Kinderhook And Critics

[Lamanite]

Actually, your question raises an interesting comparison. Clayton did "contribute there as well," but how was this contribution different? First, Clayton's notes are from an actual sermon of Joseph Smith. His notes can be compared with those of Willard Richards, Samuel W. Richards, Thomas Bullock, Wilford Woodruff, and George Laub. Still, the quasi-official version we use today (found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith) may be less reliable than members of the Church have known thus far. Shorthand was still years away, and comparing the notes of the above named men makes for a very interesting historical exercise. The TPJS version is based upon Bullock's Times and Seasons amalgamated version which was not done until the month after the sermon. Joseph Smith possibly reviewed the text, but there is no record that he did either way. Thus, when I read the quasi-official version now there is a lingering doubt. I am more disposed to compare the various notes and see what I can discover there, than I am to accept the TPJS version at face value. You can do so likewise, a handy compilation can be found at the BOAP website.

Even when we have the words of these many witnesses we are still faced with the specter of not knowing what Joseph Smith's actual words were in the KFD. Compare that to Clayton's isolated personal entry.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Clayton, nor do I believe Joseph Smith had any large reason to, either. However, I do realize the power of rumor and the potential for mistakes in the human condition, generally, as do you, I assume. That ought to go without saying.

See my remarks above regarding the KFD.

Hey LOAP!

Just wanted to say thanks so much for the "BOAP" link! It is invaluable! I've always wished this existed and just didn't know it was out there.

Thanks again.

PS Did you borrow "Rasha the Jew" by B.H. Roberts from the library. It's late!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, there's no way to know, now is there? I still say it makes more sense for a con man to have to roll the dice on this than would a true prophet of God.

I disagree. In fact, we have examples of Joseph teaching against people like Hiram Page who professed to receive revelations for the Church by aid of seer stone. By your logic, Smith would have welcomed such a thing in order to keep on his "makeup."

Here are a few facts that are often ignored or glossed over by the critics [...]All the best,T-Shirt

Thanks for the important additional information, T-shirt.

Hey LOAP! Just wanted to say thanks so much for the "BOAP" link! It is invaluable! I've always wished this existed and just didn't know it was out there.Thanks again.PS Did you borrow "Rasha the Jew" by B.H. Roberts from the library. It's late!

Haha. You know how I feel about library books. I feel like never returning them. Hence, no more borrow unless completely compelled.

Speaking of the BOAP site, what do you think about the comparison, mudcat?

[Analytics]

...The plates were then circulated around Nauvoo starting on April 29th of 1843, and rumors began to abound. Joseph was briefly shown the plates on May 1st, and drawing upon his knowledge of the Egytian alphabet, and perhaps going somewhat off what he may have been told about the finding of the plates by those who brought the plates to him (Mr. Savage and Joshua Moore), pointed out several symbols on the plates and informally suggested a plausible meaning, and in that sense, he made a partial translation.

However, because the other symbols were unfamiliar to him, and perhaps of some question as to their authenticity, to the supposed disappointment of the conspirators, he declined undertaking a formal translation until the plates had been sent to experts for authentication. ...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

(what Joseph Smith should have said, and what William Clayton should have written): I examined the plates, couldn't tell what they said, and questioned whether they were even authentic.

My point is that your account basically ignores the evidence that we have from William Clayton's notes.

Stanley Kimball's 1981 Ensign article said "Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown." That just isn't true; it is known that the ideas originated with Joseph Smith; Clayton said so! Or am I missing something here? Why treat Clayton as such an utterly worthless witness?

[Lamanite]

I disagree. In fact, we have examples of Joseph teaching against people like Hiram Page who professed to receive revelations for the Church by aid of seer stone. By your logic, Smith would have welcomed such a thing in order to keep on his "makeup."

Thanks for the important additional information, T-shirt.

Haha. You know how I feel about library books. I feel like never returning them. Hence, no more borrow unless completely compelled.

Speaking of the BOAP site, what do you think about the comparison, mudcat?

I do have vol 27-30 of the JoD from the Centerville library. (It's on loan from the First Presidency Vault). It comes with complimentary seer stone if you sign up for the Ensign. Offer void in Samoa. I guess it's your loss book snob-

[LifeOnaPlate]

(what Joseph Smith should have said, and what William Clayton should have written): I examined the plates, couldn't tell what they said, and questioned whether they were even authentic.My point is that your account basically ignores the evidence that we have from William Clayton's notes.Stanley Kimball's 1981 Ensign article said "Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown." That just isn't true; it is known that the ideas originated with Joseph Smith; Clayton said so! Or am I missing something here? Why treat Clayton as such an utterly worthless witness?

That is just the point. You are completely inferring that the ideas written by William Clayton originated as we have them directly from Joseph Smith. You have no sure evidence for this, however.

I do have vol 27-30 of the JoD from the Centerville library. (It's on loan from the First Presidency Vault). It comes with complimentary seer stone if you sign up for the Ensign. Offer void in Samoa. I guess it's your loss book snob-

Curses.

[oceanblue]

I disagree. In fact, we have examples of Joseph teaching against people like Hiram Page who professed to receive revelations for the Church by aid of seer stone. By your logic, Smith would have welcomed such a thing in order to keep on his "makeup."

No, by my logic he would have had to do exactly as he did. Which is be the prophet. Other people start taking a cut of his territory, it diminishes his own story.

Not to mention - these seem to be completely different situations. Whether or not Joseph is taken in by a con matters little in terms of whether or not he's going to call out someone who claims to be receiving revelation for his church. Joseph was the one who saw the angel - the one who translated the plates - the one who saw God and Jesus. That was his role. It was the role for others to follow and/or offer support to his experiences through their own supplimental or co-experiences. Someone having an independent revelation for the church? That could never be tolerated.

"I had a revelation" is quite easy to refute. You say "no you didn't". See? That took...what? 3 words? "This is an ancient record I found in the dirt - can you translate it?" is a whole 'nother ballgame.

[wenglund]

(what Joseph Smith should have said, and what William Clayton should have written): I examined the plates, couldn't tell what they said, and questioned whether they were even authentic.

My point is that your account basically ignores the evidence that we have from William Clayton's notes.

Wrong. My perception of the situation doesn't ignore the Clayton notes. In fact, it not only acknowledges the notes, but accounts for the notes by me saying "in that sense he made a partial translation."

Stanley Kimball's 1981 Ensign article said "Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown." That just isn't true; it is known that the ideas originated with Joseph Smith; Clayton said so! Or am I missing something here? Why treat Clayton as such an utterly worthless witness?

I disagree with most of your premises, and since your questions are dependant upon acceptence of your premises, I can't logically answer them as asked.

Anyway, I think you have grossly misunderstood Kimball's meaning and implications. I don't think he comes anywhere close to suggesting that Clayton is "an utterly worthless witness". Rather, he, like other competent historiographers, wisely tempers Clayton's remarks by subjecting them to reasonable and responsible questions, rather than just blindly accepting them entirely as fact. In other words, he rightly sees the plausible shades of grey in what was said, rather than just the black and white as you may view them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

That is just the point. You are completely inferring that the ideas written by William Clayton originated as we have them directly from Joseph Smith. You have no sure evidence for this, however.

I do have evidence of this--I have William Clayton's notes!

I'm just assuming that Clayton wouldn't have written "President J. has translated some of them...." unless he directly heard (or had very good reason to believe) that Joseph Smith did in fact claim to translate some of them. We aren't talking about the journal of some clown whose primary source of information about the church's president is rumor. We are talking about the church's clerk!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I do have evidence of this--I have William Clayton's notes!

I'm just assuming that Clayton wouldn't have written "President J. has translated some of them...." unless he directly heard (or had very good reason to believe) that Joseph Smith did in fact claim to translate some of them. We aren't talking about the journal of some clown whose primary source of information about the church's president is rumor. We are talking about the church's clerk!

Is it possible that Clayton misunderstood Joseph? Or that he wrote second hand information? Do you see any possibility there?

Additionally, T-shirt pointed out that Clayton was not currently serving as scribe at the time. And Clayton was never "the Church's clerk" whatever that means.

As far as that "utterly worthless witness" business, I'm not sure anyone here made that claim. You have constructed a straw man in that regard.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, by my logic he would have had to do exactly as he did. Which is be the prophet. Other people start taking a cut of his territory, it diminishes his own story.

Not to mention - these seem to be completely different situations. Whether or not Joseph is taken in by a con matters little in terms of whether or not he's going to call out someone who claims to be receiving revelation for his church. Joseph was the one who saw the angel - the one who translated the plates - the one who saw God and Jesus. That was his role. It was the role for others to follow and/or offer support to his experiences through their own supplimental or co-experiences. Someone having an independent revelation for the church? That could never be tolerated.

"I had a revelation" is quite easy to refute. You say "no you didn't". See? That took...what? 3 words? "This is an ancient record I found in the dirt - can you translate it?" is a whole 'nother ballgame.

Actually, you were talking about the "makeup" and that sort of thing, which is contradicted (canceled out, if you will) by the fact that Joseph Smith didn't embrace other revelations through seer stones. Either way, your position of what he would have or wouldn't have done is based purely on conjecture.

[wenglund]

I do have evidence of this--I have William Clayton's notes!

I'm just assuming that Clayton wouldn't have written "President J. has translated some of them...." unless he directly heard (or had very good reason to believe) that Joseph Smith did in fact claim to translate some of them. We aren't talking about the journal of some clown whose primary source of information about the church's president is rumor. We are talking about the church's clerk!

The reason you have to "assume" is because it is not a demonstrable fact one way or the other. Clayton's comments are silent as to whether he personally witnessed the partial translation or learned of it in some other way. He simply and ambiguously said: "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."

However, contrast this with statement in his journal immediately preceding the one quoted above, where it is clear that he, personally, saw the Kinderhook plates: "I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams [Pike] County by some persons who were digging in a mound....This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates." (Emphisis added)

Note the significant difference? Note the use of the term "I" in the quote above, which is absent from the other quote?

Had Clayton's journal read: "I heard President Joseph translate a portion and say..." then you may have a point. But, absent those bolded clarifications, it leave open to debate whether Clayton personally witnessed the partial translation or learned of it in some other way. In fact, in comparison with the other quote, the absence of the bolded clarifications may reasonably be viewed as suggesting that Clayton was NOT a personal witness to the event--particularly given his use of the word "says" rather than "say" or "said".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

On about May 4th, three days after William Clayton's journal entry, John Taylor, editor of the Times and Seasons, wrote in his editorial

One of the points critics point to is that Clayton spent part of the day where this is recorded in his journal with JS, IIRC. Do we know if JT spent any time around JS during the days the plates were in JS's possession?

[oceanblue]

Actually, you were talking about the "makeup" and that sort of thing, which is contradicted (canceled out, if you will) by the fact that Joseph Smith didn't embrace other revelations through seer stones. Either way, your position of what he would have or wouldn't have done is based purely on conjecture.

Absolutely. For all of us. I was simply responding to, "But I really cannot see him falling for such a con if he himself was a con artist." with my own opinion on the matter.

I don't feel the makeup was cancelled out at all. Just because you call out another con (or do not, for that matter) it matters little as to whether you are a con as well. If you are regarded as legit, you can do as you please. It's only if you are suspect that you have to walk a finer line. Joseph WAS suspect to the world. But all he cared about was whether he was legit to the church. And he was. So he could call another a con within the church and no one in the church will question him. He's the prophet, after all.

This still has no relation to whether or not he would feel the need to act on a supposed record presented to him to translate. Here we're talking about outsiders. If he tells them "this is a fake!!" they'll run around telling everyone that this supposed prophet can't translate a record of ancient peoples like he said he could. He has to do something (again, if he's a fake). So he takes a stab in the dark and agrees to look at it. All true to form, IMO.

[Doctor Steuss]

One of the points critics point to is that Clayton spent part of the day where this is recorded in his journal with JS, IIRC. Do we know if JT spent any time around JS during the days the plates were in JS's possession?

From other dilly's from the same day (May 1st):

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.

As accessed at http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries on May 24, 2007 (looks like the link is still good from when I accessed it about a year ago).

[Black Moclips]

What about the part where Joseph states that the writing on the Kinderhook plates was similar to those on the BOM plates. As these plates were fake and constructed by farmers who obviously had no idea what they were doing, what does this say about Joseph? Was he just trying to sound knowledgable regarding the subject of ancient plates, or were these farmers just extremely lucky to have produced something similar to "reformed Eygptan" that know one else living has ever seen except Joseph. Just seems odd.

[Analytics]

Is it possible that Clayton misunderstood Joseph? Or that he wrote second hand information? Do you see any possibility there?

Of course it is possible that he misunderstood or misremembered. I can totally imagine Joseph saying a few more details than what Clayton wrote. I can imagine Clayton misremembering some details about the contents of the story. But I donâ??t see a real possibility that Joseph didnâ??t tell a story at all.

Additionally, T-shirt pointed out that Clayton was not currently serving as scribe at the time. And Clayton was never "the Church's clerk" whatever that means.

T-shirt said he was the â??Church clerkâ?. Are you saying heâ??s wrong?

Here are a few facts that are often ignored or glossed over by the critics:

William Clayton was the Church clerk at the time of the Kinderhook Plates episode, he was not Joseph's secretary, that was the job of Willard Richards, Willard was responsible for writing down the things that Joseph said. [emphasis added]

As far as that "utterly worthless witness" business, I'm not sure anyone here made that claim. You have constructed a straw man in that regard.

That seems to be the implication, as many completely disregard what he said.

The reason you have to "assume" is because it is not a demonstrable fact one way or the other. Clayton's comments are silent as to whether he personally witnessed the partial translation or learned of it in some other way. He simply and ambiguously said: "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."

However, contrast this with statement in his journal immediately preceding the one quoted above, where it is clear that he, personally, saw the Kinderhook plates: "I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams [Pike] County by some persons who were digging in a mound....This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates." (Emphisis added)

Note the significant difference? Note the use of the term "I" in the quote above, which is absent from the other quote?

I donâ??t see the difference as being significantâ??one canâ??t be expected to begin every sentence about what they saw first-hand by saying â??I sawâ?. Clayton spent a lot of time with Joseph, and stated as fact what Joseph said. He was an insider who spent a lot of time with him; itâ??s hard to imagine Clayton matter-of-factually attributing something to Joseph which stemmed from nothing other than a baseless rumor.

[Jaybear]

Had Clayton's journal read: "I heard President Joseph translate a portion and say..." then you may have a point. But, absent those bolded clarifications, it leave open to debate whether Clayton personally witnessed the partial translation or learned of it in some other way.

You are correct. The contents of the journal itself does not conclusively establish that Clayton was reciting something he heard first hand.

However, since he had access to Smith, and given the significance of the assertion, unless Clayton was the type of person prone to recording rumors and innuendo as fact, it is reasonable to assume is that he either heard the assertion first hand, or confirmed the assertion before or after recording the statement in his journal.

In fact, in comparison with the other quote, the absence of the bolded clarifications may reasonably be viewed as suggesting that Clayton was NOT a personal witness to the event--particularly given his use of the word "says" rather than "say" or "said".

Incorrect. That is not a reasonable conclusion. That is an apologetic, "JS is a true prophet" driven conclusion.

He uses "I" because he is describing what he saw.

In the later sentence he begins, JS (not "I") translated the plates, then he reports what JS said.

No rational person can conclude from the text, that Clayton was reporting what he heard, second hand.

[T-Shirt]

No rational person can conclude from the text, that Clayton was reporting what he heard, second hand.

Now, that's an apologetic response.

Let's say that Jaybear's friend has a conversation with jaybear's neighbor. Jaybear's neighbor says, "A bunch of us were hanging out with Jaybear, and Jaybear said he was thinking of going to New York."

Later, Jaybear's friend, who was not present while these guys were hanging out, writes, "Jaybear said he is going to New York."

Now, if one were to read, only, what Jaybear's friend wrote, would he be irrational to conclude that his friend may not have actually heard Jaybear say he was going to New York?

T-Shirt

[Mudcat]

Morning, Muddie!

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) there exist more than the one account of the King Follett Discourse. Others confirm it- though not in all particulars.

In the case of the Kinderhook fraud, we have only Clayton's story attesting to the "certification" by Joseph.

If I'm not very much mistaken, everything "damning" about Kinderhook flows from the single account, which is not corroborated.

If I'm wrong in this, I look forward to the correction....I haven't learned anything yet this morning.

Hi Selek,

I know very little about the Kinderhook plates, other than what I've read here, Wiki and a FAIR's article. However, the point I was trying to make was that if the notes of Clayton, were considered spurious and we also were aware that his notes were used in the KFD, then one could extrapolate that its conceivable that portions of the KFD are also spurious.

The point I was actually getting at, was that perhaps we are all guilty of 'seeing what we want to see'.

Regardless, since there is no apparent hard evidence(manuscripts, etc...) that the K. Plates were translated by JS, the whole 'hoopla' about them seems a little irrelevant. Don't you think?

Your Old Pal,

Muddie

[Glenn101]

Okay, what have we learned so far? We have an entry in Clayton's diary stating that Joseph had started translating the plates. That is the only reference to any attempted translation from any source that we know of. We have no statements from Joseph himself anywhere that we know of about translating the plates.

We do not have anybody involved, especially those who were perpetrating the hoax yelling "gotcha!" and exposing Joseph as a fraud.

Add it all up and it is much ado about nothing.

Glenn

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course it is possible that he misunderstood or misremembered. I can totally imagine Joseph saying a few more details than what Clayton wrote. I can imagine Clayton misremembering some details about the contents of the story. But I donâ??t see a real possibility that Joseph didnâ??t tell a story at all.

As wade has explained, no one here is denying that Joseph most likely speculated about the KhP.

T-shirt said he was the â??Church clerkâ?. Are you saying heâ??s wrong?

Are you just taking his word for it?

That seems to be the implication, as many completely disregard what he said.

"Seems"? IF I have given you that impression, I apologize and say it is not my intention to say Clayton was an "utterly worthless witness."

No rational person can conclude from the text, that Clayton was reporting what he heard, second hand.

You seem to be rather unclear on how the journals and scribes operated.

Hi Selek,I know very little about the Kinderhook plates, other than what I've read here, Wiki and a FAIR's article. However, the point I was trying to make was that if the notes of Clayton, were considered spurious and we also were aware that his notes were used in the KFD, then one could extrapolate that its conceivable that portions of the KFD are also spurious.

Care to comment on my response regarding the KFD?

Regardless, since there is no apparent hard evidence(manuscripts, etc...) that the K. Plates were translated by JS, the whole 'hoopla' about them seems a little irrelevant. Don't you think?

Hence this thread.

[Calm]

Now, that's an apologetic response.

Let's say that Jaybear's friend has a conversation with jaybear's neighbor. Jaybear's neighbor says, "A bunch of us were hanging out with Jaybear, and Jaybear said he was thinking of going to New York."

Later, Jaybear's friend, who was not present while these guys were hanging out, writes, "Jaybear said he is going to New York."

Now, if one were to read, only, what Jaybear's friend wrote, would he be irrational to conclude that his friend may not have actually heard Jaybear say he was going to New York?

T-Shirt

Another example---critics often say 'based on Clayton's account "Joseph said" yet it is obvious that none of them heard it directly from JS's mouth.

Mo-clips, wasn't the Anthon manuscript of possible BoM characters around? IIRC, someone claimed that the perpetuators used a variety of sources, including this one to try and create plausible script. Perhaps someone can confirm my memory, I have to go.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mo-clips, wasn't the Anthon manuscript of possible BoM characters around? IIRC, someone claimed that the perpetuators used a variety of sources, including this one to try and create plausible script. Perhaps someone can confirm my memory, I have to go.

That was my impression as well.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Mo-clips, wasn't the Anthon manuscript of possible BoM characters around? IIRC, someone claimed that the perpetuators used a variety of sources, including this one to try and create plausible script. Perhaps someone can confirm my memory, I have to go.

I don't know about the AM, but there were broadsides being used to advertise the BoM that had some characters on it.

(Enhanced copy by Uncle Dale)

As a side note, while looking for a picture of the broadside, I found this:

-------------------------------------------------

Archaelogical proof for the Book of Mormon, published by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, 1843. (SOLD at CHRISTIE'S, New York 19 June 2007).

BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE BRASS PLATES Recently taken from a Mound in the Vicinity of Kinderhook, Pike County, Illinois. . . . Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, June 24th, 1843. Taylor & Woodruff, Printers.

BROADSIDE, 41.3 X 29.8 cm. (16

[Analytics]

As wade has explained, no one here is denying that Joseph most likely speculated about the KhP.

Going back to what started this whole thing, all I said was that "Joseph was presented with some metal plates that were a hoax, and he claimed that they were records of the descendants of Ham." You took issue with this, and used it to segue to the topic of me and to the alleged "fact that I will grasp at any FDR (Faith-destroying rumor) on the market."

Just to clarify what we are discussing, are you attacking my position that Joseph was presented with some metal plates that were a hoax, and he claimed that they were records of the descendants of Ham, or are you attacking a straw man?

Are you just taking his word for it?

Yes.

"Seems"? IF I have given you that impression, I apologize and say it is not my intention to say Clayton was an "utterly worthless witness."

You gave me that impression because I took what he said at face value, and you used it as an example of how I would â??grasp at any faith-destroying rumorâ?. So you donâ??t uttery disregard him as a witness. Even in this case? Do you think it is possible that he captured the general gist of what Joseph really said? Not hypothetically possible, but really possible? How likely would you say it is that Clayton accurately captured the general gist of what Joseph really said?