Joseph Smith was DUPED by the Kinderhook Plates Pt. I

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by grindael

Yeah,he probably had to make some trips to the bathroom and such. And later that eve he was by himself when the prophet was on a date with one of his young prospects.

There is no primary evidence Joseph Smith said the Kinderhook plates are authentic or that there was any translation made by the prophet. William Clayton's entry in his diary was a products of the "rumor mill."

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

No kidding--they were made by Parley P Pratt and William Clayton as noted below. Also note that William Clayton states that "President J. 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. . ."


Parley P Pratt

“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.”

William Clayton

“I have seen six br*** plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth which was nine feet high. … President J. 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.”

By the way in order for your story to check out three separate pieces of evidence must be flat out wrong.

1. Parley P Pratt
2. William Clayton
3. History of the Church quote

He simply did not fall for the scheme by translating the plates. This hoax was never carried to completion.

Although this [first-person] account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith,it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources,collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah,then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.”

It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example,the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion.

The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith's involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected "translation" did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting — that it was never carried to completion.

So it is that in the 100-year battle of straw men and straw arguments,Joseph Smith needs no defense — he simply did not fall for the scheme.

[Excerpts from Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax By Stanley B. Kimball;Ensign»1981 »August]

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

OK. Now would you like to make a comment about my prior post OR would you rather p***?

"It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print." [Excerpts from Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax By Stanley B. Kimball;Ensign»1981»August]

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

"It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print." [Excerpts from Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax By Stanley B. Kimball;Ensign»1981»August]

This leaves you with the second option, that the History of the Church is wrong? Is that your position?

[grindael]

Originally Posted by Billyray

This leaves you with the second option, that the History of the Church is wrong? Is that your position?

Obviously, some will read the evidence and choose not to believe it. They will say Clayton, called by Smith to virtually 'shadow' him where ever he went, just wrote down a 'rumor' that Smith translated a portion of them. The fact is, he did, Clayton wrote it down, and all the denials in the world, and all the 'spin' in the world can't change it.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Also William Clayton was with Joseph Smith much of the day but not all day.

And Br. Clayton was reporting what he had heard, not necessarily what he had witnessed. It was, after all, his personal journal and not the journal he was keeping for Joseph. You will not find in any journal kept by Br. Clayton for Joseph Smith any reference to the plates being translated.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by grindael

Obviously, some will read the evidence and choose not to believe it. They will say Clayton, called by Smith to virtually 'shadow' him where ever he went, just wrote down a 'rumor' that Smith translated a portion of them. The fact is, he did, Clayton wrote it down, and all the denials in the world, and all the 'spin' in the world can't change it.

A major problem that I had with Mormonism is the deceit when it came to writings of LDS leaders in LDS material. If LDS people don't like something they simply say that it is not inspired or that the leader was speaking as a man or Clayton was wrong etc. And the biggest kicker is that acceptance of these leader's quotes change over time. When I was LDS I was taught that blacks were not as valiant in the pre earth life. Now this is completely denied.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by grindael

Obviously, some will read the evidence and choose not to believe it. They will say Clayton, called by Smith to virtually 'shadow' him where ever he went, just wrote down a 'rumor' that Smith translated a portion of them. The fact is, he did, Clayton wrote it down, and all the denials in the world, and all the 'spin' in the world can't change it.

But he didn't write it in the journal he was keeping for Joseph. He wrote in his personal journal making it his personal opinion and shows that he was not "virtually shadow[ing]" Joseph. I don't have to deny anything just look at the evidence and it's source. If he didn't write in the journal he kept for Joseph Smith, then what he wrote in his personal journal was not something he witnessed but more likely something he heard.

Marvin

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

And Br. Clayton was reporting what he had heard, not necessarily what he had witnessed. It was, after all, his personal journal and not the journal he was keeping for Joseph. You will not find in any journal kept by Br. Clayton for Joseph Smith any reference to the plates being translated.

Marvin

All of mormonlandism is either, witness, heard, might-have, could-have, probably, evidence is forth-coming, it's faith, test0money, burning in the bosom, and gree-jello, but never anything you can sink your teeth into.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Billyray

This leaves you with the second option, that the History of the Church is wrong? Is that your position?

It was written to the standards of the 19th century which are very different than what we follow today. Does not mean that it is wrong just not as correct as we would do today.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

He simply did not fall for the scheme by translating the plates. This hoax was never carried to completion.

Straw man--nobody said he completed a translation of the plates. The LDS quotes say that only a portion were translated.

Joseph Smith needs no defense

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Joseph Smith needs no defense.

Billy
By the way in order for your story to check out three separate pieces of evidence must be flat out wrong.

1. Parley P Pratt
2. William Clayton
3. History of the Church quote

So you agree that ALL 3 of the above were wrong? Correct?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

It was written to the standards of the 19th century which are very different than what we follow today. Does not mean that it is wrong just not as correct as we would do today.

Marvin

Marvin, you say you want honest discussion? Yet you pull the answer above. Is the quote true or is it false as it stands?

[Mesenja]

A quotation was taken from the journal of William Clayton when compiling the“History of Joseph Smith” and and as was common practice of 19th century biographers written in the first person even though Joseph Smith did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him.

In the William Clayton Diary we are told that the plates "are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. 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 Pharoah king of Egypt,and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Parley P. Pratt in a letter to John Van Cott said that the plates are "filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah."

Both the Parley P. Pratt and William Clayton account are problematic. Not only do they both contradict each other but the actual events that transpired.

1. Both of these accounts say that the plates were a history of Ham whose skeleton was found with the plates. Wilburn Fugate,who was one of the perpetrator's of the hoax both wrote to a Mr. Cobb and signed an affidavit on 30 June 1879 stating that "There was no skeleton found."

2. In the Parley P. Pratt account he mentions a "vase (made of Cement)" while no mention of it was made by William Clayton. The plates were not contained in a cement vase according to both the Quincy Whig and Wilburn Fugate.

3. William Clayton said that the plates were found at Adams county which was false. Parley P. Pratt gives the location of the dig as Pike county which was true.

Both of these accounts can not be correct if your theory holds true that they were either taken directly from statements made by Joseph Smith or the first hand accounts of what transpired. It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith had no knowledge of the events that transpired or with those involved with the dig. What is more probable is that William Clayton was basing his accounts on rumors about the Kinderhook Plates.

An excerpt from the Clayton journal stating that “President J. has translated a portion …” is the only proof to support the claim of a partial translation. This is contradicted by a broadside or poster published in June of 1843 available for sale at the Times and Seasons office stating that "The contents of the plates,together with a facsimile of the same,will be published in Times & Seasons as soon as the translation is complete.”

[Mark Beesley]

For someone who was supposedly duped, Joseph sure lost interest in the plates fast. That fact that he insisted on authentication of the plates by independent third parties speaks volumes as to whether he was actually duped. Clayton's and Pratt's comments are inconsequential in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Joseph did not trust in the authenticity of the plates, showed little interest after their initial discovery, and there is not one single word of translation written by Joseph or a scribe contemporaneously with his supposedly having translated any portion of them.

This topic is a proverbial dead horse. Educated critics of LDS Christian theology don't touch it.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

This topic is a proverbial dead horse. Educated critics of LDS Christian theology don't touch it.

Mark just because you say it is a dead horse does not make it such. This subject is important because it shows either: 1. That Joseph could not translate based on the short portion as noted by Clayton OR 2. That you can't really trust multiple LDS sources for accuracy.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Mark just because you say it is a dead horse does not make it such. This subject is important because it shows either: 1. That Joseph could not translate based on the short portion as noted by Clayton OR 2. That you can't really trust multiple LDS sources for accuracy.

Oh, I think it shows a couple of other things, neither of which is particularly important.

[grindael]

And how does anyone know is Smith further elaborated to Pratt? No one does. It still does not change the facts of what the two men wrote, and that Clayton said it came from Smith.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Whoops almost told the truth there for a second Richard.. We couldn't have that now could we..

No it wasn't an authorized web site the Church won't make an authorized printing of ANYTHING that isn't promoting of faith in their lies.. You understand lies very well as I have have seen these past few weeks..

Corver up the facts hide all the warts that is the example I have seem from mormonism.. Those that follow it closely don't seem to have any problem in following that example..
IHS jim

Want to talk about your favorite topic Ancient Mariner, adultery? Accuse someone falsely? Hmmm, very interesting.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Richard

Nope, as we see this Christian who must believe that God is invisible, yet His incarnate Jesus Christ is a God of Flesh and Bone, LOL at how you accept the Creeds of Man.


The Christian Church believes in one God as the BofM and the Bible both attest to. Joseph Smith slid from proper Christian doctrine concerning God into out and out polytheism and showed himself to be a false prophet falling in condemnation of Deut 18. Then to add to the foundation Jesus laid for the Church in the Prophets and Apostles He chose, Smith appointed new apostles that couldn't meet the requirements of:

Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

It's time to set aside these commandments of men you are so addicted to just trust Jesus in His word He promised to keep pure for us.. No one can become one of the twelve unless they can meet those qualifications.. No man alive since the end of the second century has been able to say they can.. Your foundation is false. It is built of the dreams and wishes of a false prophet. IHS jim

Yep, I worship one God the Father as did Jesus Christ honor the Father in the Scriptures and worshiped him also.
Your foundation is a Creed and have been proven over and over to be a false foundation that can't support the false building erected, and it will come down eventually to rain upon you the dread of having to acknowledge you were fooled by the precepts of man.

RJ, chuckle. [/QUOTE]

The Father can be called God and properly so for so He is.. Jesus can be called God for So He is.. And yet the Bible is clear that there is One God.. You own BofM explains this as Smith wrote it before allowing the seeds of the truth to burst forth in the shallow rocky soil that was his life, and die from lack of truth..

2 Nephi 31:21
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The Bible is clear even in the direct words of Jesus "the Lord Our God is One Lord".. And the words that cames from God through Isaiah "is there a God beside me? I know not any". So the creeds whose purpose I have told you many time restate these biblical truths and say The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one God in three Persons.. Not until you put away your idol of a Jesus Smith created in his mind and convinced you is the true God will salvation come into your life and by you to your house.. My that follow quickly is my prayer to God for you Richard... IHS jim

[Mesenja]

I can understand the futility of trying to resurrect this non issue.

[grindael]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

I can understand the futility of trying to resurrect this non issue.

I have presented my evidence. Continual banter on your opinions will produce nothing. If you have something NEW or COMPELLING to submit, please do so, I'll be monitoring the thread.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by grindael

I have presented my evidence. Continual banter on your opinions will produce nothing. If you have something NEW or COMPELLING to submit,please do so. I'll be monitoring the thread.

Save your lecture for him. If he has something NEW or COMPELLING to submit that is on topic why doesn't he do so?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

I can understand the futility of trying to resurrect this non issue.

Nonresponsive.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Save your lecture for him. If he has something NEW or COMPELLING to submit that is on topic why doesn't he do so?

I have also shown you from LDS documents that Smith did a quick examination of the plates showing them to be something that they were not. You won't accept that because it makes Smith look like a fool.. It's too bad that this is from your own church controlled history and not from some anti-mormon reference.. It's much harder for you to deny but still you do.. I am told that even the scripture fall in second place to the teachings of prophets but dead prophets aren't to be listened to or studied. It's because there is so many problems with their words recorded in history.. So then you see these problems you can just dismiss it all as false.. But this proves that your present leaders are all based on the lies of earlier men.. Your have no foundation at all your church is built on is sifting sand.. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I have also shown you from LDS documents that Smith did a quick examination of the plates showing them to be something that they were not. You won't accept that because it makes Smith look like a fool. It's too bad that this is from your own church controlled history and not from some anti-mormon reference. It's much harder for you to deny but still you do. I am told that even the scripture fall in second place to the teachings of prophets but dead prophets aren't to be listened to or studied. It's because there is so many problems with their words recorded in history. So then you see these problems you can just dismiss it all as false. But this proves that your present leaders are all based on the lies of earlier men. Your have no foundation at all your church is built on is sifting sand. IHS Jim

You haven't shown any evidence that shows conclusively that Joseph Smith made a partial translation of the plates. It's not that I don't accept the documentary evidence. What I don't accept is your conclusions.