Kinderhook And Critics

[T-Shirt]

By the way. The hoaxers said they met with Joseph, while Willard Richards doesn't mention them meeting. Correct?

No, not correct:

Sunday, 7.â??In the forenoon I was visited by several gentlemen, concerning the plates that were dug out near Kinderhook.

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols.)

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

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...."

Clayton did not write his statement in an official record. No one was even aware of what Clayton wrote in his personal journal until nine years later when historians were gathering information from as many sources as possible, including personal journals, in an attempt to piece together a history of the Church.

T-Shirt

[SolarPowered]

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

So you're the one who stole them!!!

Sit tight--we'll have the FBI knocking on your door momentarily.

[oceanblue]

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.

He did role the dice. He took the plates. There's confusions as to what he did after that. Hard to tell. But he did take the plates.

I know prophets are supposed to be very human. But one way or another, I think we can all agree that when he was given the plates there was no revelation from God saying "Don't take these plates....they're fake!", right? There was no angelic visit letting him know that he needs to publically disavow these plates as fake, thereby protecting him and the church from this scam.

While it's not in Joseph's journals that he translated anything...there is also no mention that he knew they were fakes.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He did role the dice. He took the plates. There's confusions as to what he did after that. Hard to tell. But he did take the plates.

I know prophets are supposed to be very human. But one way or another, I think we can all agree that when he was given the plates there was no revelation from God saying "Don't take these plates....they're fake!", right? There was no angelic visit letting him know that he needs to publically disavow these plates as fake, thereby protecting him and the church from this scam.

While it's not in Joseph's journals that he translated anything...there is also no mention that he knew they were fakes.

Sounds like a wash. To the believer, if they were authentic and to be translated, they would have been.

[oceanblue]

Sounds like a wash. To the believer, if they were authentic and to be translated, they would have been.

I agree - it is a wash. I'm not saying any of what I'm writing proves Joseph a fraud. I'm saying that Joseph's actions do not prove he wasn't, as was suggested earlier by some. There are valid explanations either way, depending on what you already believe.

[Scott Lloyd]

He did role the dice. He took the plates. There's confusions as to what he did after that. Hard to tell. But he did take the plates.

I know prophets are supposed to be very human. But one way or another, I think we can all agree that when he was given the plates there was no revelation from God saying "Don't take these plates....they're fake!", right? There was no angelic visit letting him know that he needs to publically disavow these plates as fake, thereby protecting him and the church from this scam.

While it's not in Joseph's journals that he translated anything...there is also no mention that he knew they were fakes.

Maybe he didn't consider the incident important enough to merit mention.

Joseph said once that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. Meaning, of course, they're not receiving revelation 24/7. Revelation is not something one obtains on demand, but only as the Lord God is pleased to bestow it.

That prophets and apostles occasionally can be subject to deception by unscrupulous individuals is part of the condition of mortality and is demonstrated by the Mark Hofmann affair.

[SolarPowered]

... I think we can all agree that when he was given the plates there was no revelation from God saying "Don't take these plates....they're fake!", right? There was no angelic visit letting him know that he needs to publically disavow these plates as fake, thereby protecting him and the church from this scam.

And why would we even expect that to be the case?

Edit: I really hate it when I read down to the last post, reply to the last post, and then discover that there have been three additional posts while I was reading the page.

[Anijen]

I could be wrong but I thought the Anthon Transcript was a mark Hoffman Forgery. He copied some of the characters from a binding from an old BoM, but the transcript itself was a forgery.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I could be wrong but I thought the Anthon Transcript was a mark Hoffman Forgery. He copied some of the characters from a binding from an old BoM, but the transcript itself was a forgery.

One of the known "transcripts" was a Hoffman forgery.

[Anijen]

One of the known "transcripts" was a Hoffman forgery.

So the one shown earlier was the actual AT?

[LifeOnaPlate]

So the one shown earlier was the actual AT?

I believe there is a copy of "caractors" from the AT.

[oceanblue]

Maybe he didn't consider the incident important enough to merit mention.

Joseph said once that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. Meaning, of course, they're not receiving revelation 24/7. Revelation is not something one obtains on demand, but only as the Lord God is pleased to bestow it.

That prophets and apostles occasionally can be subject to deception by unscrupulous individuals is part of the condition of mortality and is demonstrated by the Mark Hofmann affair.

Like I said in my last post - I agree what this. You can't expect Joseph to have mentioned in his own journal everything that was considered worthy to be mentioned in others. There are things said to me in passing that greatly affect my life, that likely have absolutely no importance to those who said them.

Granted...supposed records of an ancient people seems of higher worth than many other happenings. Seems like it would be somewhere, even it was a fake. But it's certainly not high evidence of anything either way. I just can't see how someone could look at what Joseph did, or didn't do, and say "See!! That's exactly what a true prophet would have done!!" without admitting there's ample reason for another to say "See!! That's exactly what a fraud would have done!!". Someone else called it a wash. I agree. While I can see other critics jumping all over this as proof of Joseph being nothing like a prophet, since Joseph himself took little apparent interest in the whole deal there's not much one can take from the whole episode. Maybe he spoke little about it because he really wanted to release it as "translated" before he let anyone know. The wow affect? Maybe he was embarrased at being taken in. Maybe he just knew all along they were fake and thought the best thing to do was get them out of the puclic's eye before some other LDS fool bit. You know...to protect anyone else in the church who gave it a whirl from the embarassment that would surely come. I'd say it's all up in the air. Or down in the ground.

[Analytics]

By the way. The hoaxers said they met with Joseph, while Willard Richards doesn't mention them meeting. Correct?

No, not correct:

Sunday, 7.â??In the forenoon I was visited by several gentlemen, concerning the plates that were dug out near Kinderhook.

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols.)

T-Shirt

Are you sure that that account is from Willard, and that is the first time Smith met with them? It was six days earlier on May 1 when that same book (i.e. HOC, 12 pages before) states in the voice of Joseph Smith, "I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found."

The only thing that HOC says Joseph did on May 1 was pay a bill with borrowed money and extole the Kinderhook plates for several pages in his personal history.

[Analytics]

The Newspaper, The Quincy Whig published an article describing how the Kinderhook Plates were found and what they look like entitled, â??Singular Discover-Material for Another Mormon Book.â? It ends by saying,

The plates above alluded to, were exhibited in this city last week, and are now, we understand, in Nauvoo, subject to the inspection of the Mormon Prophet. The public curiosity is greatly excited, and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will do more towards throwing light on the early history of this continent, than any man now living.

The Times and Seasons later introduces the issue and responds to the Whig with an article that compares the people who scoffed at The Book of Mormon with those who scoffed at Columbus. It then goes onto speculate about how the Kinderhook Plates will help exonerate The Book of Mormon. Included with a description of how where the plates came from, it says

Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac similie of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning with them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it.

It will be seen by the annexed statement of the Quincy Whig, that there are more dreamers and money diggers, than Joseph Smith, in the world, and the worthy editor is obliged to acknowledge that this circumstance will go a good way to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. He further states that, "if Joseph Smith can decypher [decipher] the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will do more towards throwing light on the early history of this continent than any man living." We think that he has done that already, in translating and publishing the Book of Mormon, and would advise the gentleman and all interested, to read for themselves, and understand. We have no doubt however, but Mr. Smith will be able to translate them.

This shows the type of rumor that was floating around. This gives further proof that Joseph Smith did in fact examine the plates. It shows that there was a general consensus that the plates were genuine. And it shows that the Saints had high expectations that Joseph could and would translate them. However there is no speculation about what, specifically, the plates said.

Will you guys concede that Joseph looked at the plates? Would you concede that when he did so or soon after, he was in the company of people like the writer of that article who had faith and expectations that he could translate it? Thatâ??s a pretty strong motivation to throw them a bone, is it not? Clayton was a church clerk (PLEASE donâ??t quibble with me about his title), and spent a lot of time with Joseph Smith. Clayton proclaims in his journal that Joseph Smith did in fact make a partial translation, and gives several specific details of what Joseph said. He states this matter-of-factly, not feeling the need to qualify what he said or explain how he knows what Joseph said.

[cinepro]

The kinderhook plates are a fascinating subject, and I hope any readers of this thread will take the time to read this previous discussion:

Kinderhooked?

One important point that is often forgotten is the LDS attitude towards the plates in the decades before the scientific tests proved them to be fraudulent. There are many good arguments for believing that Joseph Smith never authenticated them, but none of these arguments were made until science rode in and proved them false. Until then, the Kinderhook plates were just another example of ancient metal plates for which Joseph had the ability to translate.

If I had a time machine, the fourth thing I would do is arrange a debate between modern day apologists arguing that the Kinderhook plates were always doubted and never authenticated, and earlier apologist arguing that the plates were authentic and further proof for Joseph Smith's abilities and archaeological evidence.

If the modern day apologists couldn't introduce the scientific tests, it could be quite a debate.

[Analytics]

The kinderhook plates are a fascinating subject, and I hope any readers of this thread will take the time to read this previous discussion:

Kinderhooked?

What a great thread. Wow. All I can say is O, that I were a Don Bradley, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak the truth will clear reasoning and eloquence, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry the truth unto every apologist! Yea, I would declare unto every debater, as with the voice of thunder, that they should repent of their unsound arguments that there might not be more sorrow throughout all the wires of Internet Mormonoism. But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which blind luck hath allotted unto me.

One important point that is often forgotten is the LDS attitude towards the plates in the decades before the scientific tests proved them to be fraudulent. There are many good arguments for believing that Joseph Smith never authenticated them, but none of these arguments were made until science rode in and proved them false. Until then, the Kinderhook plates were just another example of ancient metal plates for which Joseph had the ability to translate.

If I had a time machine, the fourth thing I would do is arrange a debate between modern day apologists arguing that the Kinderhook plates were always doubted and never authenticated, and earlier apologist arguing that the plates were authentic and further proof for Joseph Smith's abilities and archaeological evidence.

If the modern day apologists couldn't introduce the scientific tests, it could be quite a debate.

I'd love to see that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What a great thread. Wow. All I can say is O, that I were a Don Bradley, and could have the wish of mine heart,

Don says:

But, apologist that I am, I have uncovered the method of translation employed by Joseph Smith--it was not claimed to be revelatory.

That very idea was already presented in this thread. Where was the applause?

*excellent thread link, btw.

[MormonMason]

He did role the dice. He took the plates. There's confusions as to what he did after that. Hard to tell. But he did take the plates.

...

The letter I had read that was written by the lead hoaxster stated that Joseph Smith did not take them. Hmmm.

Guess that is something else I need to dig out from locations unknown in the old, buried-in-the-basement boxes. I thought I'd never see the day when I would need that stuff again....

[LifeOnaPlate]

The letter I had read that was written by the lead hoaxster stated that Joseph Smith did not take them. Hmmm.

Guess that is something else I need to dig out from locations unknown in the old, buried-in-the-basement boxes. I thought I'd never see the day when I would need that stuff again....

Looking forward to it!

[MormonMason]

One other thing: Where does the Clayton account say "I saw Prest. J. translate a portion of them..." there?

Other related questions:

1. Why is it written in the aorist ("I have seen", "has translated a portion") and present ("says they contain") when that statement is made?

2. Why does not Clayton's account agree with the Pratt account?

Clayton: "I have seen 6 brass plates ... covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest. J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendent of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Pratt: "Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of the mound by a gentleman in Pike C. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah."

"A descendent of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh King of Egypt"??? "One of the ancient Jaredites"??? There was no king of Egypt before the tower of Babel in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Smith and Pratt both would have been aware of that. Written "in Egyptian language"??? There was no Egyptian language until the scattering of man at the confounding of languages at Babel according to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

I am sure that if we were to look for other accounts that we would see further divergences from these two.

3. Why does the information put into the Times and Seasons by one of Joseph Smith's best friends, John Taylor, say that he had no idea what Joseph Smith's opinion concerning the plates was if a translation of any kind had been affected?

4. Where are any other accounts of people who say they actually saw Joseph translate the plates?

There are other questions that could be asked.

[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.

I suppose the reason I made the statement about the disclaimer, is that I have observed what you have stated also. I figured there was one out there. But I appreciate the confirmation of the one in the KFD. It would make an interesting thread to discuss 'the disclaimer phenomena within the LDS faith', I may start a thread on it. In fact I know I will. Hope to see you there.

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.

I don't know what else to say but...."ack..cough, cough, cough,...sugar poisoning"

just kiddin ya

Honestly thanks. As a 'pseudo critic' , I don't get a lot of compliments and I appreciate yours.

edit add - You too LOaP

It means a lot.

Mudcat

[Analytics]

One other thing: Where does the Clayton account say "I saw Prest. J. translate a portion of them..." there?...

You might want to read Don Bradley's posts on the thread to which cinepro linked. Clayton was at Joseph Smith's house and traced one of the plates into his journal while there. This proves that he was with Joseph Smith that day, proves they talked about the Kinderhook Plates, and proves that his account is based on what Joseph Smith told him first hand.

Also, John Taylor published a facilime of the plates and promised that the full translation would be published in Times and Seasons when Joseph finished it. Read Don's posts for the details--it turns out that my position is even stronger than I thought it was.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You might want to read Don Bradley's posts on the thread to which cinepro linked. Clayton was at Joseph Smith's house and traced one of the plates into his journal while there. This proves that he was with Joseph Smith that day, proves they talked about the Kinderhook Plates, and proves that his account is based on what Joseph Smith told him first hand.

Also, John Taylor published a facilime of the plates and promised that the full translation would be published in Times and Seasons when Joseph finished it. Read Don's posts for the details--it turns out that my position is even stronger than I thought it was.

What did you think of Mike Ash's take on it?

[wenglund]

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.

Actually, while I do believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet, I haven't come to a firm conclusion either way about whether Clayton heard the partial translation firsthand or not, but am open to multiple plausibilities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-