Kinderhook plates (quoting HC) - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 01-23-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

JS said he translated plates that turned out to be gibberish somebody made up. You accept the "testimony of witnesses" hook line and sinker and this doesn't matter to you?

Read more carefully.

Clayton wrote that a quote was attributable to JS.

Did he hear the quote personally, or was it relayed to him? That is significant, and because we can't know, and no translation was ever issued, I find the quote meaningless.

If a translation had issued and it was gibberish, then it would have been meaningful.

But the hoax was not revealed until years later, possibly because the fraudfeasors had hoped to sell the 'artifacts'. You don't find it interesting if JS had truly "translated" it, but it wasn't printed?

K-dog · 01-23-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

JS said he translated plates that turned out to be gibberish somebody made up. You accept the "testimony of witnesses" hook line and sinker and this doesn't matter to you?

That's a misstatement. A person acquainted with J.S. said, 13 years later, that J.S. translated the plates that turned out to be gibberish somebody made up.

All-American · 01-23-2008, 04:53 PM

You know what, let's go for broke and assume the worst. Just for fun, let's ignore any of the historical issues regarding the legitimacy of the quote and assume that Joseph Smith actually said that he had translated a portion of the plates, as Clayton put in his journal and in HC. Why, then, did we not get that translation? At least with the book of Abraham, he gave us a little rope with which we could hang him.

Archaea · 01-23-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

You know what, let's go for broke and assume the worst. Just for fun, let's ignore any of the historical issues regarding the legitimacy of the quote and assume that Joseph Smith actually said that he had translated a portion of the plates, as Clayton put in his journal and in HC. Why, then, did we not get that translation? At least with the book of Abraham, he gave us a little rope with which we could hang him.

So if JS claimed to have translated gibberish, but didn't. What does that mean?

He lied about that.

So if he lied about that do we necessarily conclude he lied about everything else. That is the logic anti's wish us to follow. It's not wholly without merit.

However, one would need to know more about the lie and although it would bear upon his credibility, it's not categorically damning.

For example, what if he's embarrassed that he can't read it, so he says something like, yeah I looked at it and I'll get back at it later. [He's never looked at it, but he doesn't wish to look bad].

There are so many permutations, but a reasonable conclusion is that JS at some point realized he couldn't read it, and hence issued no "translation".

If he simply wanted to perpetrate a fraud, he would have issued a "translation" no matter what.

SeattleUte · 01-23-2008, 05:31 PM

This thread is nothing if not hugely ironic.

Archaea · 01-23-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This thread is nothing if not hugely ironic.

Your contribution to it, isn't though.

splitbamboo · 01-23-2008, 06:22 PM

I find this quote from the Ensign article referenced above interesting:

"but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.”

So was Joseph telling them that he suspected a fraud and to get verification from another source that the plates were authentic?

SeattleUte · 01-23-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splitbamboo

I find this quote from the Ensign article referenced above interesting:

"but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.”

So was Joseph telling them that he suspected a fraud and to get verification from another source that the plates were authentic?

He couldn't tell?

Archaea · 01-23-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

He couldn't tell?

Do you know anybody with a gift to interpret divine writings?

I don't.

How does it work?

creekster · 01-23-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

He couldn't tell?

It is called calling their bluff. I am sure you do this almost every day of your professional life.

01-23-2008, 04:53 PM	#13
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	You know what, let's go for broke and assume the worst. Just for fun, let's ignore any of the historical issues regarding the legitimacy of the quote and assume that Joseph Smith actually said that he had translated a portion of the plates, as Clayton put in his journal and in HC. Why, then, did we not get that translation? At least with the book of Abraham, he gave us a little rope with which we could hang him. __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος

01-23-2008, 05:31 PM	#15
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	This thread is nothing if not hugely ironic. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

01-23-2008, 06:22 PM	#17
splitbamboo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 144	I find this quote from the Ensign article referenced above interesting: "but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.” So was Joseph telling them that he suspected a fraud and to get verification from another source that the plates were authentic?