If the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham

[_Jersey Girl]

and claimed he likewise could translate the Kinderhook Plates. Why couldn't he translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Jersey Girl

We can't really know for sure whether he did or did not. The accounts are all questionable, and none are written by him.

Let's back up the truck, maklelan. Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Jersey Girl

[_Bryan Inks]

and claimed he likewise could translate the Kinderhook Plates. Why couldn't he translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Jersey Girl

And why did he claim that a Greek Psalte was actually written in his Egyptian lite?

I'm unfamiliar with what you're referring to , Bryan. Could you explain?

Jersey Girl

An Insider's View of Mormon Origins
Grant Palmer
Pgs: 34-36

Henry Caswall's experience with Joseph Smith at Nauvoo on 18-19 April 1842 expresses the frustration of an increasing number of LDS students with Joseph's ability to translate ancient documents. Caswall was a visiting minister from England who was shown the Egptian papyri. He decided to test Joseph's credibility by presenting him with a known, ancient Greek psalter for his examination. Caswall, who probably exaggerates Joseph's frontier grammar and idiom, said:

He asked me if I had any idea of its meaning. I replied, that I believed it to be a Greek Psalter; but that I should like to hear his opinion. "No," he said; "it ain't Greek at all; except, perhaps, a few words ... This book is very valuable. It is a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he said: "Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian. Them characters is like the letters that was engraven on the golden plates."

Caswall told this incident to Dr. Willard Richards, a Mormon apostle, to which the Mormon doctor said,

"Sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave the wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man." I said, "Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that of which he knew nothing." (1)

While it is true that we have only Caswall's view of this incident, it is consistent with Joseph's pattern of rather quickly determining the value and content of unknown documents that were presented to him.

Footnote 1: Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons: Or Three Days at Nauvoo in 1842 (London, 1842), 35-36, 43. Caswall's representation of poor grammar is uncharacteristic of Joseph in the 1840's.

[_Jersey Girl]

Thank you, Bryan,

I've not read Grant Palmer's book and didn't know anything about the event you mentioned.

Jersey Girl

[Guest]

and claimed he likewise could translate the Kinderhook Plates. Why couldn't he translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Jersey Girl

We can't really know for sure whether he did or did not. The accounts are all questionable, and none are written by him.

Let's back up the truck, maklelan. Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Jersey Girl

The account came from the journal of William Clayton, and it was later added to the history of the church in a manner that would make it appear first hand. That one account is actually the only piece of evidence that Joseph Smith ever took any interest whatsoever in the plates, and it is probably just speculation on the part of Clayton. From that and other evidence we can safely conclude that he was not trying to translate them, as every other translation he ever undertook is heavily attested to in many different sources, expecially his own. We do have a few accounts that show he was skeptical, and/or never even began to translate them.

From a Times and Seasons article when the plates enjoyed their first stay in Nauvoo (for five days):

"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 facsimile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it."

Here's another account concerning their second visit of an even smaller period of time:

"In a letter dated April 8, 1878, Wilbur Fugate recalled: '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.'"

1200 pages from six tiny plates? Only 500 pages from a six inch thick stack of plates (the Book of Mormon)?

The account says they came back later and Joseph Smith began translating them, but they actually never came back from the Antiquarian Society and Joseph Smith died a year later. Despite the fact that the owner of the plates was open to selling them, the Prophet never attempted to buy them or even keep them from leaving, but said he wouldn't translate them until they had been verified. Odd behavior for someone who jumped at other opportunities to own antiquities that he thought might contain some translatable material. Here's a good group of articles dealing with it. They're from an LDS perspective, but it appears people in this thread have only been reading anti-Mormon perspectives (you all should have been very aware of the dismissal of this incident as any kind of concern decades ago), so perhaps it will do y'all some good:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/resp ... htm#ensign

[_Jersey Girl]

maklelan,

I appreciate your posting that information but the question I asked you is this:

Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Could you please answer that question?

Jersey Girl

[_maklelan]

maklelan,

I appreciate your posting that information but the question I asked you is this:

Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Could you please answer that question?

Jersey Girl

OF course. In historical methodology second and third hand accounts are always more suspect; especially when they contradict all the other evidence. No one has taken this seriously for decades.

[_Jersey Girl]

maklelan,

I appreciate your posting that information but the question I asked you is this:

Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Could you please answer that question?

Jersey Girl

OF course. In historical methodology second and third hand accounts are always more suspect; especially when they contradict all the other evidence. No one has taken this seriously for decades.

No one has taken what seriously for decades?

Jersey Girl

[_Bryan Inks]

and claimed he likewise could translate the Kinderhook Plates. Why couldn't he translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Jersey Girl

We can't really know for sure whether he did or did not. The accounts are all questionable, and none are written by him.

Let's back up the truck, maklelan. Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Jersey Girl

The account came from the journal of William Clayton, and it was later added to the history of the church in a manner that would make it appear first hand. That one account is actually the only piece of evidence that Joseph Smith ever took any interest whatsoever in the plates, and it is probably just speculation on the part of Clayton. From that and other evidence we can safely conclude that he was not trying to translate them, as every other translation he ever undertook is heavily attested to in many different sources, expecially his own. We do have a few accounts that show he was skeptical, and/or never even began to translate them.

From a Times and Seasons article when the plates enjoyed their first stay in Nauvoo (for five days):

"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 facsimile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it."

Here's another account concerning their second visit of an even smaller period of time:

"In a letter dated April 8, 1878, Wilbur Fugate recalled: '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.'"

1200 pages from six tiny plates? Only 500 pages from a six inch thick stack of plates (the Book of Mormon)?

The account says they came back later and Joseph Smith began translating them, but they actually never came back from the Antiquarian Society and Joseph Smith died a year later. Despite the fact that the owner of the plates was open to selling them, the Prophet never attempted to buy them or even keep them from leaving, but said he wouldn't translate them until they had been verified. Odd behavior for someone who jumped at other opportunities to own antiquities that he thought might contain some translatable material. Here's a good group of articles dealing with it. They're from an LDS perspective, but it appears people in this thread have only been reading anti-Mormon perspectives (you all should have been very aware of the dismissal of this incident as any kind of concern decades ago), so perhaps it will do y'all some good:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/resp ... htm#ensign

I don't see you taking umbrage at the D&C, most of which came from the Journal of William Clayton and was rewritten into the first person.

And how do you reconcile the above with:

"I have seen the 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound ... They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph] 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

- William Clayton's Journal (from which much of the D&C comes from).

Or another Times and Seasons article?

"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.

Or Joseph's assignment to Reuben Hedlock to make woodcuts of the plates for future publications?

[_maklelan]

I don't see you taking umbrage at the D&C, most of which came from the Journal of William Clayton and was rewritten into the first person.

And how do you reconcile the above with:

"I have seen the 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound ... They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph] 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

- William Clayton's Journal (from which much of the D&C comes from).

Or another Times and Seasons article?

"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.

Or Joseph's assignment to Reuben Hedlock to make woodcuts of the plates for future publications?

The statements don't fit with the facts. The owner was told Joseph wouldn't translate until they were authenticated, but they never came back from authentication. That is documented. No portion of any translation was ever found. No mention of any translation is made after they left for authentication. Asking for a woodcut doesn't have anything at all to do with the progress of any translation, and he would have only had five days to do it anyway. All these things make sense and fit with the other accounts. What you want to push on me as a historical fact contradicts every rule of historical methodology. If you want to believe it then that's your prerogative, and I'll never get in your way, but the rest of academia understands that trying to convince others that your theory is true is pointless. The argument was laid to rest by those inside and outside the church decades ago. It's a joke that people still want to bring it up. And the D&C stuff can be corroborated from other sources, not just one. You obviously have a lot of animosity toward the church, but you're letting it blind your judgment. People get all uppity about us doing it, but your side is just as susceptible, and judging by the anger being spewed forth by so many these days, your side is deeper in the red than we are.

[_maklelan]

maklelan,

I appreciate your posting that information but the question I asked you is this:

Are you saying that if an account came from others it should be held suspect?

Could you please answer that question?

Jersey Girl

OF course. In historical methodology second and third hand accounts are always more suspect; especially when they contradict all the other evidence. No one has taken this seriously for decades.

No one has taken what seriously for decades?

Jersey Girl

The idea that Joseph Smith actually made a translation of the Kinderhook Plates. Scholarship has criteria it adheres to, and that criteria makes it clear which direction this investigation has to go. Everyone else bedded this down a long time ago. The best you can do is say it coul;d have happened, but what kinda position is that to debate from?