Kinderhooked?

[Hacedor Costoso]

Wow - interesting thread.

Ultimately, in my decision to leave the church, the Kinderhook plates didn't even register on the scale as a reason.

I didn't (still don't) know all that happened and since it seemed to be unresolved, I left it at that.

But now I'm interested in it again - however it turns out!

Thanks,

Hacedor

[DonBradley]

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

I've argued throughout for this probability, placing the appropriate adjectives as necessary. So you can re-read if you'd care to. Basically, I think it much more probable that William Clayton received his information from Joseph Smith than that he did not. I've particularly argued for this in examining who Clayton was in relation to Joseph Smith, and the precise conditions under which his entry was written. Clayton was in as good a position to know Joseph Smith's views and actions relative to the plates as we could ask for any recordkeeper to be.

Don

[cinepro]

Question for Wade, Benjamin, and any others who might suggest that Joseph didn't attempt to translate part of the Kinderhook plates:

Why did William Clayton say that the plates contained the history of a descendant of Ham? Assuming we agree that this is a reliable quote from his journal (and not a fabrication by someone other than Clayton), why did he write that specific detail? Where did that information come from, if not Joseph Smith?

I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County . . . President Joseph has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth (An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, ed. George D. Smith, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1991, p. 100).

[DonBradley]

Cinepro,

Research in cognitive psychology shows that people tend to find it much easier to account in retrospect for what has already occurred than to predict what will occur in the future. In other words, people tend to find a past occurrence to have been easily predictable, even when, in fact, they could not have predicted it in advance. Plausible, ad hoc explanations tend to come fairly easily to our species. So, I don't doubt that someone unwilling to accept Clayton's account of the translation could come up with a plausible-sounding account for why "rumor" had it that the Kinderhook plates were by a Hamite, etc. The question isn't whether, knowing that Clayton recorded this as part of the plates' content, someone could come up with such an explanation. The question is whether they could lay out the various possible understandings that might have emerged from the finding of the Kinderhook plates, and show that the one that the one that did emerge was more likely than the others given the circumstances.

The rumor mill might easily have identified the record as that of an antedileuvian (perhaps one of the nephilim; a Laban-/Goliath-like Israelite; a Jaredite and thus a descendant of Japheth, since the Jaredites are nowhere identified as non-Gentiles; a Jaredite and thus a descendant of Shem--because of the Hebraic names among them (such as Ephraim, Levi, Heth, and Aaron) and the brother of Jared's apparent priesthood, which allowed him to enter the presence of God; a Jaredite, Hamite, and descendant, not of Pharaoh, but of Nimrod, because of their connection to the tower of Babel and their journeying through the valley bearing his name; etc.; etc.

So, why specifically a descendant of Ham and Pharaoh? What about the specific context of a mound, an alleged giant, plates with funny symbols, and 1843 Nauvoo would have led the rumormongers to almost immediately (i.e., by the third day after the plates' arrival) connect them to Pharaoh of all people? What would have made him a better choice than Shem, Japheth, Nimrod, the antedileuvian peoples (such as the giant nephilim) who, in LDS belief since that late 1830s, had lived in the Americas?

If Nauvoo rumormongers were going to concoct a story to explain the plates, their choice of gigantic Pharaohs were certainly an unlikely one. One wonders how such an unlikely story came to be so readily accepted, and why its improbability wouldn't lead even those closest to Joseph to check the story with him.

But if one is willing to accept the other substantial improbabilities involved in attributing Clayton's account to mere rumor, what's the big deal about adding a few more whoppers?

Don

[Chris Smith]

"Descendant of Ham and Pharaoh" is strongly reminisicent of the BoA, which was said to have been preserved by the family of Pharaoh, a descendant of Ham. Some characters at the top of a few of the Kinderhook plates are strongly reminisicent of JS's symbols for sun, earth, and moon, the famous Enishgoondosh, Jahoheh, and Olea characters with which he was so fascinated. Perhaps this led him to believe that the documents were Egyptian in origin.

[T-Shirt]

"Descendant of Ham and Pharaoh" is strongly reminisicent of the BoA, which was said to have been preserved by the family of Pharaoh, a descendant of Ham. Some characters at the top of a few of the Kinderhook plates are strongly reminisicent of JS's symbols for sun, earth, and moon, the famous Enishgoondosh, Jahoheh, and Olea characters with which he was so fascinated. Perhaps this led him to believe that the documents were Egyptian in origin.

And, as Parley P. Pratt stated, "A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city."

If any similarities were found, speculations of Ham and Pharoah would seem natural.

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

Don,

At the expense of exposing my ignorance, I am wondering why you keep saying that Clayton dined with Joseph Smith on the evening of May 1, 1843? Have I missed something, or are you speculating based on Clayton saying he was at President Smith's in the PM?

T-Shirt

[wenglund]

Question for Wade, Benjamin, and any others who might suggest that Joseph didn't attempt to translate part of the Kinderhook plates:

Why did William Clayton say that the plates contained the history of a descendant of Ham? Assuming we agree that this is a reliable quote from his journal (and not a fabrication by someone other than Clayton), why did he write that specific detail? Where did that information come from, if not Joseph Smith?

Hi Cinepro,

We (or at least I) can come up with ad hoc hypothesis to explain away Clayton's comments in light of our stated opinion (I happen to think it a product of rumor or educated guesses, the origin and people through which it may have passed, and the accuracy of which, is open to question), and that those ad hoc hypothesis do not speak probatively to the key question of whether Joseph translated the plates or not (whether partially or at all, and whether through secular or spiritual means).

However, the same is true for those who favor the Clayton account. They, of necessity, must hypothesis (ad hoc) about the historical data that doesn't comport with their opinion (see my online article for a list of the data which I believe conflict with Clayton's account).

[Edited to delete any unintended offences and to more closely comply with what some believe to be my prior commitment as well as the request from the moderators]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

"Descendant of Ham and Pharaoh" is strongly reminisicent of the BoA, which was said to have been preserved by the family of Pharaoh, a descendant of Ham. Some characters at the top of a few of the Kinderhook plates are strongly reminisicent of JS's symbols for sun, earth, and moon, the famous Enishgoondosh, Jahoheh, and Olea characters with which he was so fascinated. Perhaps this led him to believe that the documents were Egyptian in origin.

That is interesting. I had wondered if that may have been the case. But I am not familiar enough with the Egyptian characters Joseph had in his possession at the time, to know one way or another. Are there images available online of the Egyptian symbols you mentioned so I can visually compare them with some of the facsimilies or photos of the kinderhook plates on the web.

The question then may be raised: "If the characters were Egyptian-like, why did Joseph send his brother William to fetch the Hebrew Lexicon?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

Cinepro,

I'd like to address address the question of ad hoc hypotheses in history a little further. On any complex question of history, there is evidence pointing in multiple directions. So, evidence must be assessed and weighted based on its apparent reliability and its relevance to the question at hand. It is anything but "ad hoc" to allow highly significant evidence, such as the report of Smith's intimate Clayton, written during or after a visit with him, and reporting that he "says" what the Kinderhook plates contain, to override relatively insignificant evidence, such as the assertion by Wilbur Fugate, who never even met Smith and wrote some 35 years later.

I believe most of the objections and questions raised about Joseph Smith's translation of a portion of the Kinderhook plates have been addressed on this thread. If minor points against his having so translated remain, this is par for the course. We have inconsistent data on the First Vision, Anthon incident, priesthood restorations, and a host of other issues in LDS history. And objections and inconsistencies are still raised by traditional RLDS against whether Joseph Smith practiced polygamy or dictated D&C 132, despite the solid evidence that he did both. On each of these issues, the real question is not whether all the evidence lines up behind a single conclusion--it never does. The real question is where the evidence, weighed on its apparent merits, and pieced together through historical detective work, leads. And that is a different question altogether.

Don

T-Shirt,

Thanks for your inquiry.

You haven't missed anything that has been posted to this thread. Nor am I merely guessing that Clayton dined with Joseph Smith. Mark Ashurst-McGee was my original informant on this, but I believe I now have my own copy of the relevant source. I'll post the source for this as soon as I can locate it amid my papers.

Don

[DonBradley]

[Deleted personal message.]

[wenglund]

FYI: I have edited my previous post so as eliminate the unintended offences and to more closely comply with what some believe to be my prior commitment as well as the request made earlier by the moderators.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

edited

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt,

Thanks for your inquiry.

You haven't missed anything that has been posted to this thread. Nor am I merely guessing that Clayton dined with Joseph Smith. Mark Ashurst-McGee was my original informant on this, but I believe I now have my own copy of the relevant source. I'll post the source for this as soon as I can locate it amid my papers.

Don

Thanks Don. I am interested in your source. The little information I can dig up shows a possibility that Joseph wasn't necessarily there when William Clayton was, but I will await your source.

In addition, you had mentioned that Clayton was Joseph's personal secretary, which is not correct. He was his clerk, but the responsibility for personal secretary was still with Willard Richards.

T-Shirt

[DonBradley]

Thanks Don. I am interested in your source. The little information I can dig up shows a possibility that Joseph wasn't necessarily there when William Clayton was, but I will await your source.

In addition, you had mentioned that Clayton was Joseph's personal secretary, which is not correct. He was his clerk, but the responsibility for personal secretary was still with Willard Richards.

T-Shirt

Hi T-Shirt,

Your clarification is, of course, correct. Clayton was Joseph Smith's clerk.

As I'm sure you know, however, this doesn't change the fact of his intimacy with Joseph Smith. It has been observed by historians that Clayton was more in Joseph Smith's confidence than perhaps any other man during 1843-1844. Clayton was deeply enmeshed in the windings of Joseph Smith's marital life, both with Emma and with his polygamous wives. Clayton performed many of Smith's plural marriages--including one earlier on the very day of his Kinderhook plates entry, served as a confidant during Joseph's troubles with Emma, was confided in by Joseph that he (Joseph) was jealous of Emma's attention to Clayton during a time of marital strife, acted as witness to an apparent separation agreement between Joseph and Emma during July 1843, and recorded D&C 132. Clayton also kept the records of the Council of 50. His life was so tied up with that of Joseph Smith, that the Joseph Smith Papers project will include numerous portions of Clayton's journal, even though they are not "papers of Joseph Smith" at all.

BTW, I'd be interested in any information you might have on Joseph's whereabouts on May 1, 1843. I believe I have a source in my files indicating that Joseph dined and spoke with Clayton during the evening of May 1. I'll have to see when I locate it whether my memory has served me right. But, in any case, I would be interested in anything that might give a more complete picture of the relevant day.

Don

[T-Shirt]

Hi T-Shirt,

Your clarification is, of course, correct. Clayton was Joseph Smith's clerk.

As I'm sure you know, however, this doesn't change the fact of his intimacy with Joseph Smith. It has been observed by historians that Clayton was more in Joseph Smith's confidence than perhaps any other man during 1843-1844. Clayton was deeply enmeshed in the windings of Joseph Smith's marital life, both with Emma and with his polygamous wives. Clayton performed many of Smith's plural marriages--including one earlier on the very day of his Kinderhook plates entry, served as a confidant during Joseph's troubles with Emma, was confided in by Joseph that he (Joseph) was jealous of Emma's attention to Clayton during a time of marital strife, acted as witness to an apparent separation agreement between Joseph and Emma during July 1843, and recorded D&C 132. Clayton also kept the records of the Council of 50. His life was so tied up with that of Joseph Smith, that the Joseph Smith Papers project will include numerous portions of Clayton's journal, even though they are not "papers of Joseph Smith" at all.

I am not saying that it changes anything concerning his relationship with Joseph. But I think it is important to point out that Willard Richards was also very close to him. In fact, at this time, I believe, Richards was living with the Smiths keeping Joseph's journal and working on the History of the Church. It is, if nothing else, curious that Richards makes no mention of a translation of the plates.

BTW, I'd be interested in any information you might have on Joseph's whereabouts on May 1, 1843. I believe I have a source in my files indicating that Joseph dined and spoke with Clayton during the evening of May 1. I'll have to see when I locate it whether my memory has served me right. But, in any case, I would be interested in anything that might give a more complete picture of the relevant day.

Don

I believe that Clayton wrote the following:

May 1st, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to Lucy

Walker. P.M. at Prest. Joseph's; he has gone out with Woodworth.

The History of the Church also mentions this:

Monday, May, 1.â??I rode out with Lucien Woodworth, and paid him

[DonBradley]

Hi all,

I believe that William Clayton recorded in his journal that examined the Kinderhook plates while visiting Joseph Smith's home for dinner. The relevant entry, that for May 1, 1843, has usually been distributed in abbreviated form, with some of these details ommitted where the ellipsis (...) appears.

The complete entry may be found in James B. Allen, No Toil Nor Labor Fear: The Story of William Clayton (2002), p. 393.

Would someone who has access to this be so kind as to post the complete entry here? It would be very useful in assessing the likelihood that William Clayton and Joseph Smith discussed the Kinderhook plates.

Thanks...

Don

[DonBradley]

bump

[wenglund]

Californiakid just posted a thread where access can be had to the Joseph Smith's Egyptian alphabet. He supplies this link: Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers (JSEP).

I briefly looked through the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet section (pp. 1 - 15), along with symbols from the Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary , and looked to see if any of the symbols matched the markings on the Kinderhook plates (photos of the facsimilies may be viewed HERE).

From a cursory glance, there wasn't much that matched up.

However, I did find two symbols that could possibly fit. First, there were symbols of a circle that had a dot in the center. As I understand it, this symbol represents the sun, or light, or depending upon its placement in relation to other symbols, it could refer to seasons, or God, or ruler, etc.

More interesting, though, was an oval shape that could be seen as the hieroglypic for the letter "r" (click HERE). Even more interesting, on page 4 of the JSEP (see the link above), that symbol is described as follows:

"Kah tou mun: a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept." (Emphasis added)

With these two symbols in mind (and the only two symbols that appear to me--a non-Egyptologist--to remotely resemble Egyptian), let's quote Clayton's description of the "partial translation":

"Pres[iden]t J[oseph]. 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Is it possible that Joseph, who had been acquainted with the Egyptian alphabet since 1835 (8 years prior to the Kinderhook event), pointed out these two symbols to those gathered around, and explained what they meant, and this may be what Clayton meant by a "partial translation"?

If so, then was there a "translation of a portion"? I suppose in an informal sense of the word "translate" there may have been, though perhaps not in a formal sense of the word.

Either way, I think the connection I just made gives us something more to consider in the on-going debate.

And, given that very little else on the plates resembled Egyptian (from my novise point of view), perhaps that may be why Joseph may have sent William to get the Hebrew Lexicon, so as to see if any of the symbols matched there as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

Californiakid just posted a thread where access can be had to the Joseph Smith's Egyptian alphabet. He supplies this link: Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers (JSEP).

I briefly looked through the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet section (pp. 1 - 15), along with symbols from the Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary , and looked to see if any of the symbols matched the markings on the Kinderhook plates (photos of the facsimilies may be viewed HERE).

From a cursory glance, there wasn't much that matched up.

However, I did find two symbols that could possibly fit. First, there were symbols of a circle that had a dot in the center. As I understand it, this symbol represents the sun, or light, or depending upon its placement in relation to other symbols, it could refer to seasons, or God, or ruler, etc.

More interesting, though, was an oval shape that could be seen as the hieroglypic for the letter "r" (click HERE). Even more interesting, on page 4 of the JSEP (see the link above), that symbol is described as follows:

"Kah tou mun: a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept." (Emphasis added)

With these two symbols in mind (and the only two symbols that appear to me--a non-Egyptologist--to remotely resemble Egyptian), let's quote Clayton's description of the "partial translation":

"Pres[iden]t J[oseph]. 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Is it possible that Joseph, who had been acquainted with the Egyptian alphabet since 1835 (8 years prior to the Kinderhook event), pointed out these two symbols to those gathered around, and explained what they meant, and this may be what Clayton meant by a "partial translation"?

If so, then was there a "translation of a portion"? I suppose in an informal sense of the word "translate" there may have been, though perhaps not in a formal sense of the word.

Either way, I think the connection I just made gives us something more to consider in the on-going debate.

And, given that very little else on the plates resembled Egyptian (from my novise point of view), perhaps that may be why Joseph may have sent William to get the Hebrew Lexicon, so as to see if any of the symbols matched there as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I may be a gnat on a dog's tail wade, but I do believe that you just came up with a very believeable and understandable explanation for JS's partial translation. I think that you may have put the critics to bed with this post. Good job wade!

[wenglund]

I may be a gnat on a dog's tail wade, but I do believe that you just came up with a very believeable and understandable explanation for JS's partial translation. I think that you may have put the critics to bed with this post. Good job wade!

That is very generous of you to say. We'll just have to wait and see.

For my part, though, I would feel a lot more comfortable were an Egyptologist to explore my findings a little more indepth.

I would also be interested to learn what the critics think of my find--were they still open and permitted to converse with me on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

As I've mentioned, my own line of research focuses on Joseph Smith producing a "secular," nonrevelatory translation from the Kinderhook plates, which is the direction in which Wade's comments are going. Without saying more on the specifics of my own thinking, I have to admit that Wade is much more open with regard to Kinderhook plates translation than I gave him credit for. I had thought, wrongly, that Wade's questions were an attempt to discredit Clayton's journal, rather than to find out what actually happened. I apologize, Wade, for my mistaken conclusions and accusations, and for breaking off discussion when you were sincerely open, but just not convinced.

As I've also mentioned, I'll reserve my own further substantive contributions to discussion on the Kinderhook plates for the paper I'm co-authoring with Mark Ashurst-McGee.

Don

[wenglund]

As I've mentioned, my own line of research focuses on Joseph Smith producing a "secular," nonrevelatory translation from the Kinderhook plates, which is the direction in which Wade's comments are going. Without saying more on the specifics of my own thinking, I have to admit that Wade is much more open with regard to Kinderhook plates translation than I gave him credit for. I had thought, wrongly, that Wade's questions were an attempt to discredit Clayton's journal, rather than to find out what actually happened. I apologize, Wade, for my mistaken conclusions and accusations, and for breaking off discussion when you were sincerely open, but just not convinced.

As I've also mentioned, I'll reserve my own further substantive contributions to discussion on the Kinderhook plates for the paper I'm co-authoring with Mark Ashurst-McGee. Don

I very much appreciate you saying so, and I think it speaks well of you that you did. Apology unreservedly accepted. And, while I would value your feedback at this time, I will respectfully and patiently await your co-authored paper. Please alert us when it is near the time of publication.

Anyway, if anyone else has anything to say either way about my recent discovery, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

I very much appreciate you saying so, and I think it speaks well of you that you did. Apology unreservedly accepted. And, while I would value your feedback at this time, I will respectfully and patiently await your co-authored paper. Please alert us when it is near the time of publication.

Anyway, if anyone else has anything to say either way about my recent discovery, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hopefully, Don will include it in his paper if it pans out. I think that you made an interesting discovery and one that is very plausible. However, in the field of apologetics, I am a ant. And I never have a hat of promise on my head because I also know that critics may come up with a counter argument. We just need to wait and see. However, Don's silence on the matter does hold some promise.

[DonBradley]

Hopefully, Don will include it in his paper if it pans out. I think that you made an interesting discovery and one that is very plausible. However, in the field of apologetics, I am a ant. And I never have a hat of promise on my head because I also know that critics may come up with a counter argument. We just need to wait and see. However, Don's silence on the matter does hold some promise.

Hi WhyMe,

No offense at all...but I find it puzzling to be regarded as a "critic" on this issue. From my initial post till now, I've advocated a view in which Joseph Smith "translated" from the Kinderhook plates in a non-revelatory way that does not reflect at all on his claim to be a prophet. Given how this flatly contradicts the anti-Mormon argument that "only a false prophet translates fake plates," I'm uncertain how it's "critical"! I'm sorry to have to be a sheep in wolves' clothing, but my own genuinely, if unintentionally, apologetic position is anything but contradicted by others' suggestions that Joseph attempted a non-prophetic, linguistic translation.

Regards,