Kinderhook And Critics

[wenglund]

Just a randam thought or two on this. I am as intrigued by this question as anyone and am always interested in learning more.

One observation is that the phrase in the Clayton entry, "and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth" is reminiscent of Abraham 1:21 but may also echo a passage from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers notebook (KEP1 page 12) next to the symbol of what looks like an upside down circle "Ho e oop hah -- honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh possession by birth one who reigns upon his throne univerally - possessor of heaven and earth." Did Joseph Smith offer a partial or what would be a secular translation based upon these study notes relating to the Egyptian papyri and the Book of Abraham?

Has anyone compared the Kinderhook symbols with those on the papyri? Would he have seen anything that reminded him of symbols on the papyri?

Is it possible that Clayton mistook Joseph discussing the Egyptian papyri rather than the Kinderhook plates?

Is it possible that Joseph mispoke and inadvertently referenced the Book of Abraham rather than the Kinderhook plates and that what Clayton records is this error?

I am simply asking the questions, but perhaps some of these things deserve closer examination.

Personally, when obvious clear cut answers are not available, I find it is best to offer various possibilties and allow others to decide.

My two cents

Matt

Hi Matt,

I discussed aspects of this some time back on another thread: "Kinderhooked?" (see post #119)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There are a couple things strike me about the account for May 7, 1843, and one of them is that if the plates were believed to have been written in Egyptian why would Joseph send William Smith to fetch the old Hebrew Bible and Lexicon? Curious!

Some time agon I wondered the same thing. However, there is reason to believe that the plates had left Nauvoo for Kinderhook by May 3rd. As such, there is some doubt whether the discussion about the plates on the 7th involved Joseph mentioning, let alone doing, a "partial translation", and so it is likewise questionable whether William's errand to fetch the Hebrew Lexicon had any relation to the meeting about the Kinderhook plates or not. But, who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

"ambiguous"

Considering how close Wllm Clayton was to JS, I do not think his comments are idle speculation. I would conclude that he got his information either directly fr JS himself, or somewhat indirectly from a credible source, e.g. a close associate of JS.

The exact information and context of that information is indeed ambiguous, and that is why I think it was just another practical joke as JS had done in the past. William Clayton mistakenly thought it was legit.

[wenglund]

"ambiguous"

Considering how close Wllm Clayton was to JS, I do not think his comments are idle speculation. I would conclude that he got his information either directly fr JS himself, or somewhat indirectly from a credible source, e.g. a close associate of JS.

The exact information and context of that information is indeed ambiguous, and that is why I think it was just another practical joke as JS had done in the past. William Clayton mistakenly thought it was legit.

Whether one views Clayton's account as ambiguous or not (I happen to think that, for the most part, it is quite ambiguous), I, too, don't see this as impinging upon Clayton's credibility or reliability as an historical witness. I am more than happy to grant that Clayton gave a reasonbly accurate account of what he heard and in regards to whom the comments are ultimately to be attributed.

What the ambiguity does impinge upon is whether people can reasonably come to various divergent opinons on the matter. I believe they can. The ambiguity of Clayton's accounts allows for people to reasonably opine that Clayton heard the partial translation firsthand, and for people to reasonably opine that he heard it second or thirdhand. People can reasonably opine that Clayton paraphrased the partial translation, and others can reasonably opine that he quoted it verbatim. People can reasonably view the partial translation as an informal and secular extrapolation based on a few of the characters, or as a formal translation presumably using the gift and power of God, or merely as a joke he was playing on his listening audience. People can even reasonably disagree as to whether the "partial translation" actually occured or a product of rumor.

But, whichever of the opinions above one may come to, I personally don't see it as logically impacting the verity of Joseph's supernaturalistic translations of the BoM and the BoA, or whether Joseph was a prophet of God, or whether the restored gospel is true and Christ's Church, though to each their own

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alf writes:

No, I can accurately parse Clayton's journal to know that the sentence with "Prest J." in it is attributed to Joseph Smith by Clayton and the other sentences are not. Take another look:

One of the major issues here (and this is why the other comments are relevant) is that there was no body found with the plates. The skeleton (which is referred to in both the Clayton and the Pratt account) never existed. So, there is already a conflation of reality in what Clayton reports Joseph Smith to have said. Where did the information about a person come from?

And that's not evidence?

No, its not evidence. Evidence of a translation has to be more than someone's personal belief that a translation may have occured.

[why me]

"ambiguous"

Considering how close Wllm Clayton was to JS, I do not think his comments are idle speculation. I would conclude that he got his information either directly fr JS himself, or somewhat indirectly from a credible source, e.g. a close associate of JS.

The exact information and context of that information is indeed ambiguous, and that is why I think it was just another practical joke as JS had done in the past. William Clayton mistakenly thought it was legit.

Unfortunately we will never know. However, I do believe that the perpetrators of the fraud were perhaps disappointed that nothing materialized with the plates. I am sure that they hoped to destroy the lds church but instead it grew and prospered and of course, JS was murdered. What more can be said?

[Alf O'Mega]

One of the major issues here (and this is why the other comments are relevant) is that there was no body found with the plates. The skeleton (which is referred to in both the Clayton and the Pratt account) never existed. So, there is already a conflation of reality in what Clayton reports Joseph Smith to have said. Where did the information about a person come from?

Clayton doesn't cite Joseph as the source of anything before "Prest J. has translated a portion and says . . ." Why do you?

No, its not evidence. Evidence of a translation has to be more than someone's personal belief that a translation may have occured.

This reminds me of a thread in which Dan Vogel got blasted for not admitting that the NHM business is at least minimally evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. I'm with him that it's not good or sufficient evidence (see here), but I disagree with him that it isn't evidence at all.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alf writes:

Clayton doesn't cite Joseph as the source of anything before "Prest J. has translated a portion and says . . ." Why do you?

I am not. Since you quoted it - emphasis added:

Prest. J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found ...

There you go.

This reminds me of a thread in which Dan Vogel got blasted for not admitting that the NHM business is at least minimally evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. I'm with him that it's not good or sufficient evidence (see here), but I disagree with him that it isn't evidence at all.

This only becomes evidence if you are allowed to resolve the ambiguity in the way that you want to.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would just like to add that I am interested in the unflagging confidence given to the writing of Clayton, while at the same time the writing of Cowdery, which describes seeing an angel, being given the priesthood, assisting in a miraculous translation of an ancient record, etc. gets tossed by the wayside because it involves angels and other crazy things.

[skenderbeg]

Well said.

I would just like to add that I am interested in the unflagging confidence given to the writing of Clayton, while at the same time the writing of Cowdery, which describes seeing an angel, being given the priesthood, assisting in a miraculous translation of an ancient record, etc. gets tossed by the wayside because it involves angels and other crazy things.

[Alf O'Mega]

Clayton doesn't cite Joseph as the source of anything before "Prest J. has translated a portion and says . . ." Why do you?

I am not. Since you quoted it - emphasis added:

Prest. J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found ...

There you go.

Where am I going again? The phrase you bolded establishes that Joseph probably believed that the plates were buried with somebody (or, if you prefer, with somebody's body). There apparently were bones found with the plates, but not a complete skeleton. One can easily imagine this detail getting inflated upon repetition. Nevertheless I don't see how this establishes that Clayton was dependent on Joseph for the information about the plates' discovery.

However accurate or faulty that portion of his journal entry is, it doesn't impugn the reliability of his report of what Joseph said. Even if Joseph clearly understood that there was no complete skeleton and Clayton misattributed the subject of the plates' history, it is inconceivable that such an error means he invented the rest of the translation. Rumors and misquotations, at least among sincere actors, take reasonably small steps in the evolution of their inaccuracies. There is no way that Clayton invented the translation, and there's not enough ambiguity to attribute the translation to anybody but Joseph Smith.

I would just like to add that I am interested in the unflagging confidence given to the writing of Clayton, while at the same time the writing of Cowdery, which describes seeing an angel, being given the priesthood, assisting in a miraculous translation of an ancient record, etc. gets tossed by the wayside because it involves angels and other crazy things.

How did my assumption of Clayton's basic reliability become "unflagging confidence"?

If it will help, I'll stipulate that I "accept the likely veracity" of most of Cowdery's accounts. I believe that he was a true believer and thought he saw the things that he reports. I think it's also possible that he fudged a couple of details when it came to crafting the most faith-promoting version of the events he witnessed. But I don't see any reason to doubt him as a basically sincere and truthful reporter.

[why me]

I would just like to add that I am interested in the unflagging confidence given to the writing of Clayton, while at the same time the writing of Cowdery, which describes seeing an angel, being given the priesthood, assisting in a miraculous translation of an ancient record, etc. gets tossed by the wayside because it involves angels and other crazy things.

Most people pick and choose what cherries they want to pick from the cherry tree. It is only natural. I have seen it all the time on exmo boards. They quote this person and that person as long as it supports their understanding but exclude, ignore or deflate a quotation that doesn't support their claim. Oliver and the host of others around JS at that time of the translation are an enigma for exmos. I would say that these people surrounding JS down right give exmos a headache.

Likewise for this debate about the kinderhook plates. No one can win this argument. It is all based on what somewhat wrote in a journal. And as every journal writer knows, mistakes can happen and context can be remiss.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Likewise for this debate about the kinderhook plates. No one can win this argument. It is all based on what somewhat wrote in a journal. And as every journal writer knows, mistakes can happen and context can be remiss.

Hence this thread. It becomes us to critically analyze the source we use, and of course, we all end up using those which we find persuesive in the way we rad them.

Prest. J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found ...

This, to me, does not indicate specifically that what Pres. J. said was directly said to Clayton.

It would be interesting to find instances where Clayton said something like "so-and-so said" when it can be demonstrated that Clayton could not have been present when the person spoke.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Alf writes:

Where am I going again? The phrase you bolded establishes that Joseph probably believed that the plates were buried with somebody (or, if you prefer, with somebody's body).

No, it doesn't establish anything about Joseph Smith. Not a single thing. Joseph Smith doesn't write the journal entry. What it says is that Clayton believed that Joseph connected the plates to a buried person (a buried person we know never existed). There was a "bone" (singular IIRC) found while digging for the plates. But Clayton is rather specific about the nature of the remains. And he associates that information with Joseph. Really, it seems that you are fixated on trying to make this translation somehow evident - but all of this cannot replace real evidence - an actual manuscript for example (like we have for the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Mormon, and so on).

However accurate or faulty that portion of his journal entry is, it doesn't impugn the reliability of his report of what Joseph said.

The problem is, we don't know what Joseph said, and Clayton's account can be equally read as reporting something Joseph said to Clayton, or some third hand account which Clayton was told by someone else.

Even if Joseph clearly understood that there was no complete skeleton and Clayton misattributed the subject of the plates' history, it is inconceivable that such an error means he invented the rest of the translation.

Of course it doesn't - but we don't have a record of any translation. None. Not a single word. And what you seem to be missing is that someone else may have invented the translation (not Clayton) even though Clayton records it. It isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.

In fact, this wouldn't even really be an issue except for the use of this story which is made by the likes of Grant Palmer and Dan Vogel and so on.

How did my assumption of Clayton's basic reliability become "unflagging confidence"?

The moment you stopped critically examining Clayton's text maybe? The problem you still have, Alf, is that Clayton's account has to be interpreted to mean what you think it means, and that interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with Clayton's reliability. Since Clayton can be completely reliable in what he reports, and still not be reporting factual reality.

Ben

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since Clayton can be completely reliable in what he reports, and still not be reporting factual reality.

Ben

A salient point. Maybe the kinderhook translation disappeared with the tin plates.

*waves to Dan Vogel who briefly dropped in*

[MormonMason]

Resumed search for contents of letter to which I referred earlier... Still looking...

[MormonMason]

Still looking for the information regarding the letter I mentioned above. I have not found it yet. But, I did manage to come across something from a book. I present that here (bold emphasis on a few things of interest) and then will continue looking for the letter on Monday evening.

MOUND STATION, Illinois, June 30, 1879.

MR. COBB: â??

I received your letter in regard to those plates, and will say in answer that they are a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself. Whitton is dead. I do not know whether Wiley is or not. None of the nine persons who signed the certificate knew the secret, except Wiley and I. We read in Pratts prophecy that "Truth is yet to spring up out of the earth." We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them. Bridge Whitton cut them (the plates) out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust. Our plans worked admirably. A certain Sunday was appointed for digging. The night before, Wiley went to the mound where he had previously dug to the depth of about eight feet, there being a flat rock that sounded hollow beneath, and put them under it. On the following morning quite a number of citizens were there to assist in the search, there being two Mormon elders present â?? Marsh and Sharp. The rock was soon removed, but some time elapsed before the plates were discovered. I finally picked them up, and exclaimed : "A piece of pot metal !" Fayette Grubb snatched them from me and struck them against the rock and they fell to pieces. Dr. Harris examined them and said they had hieroglyphics on them. He took acid and removed the rust, and they were soon out on exhibition. Under this rock was dome-like in appearance, about three feet in diameter. There were a few bones in the last stage of decomposition, also a few pieces of pottery and charcoal. There was no skeleton found. Sharp, the Mormon elder, leaped and shouted for joy, and said Satan had appeared to him and told him not to go (to the diggings), it was a hoax of Fugate and Wiley's, but at a later hour the Lord appeared and told him to go, the treasure was there.

The Mormons wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go. Some time afterward a man assuming the name of Savage, of Quincy, borrowed the plates of Wiley to show to his literary friends there, and took them to Joe Smith. The same identical plates were returned to Wiley, who gave them to Professor McDowell, of St. Louis, for his Museum.

W. FUGAT

STATE OF ILLINOIS, _}^SS.

BROWN COUNTY.

W. Fugate, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the above letter, containing an account of the plates found near Kinderhook, is true and correct to the best of his recollection.

W. FUGATE.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of June,

1879.

JAY BROWN, J. P.

(Charles A. Shook, Cumorah Revisited: Or, "The Book of Mormon" and the Claims of the Mormons [1910, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company], 549-550)

[Thinking]

I've often wondered why a guy who had received one set of ancient records from the hand of an angel would assume God would deliver the next set(s) through artifacts dealers and local farmers.

Michael Chandler?

[Thinking]

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.

The Warsaw Signal (May 22, 1844) reported that JS was busy translating the KP.

The Nauvoo Expositor was published on June 7, 1844, and so began the last days of JS. If he was translating, he became preoccupied with other matters.

[charity]

The Warsaw Signal (May 22, 1844) reported that JS was busy translating the KP.

What was their source?

[wenglund]

What was their source?

As I figure it, since Joseph likely only viewed the plates on May 1st of 1843, and the plates had left Nauvoo by May 3rd of that year, the source for each of the subsequent reports of translation were probably rumor.

These reports include:

Taylor and Woodruff handbill (June 24th, 1843)

Warsaw Signal article (May 22nd, 1844)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

What was their source?

An unnamed writer in the St. Louis Gazette!

No, really, that is what they said:

Jo. had a facsimile taken, and engraved on wood, and it now appears from the statement of a writer in the St. Louis Gazette, that he is busy translating them. The new work which Jo. is about to issue as a translation of these plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequal to the Book of Mormon;...

(The Warsaw Signal: An Agricultural, Literary and Commercial Register, May 22, 1844; emphasis mine)

Sounds a lot like a rumor account to me....

[LifeOnaPlate]

haha nice source.

[MormonMason]

haha nice source.

I am trying to track the name of the person down. I do not know what I will find at this point. I do know that Joseph Smith spoke with someone he identifies as "a brother who works in the St. Louis Gazette office" who came to him on April 25, 1844 to ask him some questions. Apparently, Emma also had been in St. Louis since April 20, 1844, and had just returned at the same time as "the brother" came to see him. (See History of the Church 6:343).

The Willard Richards Journal of Joseph Smith records it a little differently, the main difference being the omission of the words "who works in" and "office" from the account, along with a few other minor differences. If this fellow spoke with anyone in Nauvoo, it is possible that he also may have heard the rumor accounts that had been spread around Nauvoo about a number of things. It is possible that this person is the unnamed reporter.

P.S.: Just as an aside, William Clayton died in Salt Lake City in December 4, 1879. The Fugate to Cobb letter quoted above was written on June 30, 1879. I cannot imagine Cobb remaining silent about this letter in Salt Lake City, where he also lived. He would have used it like a battering ram, in my opinion.

I saw no evidence of Clayton leaving the Church over something like this. If he had actually heard Joseph Smith himself say that he translated a portion of the plates, one would think that Clayton might have been affected in some way by this information. Of course, it only was six months between the two events and we do not know the time of the arrival of the letter as of that time. I am trying to track something else down relative to this. I do not yet know what I may find.