GR33N wrote:thews wrote:I really can't stand Mormon-spun lies, but I'll view this if you answer my question. Who was it who said the words regarding the translation of the Kinderhook plates to claim it was a descendant of Ham? Who said those words?
According to William Clayton, Joseph Smith said those words.
Thank you for stating the facts again. Does this mean you believe it was in fact Joseph Smith who said the words regarding the descendant of Ham translation?
From your link:
Parley P. Pratt's account has previously been cited. The independent account of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary, specifically attributes the translation and lineage to Joseph Smith:
I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. [A tracing of a plate appears here in the journal.] The plates were on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [President Joseph Smith] 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. (George D. Smith, ed. An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton. Salt Lake City: Signature Books,1991, 100)
Historical records document that William Clayton was with Joseph Smith on this day (ibid).] The history of Joseph Smith that contains the Kinderhook Plate statement was approved by Brigham Young. Ed Ashment notes that Brigham Young saw the plates while present at Joseph's house and "included a sketch of one of the plates he saw at Joseph's house in his diary" (Edward Ashment, unpublished article on file, Institute for Religious Research, Appendix A, p. 2). While we are unable to verify this claim directly as the diary has not been published, this is an additional piece of data which Kinderhook critics have failed to engage. Other corroborating witnesses, including Charlotte Haven also cite Joseph Smith's statements affirming the authenticity of the plates and his plans to translate them (Charlotte Haven, letter of May 2, 1843, cited in Overland Monthly, December 1890, p. 630).
Note in the above, while they acknowledge there are TWO accounts that say the same thing, because they supposedly cannot find an entry in a diary, it doesn't negate the data we do have, which clearly states by all accounts that it was in fact Joseph Smith who made the translation of the plates to include the descendant of Ham.
The May 1, 1843 edition of the Times and Seasons reprinted an article reporting the discovery of the Kinderhook Plates. This evidence edition does not appear to have actually been printed until May 3rd, two days after the prophet's encounter with the plates. The printing of this report after Joseph Smith's contact with the artifacts seems to support their authenticity. The Nauvoo Neighbor reported in June 1843 that "The contents of the plates, together with a Fac-simile of the same, will be published in the 'Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed." On January 15th, 1844, the Times and Seasons cited the Kinderhook Plates as evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 406). These articles from church publications that ultimately answered to Joseph Smith provide further evidence that he considered the plates to be both genuine and interesting.
Just a month before Joseph's death, it was reported in the Warsaw Signal that he was "busy translating them [the Kinderhook Plates]" (Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844). Kimball selectively omits any reference to these historical attestations that Joseph Smith was interested in the plates and believed them to be genuine, but did not have time to complete a translation in the busy year before his death.
Ok... good data so far.
Here's where the BS starts:
Joseph Smith's Words or Not?
Stanley Kimball uncritically follows disaffected anti-Mormon Ed Ashment in much of his research, including the claim that the passage attributed to Joseph Smith in History of the Church referring to the Kinderhook plates was in fact copied from Clayton's journal and put in the first person years later.
This is church history and is true, but doesn't mean anything to the argument. Who cares about Ashment? In fact, the history of the church says only "I" instead of "President J." or "Pres Joseph" so it doesn't mean anything to the argument. Note the use of the scary "anti-Mormon" description above.
And it's here where you have outright lies.
In fact, this claim is purely speculative. The belief that Clayton's journal was the source for the History of the Church passage is inferential based on similarities between the passages. However, advocates of this viewpoint are not able to prove that the History of the Church passage did not come from a record dictated by Smith to Clayton that has subsequently been lost. Since Clayton was Smith's scribe, similarities between what Smith dictated to Clayton directly and what Clayton wrote in his journal are expected.
They already admitted that Charlotte Haven's account and William Clayton's account matched. Now, after dropping the Anti bomb and spinning things, they are completely removed from the previous statements of fact, only to resort to baseless claims. Read the above and tell if they are calling William Clayton a liar, without actually calling him a liar. I conclude that they are injecting distortion based on nothing in direct contrast to historical fact they've already acknowledged.
Joseph F. Smith wrote of William Clayton that "He was a friend and companion of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and it is to his pen to a very great extent that we are indebted for the history of the Church," especially in the Nauvoo period, and other scholars have commented on the "meticulous detail that was the hallmark of his [Clayton's] writing" (George D. Smith, ed., Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, lx, xx). Given Clayton's record as an accurate scribe and historian to Joseph Smith, it seems unreasonable to dismiss Clayton's words out of hand, regardless of whether they were recorded in Joseph's journal or Clayton's, especially since Joseph himself wrote relatively little and most of his statements were recorded by scribes whose records have been overwhelmingly accurate.
Ok... their point?
The claim of Ashment, Kimball, and others dismissing validity of the History of the Church segment because of similarities to Clayton's journal account ignore the considerable corroboration for the event from other sources.
Ok.
The History of the Church passage (DHC 5:372-379) contains additional detail not found in the previously cited segment found in Clayton's journal . Given the careful preparation and review process of the History of the Church and its approval by church leaders with direct firsthand knowledge of the events described, the inclusion of the Kinderhook story in church history provides further evidence of its validity. Would church leaders have dedicated seven pages of church history to the Kinderhook saga and have taken the extraordinary step of providing meticulous depictions of the plates if they were not confident of Joseph's statements regarding the matter?
I sort of disagree, in that Clayton's journal quoted "President J." twice, but I'll agree.
Even if one were to overlook all of these problems and accept Fulgate's problematic claim of counterfeiting, it would scarcely scratch the surface of explaining the Kinderhook saga. It is absurd to claim that William Clayton, who went so far as providing detailed eyewitness drawings of the characters found on the plates that subsequently demonstrated a meticulous match to the original when the plates were rediscovered, would have merely contrived the part about Joseph Smith's involvement (as Joseph Smith's personal secretary, no less), and the content of the translation.
Ok, seems logical.
Evidence found in personal letters, journals, histories, and newspapers, even from Fulgate himself, show that all of the witnesses who mention Joseph Smith agree that he believed that the plates were genuine and expressed a desire to translate them. In contrast, not a single account from this period attributes to Joseph Smith any remarks casting doubt on the nature of the plates or showing disinterest. There is no evidence of controversy about Joseph Smith's involvement among the eye-witnesses.
More good logic... I'm liking this.
Yet Dr. Kimball provides no explanation or even mention of these accounts. What results in Kimball's article is remarkably selective scholarship in which data supporting his conclusion of fraud is accepted uncritically, evidence of authenticity is ignored without being engaged at all, and important questions are neither asked nor answered.
Um... I'm not seeing the point.
Thanks for the response GR33N. By the data you provided, there is absolutely no doubt that it was in fact Joseph Smith who translated the Kinderhook plates to come up with the descendant of Ham... do you agree?
PS - I have a great respect for you. You just answered the question that Wade/DCP/Wiki/Simon and Pharoan could not (or in DCP's case just refused based on ignorance), and it was done by using data. Good job.
