The Kinderhook Plates: Another Testimony of Smith's Deceptio

[_Doctor Steuss]

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

I don’t know of anything from the Church proper that would match your description (i.e. it being used as “proof”). The account of him providing a translation was accepted as fact though (as evidenced by Comprehensive History of The Church ). Mormonthink says that when they were rediscovered, the “President of the BYU Archaeological Society, hailed the discovery as a vindication of Joseph Smith's work as he believed that Joseph did translate some of the Kinderhook plates as the Church historically taught,” but as is their “modus operandi” ;-) they have trouble documenting this.

I seem to recall that David Stewart still holds that the tests determining them to be a fraud were flawed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others out there.

[_Paul Osborne]

The issue, Sethbag, is that apparently he didn't. The entire debate revolves around Clayton's journal entry. Unlike the other projects you mention (which have a great deal of evidence available), there is nothing there. There is some evidence that suggests (and this is from the perpetrator of the fraud - at least one of them) that Joseph didn't believe they were authentic. So ... its just one of those things that comes up over and over again and demonstrates that old saying - that any amount of information, no matter how small, will expand to fill any intellectual void, no matter how large.

Benjamin,

Please tell me why the plates ended up in the Church historical vault of the First Presidency. Why were they taken to Utah?

I'll respect your opinion. No strings attached, I promise. And you know I'm good for my word.

Paul O

[_Sethbag]

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)

What credence do you give it? How would Joseph know that the inscriptions on a few smallish metal plates would expand out in English to 1200 pages? Was he pulling out that Egyptian Grammar stuff again, where one character could mean a word, or a sentence, or a paragraph or whatever, depending on what "degree" it was?

At any rate, that Joseph would even comment at all on how much English text would be generated from those plates shows that he was spouting crap that he made up out of thin air. He didn't know how to read those plates, and he couldn't have known, and yet that didn't stop him pronouncing on them in one way or another.

I may just have to go back and re-read the apologetics on this one, but I find it pretty funny that William Clayton's journal is being doubted - it looks awfully like it's only being doubted because of the implications about Joseph's true prophethood. Elsewhere Clayton's journal entries even became scripture. William Clayton was his scribe, an eyewitness to a lot of things that went on, was let into the practice of polygamy by Joseph, ie: he was "inner circle".

[_Paul Osborne]

Mormon apologists are damn pathetic.

Don't be a jerk. Just state your facts as you see them and reason it out. People see things from many points of view.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

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-

Wade,

First, I'm curious to know of what work brother Clayton performed that should be greatly respected by apologists, such as yourself?

Second, are you saying that secretary Clayton's statement regarding the Kinderhook plates amounts to merely heresay?

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

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).

Benjamin,

You know how it bugs me when LDS apologists belittle the early brethren. Listen, Parley P. Pratt was an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was an apostle, prophet, and seer of the restoration and a servant of God! When you call him by his last name only, it is disrespectfull. You should call him elder Pratt or Apostle Pratt and provide the respect to his office. He was an arm to the prophet Joseph Smith and a major player of the restoration of the gospel.

Now, when you refer to an apostle in our day do you call him simply by his last name? Do you think President Packer would like it if you called him, "Packer" on a message board?

Paul O

[_DarkHelmet]

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)

What credence do you give it? How would Joseph know that the inscriptions on a few smallish metal plates would expand out in English to 1200 pages? Was he pulling out that Egyptian Grammar stuff again, where one character could mean a word, or a sentence, or a paragraph or whatever, depending on what "degree" it was?

At any rate, that Joseph would even comment at all on how much English text would be generated from those plates shows that he was spouting crap that he made up out of thin air. He didn't know how to read those plates, and he couldn't have known, and yet that didn't stop him pronouncing on them in one way or another.

I may just have to go back and re-read the apologetics on this one, but I find it pretty funny that William Clayton's journal is being doubted - it looks awfully like it's only being doubted because of the implications about Joseph's true prophethood. Elsewhere Clayton's journal entries even became scripture. William Clayton was his scribe, an eyewitness to a lot of things that went on, was let into the practice of polygamy by Joseph, ie: he was "inner circle".

I agree. That quote from one of the conspirators is just another example of Joseph Smith getting it wrong. How can you make a 1200 page book from nonsense characters?

[_Paul Osborne]

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?

Apparently, so it seems, Clayton Williams was both a clerk and scribe to the prophet Joseph Smith. That's no small potato. That's a pretty big deal. Imagine how clerks and scribes are a big deal to President Thomas S. Monson?

Clayton Williams:

"We have had the privilege of conversing with Joseph Smith Jr. and we are delighted with his company. We have had a privilege of ascertaining in a great measure from whence all the evil reports have arisen and hitherto have every reason to believe him innocent. He is not an idiot, but a man of sound judgment, and possessed of abundance of intelligence and whilst you listen to his conversation you receive intelligence which expands your mind and causes your heart to rejoice. He is very familiar, and delights to instruct the poor saints. I can converse with him just as easy as I can with you, and with regard to being willing to communicate instruction he says, 'I receive it freely and I will give it freely.' He is willing to answer any question I have put to him and is pleased when we ask him questions."

Oh how sad it is when and if LDS apologists make Clayton Williams to be nothing more than a fool. Could the same be said for the fool who works for President Monson at chruch headquarters? Don't believe a word he says.

Paul O

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Doctor Steus,

If I recall it was also published in The Times and The Seasons, another Latter-Day Saint publication. I am a little surprised to know if the Kinderhook Plates were a hoax, how was it that a Smith-ran and Mormon-owned publication would tout the plates in the manner it did? Why did Joseph Smith not know, through the power of the Diving that it was a fraud and denounce it as so? Also, how many years did the History of the Church publish Joseph Smith's brief "translation" of the plates as "proof" of the Mormon prophet's ability? Why would not one single Mormon prophet during that entire period receive any sort of revelation that the plates were a fraud?

I would say this is a clear case of Joseph Smith's inability to translate anything with or without Divinity's assistance, along with subsequent Mormon prophets' lack of Divine connection.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Paul Osborne]

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-

I give Fugate very little respect. Is he not a liar? Can he be trusted? Remember how the Lord warned about liars trying to destoy his work!

On the other hand, the scribes and clerks of Joseph Smith were called and set apart to declare truth through the mouth of a prophet.

Paul O