Kinderhooked?

[wenglund]

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).

Speaking of the lengths to which some people may go to defend the irrational, are you seriously suggesting that the more confirming evidence there is for an LDS belief (like what you may presume to be the case with the Kinderhook incident), the less likely the LDS would be to believe it? If so, then could you please provide evidence of this.

If you actually meant to say: "the less counter-evidence there is for an LDS belief, the more likely the LDS are to believe it", then why would you think that irrational or paradoxical? Aren't most, if not all, rational people inclined that same way. Can you think of a circumstance among the general population where the more counter-evidence there is, the more inclined one may be to believe something? If so, could you please share an example or two with us?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cksalmon]

Speaking of the lengths to which some people may go to defend the irrational, are you seriously suggesting that the more confirming evidence there is for an LDS belief (like what you may presume to be the case with the Kinderhook incident), the less likely the LDS would be to believe it? If so, then could you please provide evidence of this

Not a question directed at me, but...

One example would be Joseph Smith's belief in HGT. I've seen more than one LDS defender here assert that JS's evident belief in HGT is actually evidence in favor of LGT--the rationale apparently being that, obviously, JS had no idea what he was talking about, and so LGT actually gains favor by his apparently incorrect beliefs and pronouncements. After all, JS was merely a translator; we shouldn't expect him to actually know what he is discoursing on with regard to geography. That he was manifestly misguided in this regard suggests, to some, that LGT--and not HGT--is the viable alternative.

Given that predisposition, the more evidence demonstrating that JS believed in HGT, the fewer LDS will actually believe it.

There may be other examples, but that's the first one that comes to my mind.

Best.

CKS

PS. Of course, other (and, in some instances, the self-same) LDS defenders will point to a single reference by JS consistent with LGT as evidence for LGT. On this interpretation, JS believed in LGT, thus, LGT gains some measure of favor thereby. Whatever will counteract the critique nearest at hand, I suppose.

[wenglund]

Not a question directed at me, but...

One example would be Joseph Smith's belief in HGT. I've seen more than one LDS defender here assert that JS's evident belief in HGT is actually evidence in favor of LGT--the rationale apparently being that, obviously, JS had no idea what he was talking about, and so LGT actually gains favor by his apparently incorrect beliefs and pronouncements. After all, JS was merely a translator; we shouldn't expect him to actually know what he is discoursing on with regard to geography. That he was manifestly misguided in this regard suggests, to some, that LGT--and not HGT--is the viable alternative.

Given that predisposition, the more evidence demonstrating that JS believed in HGT, the fewer LDS will actually believe it.

There may be other examples, but that's the first one that comes to my mind.

Best.

CKS

PS. Of course, other (and, in some instances, the self-same) LDS defenders will point to a single reference by JS consistent with LGT as evidence for LGT. On this interpretation, JS believed in LGT, thus, LGT gains some measure of favor thereby. Whatever will counteract the critique nearest at hand, I suppose.

Can you provide a specific example where an LDS apologist has forward this line of reasoning. I am aware of instances where apologist have used Joseph's intimations of an HGT as reason to believe that Joseph didn't author the BoM. But, I haven't seen anything resembling what you suggest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cksalmon]

Can you provide a specific example where an LDS apologist has forward this line of reasoning.

You could search the archives, I guess.

I am aware of instances where apologist have used Joseph's intimations [read pronouncements--CKS] of HGT as reason to believe that Joseph didn't author the BoM. But, I haven't seen anything resembling what you suggest.

Hi Wade--

If you've followed the boards, then, yes, you have. (Otherwise, search the archives.) If JS's belief in GHT is an argument in favor of JS's not having authored BoM, then it follows that this is secondary to the fact that BoM's locale is other than that described by JS. Are there other viable options than Mesoamerica? Malaysia, perhaps?

As I stated, given the predisposition to believe that JS's incorrectness is indicative of BoM's authenticity, then the more evidence in favor of JS's incorrectness, the fewer LDS (who exhibit the predisposition I've highlighted) will believe the apparently "official" LDS belief in HGT (which has been forwarded by not a few past LDS leaders).

To be honest, I think the comments to which we're both responding were made with tongue fairly firmly in cheek.

Still, I think my example holds, at least among those who evidence the predisposition to disbelieve JS's pronouncements in favor of some BoM locale other than the one that JS apparently endorsed.

Best.

CKS

[DonBradley]

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)?

I've already noted that FARMS writers use the term a great deal, even though the term is not typical to most of the relevant scholarly disciplines.

I've also been pointing out is that the use of the term is not common in historical discourse, and that there is no standard principle of historical reasoning forbidding it's use. So when Harper employs the term in reviewing a critical book on LDS history, he is importing the term into a historical discussion from elsewhere. Where does he send the reader to alert them of the dangers of hearsay? To a work on historiography or historical method, of which there are many, even fairly simple and straightforward ones aimed at college students? No. He sends them to John Gee's "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri."

You're more than bright enough, Mike, to know that checking Steven Harper's use of "hearsay" in the FARMS Review isn't a good way of assessing its use in the discipline of history. Assessing how common the concept of "hearsay" is in historical discourse would better be done by searching standard journals of the discipline and works laying out the principles of historical method.

BTW, I've offered quotations and references from respected philosophers of history on the admissibility of "hearsay" as historical evidence. So, I'm not sure why you would think Harper's use of the term in an apologetic context would be a good trump card.

Historians largely, if not overwhelmingly, avoid the term "hearsay," which carries connotations of inadmissability in the popular mind, and thus tends to derogate legitimate sources. They do commonly speak of "secondhand" sources, acknowledging that these sources constitute evidence. Historians do rank sources, giving precedent--other things being equal--to firsthand accounts over second.

But let's look at the context of the discussion of "hearsay" on this thread. Ben says of Clayton's journal entry written or begun as he examined the plates during a social call on Joseph:

"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."

Notice that Ben labels the Clayton account "hearsay" in order to disqualify it as "evidence." We have the Clayton writing that Joseph "says" what's on the plates, but "no evidence" that he really said this or attempted a translation. "Hearsay," in this analysis, is non-evidence.

I've not read through every use of "hearsay" on the FARMS website. Insofar as it is used to give ceteris paribus priority to firsthand witnesses over others, the authors may be making legitimate points, but they are doing so in language that is both atypical of historians, social scientists, and similar scholars, and prejudicial to the sources thus described. If they are going to make serious historical arguments, and have them taken seriously, they would do well to couch them in the evenhanded language of history, rather than using, and using frequently, language imported from elsewhere and carrying connotations that don't jibe with the general practice of history.

I'm certain that one can find individual historians who use the term "hearsay," but no historian could expect to be taken seriously by other historians if he or she uses the term with reference to secondhand sources; and consistent use of such a negatively-loaded term would be out of place in historical scholarship.

Don

Don

[wenglund]

You could search the archives, I guess.

Hi Wade--

If you've followed the boards, then, yes, you have. (Otherwise, search the archives.) If JS's belief in GHT is an argument in favor of JS's not having authored BoM, then it follows that this is secondary to the fact that BoM's locale is other than that described by JS. Are there other viable options than Mesoamerica? Malaysia, perhaps?

As I stated, given the predisposition to believe that JS's incorrectness is indicative of BoM's authenticity, then the more evidence in favor of JS's incorrectness, the fewer LDS (who exhibit the predisposition I've highlighted) will believe the apparently "official" LDS belief in HGT (which has been forwarded by not a few past LDS leaders).

To be honest, I think the comments to which we're both responding were made with tongue fairly firmly in cheek.

Still, I think my example holds, at least among those who evidence the predisposition to disbelieve JS's pronouncements in favor of some BoM locale other than the one that JS apparently endorsed.

Best. CKS

I asked for evidence because I doubted seriously the accuracy of your prevous claim. That you now shift your burden to me, and suggest that I do your research for you (i.e. you're asking me to check the archives in what from my perspective would constitute a wild goose chase) serves but to increase my doubts. And, your apperant mangling above of the issue in question (see my next paragraph) raises even more doubts--ironically in defiance of what Cinepro suggests.

Cinepro's assertion speaks of the evidence for a given belief effecting the believability of that given belief, whereas your comments above speak about evidence for one belief effecting the believability of another belief. Do you understand the critical difference?

But, perhaps you, too, have been speaking tongue-in-cheek, in which case, never mind. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

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).

If I understand correctly, you're referring to the size of the total body of evidence, not to the amount of evidence for LDS claims. So, most LDS who wrote about the Kinderhook plates before 1979 did so favorably, but with the addition of more evidence (the testing of the surviving plate), the claim became more difficult to maintain and was largely abandoned.

Am I reading you right?

Don

[cksalmon]

I asked for evidence because I doubted seriously the accuracy of your prevous claim. That you now shift your burden to me, and suggest that I do your research for you (i.e. your asking me to check the archives in what from my perspective would constitute a wild goose chase) serves but to increase my doubts. Your apperant mangling above of the issue in question (see my next paragraph) raises even more doubts--ironically in defiance of what Cinepro suggests.

Cinepro's assertion speaks of the evidence for a given belief effecting the believability of that given belief, whereas your comments above speak about evidence for one belief effecting the believability of another belief. Do you understand the critical difference?

But, perhaps you, too, have been speaking tongue-in-cheek, in which case, never mind. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I asked for evidence because I doubted seriously the accuracy of your prevous claim. That you now shift your burden to me, and suggest that I do your research for you (i.e. your asking me to check the archives in what from my perspective would constitute a wild goose chase) serves but to increase my doubts.

I should probably say at this point, "Don't care." Search the archives (on a wild-goose chase) or don't. Up to you, really, Wade. Let your doubts be served in whatever way is most efficient.

Do you understand the critical difference?

No, I don't, Wade. At my expense, please have the last word. It's on me.

I thought my comments might be interesting, in some meager way, to the general populace here at MADB. I could certainly be wrong. I have zero interest in engaging you as a debate partner. And, really, Wade, it's because you're just so darn smart. It has nothing to do with the facts that you're not winsome, interesting, honest, or open to legitimate inquiry. Those considerations have nothing to do with my general tendency to ignore your quasi-guru-esque punditry. You enjoy yourself, eh?

Thanks, -CKS-

[DonBradley]

Hi Ben,

Let's go at this some more.

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.

If you reread my post, you'll find that I didn't say presume that Clayton and Smith discussed only the translation. Rather, I pointed out that even if Clayton did receive his information from Smith, the information would necessarily have passed through intermediaries. Neither Clayton nor Smith were at the mound at the time the plates were found. So, both men had only secondhand information about the excavation. That's Clayton's information on the excavation of the plates was mistaken on details doesn't mean his information didn't come from Joseph Smith.

I also pointed out that error regarding the details of the excavation isn't on par with error regarding whether there was a translation. The equivalent error would be a mistaken report of the content of the translation, not the fact of its occurence. And Clayton had access to the putative translator of the Kinderhook plates, and perhaps the translation itself, in a way that he did not have to their excavation. So we have no reason to reject Clayton's report that there had been a translation of some portion and that Joseph had "said" what was on the plates.

And I find this a little hard to swallow. Not only that, from the Pratt record we KNOW that there were rumors in circulation.

Really? We know from the Pratt letter on May 7 that there were rumors of a translation in circulation before Clayton's visit with Joseph on May 1?

Do we simply suppose that Clayton had no exposure to these?

No, Ben. I guess what "we" do, assuming you are using the royal "we," is to simply suppose that Pratt's source was mere rumor, and couldn't have come from Joseph Smith; and then we reverse the arrow of time so we can show that these presumed rumors could have influenced William Clayton on May 1.

The text is clearly ambiguous.

The question isn't what reading is possible, but what reading is probable. When Joseph Smith's secretary and confidant examines the plates during a social visit with him, begins his journal entry during the visit--at minimum tracing one of these plates into the entry, and writes that Joseph "has translated a portion" and "says" they contain such and such a history, the probability and reasonable presumption are that he has received this information from Joseph. This is not in the least unclear, and your denials reflect poorly, not on Clayton's accuracy, but on your own ability to reason clearly on the subject.

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 what? For most days of Joseph Smith's Nauvoo life, the collected sources yield no more than a few lines about what he did or said; and many of the things we know are derived from a single source--in fact, that source is quite often Clayton. I've never heard a historian question Clayton's reports on Joseph Smith's dealings with Emma and marriage activities just because Clayton was the sole reporter. Clayton's record is so valuable precisely because we have so little documentation of Joseph's day-to-day words and deeds, and because Clayton was reportedly with Joseph more than anyone else and as much in his confidence as any other man.

I don't think that Clayton is a reliable witness on this point.

That's great, Ben. But your personal opinion on the matter is about 164 years too late to be of any probative value on the matter. Clayton's journal is overwhelmingly used as a reliable source, and, being Joseph's confidant, having examined the plates on a social call on Joseph, and having promptly made a record of the visit, William Clayton was in as good a position to hear Joseph's views on them as anyone can be imagined to be.

What more could you ask, for Clayton to have ridden on Joseph's back everywhere he went?

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.

And no amount of painting what Clayton had heard as a rumor is going to make it likely that a journal entry written by this man, under these circumstances, and at least begun under Joseph Smith's roof most likely recorded mere rumor. You are certainly free to buy your improbable "rumor" hypothesis, but at the cost of probably being wrong.

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).

Please give me the source that says Joseph Smith understood there to have been no human remains buried in the mound. Even if there were not, this doesn't mean that was Smith's understanding.

BTW, Ben, Indians mounds were quite well known in Joseph Smith's time, and Joseph himself had been present for at least one excavation of human remains from an Illinois mound. So, the presumption when digging in such a mound would be that someone was buried 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).

Fugate's account of a translation after the plates' authentication actually echoes Wiley's much earlier account, so there's no need to posit that Fugate was merely building on Clayton. Clayton's account wasn't published at the time of Wiley's sales-pitch letter; so Wiley's claim that Joseph translated after the authentication is not dependent on Clayton's. It's also not a source for Clayton's account, unless you do that neat time-reversal trick again.

BTW, I've addressed Fugate and Wiley further in a previous post.

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).

However compelling you may find your intuition that William Clayton's report was wrong, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with Clayton's "intuition" that he had accurate information from Joseph Smith. His was a wee bit closer to the place, the time, and the man. He was in a position to know. You, by your own admission, are not.

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 ....

Hell, why not? Anything to avoid Joseph having actually said he translated. After all, the accuracy of Clayton's upclose account isn't a "possibility."

Don

[DonBradley]

P.S. Hey, Ben, I'll take up any response from you on Monday. I've invested too much time here this past week, and should at least take the weekend off.

[why me]

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

This was my point also in my first post on this thread. I can see no other reason for him to give the kinderhook plates the time of day if he did not have such an experience as he mentions with the gold plates. This is what makes the whole episode just a little fishy to me. I believe that there is more to the story than we know. Unfortunately, one would have needed to be there at that time to know it.

[Sethbag]

I don't think the Kinderhook plates thing tells anything whatsoever about Joseph's sincerity with respect to the Golden Plates. I think, if anything, Joseph was faced with the Kinderhook plates and needed to say something about them in order to continue the charade with his followers, so he told them they were a record of the man they were buried with, who received his kingdom from the God of heaven and earth. Just like, when faced with the Egyptian papyrus, he told his followers that they were written by Abraham and Joseph of Egypt, and contained their stories. Just as, when they found an Indian skeleton, he told his followers about Zelph the great white Lamanite warrior, who served under the great prophet Onandagus.

Joseph Smith was nothing if not a master of adapting to whatever was at hand to further the illusion to his followers that he could recognize and read and understand, and receive revelation about, ancient artifacts and such. And it's all to his disgrace and showing his game is up to realize that the Kinderhook plates were a hoax, and that he couldn't read Egyptian at all, and mistook an Egypt religious incantation paper for a book written by Abraham. And that Zelph was just some dead Indian.

It's telling that to the believing LDS, there are ways of wiggling out of all of this stuff, which should be so freaking obvious. Guys: this stuff is so freaking obvious. Knock knock, anyone in there? The only people who look at the evidence for the whole Kinderhook thing, Book of Abraham, things like Zelph (not that we have any actual Zelph evidence, but the circumstances), etc. and see the story that justifies and gets Joseph out of his jam are (drum roll) believing LDS. Everyone else in the entire world sees these things for what they are: obvious evidence unmasking the charade of Joseph Smith.

[cksalmon]

If I understand correctly, you're referring to the size of the total body of evidence, not to the amount of evidence for LDS claims.

D'oh! That makes much more sense.

[Log]

More than likely Clayton's diary entries are inaccurate.

I can't fathom how Seth (or anyone else) thinks there's anything here of probative value against Joseph Smith.

[DonBradley]

More than likely Clayton's diary entries are inaccurate.

I can't fathom how Seth (or anyone else) thinks there's anything here of probative value against Joseph Smith.

A quick note from out of my weekend vacation (if that's alright with my posting manager):

This write-up of Ben's doesn't begin to do justice to William Clayton's journal. If Log would read this thread carefully, he'd find that most of these objections have been handled already, and that the case for the authenticity of the Clayton account is far stronger than his insipid understatement.

The contradictions on the excavation have already been covered, and have vanishingly little to do with whether Clayton discussed Joseph Smith's activities with respect to the plates.

Ben also makes poor use of the May 3 Times and Seasons indication that the plates were to be returned for translation. First, Ben assumes that the Times and Seasons editor would have known more than Clayton, a perfectly groundless assumption, and very probably wrong given that Clayton was as close to Joseph Smith as anyone and wrote his account of the plates after examining during a social call on Joseph. Second, Ben assumes that the plates' being "returned for translation" means that no translation had occurred. This would be like saying that a June 1835 statement that Joseph intended to translate the newly purchased Egyptian papyri would mean that he hadn't already made a preliminary translation to identify their authors. Joseph initially translated just enough to make this identification, producing no extant manuscripts in the process. Only later did he produce a translation in the sense Ben is expecting for the Kinderhook plates.

So, I can certainly agree with Ben that there's little evidence for a scriptural text having been produced by the Kinderhook plates. But neither Clayton nor Pratt claim such a text was produced. Their claim is limited to Joseph having made a preliminary translation of a "portion" identifying the author of the record--just as we have precedent for him doing with the Egyptian papyri in June 1835. This precedent thus tends to support their contemporaneous diary and letter accounts.

Now, back into hiding...

Don

[wenglund]

I should probably say at this point, "Don't care." Search the archives (on a wild-goose chase) or don't. Up to you, really, Wade. Let your doubts be served in whatever way is most efficient.

No, I don't, Wade. At my expense, please have the last word. It's on me.

I thought my comments might be interesting, in some meager way, to the general populace here at MADB. I could certainly be wrong. I have zero interest in engaging you as a debate partner. And, really, Wade, it's because you're just so darn smart. It has nothing to do with the facts that you're not winsome, interesting, honest, or open to legitimate inquiry. Those considerations have nothing to do with my general tendency to ignore your quasi-guru-esque punditry. You enjoy yourself, eh?

Thanks, -CKS-

I find it interesting that a few critical queries and reasonable challenges to your snide remarks would envoke this kind of false humility (reminiscent of Uriah Heap, the character in ****en's "David Copperfield") response from you. But, I will respect that you, like Don, no longer wish to converse with me, and I shant bother to shine the light of scrutiny your way. Evidently, you can't take what you so freely dish out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't think the Kinderhook plates thing tells anything whatsoever about Joseph's sincerity with respect to the Golden Plates. I think, if anything, Joseph was faced with the Kinderhook plates and needed to say something about them in order to continue the charade with his followers, so he told them they were a record of the man they were buried with, who received his kingdom from the God of heaven and earth. Just like, when faced with the Egyptian papyrus, he told his followers that they were written by Abraham and Joseph of Egypt, and contained their stories. Just as, when they found an Indian skeleton, he told his followers about Zelph the great white Lamanite warrior, who served under the great prophet Onandagus.

Joseph Smith was nothing if not a master of adapting to whatever was at hand to further the illusion to his followers that he could recognize and read and understand, and receive revelation about, ancient artifacts and such. And it's all to his disgrace and showing his game is up to realize that the Kinderhook plates were a hoax, and that he couldn't read Egyptian at all, and mistook an Egypt religious incantation paper for a book written by Abraham. And that Zelph was just some dead Indian.

It's telling that to the believing LDS, there are ways of wiggling out of all of this stuff, which should be so freaking obvious. Guys: this stuff is so freaking obvious. Knock knock, anyone in there? The only people who look at the evidence for the whole Kinderhook thing, Book of Abraham, things like Zelph (not that we have any actual Zelph evidence, but the circumstances), etc. and see the story that justifies and gets Joseph out of his jam are (drum roll) believing LDS. Everyone else in the entire world sees these things for what they are: obvious evidence unmasking the charade of Joseph Smith.

These kinds of airy, Biff-like ("hello McFly"), dogmatic pronouncements and insipid marshalling of the world's population behind your point of view, may preach well to the choir, but from my experience, they tend to only to diminish one's credibility in the eyes of those holding opposing points of view.

Now, at the risk of also alienating you like I have others on this thread, and in the hopes that you may yet be open to reasoned discourse or query on the matter (your emphatic and seemingly unyielding postering notwithstanding), may I ask if you reject the notion that Joseph attempted to at least partially translate the plates or surmize their content using secular means (such as the Hebrew Lexicon, etc.)?

I ask because I am wondering if you may inadvertantly and preemptively be doing a "knock knock is anyone there?" of Mark and/or Don's intended journal article in the unforseeable future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Thinking]

I don't think the Kinderhook plates thing tells anything whatsoever about Joseph's sincerity with respect to the Golden Plates. I think, if anything, Joseph was faced with the Kinderhook plates and needed to say something about them in order to continue the charade with his followers, so he told them they were a record of the man they were buried with, who received his kingdom from the God of heaven and earth. Just like, when faced with the Egyptian papyrus, he told his followers that they were written by Abraham and Joseph of Egypt, and contained their stories. Just as, when they found an Indian skeleton, he told his followers about Zelph the great white Lamanite warrior, who served under the great prophet Onandagus.

Joseph Smith was nothing if not a master of adapting to whatever was at hand to further the illusion to his followers that he could recognize and read and understand, and receive revelation about, ancient artifacts and such. And it's all to his disgrace and showing his game is up to realize that the Kinderhook plates were a hoax, and that he couldn't read Egyptian at all, and mistook an Egypt religious incantation paper for a book written by Abraham. And that Zelph was just some dead Indian.

Don't forget about the pile of rocks which turned out to be the altar on which Adam first offered a sacrifice.

[Sethbag]

Don't forget about the pile of rocks which turned out to be the altar on which Adam first offered a sacrifice.

ROFL. Yeah, how could I forget that?

Wade, you can mock me all you want in your very own self-satisfied, smug way. It doesn't bother me in the least. In the end, you are the one who has sold out your mind to a fraud. You seem like a smart guy, and yet you purposefully bend your mind to the defense of something unworthy of your efforts. No, I don't have any secret tidbits to give away Don's secret or anything like that. I've got other things going on in my life, and have chosen not to make the intensive study of the fraudulent activities of Joseph Smith my life's work. I happily stand back and let those interested in doing so do their thing, and then see what they come up with.

The bottom line is if one is willing to stand back and see the big picture, with an open mind, Joseph Smith is laughably transparent in his fraud, and yet you've been "converted" and now go through all kinds of mental and linguistic exertions trying to defend the Titanic that is Joseph Smith from sinking. Good luck with those deck chairs.

The disdain to a leader isn't necesary or appreciated. This thread has way too many insults and probly needs to be closed. ~ Mods

[Benjamin McGuire]

Don writes:

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.

The first point - which I repeat, and I know you don't agree with - is that Clayton's position and close connection to Joseph Smith does nothing to indicate in this particular instance whether or not Joseph personally told him anything. You keep suggesting that all of these things add something to the weight of what Clayton had to say, but in fact, unless Clayton says specifically that Joseph told him something, it doesn't do a lot. Clayton's account could plausibly (as you note) suggest that Joseph Smith told him this information, or it could just as plausibly relate that someone else told Clayton that Joseph had made such an assertion. Clayton's journal doesn't indicate one way or the other. And all of this speculation doesn't help answer the fundamental question of what Clayton meant in his journal.

The second issue - and this goes for CKS as well, is that there are a number of additional facts introdced by Clayton. What is the source of these facts? Is Joseph Smith the source of these errors? If he is, then we know that Joseph is misinformed on several counts - and we might go on to speculate that what Clayton got was speculation on the part of Joseph Smith and not actual translation - and that Clayton may have simply assumed that there was a translation. After all, he doesn't actually claim that Joseph told him the plates were translated - merely that Joseph discussed the contents of the plates. So once more you interpret the text of Clayton's journal. But again, what we also know from these erroneous details is that there is some version (and with the evidence from Pratt - which speculates on the contents without mention of Joseph) going around - in circulation - which either comes to Joseph or to Clayton, and which contains a number of errors about the discovery. That is to say that we can safely conclude that there were rumors in circulation about skeletons, about cement vases, about various depths to which the plates (and the body) had been buried, the way in which the body had been buried, the positioning of the plates with respect to this body,and so on. And that Clayton's journal records some of these rumors.

The third issue is that about evidence. Evidence is fact interpreted. You are interpreting the facts in such a sway as to corroborate the version of the story you prefer. It seems that the facts do not require such an interpretation - even if we accept that Clayton was a close confidant of Josephs. Brigham Young, who also saw the plates at Joseph's, who commented on them in his journal, and so on, never makes a suggestion of a translation. Even Fugate, the man who later revealed the hoax, doesn't make a suggestion that Joseph had translated them immediately, but that he had waited until after they had been authenticated (of course, Fugate's belief that they had been translated seems reliant on his encountering the modified version of Clayton's journal in which the skeleton was described, and thus Fugate's insistence that there was no skeleton in that letter has a context).

Finally, I have to say that as far as hearsay goes, hearsay can be relevant if you can show that the source has real information or the likelihood of real information. You assume that this source is Joseph Smith and thus that it makes for good evidence. But, I am challenging you to defend that assumption - and defending it by simply repeating that Clayton was a close confidant of Joseph's doesn't actually do much for the defense of the claim. It suggest that should his intent have been to provide us with Joseph's statement that we can trust that he is accurately relaying what Joseph told him as he understood it. But, you haven't given us any reason why we should not consider some other source. Nor have you attempted to engage the question of whether or not Clayton was at least partially reliant on another source in the other details. Did they come from Joseph or from someone else? And if he heard some of these details from someone else, then how do we determine what came from what source?

And you seem, by your insistence to use this rather tenuous conenction to Joseph Smith, to be really working hard to further a conclusion and not the discussion.

To CK who wrote:

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.

I am nto talking about dismissing it - I am suggesting that we have to be careful in asserting that this is a first person witness, and we have to be careful in noting how we are interpreting it. One of the problems of the Clayton account is that there isn't any corroborating evidence. No one else talks about an existing translation - except for maybe the late evidence from Fugate which cannot possibly fit any reasonable chronology. And when you argue for sources for what Clayton says, you have to have some way of distinguishing between the rumors that were clearly circulating within the community and whatever Joseph might have actually said to Clayton. And there certainly has been no attempt on Don's part to do so.

CKS writes:

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.

Yes. It's quite simple. Clayton does not make the specific claim that Joseph told him this personally. He could just as easily be reporting what someone else told him. I certainly believe that he obtained other elements of his comments from something someone other than Joseph Smith told him (hence the skeleton, the depth of the body, the location of the find, and so on). And based on this, there is the quite reasonable question as to why this other information couldn't have been a part of this rumor that was in circulation. Certainly the Pratt account (whcih doesn't mention Joseph) discusses some interesting similarities in the contents, and so allows for this possibility. It is all interpretation. What we don't have is anything from Joseph Smith suggesting he had made a translation. No comments written by him, no actual paperwork detailing any of this. And Fugate seems to suggest that Joseph refused to make a translation (and the resulting inference we draw from his letter is that he waited to reveal the fraud until he had discovered - by reading an account which modified Clayton's journal - that a translation had allegedly been made). So all of the other evidence points away from a translation occuring. Does this inconclusive journal entry somehow overturn the rest of it?

Don wrote:

Really? We know from the Pratt letter on May 7 that there were rumors of a translation in circulation before Clayton's visit with Joseph on May 1?

We know that the two sets of facts are connected quite closely, and while they don't appear to be reliant on one another, that they belong to a set of circulating facts. Some of the differences, for example seem to be based on common assumptions.

No, Ben. I guess what "we" do, assuming you are using the royal "we," is to simply suppose that Pratt's source was mere rumor, and couldn't have come from Joseph Smith; and then we reverse the arrow of time so we can show that these presumed rumors could have influenced William Clayton on May 1.

But I am not trying to show reliance here, merely connectedness.

The question isn't what reading is possible, but what reading is probable. When Joseph Smith's secretary and confidant examines the plates during a social visit with him, begins his journal entry during the visit--at minimum tracing one of these plates into the entry, and writes that Joseph "has translated a portion" and "says" they contain such and such a history, the probability and reasonable presumption are that he has received this information from Joseph. This is not in the least unclear, and your denials reflect poorly, not on Clayton's accuracy, but on your own ability to reason clearly on the subject.

You keep using the point that Clayton was Joseph's confidant as if there was some value to it. Why didn't Joseph ever speak to Clayton of the Kinderhook plates again? And to be honest, I think it also calls into question your own belief in being unbiased - and your own views of yourself as historian, don't you think?

BTW, Ben, Indians mounds were quite well known in Joseph Smith's time, and Joseph himself had been present for at least one excavation of human remains from an Illinois mound. So, the presumption when digging in such a mound would be that someone was buried there.

Exactly. And so there would be this public perception. And who could that be? A Jaredite? Hmmmm. So why do we have to connect these details to Joseph Smith? That is the issue you are simply trying to suggest that reason should lead us to share your conclusion.

Fugate's account of a translation after the plates' authentication actually echoes Wiley's much earlier account, so there's no need to posit that Fugate was merely building on Clayton.

Yes there is. You should know, of course, that Wiley doesn't ever discuss the details of a skeleton. But here we have the prominent presentation of a skeleton, and Fugate's clear denial of the existence of a skeleton - a denial which makes no sense at all if we just deal with Wiley and don't include the Clayton account.

Clayton's account wasn't published at the time of Wiley's sales-pitch letter; so Wiley's claim that Joseph translated after the authentication is not dependent on Clayton's.

Perhaps you would provide this letter for us.

Realistically speaking, this is one of those cases where any piece of information, no matter how small, expands to fill any intellectual gap, no matter how large. My final comment for the moment deals alot with Don's last post - where he makes these comments (as I do I suspect):

...and that the case for the authenticity of the Clayton account is far stronger than his insipid understatement ...

... makes poor use of ...

... First, Ben assumes that ....

... Ben assumes ...

It's merely a game of rhetoric isn't it. I loved these comments:

"But neither Clayton nor Pratt claim such a text was produced. Their claim is limited to Joseph having made a preliminary translation of a "portion" identifying the author of the record--just as we have precedent for him doing with the Egyptian papyri in June 1835. This precedent thus tends to support their contemporaneous diary and letter accounts."

So, the few words in Clayton's Journal now become an assertion that Joseph made a preliminary translation of a portion identifying the author of the record. What's more ironic about this is the fact that there was no journal kept for Joseph Smith in June (did you mean July) of 1835. The account of the journal entries related to the Book of Abraham papyri were written by Willard Richards in September of 1843. Furthermore, the journal entires as they stand (as written by Richards) are taken at face value, they suggest that the early preliminary translation was a written one (scribes are mentioned in the DHC account dated July 5).

[DonBradley]

Hi Ben,

You have my apologies. Despite what my language may have implied, I think very highly of your intelligence and rationality. My present frustration in this discussion is that, on this issue, I have consistently, over time, found myself baffled that what seem to me tremendously strong points seem to have neglible value to you. You arrive at your conclusions by a route that I find most perplexing, and simply wrong. And I know you feel the same about my arguments and conclusions, and find my approch similarly frustrating. Clearly we are not at all likely to come to agreement by discussing the issue.

Your latest response appears to me to have been largely a restatement and summation of your prior arguments. Since I've offered what from my pov are quite adequate responses--if not downright refutations! , I don't have much more to say. Given the precise circumstances of its recording, I find Clayton's entry very likely to have been informed by discussion with Joseph Smith. And I see a decided difference in the probable accuracy of any information garnered from Smith regarding the excavation, of which Smith's own knowledge was indirect, and of any information garnered from Smith regarding his own views and actions relative to the plates in his home. With that nutshell restatement of a couple of my major points, I'll move on to one addition to my arguments and then respond to the few new arguments and questions in your latest:

First, your argument that Clayton could not have gotten such erroneous information about the excavation and your conclusion that Clayton had a very wrong view of Joseph's own views on and actions with the plates suggest that Joseph Smith and Clayton simply did not speak of the Kinderhook plates in any substantive way. This seems extraordinarily unlikely to me given, not only Clayton's closeness and day-to-day contact with Smith, but also, and particularly, given his dining with Smith while the plates were in the Mansion House, and given Clayton's obvious interest in them during this visit. I find it unbelievable that the plates in Joseph's home were not enough of a curiosity to invite discussion, and that Clayton would take sufficient interest in them to trace one into his journal and write about them, but wouldn't bother to consult with the immediately available prophet-translator regarding their finding, nature, or content, nor even to obtain the latter's view on them.

Secondly, you asked of the mounds, who would this make the saints think of, suggesting that the answer was "Jaredites." I've never encountered an LDS source connecting mounds to the Jaredites, although a number, including Joseph Smith during the Zion's Camp expedition, did connect them to the Nephites. If your "rumor" theory were correct, we'd hardly expect the average Mormons in the street to come up with a Jaredite, much less a Hamitic-Pharaonic connection, rather than their typical Nephite connection. The "of course they'd connect them with Jaredites" argument strikes me as ad hoc.

Third, the Wiley letter I referred to has been cited and quoted on this thread already, and you can follow up on that reference.

If anything, Wiley's assertions would tend to favor the notion that Joseph Smith did not translate before the fall of 1843. I am presently inclined to place little evidentiary value on the Wiley account, since 1) it contradicts the sources closer to Joseph Smith indicating that some translation had occurred by early May; 2) no source close to Joseph Smith indicates that he translated from the Kinderhook plates in the fall of 1843; 3) Wiley presents his account quite cynically and knowingly, as if to indicate--"Smith is of course a fraud--he wouldn't even attempt to translate till he was certain no one else could"--suggesting that the account may have been doctored to make Joseph Smith look bad; and, 4) Wiley's account is given to a potential buyer of the letter, and being able to claim that the artifact

But you will, naturally, want to make your own examination of it. I'd be interested in hearing your take on it.

Finally...

So, the few words in Clayton's Journal now become an assertion that Joseph made a preliminary translation of a portion identifying the author of the record.

No. They don't "now become" that--they always were. Clayton says only that Joseph Smith translated "a portion" of the plates and describes that portion as identifying the author of the record and stating who he was in terms of lineage and standing with God. If that doesn't constitute "a preliminary translation of a portion identifying the author of the record," what would?

What's more ironic about this is the fact that there was no journal kept for Joseph Smith in June (did you mean July) of 1835. The account of the journal entries related to the Book of Abraham papyri were written by Willard Richards in September of 1843. Furthermore, the journal entires as they stand (as written by Richards) are taken at face value, they suggest that the early preliminary translation was a written one (scribes are mentioned in the DHC account dated July 5).

Thanks for the correction. I did mean early July rather than June. And I wasn't suggesting that there was a Joseph Smith journal entry on the BoA translation in July 1835. I offered a hypothetical for your consideration.

I think I've also falied to put across to you clearly my core argument. You argue that the lack of extant manuscript for Joseph Smith's preliminary (author-identifying "portion") translation from the Kinderhook plates in May 1843 indicates the improbability that such a translation occurred. Yet we know that Joseph Smith made a preliminary, author-identifying translation from the Book of Abraham and Book of Joseph in early July 1835, yet we are without extant manuscript. I suppose one might argue that the KEP includes this preliminary manuscript for the BoA scroll, though I've not ever seen this argued before; but where is the manuscript for the preliminary translation/author identification of the Book of Joseph scroll? If know where this is, there are thousands of us who would love to get a look at it! If not, then what we have with the Book of Joseph scroll is parallel to what we have with the Kinderhook plates--report of a preliminary transation that identifies the record's author, but no associated manuscript.

Joseph Smith's work on the Egyptian papyri, far from negating what we find in Clayton's account of a preliminary translation from the Kinderhook plates, establishes precedent for it--Joseph Smith first translates a portion identifying the record's author, which may or may not have been recorded, and in any case left no extant manuscript. I have trouble seeing this as evidence against Joseph Smith translating as Clayton said he did.

I'm certain you'll provide rebuttals to the above. And that's a good thing. Despite our disagreement, or perhaps because of it, I'm confident that the discussion will not tend to lead away from greater understanding of the issue, even if both of us stand very firm on our positions throughout it.

Regards,

Don

[wenglund]

ROFL. Yeah, how could I forget that?

Wade, you can mock me all you want in your very own self-satisfied, smug way. It doesn't bother me in the least. In the end, you are the one who has sold out your mind to a fraud. You seem like a smart guy, and yet you purposefully bend your mind to the defense of something unworthy of your efforts. No, I don't have any secret tidbits to give away Don's secret or anything like that. I've got other things going on in my life, and have chosen not to make the intensive study of the fraudulent activities of Joseph Smith my life's work. I happily stand back and let those interested in doing so do their thing, and then see what they come up with.

The bottom line is if one is willing to stand back and see the big picture, with an open mind, Joseph Smith is laughably transparent in his fraud, and yet you've been "converted" and now go through all kinds of mental and linguistic exertions trying to defend the Titanic that is Joseph Smith from sinking. Good luck with those deck chairs.

The disdain to a leader isn't necesary or appreciated. This thread has way too many insults and probly needs to be closed. ~ Mods

I'll take this as a "no", you are not open to reasoned discourse or query on the matter with me (your mind is evidently closed, if not ironically and deeply prejudiced), and thus you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you reject the notion that Joseph attempted to at least partially translate the plates or surmize their content using secular means (such as the Hebrew Lexicon, etc.).

Since there doesn't appear to be any more "critics" on this thread who are still open to having this discussion with me, I will gladly step aside and let Ben engage whomever.

In parting, though, let me just say that while I favor the belief that Joseph did not formally translate the plates (whether through secular or spiritual means), I am still open to opposing points of view. It is just that in order for me to be pursuaded otherwise, I need to have certain nagging questions cleared up in my mind--which is all that I intended to do with my previous challenges and queries. My apologies to any and all who may have felt threatened and/or offended in my so doing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Don writes:

... This seems extraordinarily unlikely to me given ...

... I find it unbelievable ...

... strikes me as ad hoc ...

You see, its all sepculation.

The alleged existence of a nine foot tall skeleton is probably the basis for the assumption that it was a Jaredite ... (see I play the game too).

Yet we know that Joseph Smith made a preliminary, author-identifying translation from the Book of Abraham and Book of Joseph in early July 1835, yet we are without extant manuscript.

But we are not without corroborating evidence. That evidence coming from a certificate issued to Joseph Smith by Chandler on July 7th. This is much, much more than we have for the alleged Kinderhook plates. But it goes further - we have significant quantities of information regarding the papyri and that they were eventually worked on and a translation(s) of some sort produced. What do we have for the Kinderhook plates? Absolutely nothing.

The real issue here is that everything is speculative. Nothing can be said with certainty. The larger problem is that this is only a minor episode. If critics weren't so interested in using it to make hay elsewhere, we wouldn't even be concerning outselves with it.

Would you even agree that the Fugate letter assumes knowledge of the Clayton record with its statement that "there was no skeletong"?

[DonBradley]

You see, its all sepculation.

<Sigh> Ben, I phrased those sentences in "I" form, not because they are points I find to be speculative, but because they are points with which you disagree.

Earlier, my wording was used to argue that my arguments are all rhetoric; now they're used to argue that it's all speculation, never mind my use of rational argument.

Note also that if we can do nothing more than speculate, then you can only speculate that Joseph Smith didn't translate.

The alleged existence of a nine foot tall skeleton is probably the basis for the assumption that it was a Jaredite ... (see I play the game too).

Good point! If only there were 9-foot Pharaohs to go with this!

BTW, though I'll allow you to speak for yourself, I'm not playing a game here. I'm attempting to use the sources to infer what actually occurred.

But we are not without corroborating evidence. That evidence coming from a certificate issued to Joseph Smith by Chandler on July 7th. This is much, much more than we have for the alleged Kinderhook plates.

The precendent and pattern of making a preliminary translation without producing an extant manuscript remains the same.

But it goes further - we have significant quantities of information regarding the papyri and that they were eventually worked on and a translation(s) of some sort produced. What do we have for the Kinderhook plates? Absolutely nothing.

Actually, rather than speak of the papyri in general, you would be more accurate to focus your observation on the Book of Abraham. We have very little of this for the Book of Joseph.

With the Kinderhook plates have the report of a preliminary author-identifying translation, the content of this translation, and the promise in the LDS and Nauvoo press to publish the translation when it is complete. We also have Joseph Smith dying just over a year later. Given his failure to produce any extant manuscript on the Book of Joseph over the nine years after his preliminary translation of the Book of Joseph scroll, you've cherry picked your points of comparison to exclude a preliminary translation of the Kinderhook plates. What we have in common for the papyri and the Kinderhook plates is the preliminary translation of just enough to identify the author, without the production of an associated manuscript.

The real issue here is that everything is speculative. Nothing can be said with certainty. The larger problem is that this is only a minor episode. If critics weren't so interested in using it to make hay elsewhere, we wouldn't even be concerning outselves with it.

Obviously I disagree. I've argued all along that we have evidence pointing strongly toward some measure of translation. For the matter to be merely one of speculation, we would need to lack evidence for the probability or improbability of translation. We don't lack this at all.

I doubt very much that the Kinderhook plates episode would be uninteresting if not for critical argument, though I would certainly agree with you that critics have misused the episode. I can understand why they have misused it, but misused it they have.

Would you even agree that the Fugate letter assumes knowledge of the Clayton record with its statement that "there was no skeletong"?

I believe it did. It's been some time since I've immersed myself in the sources regarding the excavation of the plates. I have quite a bit on this, since Mark Ashurst-McGee has uncovered on this has yet been published. If I recall correctly, the "giant skeleton" claim was an extrapolation from a single bone found in the mound. Whatever the facts on the excavation, they'll be describe in any collaboration between Mark and me.

Still Kinderhooked,

Don

[Benjamin McGuire]

Don writes:

For the matter to be merely one of speculation, we would need to lack evidence for the probability or improbability of translation. We don't lack this at all.

So tell us - what do you think the probability is for their to have been a translation?