The Kinderhook Plates: Another Testimony of Smith's Deceptio

[_Dr. Shades]

Also, please note that Wade's quotation from Wilbur Fugate's 1878 letter is misleading because it omits a critical detail:

We understood Jo Smith said they [i.e., the Kinderhook 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, they were sent and / the answer was that there were no such / Hyeroglyphics known and if there ever had / been they had long since passed away / then Smith began his translation[.]

[Wilbur Fugate to James T. Cobb, 8 April 1878, virgule line breaks and emphasis added, Schroeder Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI]

Oh, boy. That looks very, VERY bad for our friend Wade.

But to make matters even worse, Wade said:

It just seems more than a little ironic to find disbelievers having such unwaivering faith in the words of a believer [William Clayton, who claimed Joseph Smith translated the plates], even more so than believers, while so easily dismissing the words of a disbeliever [Wilbur Fugate, who—according to your truncated quotation—seemingly claimed Joseph Smith did not translate the plates].

Yes, Wade, that "critical detail" is VERY, VERY pertinent. Welcome to rcrocket's quote-suppressor club. And yes, that last half of that last sentence speaks to the point you were trying to make.

Your moral grounding is now several levels below the anti-Mormons you so disdain.

[_zzyzx]

"How did he supposedly translate them if they were obviously not in his possession?"

The same way he translated non-existant Gold Plates?

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade,

How on earth could Joseph have claimed that the plates' content "would make a book of 1200 pages" if he couldn't translate them?!

Fugate's letter implies that he could translate the plates into "a book of 1200 pages," but that he wouldn't until various folks had examined them. Where did Clayton—or anyone else—claim that Smith translated "a book of 1200 pages"?

The process of an initial translation followed by an "authoritative" examination is precisely what happened with the BoMor characters and the BoAbr papyri. Smith's preliminary translation of the Kinderhook plates fits comfortably within this setting and certainly isn't contradicted by Fugate's letter.

My best, </brent>

I will be pleased to address your questions above once you have addressed the questions I first asked you in my previous post--figuring, of course, that once you answer my questions there will likely be no need for me to answer yours. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Since I have no desire to "mislead". And, since it has become increasingly more apparent that my reasonable explanations for trunkating Fugate's statement hasn't sufficed (and this even though I initially included a link to where the quote could be read in its entirety), let me rephrase my original question for everyone's benefit:

We know how enamoured some of you critics are with the Clayton statement. However, I am wondering if you give the same creedence to the bolded portion of W. Fugate's (the chief conspirator in the hoax) statement below, 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, they were sent and the answer was that there were no such Hyeroglyphics known and if there ever had been they had long since passed away then Smith began his translation" (see HERE)

Now, since Shade's also thinks the phrase "then Smith began his translation" is critical and "VERY, VERY pertinent", I would like to see his answers to the questions I previously asked. Here they are again for his and Brent's benefit:

1) when were the plates supposedly sent to the Society?

2) Who sent them (i.e. who had them in their possession at the time)?

3) When did they get them back along with the unflattering assessment from the Society?

4) When did Joseph start translating the plates?

5) How did he supposedly translate them if they were obviously not in his possession?

6) what hard evidence do we have that there was a translation?

7) how do you reconcile the "critical detail" with what Clayton wrote in his journal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tosh tosh, Mr. Englund. Endless deconstruction. Yet another ruse by Mormon apologists. Shame on you.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Calculus Crusader writes:

Why would a personal scribe rely on hearsay? Why would Holy Joe allow hearsay to be published in the church newspaper when he was in a position to correct it? Why was there no correction or retraction afterward? Why do you believe in a transparent charlatan?

I think you misunderstand the nature of the record that we are talking about. This wasn't a historical record. This was the personal and private journal of Clayton. It wasn't published. It was only later used to help produce the history of the church as there were periods of time when there was no official journal kept for Joseph.

True, it's not the end of the world, but it is hardly a minor incident. If William Clayton's account is correct, then it serves as further proof that Holy Joe was a fraud. (As if more evidence were required.)

The reason why its minor (contrary to your biased opinion) is simply that there is no corroborating evidence. We don't actually have a translation. Not a little bit. We have no statement made by Joseph himself. And we don't have any other witnesses making claims that Joseph translated something. Clayton's statement is completely isolated. Now I understand how badly you want to be able to prove that Joseph was a fraud - but this isn't really a viable route to that conclusion.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Sethbag writes:

Joseph had a very long and colorful history of seeing artifacts and making stuff up about them - see Zelph, altar of Adam, the Egyptian papyri, and so forth. Once presented with the plates, it's 100% in character for him to say something like what Clayton wrote. In other words, there's not only not any reason to doubt that Clayton heard what he wrote in his journal, but in fact there's no good reason to doubt that Joseph would have said what Clayton wrote. If anything, we would expect Joseph to say something like this - it was his MO.

The problem with this Sethbag, remains the fact that there were incorrect details. Not only were the details incorrect, but they were available in the public record. We don't actually expect Joseph Smith to make these kinds of errors. I suppose you might assert that Joseph Smith is the source of all of the details (the accurate ones and the inaccurate ones), but then we have these issues.

I think there are good reasons to doubt it. And Fugate is one of those reasons. What purpose would the one responsible for the hoax have for making incorrect statements about what happened?

At the same time, Clayton often uses first person language in his journal. Joseph told me this, he says, or I was with Joseph when he said that. So we have this clearly ambiguous language. Given the lack of other evidence, all you have is your assertion that Joseph could have said something like this. But, Joseph usually doesn't make such statements only once in the presence of only one person. And we don't have any other accounts except for this single one taking your side in the argument.

I think it is quite safe to assume that Clayton was simply recording a rumor he had heard.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Brent writes:

Also, please note that Wade's quotation from Wilbur Fugate's 1878 letter is misleading because it omits a critical detail:

The problem with Brent's assessment is that Fugate's account indicates that he was familiar with the published version of Clayton's journal entry (I noted this much earlier). And this is most likely the basis for Fugate's assumption that a translation had occured. There is no evidence that the plates were ever verified or that they ever returned to Joseph's possession. But, since Fugate had a published record indicating (in Joseph's first person words) a translation, Fugate probably felt pretty safe about the whole thing.