Your first link attacks the source, but not the information...classic move. Since it does not address the evidence I presented at all, it's irrelevant.
Then you go on to quote an official LDS publication as, apparently, an "unbiased" source. That's a funny one!
That link says, yes, the plates are fakes, but no Smith didn't translate them, despite all the official church testimonials that Smith WAS in the process of translating them. The explanation is long, and maze-like, and many key assertions are unreferenced. Much of the evidence that Smith translated a portion of the plates is simply waved away as misinformation, without justification. If that article was submitted to a peer-reviewed history journal, it would be sent back.
For example, how is this specific information from the Tanners refuted?
**********************
"The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary. Clayton wrote the following:
'I have seen 6 brass plates... 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.' (William Clayton's Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship - The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117)
The information in Clayton's journal was deemed so important that it was used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates which is printed in the History of the Church. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith:
'I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook...
'I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. 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.' (History of the Church, Vol. 5 page 372)
Since Clayton's journal was apparently used as the major source for the statement attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, it shows that the highest leaders of the church at the time the History was compiled believed that Joseph Smith did, in fact, 'translate a portion' of the plates. It is evident that President Brigham Young and other church leaders seriously believed in Joseph Smith's work on the Kinderhook plates for at least eleven years after the plates were discovered."
************************
and this...
************************
"The fact that Joseph Smith was actually preparing a translation of the plates is verified by a broadside published by the Mormon newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, in June, 1843. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following: "The contents of the plates, together with a Fac-simile of the same, will be published in the 'Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed."
**********************
These are just a couple of items; there are many. Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell Kimball's article in the Ensign doesn't refute any of this.
For instance, this is the only "refutation" of the first item I can find: "Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown".
Not very persuasive.
[edit to clean up quotes]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-21-2004]
™ Version 4.2
