bytebear

I wanted to give you an example of official vs historical statements, so you can see what I mean. The Kinderhook plates are mentioned historically that Joseph Smith may have commented on them. But there is no scriptural entry about it. If he had actually had a vision from God that the writings were from the loin of Ham, it would have been recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. Another example is the Apocrypha. Joseph Smith wondered if they were important enough to study and include in the BIble. He took the question to the Lord, and rather than having a historical record somewhere that he decided they weren't important enough to include in our official version of the Bible, we have scripture confirming it. So, now you know why we don't include the Apocrypha in our official Bible version. I hope you can see the difference.

Sorry, I was still 3 pages behind. You've created a popular thread! Glad you're sticking with it. But I do want to make sure you understand that History of the Church is not a maintained volume. It's historical, and hasn't changed since it was first published 150 years ago. It's flawed, and we don't use it as our official history. It should no be seen that way. There are LOTS of similar writings. Journal of Discourses is one. Another is a sort of encyclopedia of Mormon doctrine called "Mormon Doctrine" which isn't official Mormon doctrine. Confusing, and annoying, right? We have lots of official sounding books and stuff, but the only official doctrines we have are found in the scriptural Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). Only those documents are official. Historical documents exist. Rough Stone Rolling is a great biography of Joseph Smith. The Joseph Smith Papers is an attempt to document everything Smith ever said, but even those are not official doctrine. Unless the Kinderhook plates ended up in scripture, any and all commentary on them is moot.

There may be some confusion on what the History of the Church is. It's not a current record of church history. It isn't updated or maintained. It was compiled in the 1800s and basically covers the life of Joseph Smith. It was the best historical document for the church at the time, but it is very flawed, especially in terms of modern historical methods. The replacement for this is called The Joseph Smith Papers, started just a few years ago, with the goal to accurately document everything Smith ever said, and has several volumes, and additional volumes on the way. This is the modern version of what you want to know, and it's done correctly, with every document, quote and text attributed to the correct source, with correct context. But the church can't just pretend the 1800s document didn't exist. All it can do is clarify the sources now.

Yes, it's ridiculously inconsistent, but when the History of the Church was compiled in the 1800s, the creators decided to make EVERYTHING in the first person, regardless of the source. Confusing and annoying. I agree.

And this is why it's anti-Mormon because the anti-Mormons what you to believe Smith said it, and not give you the actual history, all because when someone started the "History of the Church" it was really the "History of Joseph Smith" and was started in the first person, and for whatever reason the rest of the volumes (all 7 of them) were written in first person even if the sources weren't from Smith himself. This is critical in understanding the history, and the anti-Mormons don't want you to know it.

Mormons have always been writers of their history, probably because of the influence of the Book of Mormon. They wanted future generations to read their histories. They wrote them a lot. The History of the Church is a massive volume of writings, compiled in a way to try to include every tidbit of details. You'll probably also come across the Journal of Discourses, another compilation of church talks by various leaders at various times. Again, it includes every single tidbit of detail they could fit in, including talk of men on the moon who wear Quaker outfits, men on the sun, and very speculative interpretation of doctrine. The church doesn't use it as canon, but they do publish it via BYU. Critics of the church absolutely love picking things out of it, and claiming those early church leaders were nuts. And probably they did have some odd ideas (although I think the Quakers on the moon was just a poorly worded joke). So, don't get hung up on this stuff. Early Mormons loved trying to find proof of their faith, and they thought the Kinderhook plates was part of that proof. They were wrong. When in 1981, they were prove to be false, the church didn't crumble into wails of disbelief. Leaders and members just say, ok, that solves that little mystery. And that's how you'll see the church approach a lot of things. We believe what they believe until the Lord (or science) reveals further light and truth, and we move forward. We even have an article of faith concerning this attitude: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

What troubles me most is that I keep hearing this Church history quote as being attributed to Joseph Smith. And in the Church History document it is written as if it were Smith who wrote it. But we know for a FACT that the quote is actually reworded from William Clayton's journal. This is a massive fact that cannot be denied.

Ok, I have never read the CES Letter, but I looked it up and read the section on the Kinerhook plates. The author quotes as follows: This is literally the only "official" comment ever made about the kinderhook plates in regards to Joseph Smith. But the CES Letter author is manipulating you. Smith never wrote that, nor did he ever say that. As I said earlier, the quote is actually from William Clayton's journal. Early church history was often compiled from second hand sources and attributed as first hand. So Clayton believes Smith said this, but we have no idea where he got his information from. As far as we know, Smith saw then, said they look interesting, and never did anything more about it. There was never an actual translation of any part of them, and no record other than the one above, of anything even relating to Smith and the plates. Not a thing. So, it's interesting that this anti-Mormon booklet would make a big deal out of a very small incident, and going to great lengths to convince you the quote is from Smith and not Clayton. Certainly the one misleading you is the CES guy, not the church, which has several extensive histories (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng), with much more detail about the Kinderhook plates. Ironically, the CES guy use the 1981 article to claim the church was caught in a hoax, but he ignores the bulk of the article to continue his manipulation. The LDS article is cited, but the Clayton as source is completely ignored. So, decide for yourself who you think is being dishonest.

I hope your experience with the Book of Mormon shows that answers do come, and you recognize the Holy Ghost. One think I want you to consider is that the Holy Ghost also reveals lies and those who would try to persuade people away from Christ. I hope you recognize the sickening feeling as a prompting from God that the material you read is not Godly. Just ask yourself if you find the analysis to bring you closer to God or further from God. The Book of Abraham is, in my opinion., one of the critical revelations to the restoration and the Gospel of Christ. It answers so many questions, and although you aren't there yet, is critical in understanding the Temple experience. Simply put, the church could not exist without it. Your concern should be far less about how it came to be, as to what it contains. It's no coincidence that we call the compilation of canonized truth the Pearl of Great Price.

I remember when I was a kid (some 40 years ago) the Book of Mormon had lots of pictures in it of modern findings of ancient writings, metal plates, stone boxes. etc. Real authentic evidence that pre-Colombians used metal for record keeping or some kind. Early Mormons were very keen on proving the Book of Mormon through archeological evidence, and many still are. The Kinderhook plates fit into that narrative. When found, they were written up in Mormon pamphlets and touted as more evidence. Today people will point to a quote from Joseph Smith that claims he observed the plates and commented on their authenticity. It's even in our history books as a direct quote. But it's not true. He never actually made such a statement, at least not directly, and the closest thing is his secretary making the claim, likely from hearsay, and when his (the secretary's) notes were compiled as part of church history, the wording was changed to a first person quote. Apparently this was common back then. But as the church has progressed, the members, I think, are finally realizing that there really is no physical proof. Evidence, yes, and compelling evidence at that, but not proof. So, chock up the Kinderhook plates as enthusiastic Mormons hoping to prove the Book of Mormon through physical evidence. Early Mormons are victims of their own eagerness to find irrefutable proof, and a century later, we're still eating a bit of crow for it. As to the book of Abraham, I believe God needed to reveal scripture to Joseph Smith, important scripture to the understanding of the premortal life. I believe the scrolls used by Smith were a conduit to a great vision and a recording of the scriptures we now call the Book of Abraham. I think the scrolls were a tool, but not necessarily the source for that vision, although the facsimile descriptions are compelling. Other Mormons might disagree. But I will say, and you may not be aware of this, so don't be shocked, but as Joseph Smith understood so much as a prophet, that he saw that the Bible had errors, and had a project to "translate" it into correctness. Consider it, Smith writing in the margins, correcting understanding, and clarifying meaning. But it was done in line, changing the text for clarity. We don't consider all of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) as canon, but it is in the footnotes, and you can study it. But, out of that, we did get another book, called the Book of Moses, which is essentially the JST of the book of Genesis. This is canonized, and considered scripture, but Joseph Smith didn't use an ancient text to have it revealed to him. The Bible itself was the catalyst and conduit to his vision. I don't believe it is a direct translation of what Moses wrote, but I do believe it was what God wanted us to understand about the creation story. So, as a prophet, Smith had visions and inspired "translations" which were really clarifications and expansion of ancient texts. How God delivered the information, and whether they are scientifically provable is irrelevant. Moses had a burning bush and a talking donkey. Joseph Smith had Egyptian papyrus.

Jesus paid for our sins. That's already done. However, if we don't repent, we must also pay for those sins. D&C 19 4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. 5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand. So, repent now, or your forgiveness will not be easy and you WILL pay the price yourself.

I believe the government specifically has drone jobs that are only there to give people a job. No actual production, no real tasks to do, just drone along.

And there are high paying jobs that are low skill still out there, but they take personal sacrifice (oil rig worker, truck driver, etc.)

Upward mobility is surprisingly common. Those in the bottom 20% will not end up there. And a conscientious parent will ensure their children will for sure be higher in status. Fact is, there will always be jobs that require no skills, that people don't particularly want to do, but they do them, generally not for their own sake but for the sake of their children. What a minimum income means is that people will essentially become pets of the government, with no incentive to improve their lot, nor the lot of their offspring, which explains why demographics with high degrees of welfare also have high degrees of child neglect.

There are 3 times as many Mormons in Nigeria than there were in Utah in 1850.

By the way, the memes this interview has created are gold!

Jordan Peterson is a good debater because he is so calm and clear with his views. He's worth looking for on YouTube. He has some really great things out there, and not just in the political arena. He's one of the last real philosophers. And we don't have philosophical discussions any more. This interview was just cringe worthy. But it's something that should be studied, and learned from.

I have so many. I did a road trip from LA to Logan Utah, and photographed every temple along the way. And now there are three more than there were then just a few years ago. This was when the Draper temple was under construction. I love the San Diego Temple, and I love the pioneer Temples. The Los Angeles Temple is also very cool. I was surprised at how neighborhoodish the Las Vegas Temple is. Same with the Minnesota temple. They almost look like a neighborhood church.

Perhaps because we have been warned by prophets of God of such things.

I also fully believe Hillary Clinton via Obama used the State Department and the spying agencies of the government to spy on the Trump campaign under questionable allegations, and they thought winning would ensure they would never be caught, and they are swimming deep in scandal, and the media is desperately trying to protect the legacy of the last administration.

Do I think there's a secret society? No. Do I think a whole bunch of like minded people in government and the media were so shocked at Trump's win that they have gone to extensive lengths to try to create a soft coup of his presidency. And they are continuing to that end and now to cover up the various actions that were part of that endeavor. Does that mean they are coordinated? Probably not, but they are helping each other.

Many of you may be familiar with Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, and it's been covered a million times, but this is my all time favorite rendition of the song.

Paul Simon's Graceland album is my most favorite of all time, and I was not a fan of him before, and don't particularly care for his other works (I find Garfunkel annoying), but this is a GREAT album. Every single song.

I just thought you might want to see what a temple renovation looks like. http://westlandconstruction.com/portfolio/jordan-river-temple-renovation-2/ More info on the re-dedication and open house. https://www.lds.org/church/events/jordan-river-utah-temple-open-house-and-rededication?lang=eng

According to his book, he is, at least policy wise. He has a whole section on his political views. I do think he has learned that liberalism is a fair weathered friend though.