognize this record for what it is.

I can only wonder if the Lord prepared R. Wiley for his restorative work by having him forge ancient documents in his younger years, so he would be ready to reveal Ham's record to Joseph when the time came?

And, for those that believe Joseph never translated the plates, can you explain where Clayton got the idea that they contained a record of the descendants of Ham? Did he just make that up?

[Chaos]

Mods are stepping in to ask that Wade and Don end their discussion/posts with each other in this thread. It's not going to go anywhere.

There are some great posts and discussions going on, so the thread stays open.

Wade and Don may still post but not to each other (or indirectly through third parties )

Thank you,

Chaos

[selek]

Selek,

My post was clearly in response to Wade's. It was not, however, directed to Wade (nor did I use the icon to equate Wade with the Lord of the Sith, as you insinuate).

I insinuated nothing. It was I who allowed the Rebellion to learn of.....oops, wrong movie.

The Darth Englund gag was mine. No where did you indicate you had a sense of humor on the matter.

As "to what it was to me", I found it humorous that you refused to address or deal with Englund to his face, but would cheerfully talk past him in order to continue the argument.

I find that kind of sophistry, hubris, and hyperbole intrinsically amusing and so thought to comment on it, nothing more.

I would also like to state for the record, that despite his DCP like mind-control and telepathic powers, Darth Englund has in no way influenced me to answer Don's question to me.

The volition was wholly mine.

[aaronshaf]

I just have to ask cinepro: Are you joking? You seem serious. Private message me if you have to, please.

Knowing Cinepro, he probably is. Aaron, may we ask you (and others) to shorten their sig lines so that they don't take up so much real estate? Maybe limit them to about an 1" in height? Thanks. ~mods

[DonBradley]

I insinuated nothing. It was I who allowed the Rebellion to learn of.....oops, wrong movie.

The Darth Englund gag was mine. No where did you indicate you had a sense of humor on the matter.

Since your post as a whole didn't seem to be in the spirit of humor, I didn't interpret the DE reference that way. It makes much better sense as a gag, but I lack telepathic powers as well.

As "to what it was to me", I found it humorous that you refused to address or deal with Englund to his face, but would cheerfully talk past him in order to continue the argument.

I'm happy to entertain.

I find that kind of sophistry, hubris, and hyperbole intrinsically amusing and so thought to comment on it, nothing more.

If indirectly addressing Wade's challenge was "sophistry, hubris, and hyperbole," then the ancient Greeks didn't understand their own language half as well as you do.

Darkly,

Don

[MAsh]

"Hearsay" is not a term or even concept typical of historical discourse....

...several of these few instances are in papers by LDS apologists, who treat the use of "hearsay" (i.e., the vast bulk of all our sources about the past) as illegitimate in the same way as the genuine fallacies enumerated by Fischer.

I'm no historian, so I'm simply attempting to understand...

Are you then suggesting that people such as Dr. Steven C. Harper (historian, PhD early American history, Lehigh Univ.) & winner of the 1998 MHA best article of the year award, is misinformed on the use of "hearsay" in historical methodology (see

http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?t...iew&id=512)?

Mike

[Chris Smith]

Mike,

There is no question that eyewitness accounts are generally more reliable than hearsay accounts. To suggest, however, that a hearsay account has no evidentiary value is fallacious. When hearsay is the best we have, we can't just throw it out altogether unless we have good reason to question its credibility. Mormons may feel that their testimonies give them good reason to question the credibility of some hearsay evidence, but if that's the case then they should be very up-front about what they're doing: rejecting historical evidence because it doesn't fit their faith-based paradigm.

I also have to wonder: if the historical question we're asking is "Did Joseph Smith claim to have translated the Kinderhook plates" or "Did Joseph Smith claim his Abraham papyrus was an autograph," then can we really call it hearsay when somebody reports to us about a claim they hear Joseph Smith make? Obviously it would be best if we had Joseph Smith saying in writing, "I translated the Kinderhook plates and they are a history of Ham's descendants," but if Joe Schmoe heard Joseph Smith make that claim verbally and proceeds to report it to us, then he is a first-hand, eyewitness of the claim. We then evaluate whether there is any reason to believe he misreported (either intentionally or unintentionally). We also look for corroborating testimony; the value of the testimony is greatly enhanced if we have other witnesses independently giving the same report.

By the way, Ben, since we're on the topic of dismissing historical evidence as "hearsay," I believe that in your FAIR review of the IRR Lost Book of Abraham video you were unfairly dismissive of the evidence that JS believed his Abraham papyrus was an autograph. You should take a look at Luke P. Wilson's latest, http://www.irr.org/MIT/Abraham-autograph.pdf.

-CK

[MAsh]

Mike,

There is no question that eyewitness accounts are generally more reliable than hearsay accounts. To suggest, however, that a hearsay account has no evidentiary value is fallacious. When hearsay is the best we have, we can't just throw it out altogether unless we have good reason to question its credibility.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think that Ben (or, for that matter, the FARMS writers to which Don referred) where claiming that hearsay had "no evidentiary value." Maybe I'll have to reread the FARMS reviews but as far as I recall they imply that hearsay evidence is lower on the evidence scale than eye-witness evidence. Ben can answer for himself, but I would be surprised if he was claiming what you attribute to him (if I'm reading you correctly) as a fallacious argument.

Evidence, as you well know, has different degrees of strength. I don't necessarily see any disagreement with Don's historian quotes on the possible use of hearsay evidence when necessary and the views posted by FARMS reviewers. I've just skimmed some of the earlier posts, but didn't notice anything in Ben's comments that called for an absolute rejection of hearsay evidence under all circumstances (but perhaps I missed something).

Mike

[cksalmon]

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

Ben--

I really have absolutely no idea where you're going with this. Could you provide the simple lexical and/or semantic argument that renders the phrases contained in the excerpt "Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt" something other than a relevant historical accounting.

What do you wish to call into question either lexically or semantically? What do factual errors have to do with either lexical and/or semantic analysis of the phrases in question? I'm very interested in both lexical and semantic analyses. But, I fail to see the relevance of either area of inquiry here.

Can you clarify?

Best.

CKS

[cinepro]

I just have to ask cinepro: Are you joking? You seem serious. Private message me if you have to, please.

Knowing Cinepro, he probably is. Aaron, may we ask you (and others) to shorten their sig lines so that they don't take up so much real estate? Maybe limit them to about an 1" in height? Thanks. ~mods

Ummm...no. I was trying to poke fun at the lengths to which some defenders of the faith might go to rationalize belief in something that most people would consider irrational. As with many other religious/history claims, the Kinderhook incident has the paradoxical characteristic of being easier to believe the less evidence there is. Meaning, if we had less of the evidence than we do now, more LDS would believe it (and believe it more strongly), not fewer (and less).

[The Dude]

As with many other religious/history claims, the Kinderhook incident has the paradoxical characteristic of being easier to believe the less evidence there is.