Gr33n wrote:Based on the available evidence I don't see why anyone would admit that Joseph Smith made any official translation of the Kinderhook plates. Not because they would cast doubt upon his prophetic calling but that there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of the events.[emphasis added by Sethbag]
Green, what's with this concept of "official"? Don't you recognize that the whole concept of "official" is just presentist projecting backward onto Joseph Smith's time the bureaucratic monstrosity of the modern LDS, Inc. and its apologists? When did Joseph Smith ever make "official" translations or revelations or whatnot? And what would have made them more "official" than if he had not done it?
Would Joseph Smith have hired trumpeters to play some sort of fanfare, some ruffles and flourishes perhaps, before making his translation? Would he have stridden out from the side of a stage to a podium placed at the center, and unveiled it under some backdrop containing the trademarked and copyrighted emblems of the church? Would he have caused a copy of it to have been written using his own blood, and then sworn, while making the sign of the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, that this was Officially the Real Deal?
You don't seem to have noticed Joseph Smith's modus operandi his whole career. There was no concept of "official" with Joseph Smith and those around him. His very utterances were all the manifestation of prophetic calling and gift that they required.
Was it "official" when Joseph Smith informed those around him, after looking at the Egyptian symbols on the papyri of Michael Chandler, that the papyri contained the words of Abraham and Joseph?
Other examples of this MO include:
Joseph Smith looking at the bones and identifying them as those of Zelph, the white Lamanite who served under Onandagus.
Joseph Smith looking at the pile of stones at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and declaring that they were in fact the remains of the altar upon which Adam offered sacrifice after being driven from the Garden of Eden.
With the delay in confession what were the real motives for Mr. Wiley and co. at the time of the supposed hoax? Were they hoping to get Joseph to buy the plates as he had purchased the Book of Abraham papyrus?
How are we supposed to know this? And, if we don't know this, how does that cast doubt on the fact that Joseph Smith apparently gave his associates a cursory explanation or executive summary of the contents and authorship of the writings on the plates?
Why didn't Joseph Smith offer to buy the plates? Why wasn't he more interested in the plates? It seems the newspaper reports of the events were more interested in the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Kinderhook plates than the Prophet himself.
Who knows? Why does it matter whether or not Joseph offered to buy the plates? The fact is, the papyri of Michael Chandler came along at a very fortuitous time for Joseph, giving him an opportunity to "show off" his prophetic/seerific gifts to his flock and cement his claims to divine power.
By the time the Kinderhook Plates came along, Joseph's reputation was solidified amongst his believers. He'd moved on to bigger and better things. He was the Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, was strutting around in uniform with his sword and being addressed as General Smith. He was seducing women literally by the dozen, and working out ways of consummating his faux marriages with them behind Emma's back. He held a plethora of offices in the City of Nauvoo. He was a very busy man. The Kinderhook Plates may well have just been a distraction, coming unbidden, and more importantly, unneeded by Joseph Smith as a prop to solidify his standing amongst his followers.
He may well have thought that this cursory explanation about them would satisfy his followers, and by allowing the owner to take the plates away and do whatever the owner planned to do, Joseph may well have been glad of the excuse not to have to invent yet another example of scripture like he'd already done with the Book of Abraham. That was so 1830s, after all.
I don't mean to divert from the question as I agree with you concerning the inclusion of this strange event in the history of the church. The truth is that it is an event that was noted for historic purposes. It may have been looked upon at the time as faith promoting by William Clayton. It seems as such. William Clayton maybe guilty of sensationalizing the event living in such exciting times as those were. Many people have been guilty of the same thing.
There's sensationalizing, and then there's the invention of entire backstories from whole cloth. "Joseph Smith says the characters are ancient!" may well qualify as sensationalizing. "Joseph Smith says that the record is a record of a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharoah, who received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and Earth" would qualify as sheer invention, if indeed William Clayton originated those thoughts.
Where did such specific, non-obvious detail come from, if not from Joseph Smith? Are you able to give us any good evidence, or reason to believe that William Clayton would simply invent such specifics, and attribute them to Joseph?
The bottom line is that a statement by Joseph Smith, giving ostensibly revealed knowledge or explanation of something to his followers, off the cuff, fits in 100% with his modus operandi for all sorts of statements and utterances he made during his career. There is nothing to distinguish the Kinderhook Plates statements from these others, either in style, or mode of delivery, or motive. Every time Joseph Smith pointed to a symbol on the Chandler papyri and explained to some guest of his that this was the signature of Abraham, he was doing exactly the same thing as he later did with the Kinderhook Plates.
The argument that Joseph Smith would have done this is far, far more compelling than the argument that his followers would have invented a fictitious account of the matter, filled with non-obvious detail that only a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator could otherwise have known, then attributed it to Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith would have let it go, unchallenged, into print. The apologetic defenses against the Kinderhook Plates statements by Joseph Smith simply do not, on their merits, deserve to be taken seriously.