The Kinderhook Plates: Another Testimony of Smith's Deceptio

[_Doctor Steuss]

Yes, William Clayton, a faithful follower and scribe of Joseph Smith and the History of the Church [sic] went to great pains to misrepresent him. Mormon apologists are damn pathetic.

Do you believe that everything Clayton ever wrote is completely factual?

[_wenglund]

This may not make sense to binary (black/white) thinkers like CC and Karl, but while many of us apologists greatly respect the work of Clayton, we do not hold out his every word to be infallable or beyond question or scrutiny. We are open-minded enough to think it possible that on rare occasions Clayton might have reported hearsay rather than eyewitness facts.

It is nice to see, though, the proverbial critics so staunchly devoted to the words of Clayton. It is a wonder to behold.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

Another typical throwaway thread manned by the likes of CC and Scratch.




Move along...well, you know the drill.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

CC,

What's interesting about the Clayton account is that it clearly contains a number of serious errors. Was Joseph Smith the source of these errors? Or is Clayton merely reporting heresay that was apparently going through the community (as evidenced by Pratt's personal account).

[_Dr. Shades]

So when Clayton traced one of the plates in the pages of his journal, I suppose you'll say he was somehow tracing hearsay, too?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Do you believe that everything Clayton ever wrote is completely factual?

No, but the vapid Mormon apologists have given no good reason to discount the journal entry of a man who had direct access to the founding charlatan of their religion.

[_Doctor Steuss]

No, but the vapid Mormon apologists have given no good reason to discount the journal entry of a man who had direct access to the founding charlatan of their religion.

I imagine you have good reason to consider Ben "vapid" and "damn pathetic” (and you have a thorough knowledge of the Pratt account that he references).

I was just a bit caught off guard by your remark since in my experience he is usually very congenial, willing to provide his reasons for adhering to a particular position if asked, and normally very thoughtful in his replies.

I think Ben is incorrect in his belief that Clayton’s account is to be outright discounted, but I don’t think that disagreement causes him to be uninspiring and “damn pathetic.”

Well, that and you seemed to be creating a double-standard while bludgeoning a straw man.

[_wenglund]

So when Clayton traced one of the plates in the pages of his journal, I suppose you'll say he was somehow tracing hearsay, too?

You, as expected, suppose incorrectly. Unlike you, I am capable of distinquishing between the plates, themselves, and what may have been said about the plates by whomever.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

We know how enamoured some of you critics are with the Clayton statement.

But, I am wondering if you give the same creedence to the statement by W. Fugate, the chief conspirator in the hoax, in which he says: "We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages, but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England." (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello again,

I am terribly sorry, but, once again, did not the Utah branch of the Mormon church tout the Kinderhook Plates as "proof" of Joseph Smith's prophethood?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me