Kinderhook And Critics

[T-Shirt]

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?

It all depends on where Clayton got his information. You seem quite sure that he got it directly from Joseph Smith, but we do not know this, his journal entry is insufficient to make this conclusion.

There is another account written by Parley P. Pratt, in a letter he wrote. His account contradicts Clayton's account in the details. In addition, both Pratt's and Clayton's accounts contradict some of the details provided by the creators of the hoax. It is obvious that rumor and speculation were involved.

Clayton is the only one that mentions a purported translation.

Willard Richards, Joseph Smith's secretary, makes no mention of a translation.

John Taylor was unaware of a translation.

Joseph Smith said he would not attempt a translation until the veracity of the plates was confirmed by experts.

The creators of the plates were never aware of a translation. Even 35 years later when they admitted to the hoax.

No physical evidence of a translation has ever existed.

A whole lot rests on Clayton's journal entry, which may, or may not, be an accurate account of what Joseph Smith actually said. This is why critics try to force upon us the silly dichotomy that Clayton was either accurate or he was a worthless record keeper. To quote Obiwan, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

T-Shirt

[wenglund]

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.

Actually, during those times in the then past, when Clayton was taking dictation for things like revelations that were later added to the D&C, there were explicit indications in his journal that he was taking dictation and that what was written had been confirmed as correct by JS. Such explicit or implicit indications are conspicuously absent in the quoted text, thus not only leaving open the question whether Clayton personally witnessed the partial translation, but to my mind, suggesting that he wasn't.

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.

I can understand how, in your own closed-minded, dogmatic, and knee-jerkish way, you may have come to that biased conclusion. However, I trust that the more open-minded and rational among us will respectfully view my argument and conclusion as reasonable, if not persuasive, though also admittedly subject to reasonable disagreement.

Clayton used "I" in the one instance because he personally saw the plates. He didn't use the "I" in terms of the partial translation, so we don't know whether he (Clayton, not JS) personally heard JS give the partial translation or not.

He did go on to record Joseph's statement, but the fact that he used the word "says" rather than said, can reasonably be interpreted as suggesting a second-hand account.

Interestingly enough, interspersed between his "I" statement and his comments about the partial translation, were remarks about the finding of the plates. Also, the way he phrased the account of the finding, was more similar to the translation portion of his account than the seeing the plates account. And, since it is clear that the finding of the plates came to Clayton at the least second-hand (and likely third or fourth hand given that none of the people at the finding came to Nauvoo with the plates), it is also reasonable to conclude on that basis that the partial tranlation account may have been secondhand as well, your emphatic and irrational assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alf O'Mega]

It all depends on where Clayton got his information. You seem quite sure that he got it directly from Joseph Smith, but we do not know this, his journal entry is insufficient to make this conclusion.

Are you sure that Clayton's report that "spirit is matter" is directly from Joseph? I don't see any reason to treat the Kinderhook report any differently, except that it can yield an inconvenient conclusion for believers. It seems like the hypothesis of a secular translation is the most fruitful apologetic avenue available here, although the translation sure sounds seeric to me. ("Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.")

[Bernard Gui]

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.

If the Anthon Transcript is an accurate copy of Book of Mormon characters, then Joseph was telling the truth about the similarity.

In just one minute of comparison, I found 5 characters that were indeed very similar, if not identical.

Bernard

[Analytics]

It all depends on where Clayton got his information. You seem quite sure that he got it directly from Joseph Smith, but we do not know this, his journal entry is insufficient to make this conclusion.

There is no reason to think that he didnâ??t get it directly from Joseph Smith. But if he didnâ??t, he still got it from a source that he thought was reliable.

There is another account written by Parley P. Pratt, in a letter he wrote. His account contradicts Clayton's account in the details. In addition, both Pratt's and Clayton's accounts contradict some of the details provided by the creators of the hoax. It is obvious that rumor and speculation were involved.

In some details they contradict each other, but Prattâ??s account corroborates what I get from Clayton: somebody made up a story that the plates were about something relating to a descendent of Ham. Further, it implies that Pratt thought that this story came from a reliable source. In Prattâ??s mind, the only candidate for somebody who could speak authoritatively on what the plates were about was Joseph Smith.

A whole lot rests on Clayton's journal entry, which may, or may not, be an accurate account of what Joseph Smith actually said. This is why critics try to force upon us the silly dichotomy that Clayton was either accurate or he was a worthless record keeper. To quote Obiwan, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

Cute. In my previous post, I asked you whether you were attacking my actual position or were attacking a straw man. This post of yours proves you are in fact ignoring what Iâ??m saying and attacking a straw man.

Regarding my actual position, Iâ??m not claiming that he precisely dictated what Joseph Smith said. Iâ??m claiming he captured the general gist of what Joseph really said. That claim captures a broad spectrum regarding the precise accuracy of the details written and whether he heard it directly from Joseph Smith or heard it from another insider who Clayton felt was reliable. Prattâ??s account and Claytonâ??s account both support my viewâ??they were both insiders who were confident that the plates contained the story of a descendent of Ham. That entails they both thought that Joseph Smith confidently said that is what the plates were about.

So the question remains, if Pratt was confident that Joseph said that the plates were a story about a descendent of Ham, and if Clayton was confident that Joseph said that the plates were a story about a descendent of Ham, why shouldnâ??t I be confident that Joseph said that the plates were a story about the descendents of Ham?

So I'll repeat the question you ignored earlier: 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?

[Jaybear]

Wade... but to my mind, suggesting that he wasn't.

I have no problem with you reaching that conclusion. You believe that Smith was a true prophet. Your interpretation of this evidence is then entirely consistent with your underlying assumptions about Smith.

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

You seem to be rather unclear on the meaning of the the word "conclude".

My point is simply that the text of the journal itself, does not provide enough evidence to allow one to conclude that Clayton heard the statement second hand.

Bear in mind, I am not being unfair, I have also said that the text of the journal itself does not provide enough evidence to conclude that Clayton heard the statement first hand.

The text simply doesn't say one way or the other. But if you feel the need to convince yourself otherwise, go right ahead.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is no reason to think that he didnâ??t get it directly from Joseph Smith.

Actually there is. As wade pointed out, no annotation states Clayton received his info firsthand, as in other marginal instances.

So I'll repeat the question you ignored earlier: 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?

I think it's possible. Impossible to prove, and it's just as likely he reported the rumor he heard. Either way, if the translation doesn't fit, you must acquit.

My point is simply that the text of the journal itself, does not provide enough evidence to allow one to conclude that Clayton heard the statement second hand. Bear in mind, I am not being unfair, I have also said that the text of the journal itself does not provide enough evidence to conclude that Clayton heard the statement first hand. The text simply doesn't say one way or the other. But if you feel the need to convince yourself otherwise, go right ahead.

So it seems we've been agreed all along then. Glad you see it my way.

[Anijen]

Jaybear

I have no problem with you reaching that conclusion. You believe that Smith was a true prophet. Your interpretation of this evidence is then entirely consistent with your underlying assumptions about Smith.

By your own reasoning I can say that I have no problem with your response. You believe that JS was a false prophet. Your interpretation of this evidence is then entirely consistent with your underlying assumptions about Smith.

Now to add my assumption you are both right, having said that Wade puts forth better sources and argument to back up his claims, "the more open-minded and rational among us will respectfully view [his] argument and conclusion as reasonable, if not persuasive."

Anijen- Italian for open minded and rational...

[Mudcat]

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,

I agree, the KFD is a much different 'animal', primarily because you have 5 or so separate noted reports on JS's sermon.

The sermon was a 'witnessed' event. I think you make a good point in its difference from Clayton's singular report of the Kinderhook events.

The common ground the two events have is they both use the words of Clayton, obviously only in part in the KFD. Most likely the KFD gives a relatively accurate (if not 100% exact) depiction of what JS said...perhaps even verbatim, but it seems you are open to the thought that it isn't verbatim.

Regardless, it seems that LDS are likely to pitch out Clayton's thought in regards to Kinderhook. I think the reason for this is because it wouldn't put JS in the best light if Clayton's words were accurate. It is a singular account with little no significant corroboration. However, it does cast a shadow on Clayton's credibility. I don't think there is anyway around that. I didn't know him and know little of him, I assume he was considered an LDS of some integrity to be utilized in his duties by JS.

If Clayton had a propensity to inject rumor, popular thought, etc. as fact, then it begs the question how much rumor, pop thought, etc. were in his KFD notes or anything else that has come from his hand, for that matter.

Please understand, I'm not trying to give the KFD a 'black eye', I would agree that it is most likely very accurate. However, given the fact that Clayton's notes were involved and at least on one occasion (Kinderhook) his notes are disregarded as fact would you be willing to agree that we should put a "In that its translated correctly" on the KFD? For all I know that disclaimer may already be in place.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Analytics]

Actually there is. As wade pointed out, no annotation states Clayton received his info firsthand, as in other marginal instances.

Wade's argument was weak; while it is possible he is passing on something he didn't hear first hand, there is no evidence for that; there is no real reason to believe that by "merely" stating something as fact means he probably didn't see the event he describes.

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?

I think it's possible. Impossible to prove, and it's just as likely he reported the rumor he heard.

Really? Pratt and Clayton both accepted as fact that the plates contained a story about a descendent of Ham. Clayton said this knowledge came from Joseph Smith. Pratt must have thought the story originated with Joseph as well. They were both confident about this. In contrast, you think the chances are about 50/50 that Joseph said something to the general effect that the plates contained a story about a descendent of Ham? Am I hearing you correctly?

What is it that you know that Pratt and Clayton didn't which causes you to discredit their certainty on the matter?

[MormonMason]

...

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?

Really? Pratt and Clayton both accepted as fact that the plates contained a story about a descendent of Ham. Clayton said this knowledge came from Joseph Smith. Pratt must have thought the story originated with Joseph as well. They were both confident about this. In contrast, you think the chances are about 50/50 that Joseph said something to the general effect that the plates contained a story about a descendent of Ham? Am I hearing you correctly?

What is it that you know that Pratt and Clayton didn't which causes you to discredit their certainty on the matter?

I would say it is problematic from my perspective because I have looked at Joseph Smith's journal accounts for the period in question and they mention nothing about an alleged translation. In fact, they record that he was heavily involved in court cases during this time period. I would think that if Joseph Smith had indeed translated them, there would have been some notation of such in the journal account kept by his scribe who had the commission to record his whereabouts and actions.

Furthermore, I would be surprised there was a translation when he had it detailed that he asked to have his Hebrew lexicon brought to him from the office when looking at the plates in between court. There is nothing whatsoever said about a translation being given in the relevant historical sources. I readily can see how rumor accounts would have started as a result of knowing there were men in the city who came to see the Prophet with a set of plates they had been showing around, and then knowing of Joseph Smith's requesting that his Hebrew Lexicon be brought to him from the office.

But, even the accounts of the persons responsible for the hoax themselves stated that Joseph Smith did not attempt a translation at that time but requested that they take them to an antiquarian to have them authenticated first! Why would he do that and why would the hoaxsters say such a thing as that if a translation had been made or attempted? It would have been the perfect opportunity to expose Joseph Smith's fraud--if such fraud had occurred.

All relevant and valid evidence must be weighed and taken into account, not just the portions we might like to use because they might lend support to a preconceived notion of Joseph Smith's acts and possible "fraud." The Hoaxsters said that Joseph Smith did not translate them, Joseph's own journal account of his whereabouts and actions do not speak of a translation or attempt thereof, and the official newspaper of the Church at the time also stated that Joseph Smith's opinion of the plates were not known at the time of publication.

The air was rife the rumors and speculations on many subjects at that time. Why do you think W. Wyl had such an easy time of gathering such manner of rumors as he displays in his text? Think about this for a bit...

[Anijen]

just a quick addition; If JS did think they were authentic wouldn't you expect more excitement and it least merited one journal entry? Since they were fake I have easily come to the realization that JS knew this and it did not even warrant a note of support...

[Calm]

However, given the fact that Clayton's notes were involved and at least on one occasion (Kinderhook) his notes are disregarded as fact would you be willing to agree that we should put a "In that its translated correctly" on the KFD? For all I know that disclaimer may already be in place.

The KFD is not considered as scripture nor is all of it considered official doctrine, only that which has been confirmed in other ways so even if a disclaimer was not attached, it has the inherent equivalent of one imo.

That being said, there is a "disclaimer" attached:

This reprint was taken from the Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pages 302–17. That volume notes: “This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes. Evidently, there are some imperfections in the report and some thoughts expressed by the Prophet which were not fully rounded out and made complete. …”

See: King Follett Discourse

[Analytics]

I would say it is problematic from my perspective because I have looked at Joseph Smith's journal accounts for the period in question and they mention nothing about an alleged translation. In fact, they record that he was heavily involved in court cases during this time period. I would think that if Joseph Smith had indeed translated them, there would have been some notation of such in the journal account kept by his scribe who had the commission to record his whereabouts and actions.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that Joseph did a time-consuming, complete "translation". I'm saying he examined them and said something to the general effect that "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 and earth." If he examined the plates in a 15-minute meeting, made the statement, and then got back to more pressing things is it that unlikely that it would have gone under the radar of his scribe?

Furthermore, I would be surprised there was a translation when he had it detailed that he asked to have his Hebrew lexicon brought to him from the office when looking at the plates in between court. There is nothing whatsoever said about a translation being given in the relevant historical sources....

Again, I'm talking about a brief, high-level "partial translation". It sounds like you are saying that Clayton's record isn't a "relevant historical source."

But, even the accounts of the persons responsible for the hoax themselves stated that Joseph Smith did not attempt a translation at that time but requested that they take them to an antiquarian to have them authenticated first! Why would he do that[?]

Wanting it authenticated before attempting a full translation doesn't preclude that he looked at them nodded, and said they were a record of a decendent of Ham etc. Maybe he got suspicious about their reaction once he started his little story about Ham etc. Maybe he realized there was little upside and a huge downside to attempting a full translation.

By the way. The hoaxers said they met with Joseph, while Willard Richards doesn't mention them meeting. Correct? When discussing Clayton, the fact that Richards doesn't mention the plates has been used as evidence that Smith didn't even look at them, and thus didn't have the opportunity to make the verbal, partial translation that Clayton describes.

[W]hy would the hoaxsters say such a thing as that if a translation had been made or attempted? It would have been the perfect opportunity to expose Joseph Smith's fraud--if such fraud had occurred.

No, the perfect opportunity would have been to wait until he published his translation attempt.

All relevant and valid evidence must be weighed and taken into account, not just the portions we might like to use because they might lend support to a preconceived notion of Joseph Smith's acts and possible "fraud." The Hoaxsters said that Joseph Smith did not translate them, Joseph's own journal account of his whereabouts and actions do not speak of a translation or attempt thereof, and the official newspaper of the Church at the time also stated that Joseph Smith's opinion of the plates were not known at the time of publication.

Clayton didn't say that he translated them either; he said he made a brief, preliminary "partial translation". What you are saying about the Hoaxsters seems entirely consistent with what Clayton said.

The air was rife the rumors and speculations on many subjects at that time. Why do you think W. Wyl had such an easy time of gathering such manner of rumors as he displays in his text? Think about this for a bit...

Could you clarify the question? I'm not arguing that there weren't rumors. I just have a hard time believing that people like Clayton and Pratt would take at face value mere rumors. I have a really hard time that Clayton would put mere rumors into his history and state them as fact.

[Calm]

I didn't know him and know little of him, I assume he was considered an LDS of some integrity to be utilized in his duties by JS.

What is considered as important in an historian in these days is not what was once considered important.

If Clayton's purpose in his writing included trying to present as complete as possible picture of JS's important works then I can easily see him 'filling in' gaps from sources he trusted. This does not mean he was dishonest or not trying to be as accurate as he could be in the ways he understood such things should be done.

Unfortunately we don't know what source that might have been if it was not JS in this case and therefore again can't determine if that source was firsthand (as in actually heard JS say it) or secondhand.

Mistakes are made by even the most honest and diligent trained historian. I do not see it as appropriate to hold Clayton to a standard that we would not hold a trained historian to. IMO, each aspect of Clayton's writing should be corroborated either through additional sources and if he is the only source, plausibility should be based on consistency and the case should be made alongside the conclusion so the reader knows this is not an undisputed point.

Since Clayton was in other cases where we know he had firsthand knowledge careful about his attributions, then imo we should place this statement of the source of the idea as JS in the 'unconfirmed' pile and use it for neither evidence for JS being a fraud (as in he fell for it) or evidence for him being a prophet (as in he didn't believe it was authentic even if others did as would be demonstrated by the thirdhand comment Clayton gives).

[Analytics]

just a quick addition; If JS did think they were authentic wouldn't you expect more excitement and it least merited one journal entry? Since they were fake I have easily come to the realization that JS knew this and it did not even warrant a note of support...

It seems to me that if he knew they were fake, he would have stated so. Why let the rumors fly? Why not call the fakers on their hoax?

I get the sense that he was preocupied with many things more pressing than alleged ancient records. I bet he was suspicious; he had little to gain and a lot to lose by attempting a full-blown "translation" of this. I think he started to tell a story because he liked telling stories and pretending that he had expertise with ancient records, but then wanted to be sure that the plates were real and that nobody could translate them before making any big commitments about them.

[Mudcat]

That being said, there is a "disclaimer" attached:

See: King Follett Discourse

Thanks for the post.

In regards to the attached disclaimer....

Figures *snaps fingers and thinks "darn"*

Mudcat

[Calm]

Thanks for the post.

In regards to the attached disclaimer....

Figures *snaps fingers and thinks "darn"*

Mudcat

You would probably be surprised by the number of disclaimers you can come across in church writings, both by the 'scribes' and by the people speaking themselves admitting to being only human and making mistakes even at times in the most serious of comments. It's one thing I love about the Church's perspective on revelation and teaching...if we want full knowledge and confirmation of truth, we must follow Nephi's example and seek our own revelation and not like Laman and Lemuel simply rely on our leadership for further light.

I think a lot of members miss that "following the Prophet" doesn't mean letting the Prophet be the final word on any subject, that's actually the way---at least scripturally--to eventual apostasy through atrophy of one's personal connection with God (if it ever got established in the first place). No, the final word only comes from the Source, God.

PS: Mudcat, I'd just like to add that you are included in my short list of nonmembers I refer to when I want to see 'what it looks like from the outside' (it's short because few nonLDS are interested enough to take more than a superficial look at things and I don't find that level of evaluation all that valuable for this purpose). You almost always (if not always) seem to give a fair and balanced appraisal and don't 'close the book' until you know the relevant information (such as whether or not there's a disclaimer for the KFD). Getting your perspective and others' like you is one of the main reasons I keep active on the boards. You make for excellent reality checks.

[Analytics]

Since Clayton was in other cases where we know he had firsthand knowledge careful about his attributions, then imo we should place this statement of the source of the idea as JS in the 'unconfirmed' pile and use it for neither evidence for JS being a fraud (as in he fell for it) or evidence for him being a prophet (as in he didn't believe it was authentic even if others did as would be demonstrated by the thirdhand comment Clayton gives).

Let's test this idea with the following. I say the following:

There was a great concert by the Police at the Sprint Center in Kansas City a couple of nights ago. Elvis Costello was the opening act, and Sting came on stage to sing Alison with Elvis. Later, Sting said that he did a concert in Kansas city in 1979, and a couple of years before that he was a school teacher. He then asked, "what the #@$% happened?", and proceeded to perform "Don't Stand So Close to Me".

In other words, I just state some events without attributing them to anybody. If I were writing this in an official record and was as reputable as Clayton, would you dismiss this because I didn't say "I saw the police....I saw Sting come out...I heard Sting say...."

If I read an article about a concert, I'd assume that the person describing the show actually saw it, even if he didn't liberally pepper the description with affirmations that he really was a first-hand witnesses. But in the outside possiblity that he didn't see it, I'd still take the account as being prima facie reliable if it came from somebody like Clayton.

[why me]

With all due respect, your reasoning only works if one accepts the premise that con artists are impervious to being conned. I don't happen to accept that premise because I am aware of not a few real-life circumstances where cons were conned. In fact, one of my favorite movies (The Sting) is based on that happening.

Your reasoning also only works if one believes that a given con is being conned and/or has reason to believe s/he is being conned. Were, say, the kinderhook hoaxsters to have at some later time been presented, themsleves, with purported ancient plates, they may not care whether the plates were authentic or not (for all they know they could be). Instead, they may see them as a way of credibilizing their own hoax, and for that reason tacitly accept as authentic the purported ancient plates.

This is not to suggest that I believe Joseph to be a con artist. I don't. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I am speaking to the validity of your argument, and not to the character of Joseph. Its just that to me there are far more rational and compelling arguments against the proposition that Joseph was a con.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can see your point. But I think that in this case, the book of mormon complete wth gold plates and visitations would have been such a big con that there is no way that JS would have been conned by the kinderhook plates. The book of mormon was certainly a elaborate con if it were a con. It took immense imagination to think up the restoration complete with heavenly characters all to verify the book of mormon con. Plus, not to mention the other conmen who would have been in on it.

For JS to fall for the Kinderhook plates his mind would have had to have a lapse in good judgement since he was not just responsible for himself but for also a host of individuals who were in on his con.

The book of mormon and the gold plates was no ordinary con for a conman to be trick by his own con. That was my point. To much was riding on JS's con if it was a con to risk it all with plates found that resembled his con to the tee.

[why me]

How many church members left the church during the kinderhook plates episode? This would determine just how detrimental it all was to the lds church at that time. My guess is: not many if any at all. But it would be nice to know for sure.

It is easy to intellectualize it all now decades and decades later. But at that time it didn't seem to make a big splash with the members. Sure there was some excitement when it was first reported but once the plates were shelved, all went back to normal.

[Calm]

Let's test this idea with the following. I say the following:

There was a great concert by the Police at the Sprint Center in Kansas City a couple of nights ago. Elvis Costello was the opening act, and Sting came on stage to sing Alison with Elvis. Later, Sting said that he did a concert in Kansas city in 1979, and a couple of years before that he was a school teacher. He then asked, "what the #@$% happened?", and proceeded to perform "Don't Stand So Close to Me".

In other words, I just state some events without attributing them to anybody. If I were writing this in an official record and was as reputable as Clayton, would you dismiss this because I didn't say "I saw the police....I saw Sting come out...I heard Sting say...."

If I read an article about a concert, I'd assume that the person describing the show actually saw it, even if he didn't liberally pepper the description with affirmations that he really was a first-hand witnesses. But in the outside possiblity that he didn't see it, I'd still take the account as being prima facie reliable if it came from somebody like Clayton.

I would not dismiss this outright, but I would definitely not take it as definite evidence unless there were other reports.

But perhaps I am just more cautious in my acceptance of such accounts having experienced too many episodes of miscommunication based on such remarks and even some firsthand reports. I trust very little I see on the news these days after spending time in Moscow and hearing CNN ("the most trusted name in news") report events I personally knew of and obviously lying about them (it's not that hard to tell the different between thousands and tens of thousands in my experience) and using visual tricks to make something appear different than reality.

Plus I've always been skeptical about stories from my earliest days, never bought the faith promoting rumours even as a kid, never bought into the bright eyed wonder boy version of JS or 'Lion of God' Brigham Young, at the age of 13 or so when I first read him thought Skousen was an idiot for establishing all his specific chronology and never trusted him again.

I must admit I don't remember if I 'bought' the Cherry Tree story or not as we listened to my first grade teacher while making red jello on Washington's B-day back at John Muir Elementary in San Bruno, CA. I do remember being shocked when reading some incorrect info in an encyclopedia sometime around the age of nine, so there were sources I thought must be authoritative at that age. Disillusionment in one so young, how sad.

[LifeOnaPlate]

However, given the fact that Clayton's notes were involved and at least on one occasion (Kinderhook) his notes are disregarded as fact would you be willing to agree that we should put a "In that its translated correctly" on the KFD? For all I know that disclaimer may already be in place.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

The KFD has not received canonical status.

[LifeOnaPlate]

PS: Mudcat, I'd just like to add that you are included in my short list of nonmembers I refer to when I want to see 'what it looks like from the outside' (it's short because few nonLDS are interested enough to take more than a superficial look at things and I don't find that level of evaluation all that valuable for this purpose). You almost always (if not always) seem to give a fair and balanced appraisal and don't 'close the book' until you know the relevant information (such as whether or not there's a disclaimer for the KFD). Getting your perspective and others' like you is one of the main reasons I keep active on the boards. You make for excellent reality checks.

Agreed.

[SolarPowered]

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.

So, you're acknowledging that Joseph was most likely a prophet??!

Because he didn't "roll the dice on this"--he never made any public translation. At most, he mumbled a few ideas to Clayton. So he took the route that you're speculating that only a true prophet of God would take.