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?
maklelan,
As I mentioned somewhere in these "If question" posts, I loaned out my copy of Joseph Smith: Rough Rolling Stone earlier today. If I am not mistaken, Richard L. Bushman states that the Prophet Joseph Smith did begin translating the Kinderhook Plates. Why would a historian who published this fairly recently include that in his book if it was resolved years ago? If you have the book on hand, feel free to quote from it, I could be mistaken.
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?
maklelan,
As I mentioned somewhere in these "If question" posts, I loaned out my copy of Joseph Smith: Rough Rolling Stone earlier today. If I am not mistaken, Richard L. Bushman states that the Prophet Joseph Smith did begin translating the Kinderhook Plates. Why would a historian who published this fairly recently include that in his book if it was resolved years ago? If you have the book on hand, feel free to quote from it, I could be mistaken.
Jersey Girl
Mines actually in Dallas right now. I'll have to find one to look at.
A further peculiarity that may complicate the Kinderhook Episode is the fact that the Clayton collection (or at least a part of it) is off-limits. Apparently, there is material in there that the Church does not want scholars and journalists to see. Whether or not Kinderhook is further discussed is anybody's guess, but this fact means that the issue cannot very well be "put to rest."
Mister Scratch wrote:A further peculiarity that may complicate the Kinderhook Episode is the fact that the Clayton collection (or at least a part of it) is off-limits. Apparently, there is material in there that the Church does not want scholars and journalists to see. Whether or not Kinderhook is further discussed is anybody's guess, but this fact means that the issue cannot very well be "put to rest."
Is that really the reason it's off limits, or does it contain reference to Temple ceremony information and the like? There are any number of reasons it is off-limits, and the proclivity of people to assume the worst is a cause for a lot of suspicion and concern that really has no cause.
Mister Scratch wrote:A further peculiarity that may complicate the Kinderhook Episode is the fact that the Clayton collection (or at least a part of it) is off-limits. Apparently, there is material in there that the Church does not want scholars and journalists to see. Whether or not Kinderhook is further discussed is anybody's guess, but this fact means that the issue cannot very well be "put to rest."
Is that really the reason it's off limits, or does it contain reference to Temple ceremony information and the like? There are any number of reasons it is off-limits, and the proclivity of people to assume the worst is a cause for a lot of suspicion and concern that really has no cause.
I doubt that the temple ceremony is the reason for it being off-limits. And likewise, you assuming the absolute best as a means for sweeping troubling issues under the rug and lionizing Joseph Smith really has no cause. The fact of the matter is that the Kinderhook issue has not been "laid to rest" as you claimed earlier.
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?
maklelan,
As I mentioned somewhere in these "If question" posts, I loaned out my copy of Joseph Smith: Rough Rolling Stone earlier today. If I am not mistaken, Richard L. Bushman states that the Prophet Joseph Smith did begin translating the Kinderhook Plates. Why would a historian who published this fairly recently include that in his book if it was resolved years ago? If you have the book on hand, feel free to quote from it, I could be mistaken.
Jersey Girl
Mines actually in Dallas right now. I'll have to find one to look at.
Would you like me to go retrieve it for you? 'cause I've been pretty much snowed in for the better part of 3 weeks.