ludwigm wrote:Is/was William Clayton trustworthy or is/was he not? Please evaluate his role!
If he is/was trustworthy, then Joseph Smith has translated the KP, the hoax.
If he isn't/wasn't trustworthy then there is no church history (based on Clayton's diary).
My question is simple.
It is not a question of being trustworthy. More a question of being correct. We need to remember that most of what we have from Joseph Smith has come from second hand sources. Were they correct in jotting down Joseph's talks or words? Maybe but maybe not.
A journal is a journal. I have kept a journal for a number of years. Is all that I wrote accurate. Maybe not. People make mistakes in their notes and journals. That is just the way it is.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
'In order to debunk Joseph Smith's abilities as a translator, the authors bring up the old Kinderhook controversy (p. 56), which has been settled once and for all as a forgery by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith's supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic and that they were the "records of the descendants of Ham," came from the journal of William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of this time period when a biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words or his opinion.' (Are the Mormon Scriptures Reliable? Diane E. Wirth FARMS Review: Volume - 2, Issue - 1, Pages: 209-1)
Hmm...if we can only uncritically accept Joseph Smith's words and opinions if he wrote them himself then why would we not apply the same principle to the accounts of the First Vision i.e. We should only accept the version that Joseph penned himself - you know, the one where he doesn't say he saw God....
We either accept William Clayton as an accurate scribe or we don't. It seems extremely disingenuous to pick and choose when he got it right and when he didn't.
'Williams then turns to the Kinderhook plates, which are now lost except for one. Apparently uninformed regarding the Church's more recent determination of these plates, he claims Joseph Smith translated the inscription and never refers to the 1981 Ensign article which explains the history of the Church's role concerning the plates.3 It was quite some time before it was positively acknowledged by scholars, through an electronic and chemical analysis, that the one remaining plate is a hoax. More important, contrary to popular articles written by anti-Mormon writers, Joseph Smith did not make a translation of the fraudulent plate. The translation attributed to him has proven to be an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. In fact, after viewing the Kinderhook plate, Joseph Smith never showed any interest in it.' (Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory Diane E. Wirth FARMS Review: Volume - 4, Issue - 1, Pages: 251-53)
Here Diane expands and says that Mr Clayton made it all up and Joseph didn't attempt to translate the plates. If Mr Clayton is prone to lying shouldn't we therefore disallow EVERYTHING that he wrote and not just the inconvenient bits?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
ludwigm wrote:He is not dishonest. I'm sorry to enlighten You.
The role of devil's advocate is necessary. Time to time, people should rethink their principles, and rearrange their priorities. Or remain the same as before.
If anybody can pose the opposite opinion, then he/she is thinking.
In theory maybe, but critical thought requires intellectual honesty. If we were discussing whether or not God exists, since there is no definitive answer the devil's advocate argument can be stated without knowing the answer with certainty.
Mike Reed wrote:Watch: Answer to your question is... I am not sure.
Well OK, but based on the next paragraph I think you are sure.
Mike Reed wrote: I certainly don't believe he was an actual prophet of god, or that he restored Christ's church. I also don't believe Jesus is who mainstream Christians or Mormons say he is, or that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record of scripture. But you aren't satisfied with these answers, are you? You will continue to ask accusatory questions and turn this in to a thread about me.
Thanks for the answer Mike. Regarding the Kinderhook plates, do you believe there are any valid arguments made by respected apologists that reject the Kinderhook plates being a verified hoax?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
why me wrote:It is not a question of being trustworthy. More a question of being correct. We need to remember that most of what we have from Joseph Smith has come from second hand sources. Were they correct in jotting down Joseph's talks or words? Maybe but maybe not.
A journal is a journal. I have kept a journal for a number of years. Is all that I wrote accurate. Maybe not. People make mistakes in their notes and journals. That is just the way it is.
We aren't talking about a subtle reference why me. Are you claiming a scribe like William Clayton made a mistake in "jotting down" the descendant of Ham story? Did William Clayton just make it all up? Are you claiming Charlotte Haven, Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor were all collectively mistaken? If Joseph Smith (or "President J." per Clayton's journal) didn't make the "translation" regarding the descendant of Ham, then who said the words? What part of the actual journal entry do you find suspect?
May 1st. A.M at the Temple. at 10. m J to L.W. P.M at prest. Josephs ... I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County ... Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & 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 & earth Allen 2, p. 117
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
ludwigm wrote:Is/was William Clayton trustworthy or is/was he not? Please evaluate his role!
If he is/was trustworthy, then Joseph Smith has translated the KP, the hoax.
If he isn't/wasn't trustworthy then there is no church history (based on Clayton's diary).
My question is simple.
It is not a question of being trustworthy. More a question of being correct. We need to remember that most of what we have from Joseph Smith has come from second hand sources. Were they correct in jotting down Joseph's talks or words? Maybe but maybe not.
A journal is a journal. I have kept a journal for a number of years. Is all that I wrote accurate. Maybe not. People make mistakes in their notes and journals. That is just the way it is.
That second hand sources was his faithful followers. Most of them was. We can accept or abandon their words. All or none.
You may write a journal for a century, and Your grandchildrens may neglect the lines they don't like. The lines You mark as accurate.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
jon wrote:'In order to debunk Joseph Smith's abilities as a translator, the authors bring up the old Kinderhook controversy (p. 56), which has been settled once and for all as a forgery by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith's supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic and that they were the "records of the descendants of Ham," came from the journal of William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of this time period when a biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words or his opinion.' (Are the Mormon Scriptures Reliable? Diane E. Wirth FARMS Review: Volume - 2, Issue - 1, Pages: 209-1)
My point exactly. Joseph was not that concerned about posterity. He lived in the moment. It is unfortunate that we have not had much from him personally but needed to rely on second hand sources. And it is a matter of opinion if we accept everything he said from a second hand source.
Plus, Clayton was not affected as to whether the kinderhook plates were translated or not. They laid on the shelf and were forgotten. Sure we can scan his journals and we can scan the notes of others about Joseph Smith. But in the end, the game does not change. Joseph was a guy who accomplished much in his short life and lived to build the kingdom of god on earth. And he died doing so.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
ludwigm wrote:That second hand sources was his faithful followers. Most of them was. We can accept or abandon their words. All or none.
Here is the point: I have always knew that the accounts of Joseph Smith saying this or that come from second hand sources. I have no idea how to verify their accuracy. I just must look at them as such and go with it. And so should you. Now did Joseph Smith check these notes and make corrections? Maybe not. I don't know.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote: Here is the point: I have always knew that the accounts of Joseph Smith saying this or that come from second hand sources. I have no idea how to verify their accuracy. I just must look at them as such and go with it. And so should you. Now did Joseph Smith check these notes and make corrections? Maybe not. I don't know.
Why me, are you saying that: a. We should just accept ALL of what the scribes wrote at face value or b. We should just accept NONE of what the scribes wrote at face value or c. We should just accept SOME of what the scribes wrote at face value based on our own opinion
?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.