Kinderhooked?

[Sethbag]

Slap me a five, CKSalmon! Man hug!

[cksalmon]

Slap me a five, CKSalmon! Man hug!

Man hug: "tap-tap-tap"="I'm-not-gay."

CKS

PS. I think Pahoran thinks we must be exchanging man hugs in the same pub whilst studiously studying the universal anti-Mormon handbook.

[KDBowler]

Man hug: "tap-tap-tap"="I'm-not-gay."

Please..... I just finished dinner!!

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran--

Let me respond by saying that I didn't realize there were hearty guffaws and mutual backslapping involved here. News to me.

My posts are mine. I assume Sethbag's are his.

As if to demonstrate my rather meager point, you dispute that the origins of these statements can be laid at the feet of JS. Okay.

Pardon me, but it seems that your rather meager point was something more along the lines of:

There's no proof that he actually stated such things. We only have the account of his pronouncements from his regular scribe. There's nothing in his own handwriting to go on. At least, that's the theory I've heard bandied about from time to time here.

Which I understood to mean, of course, that we have very few Joseph Smith autographs; most of his writings were scribed by others. Therefore if we reject something on the grounds that it is merely in the handwriting of "his regular scribe" then we've got virtuallly no writings of Joseph at all, and that would be a singularly weak apologetic.

Was I wrong to conclude that this was the point of your rather unsympathetic rendition of the "theory" you claim to have "heard bandied about from time to time here?"

Because if not, then (1) the fact that William Clayton was not Joseph's "regular scribe" at the time, and (2) the fact that the writing in question is his own personal journal, and (3) the fact that it was written in Joseph's absence, and (4) the fact that it does not purport to render a verbatim statement from Joseph, all go to refute your rather meager point.

JS never prophetically uttered such asinine comments upon a known forgery.

Probably not, no.

We're agreed, I assume, that the historical record doesn't unequivocally compel one to believe that he did so.

Nor, indeed, does it give us any basis to reasonably suspect that he did. We are entitled to speculate that he might well have said something, and that William was not making that statement up out of whole cloth. Such, indeed, is my opinion. But what Joseph actually said, and how closely it may or may not resemble William's report, are questions to which we presently have no answers.

You're safe.

Would you rather I wasn't?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

[...](3) the fact that it was written in Joseph's absence, and (4)[...]

Pahoran,

I'm curious about this statement as there are other entries via Clayton about attending (and/or performing) weddings/sealings to Joseph Smith on the same day the Kinderhook entry was made (May 1, 1843). Is there other evidence to suggest Clayton was not with the Prophet on this particular day?

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.

Affidavit, p. 225

and...

On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by

marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own

residence. During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other

wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily

Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These

all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according

to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of

some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated

them very kindly.

Letter, p. 78

From: WILLIAM CLAYTON'S NAUVOO DIARIES and PERSONAL WRITINGS (compiled by Robert C. Fillerup)

Affidavit =

A statement made by Clayton and sworn to before a notary on February 16, 1874 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Published in Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1888, pp. 224-226. Although not a writing made in Nauvoo, it relates almost exclusively to the Nauvoo period and contains information not found elsewhere, which was possibly taken from Clayton's own diaries. It was printed as AppendixC in Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, pp. 555-559.

Letter =

Heart Throbs of the West, Vol. 5 (1944): pp. 373-80.

Can be accessed via online here.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I'm curious about this statement as there are other entries via Clayton about attending (and/or performing) weddings/sealings to Joseph Smith on the same day the Kinderhook entry was made (May 1, 1843). Is there other evidence to suggest Clayton was not with the Prophet on this particular day?

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.

Affidavit, p. 225

and...

On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by

marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own

residence. During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other

wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily

Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These

all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according

to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of

some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated

them very kindly.

Letter, p. 78

From: WILLIAM CLAYTON'S NAUVOO DIARIES and PERSONAL WRITINGS (compiled by Robert C. Fillerup)

Affidavit =

A statement made by Clayton and sworn to before a notary on February 16, 1874 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Published in Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1888, pp. 224-226. Although not a writing made in Nauvoo, it relates almost exclusively to the Nauvoo period and contains information not found elsewhere, which was possibly taken from Clayton's own diaries. It was printed as AppendixC in Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, pp. 555-559.

Letter =

Heart Throbs of the West, Vol. 5 (1944): pp. 373-80.

Can be accessed via online here.

Thank you, Doctor. As you see from the information you have provided, Joseph married Lucy Walker in the morning; he was absent from home the remainder of the day, with Lucy and possibly one other of his plural wives, as that "he has gone out with Woodworth" suggests. It is generally accepted that Joseph was "from home," i.e. out, when Clayton examined and traced the plate.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

Thank you, Doctor. As you see from the information you have provided, Joseph married Lucy Walker in the morning; he was absent from home the remainder of the day, with Lucy and possibly one other of his plural wives, as that "he has gone out with Woodworth" suggests. It is generally accepted that Joseph was "from home," i.e. out, when Clayton examined and traced the plate.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ah, I see what you were saying now.

Thank you.

-Stu

[why me]

Why would Joseph Smith necessarily conclude that all artifacts from ancient Americans were hoaxes merely because his own artifacts were? It's a fact that there were ancient Americans, and it's a fact that there were real artifacts from these people being found. Frankly, the context was perfect for the perpetration of such a hoax, because a finding like that would have seemed perfectly plausible in that context.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith, when presented with some fake plates which to his untrained eye looked authentic, would keep up his charade by pronouncing that he in fact could understand what was on the plates. Remember Zelph? Joseph didn't (apparently) make up the skeleton - it really existed, arrowhead and all. And remember how when they found the skeleton Joseph extemporized about the great warrior, known far and wide in his day, who served under a great prophet?

He would have known that a lot of his followers would have been expecting him to be able to do it with the KH plates too. After all, he'd already translated the Golden Plates and the Egyptian papyrus, and identified and "revealed" information about Zelph, and was a "seer" in possession of gifts and implements allowing for such interpretation. Rather than disappoint or confuse his followers, he made the pronouncements Clayton recorded in his journal. His followers get the further "evidence" they want that Joseph really is a prophet, seer, and revelator, and nobody is the wiser (except Joseph and whoever planted the plates).

How do you feel this scenario of mine doesn't make sense? Why must Joseph, if he were a fraud, have assumed that any artifact found by anyone and brought to him was also a fraud?

When I read critic accounts of Joseph, I find that he was not a honest kind of guy. He was shrewd, devious and a liar. Such men may not think the way you have Joseph thinking. Usually, their craftiness comes out and they spot a fraud a mile away especially if they did a similiar fraud.

The plates would have sent a lightbulb flickering in Joseph's head for sure. We need to remember that Joseph was not a well liked individual by many people and many were wishing for his downfall. He would have known this if he were a fraudster.

However, if his story is true about translating the gold plates, then this find would have caused some joy and he would have entertained the idea of translation.

Do you see my point here?

[DonBradley]

Thank you, Doctor. As you see from the information you have provided, Joseph married Lucy Walker in the morning; he was absent from home the remainder of the day, with Lucy and possibly one other of his plural wives, as that "he has gone out with Woodworth" suggests. It is generally accepted that Joseph was "from home," i.e. out, when Clayton examined and traced the plate.

Generally accepted? By whom? Where?

What the journal and other sources show is that Joseph was absent in the afternoon. Clayton's complete journal entry indicates that he had supper with him in the evening.

Don

[DonBradley]

Actually, I think there may be several characters that appear multiple times on the plates (I am not sure if this is what you mean by "repeat"). If I remember correctly, the oval appears a couple of times, and so does the symbol that looks like eye lashes or a representation of half of the sun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for that input, Wade. I was relying on the perception of an earlier scholar (I think Stanley Kimball).

Don

[T-Shirt]

Clayton's complete journal entry indicates that he had supper with him in the evening.

Don

Don, have you found the reference for this yet?

Regards,

T-Shirt

[DonBradley]

Don, have you found the reference for this yet?

Regards,

T-Shirt

I haven't, T-Shirt. Just before my recent move I did find evidence indicating that Joseph Smith's ride with Lucien Woodworth put him out of the house only for part of the afternoon, not the remainder of the day, but it will probably take a few days to dig out my sources on that again.

My information on William Clayton having supper with Joseph Smith comes from Mark Ashurst-McGee, who has had access to the original journal. Several years ago, Mark provided me with the text of the entry, but I don't know where it's at right now. My files are in a state of disarray.

IOW, I can't document JS supping with Clayton at the moment, but all relevant documentation will be provided in the published paper.

BTW, even in the absence of the diary entry there would be no reason to assume that a "PM" horse ride would keep Joseph Smith from home through supper time and into the night. So there is no call to conclude, as Pahoran claims is widely accepted, that after Joseph went out with Woodworth he was out for the remainder of the day. Note also that Stanley Kimball offers no support for this alleged "generally accepted" view. His only relevant comment is, "William Clayton evidently had access to the plates at some point, for in his journal entry of Monday, May 1, he included a tracing of one of the plates. (Whether or not he was present when Joseph Smith saw the plates is unknown.)"

Don

[DonBradley]

Hi all,

Earlier in the thread, one of the objections offered to William Clayton's accuracy was that Clayton misreported the circumstances of the excavation of the Kinderhook plates. As argued above, inaccuracy on the excavation, for which neither Clayton nor Joseph Smith were present, would not evidence or imply that Clayton didn't know Joseph Smith's views and actions with respect to these plates. That said, it appears that the case for Clayton's inaccuracy on the excavation was itself significantly overstated. The following affidavit, sworn in April 1843 and quoted in full by Stanley Kimball indicates that Clayton was correct in reporting the presence of human remains with the Kinderhook plates:

A statement signed by W. P. Harris, M.D., of Barry, Pike County, informed the Times and Seasons readers of the discovery:

â??On the 16th of April last a respectable merchant by the name of Robert Wiley, commenced digging in a large mound near this place: he excavated to the depth of 10 feet and came to rock; about that time the rain began to fall, and he abandoned the work. On the 23d he and quite a number of the citizens with myself, repaired to the mound, and after making ample opening, we found plenty of rock, the most of which appeared as though it had been strongly burned; and after removing full two feet of said rock, we found plenty of charcoal and ashes; also human bones that appeared as though they had been burned; and near the eciphalon [correctly spelled â??encephalon,â? or head] a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass, of a bell shape, each having a hole near the small end, and a ring through them all, and clasped with two clasps, the ring and clasps appeared to be of iron very much oxidated, the plates appeared first to be copper, and had the appearance of being covered with characters. It was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates: accordingly I took them to my house, washed them with soap and water, and a woolen cloth; but finding them not yet cleansed I treated them with dilute sulphuric acid which made them perfectly clean, on which it appeared that they were completely covered with hieroglyphics that none as yet have been able to read.â?

Since this contemporaneous account indicated the presence of bones with the plates, and since it was published in the Times and Seasons, it likely represented both the reality of the excavation and a view that would have been shared by Joseph Smith and William Clayton.

Clayton also indicates that the bones were from a person of gigantic stature. The size of the person would have been extrapolated from the length of the bones, and from an assumption regarding which bones they were (e.g., a femur).

Don

[Alf O'Mega]

Whatever William said is what William said. That is not any kind of "theory;" it's just a fact. He does not purport to be quoting Joseph--that "and says" does not offer a quote--so his account doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay.

Clayton does not offer a verbatim quote, but it is a quote nonetheless. You may impugn the accuracy of that quote (on what rational, coherent basis I cannot imagine, at least for a believer in D&C 131), but it is well beyond the threshold of hearsay, coming from his firsthand knowledge and having an attributed source.

[cksalmon]

Clayton does not offer a verbatim quote, but it is a quote nonetheless. You may impugn the accuracy of that quote (on what rational, coherent basis I cannot imagine, at least for a believer in D&C 131), but it is well beyond the threshold of hearsay, coming from his firsthand knowledge and having an attributed source.

I don't get this either.

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; emphasis added).

Hearsay? "President Smith has translated a portion and says..." does not offer a quotation? To echo you, not a verbatim quotation, obviously, but to utterly discount this statement as being utterly unassociated with JS seems to stretch credulity.

Best.

CKS

[why me]

Clayton does not offer a verbatim quote, but it is a quote nonetheless. You may impugn the accuracy of that quote (on what rational, coherent basis I cannot imagine, at least for a believer in D&C 131), but it is well beyond the threshold of hearsay, coming from his firsthand knowledge and having an attributed source.

It is unfortunate that clayton is not around so we could all ask him. Sadly, what he said will always be opened to interpretation. The lesson in all this is to radically proofread our own journals by putting clarifications where clarifications are necessary.

Poor Clayton must be turning over in his grave with these kind of discusssions that we are now having on this thread.

[Alf O'Mega]

It is unfortunate that clayton is not around so we could all ask him. Sadly, what he said will always be opened to interpretation. The lesson in all this is to radically proofread our own journals by putting clarifications where clarifications are necessary.

Clayton's account seems clear enough to me. What little uncertainty there is cannot be amplified enough to disconnect Joseph from his (at least) preliminary translation of the Kinderhook plates.

[Pahoran]

Clayton does not offer a verbatim quote, but it is a quote nonetheless.

No. It is not.

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

Ah. A cheap shot. How refreshing.

I did not "impugn the accuracy of that quote." To do that, I would need to be in a position to say something like "William said Joseph said X but he really said Y," when in fact nobody is in a position to venture even a good guess as to what he actually said. I simply pointed out that it is not a quote, and we thus have no way of knowing what Joseph actually said, or to whom, or when.

but it is well beyond the threshold of hearsay, coming from his firsthand knowledge and having an attributed source.

Except that he does not tell us that it comes "from his firsthand knowledge." That is merely an assumption of your own.

Clayton's journal entry states, "President J. has translated a portion and says" something about them. It does not say anything equivalent to "said to me" or "said in my hearing." The "critics" like to assume that William is reporting at first hand, but that assumption is based entirely upon wishful thinking. There is simply no support for that assumption. At all.

So no, Alf, it does not rise to the level of hearsay. Hearsay means "I heard him say," not "I have reason to believe that he says something or other which I may or may not have heard through others." There are a number of different accounts of Joseph's views from this same period, and none of them are offered as first hand quotes. The critics, however, seem to prefer Clayton's version. Why? Apparently for no other reason than the old "utility" principle.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Alf O'Mega]

So D&C 131:5â??6 does not even rise to the level of hearsay (much less a "quote") either. In:

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.

there is nothing equivalent to "said to me" or "said in my hearing." Therefore, lacking an explicitly stated claim to firsthand witness, to assume these words to be reported from his personal knowledge is "wishful thinking."

So can you articulate some coherent principle distinguishing these cases? Perhaps the strictures for admitting a statement to the canon are somewhat looser than you require for establishing more mundane biographical facts?

[alex71va]

I'm getting lost in this thread. Which one are the apologists arguing has lost its credibility? Kinderhook Plates? Or the "History of the Church"?

[Pahoran]

So D&C 131:5â??6 does not even rise to the level of hearsay (much less a "quote") either. In:

there is nothing equivalent to "said to me" or "said in my hearing." Therefore, lacking an explicitly stated claim to firsthand witness, to assume these words to be reported from his personal knowledge is "wishful thinking."

So can you articulate some coherent principle distinguishing these cases? Perhaps the strictures for admitting a statement to the canon are somewhat looser than you require for establishing more mundane biographical facts?

Ah. So you are arguing from the "tu quoque" fallacy. Got it.

As you know, Alf, this is a red herring. As you know, Alf, this thread is not about anything in the Doctrine and Covenants.

It is about the Kinderhook Plates, and the failed polemic you are trying unsuccessfully to shore up with a rather clumsy attempt at distraction.

It didn't work.

Since you asked, I will tell you that I am entirely comfortable quoting and teaching from Section 131. It has been accepted by the Church and sustained as scripture. I do not profess to know all the dull documentary details. Perhaps the context you have carefully removed shows that Joseph was explicitly stated to be present at the time, and the statement you cited actually uttered by him. Perhaps the accuracy of the transcription has at some time been independently verified.

Perhaps someone who cares will bother looking into the matter.

But this bit of legerdemain does not help you use Clayton's diary against Joseph, a use I seriously doubt would please the author.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

Ah. So you are arguing from the "tu quoque" fallacy. Got it.

As you know, Alf, this is a red herring.

It is about the Kinderhook Plates, and the failed polemic you are trying unsuccessfully to shore up with a rather clumsy attempt at distraction.

It didn't work.

Since you asked, I will tell you that I am entirely comfortable quoting and teaching from Section 131. It has been accepted by the Church and sustained as scripture.

Why this, and not that? Perhaps A&O knows, but I'd be curious to know your take on it.

I do not profess to know all the dull documentary details. Perhaps the context you have carefully removed shows that Joseph was explicitly stated to be present at the time, and the statement you cited actually uttered by him. Perhaps the accuracy of the transcription has at some time been independently verified.

Perhaps someone who cares will bother looking into the matter.

You don't personally care to do so? Perhaps someone with a duller life than yours will do so.

But this bit of legerdemain does not help you use Clayton's diary against Joseph, a use I seriously doubt would please the author.

Why on earth not? You haven't answered this basic question. It's second-hand. It's less than hearsay. It's not something that JS himself uttered. Objectively, I wonder why you're reticent to accept this, while you're willing to accept other equally attestable quotations. Do you have some sort of stake in this, beyond the historical question? Other LDS have admitted that perhaps JS did attempt to translate the plates. But, you're not willing to do so. That's fine and good. But why not?

Should we then throw out anything that is not prefaced by, "This is a verbatim quotation made by JS about [X]?"

CKS

[Pahoran]

Why this, and not that? Perhaps A&O knows, but I'd be curious to know your take on it.

A&O? Is that a freudian slip? Is Alf really affiliated with Sir James White?

Apart from that:

1) D&C 131 has nothing to do with the KP's. As you know.

2) There is, to my knowledge, no controversy about the provenance of the passage in question.

3) As you know, the assertions it reports are entirely consistent with Joseph's teaching from this period, as attested in multiple sources. This is a stark contrast to the KP journal entry, which is at least unsupported, if not more or less contradicted by contemporary sources.

4) I'm not about to suddenly question my acceptance of a scriptural passage in the middle of an argument about something else merely to gratify the ego of some anonymous anti-Mormon. My default position is that the passage in question (D&C 131:5-6) is scripture. Give me a reason to think otherwise, preferably on another thread, and I'll spare a moment to think about your arguments.

You don't personally care to do so? Perhaps someone with a duller life than yours will do so.

Maybe they will; on another thread, since the question has nothing to do with this one.

Why on earth not? You haven't answered this basic question.

And what obligates me to do so? Pardon me, but who actually died and made you Grand Inquisitor?

It's second-hand. It's less than hearsay. It's not something that JS himself uttered.

Actually we don't know that. With the KP issue, I have read Clayton's entry in its entirety. With the D&C 131 passage, we have only a very tightly cropped exerpt to go on.

Objectively,

Oh, please.

I wonder why you're reticent to accept this, while you're willing to accept other equally attestable quotations.

Equally attestable?

Do you have some sort of stake in this, beyond the historical question? Other LDS have admitted that perhaps JS did attempt to translate the plates. But, you're not willing to do so.

What makes you think I'm not willing to "admit" that "perhaps JS did attempt to translate the plates?" And how would that be an "admission" of any kind anyway?

Should we then throw out anything that is not prefaced by, "This is a verbatim quotation made by JS about [X]?"

Who said anything about throwing anything out? Are we operating in some strange little binary world, wherein we must choose between either uncritically accepting everything a source says, or else completely throwing it out as the only alternative?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

A&O? Is that a freudian slip? Is Alf really affiliated with Sir James White?

Nope. Just shorthand, chief.

Maybe they will; on another thread, since the question has nothing to do with this one.

Okay.

And what obligates me to do so? Pardon me, but who actually died and made you Grand Inquisitor?

It's a simple question. It involves no necessary speculation. Just an unequivocal response from you personally.

So, Pahoran, did JS actually attempt a translation of KP? You seem to know your own position. So, did he?

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.

Did JS attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates? Yes or no?

You seem to have an answer in check. Tell us, then.

I think, perhaps, your unequivocal response to that question could move us along the track. Did he? Yes or no?

CKS

[Pahoran]

Nope. Just shorthand, chief.

Okay.

It's a simple question. It involves no necessary speculation. Just an unequivocal response from you personally.

So, Pahoran, did JS actually attempt a translation of KP? You seem to know your own position. So, did he?

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.

Did JS attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates? Yes or no?

You seem to have an answer in check. Tell us, then.

I think, perhaps, your unequivocal response to that question could move us along the track. Did he? Yes or no?

CKS

I think it is pretty well established that he looked at the plates. That much is certain.

It seems also likely that, looking at the interesting characters, some of which do resemble the characters Joseph had copied and widely circulated, he may well have made some attempt to understand what he was looking at.

IOW, to attempt a translation.

So the answer is yes, I think he did attempt it.

The fact that no such translation has ever been produced, nor indeed has been reliably reported to have ever existed, leads to the reasonable conclusion that he never produced one.

IOW, his attempt was not successful, and being that he was neither a false prophet nor a con man, he did not then fabricate anything to make up for his failure.

Which means that the KP's are of no polemical utility. They join Caswall's famous Greek Psalter as another failed attempt to hoax the prophet.

Regards,

Pahoran