bytebear

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 It was the best historical document for the church at the time, but it is very flawed, especially in terms of modern historical methods.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.

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 like the discussion. It's worth having.  I don't like the idea that God's church would never do X because I am particularly offended by X.   God doesn't run his Kingdom on the opinions of the day. 

It might be inconsistent but history often is.  It doesn't mean the church is false, or wrong.   The church is led by men, inspired by God.  And sometimes God does things that people don't like, including being inconsistent in who is told what.
As an example, when polygamy ended, there were actually two declarations, because the first one didn't actually stop the practice completely, even though it said it would, and that the church had actually stopped it.  It didn't.  Inconsistent?  You bet!  What the Lord wanted?  I think so, but that's for you to decide.

 
And with that, the church ended the practice of performing plural weddings, but people already married, continued to live as polygamous families until they eventually died off. 

You are going to hit these kinds of contradictions and variations all throughout church history.  And you find the same thing all over the Bible, by the way, and you find it in other churches history, including the Catholic church, but for some reason it's easier to dismiss them when you are already rooted in a belief system.   And Christ is the savior whether the gospels agree or not on historical events, or whether Old Testament prophets went on killing sprees, or whether or not various Popes excommunicated other various Popes.   History is messy.   Mormon history is just more recent and framed within a culture we are familiar with. 

It might be inconsistent but history often is.  It doesn't mean the church is false, or wrong.   The church is led by men, inspired by God.  And sometimes God does things that people don't like, including being inconsistent in who is told what.
As an example, when polygamy ended, there were actually two declarations, because the first one didn't actually stop the practice completely, even though it said it would, and that the church had actually stopped it.  It didn't.  Inconsistent?  You bet!  What the Lord wanted?  I think so, but that's for you to decide.

 
And with that, the church ended the practice of performing plural weddings, but people already married, continued to live as polygamous families until they eventually died off. 

You are going to hit these kinds of contradictions and variations all throughout church history.  And you find the same thing all over the Bible, by the way, and you find it in other churches history, including the Catholic church, but for some reason it's easier to dismiss them when you are already rooted in a belief system.   And Christ is the savior whether the gospels agree or not on historical events, or whether Old Testament prophets went on killing sprees, or whether or not various Popes excommunicated other various Popes.   History is messy.   Mormon history is just more recent and framed within a culture we are familiar with. 

I like the discussion. It's worth having.  I don't like the idea that God's church would never do X because I am particularly offended by X.   God doesn't run his Kingdom on the opinions of the day. 

I like the discussion. It's worth having.  I don't like the idea that God's church would never do X because I am particularly offended by X.   God doesn't run his Kingdom on the opinions of the day. 

Yes, the church condones plural marriage.  It also condones animal sacrifice, circumcision, stoning adulterers, cutting off the heads of opponents, etc., etc...   But only when God commands it. 

amazing post, thank you so much for this, it has made both me and my husband really think about what we are doing and why we are doing it more than you know

I think if you have issues with the Book of Abraham, it should be with the content, not the process of its text to Joseph Smith.  You accept the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired, and yet, the story is pretty unbelievable.  I would pray about the truthfulness of the book, and then work out how it came to be to whatever explanation fits best for you.  There are several theories, none of them official, and the church doesn't have a doctrinal position on how it came to be.  We simply have the historical record.

Honest?  What was not Honest  (Thats a bite back accusation)
Nearly 100 Years ago the Church asked a guy to compile the History.  Per the standards of the day for Historical Records and his expertise.  He did so.  No one ever claimed it was perfect.
Now he could have omitted the "So and so said so and so said this."  And you would have to ask him why he did not to know his thoughts.   But I am not going to Slander the man and say he was Dishonest nor claim him to be unprofessional (to the standard of his day)
The Church knows there are issues with the Historical Record they had created nearly 100 years ago.  They have documented such (and such documentation has been given you as it relates to this subject), and they are in process of creating a new Historical Record https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-historian-announces-new-4-volume-history-of-the-church?lang=eng
What more do you want for Honesty and Transparency from the Church?
 

I think you'd be surprised to learn we DON'T all think the same way.  We've just worked through things and come to an understanding, even if that understanding is that we don't agree.  

Take me for example:

I got stuck on several church beliefs, almost to the point I was questioning truths I already knew.  I prayed repeatedly for answers and swore I could never join the church because of these issues.  I had many people try to help me understand, as people here are trying to help you.  It didn't seem that way to me, either.  I imagine they were as frustrated as I was, or as you are now.  

On my trip to San Diego, I met a young Sister Missionary at the temple.  Because it was insisted that I stay until the Christmas lights were turned on, I had over an hour to kill.  We talked about the Gospel, and I shared the difficulty I was having about several things.  One of which was the King Follett discourse.  I believe I even turned to this forum for help.  The missionaries tried to help, but they didn't even know what King Follett Discourse was.  
One missionary, I forget now but I believe she was the brand new one, asked me if I ever prayed for peace instead of answers.  We discussed it for a bit, but I didn't want peace.  I wanted answers to something that was shaking my still undeveloped faith.  I pondered it on the way home, and before I went to bed I prayed for God to grant me peace on topics I either didn't understand or took issue with, at least until such a time that He felt I was ready for the answers.  
I woke up the next morning without a worry about any of the things I was agonizing over for weeks.  I wouldn't believe it if it hadn't happened to me.  Since that time, I have come to receive answers to some of the problems I was having.  Others are still out there, waiting for me to tackle them.  I haven't come to accept them at all, I've just come to accept that I either haven't progressed enough to understand them OR God feels I'm not spiritually developed enough to.  We're on this side of the veil.  There are MANY things we just can't comprehend and likely won't until we return home.  We may think we do, but how could we really?
I guess I'll just leave you with that.  I truly believe God doesn't want your spiritual development to stop because you don't understand something.  You may be absolutely correct about your feelings towards that event.  However, I trust God's plan and take my direction directly from him.  My Stake President once said to me we have three methods to learn.  One is the Scripture.  One is the Prophet, Apostles, and modern revelation.  The third is personal revelation.  If one method seems to be telling you something you don't understand or believe to be false, test it with the other two.  

Yes, it does.  Another scripture for you.
 
This is your journey.  We're all just trying to help with the study, and most of us are so familiar with the topic, and so comfortable with our answers, that we can come across as rude or impatient.  I suspect that many of us have been where you are now, but have long been past this bump in the road, and are impatient, and it's easier for us to say, get over it, than to help you find your answer. 

I hope our information is helpful, even if our historical records are annoying.  From our perspective, we're just used to how it all works.  Please be patient with us.

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.

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.

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.

And, fortunately, you don't have to believe in polygamy for baptism.
 

No, we have doubts about all sorts of things, but we work through them one at a time.  And we shouldn't let doubts stop us from baptism.  In fact, the only requirements for baptism is Faith in Jesus Christ, and an acceptance that this is his church, plus a commitment to the faith (keeping His commandments).  The missionary lessons are specifically about teaching enough to gain this basic testimony, and lessons on what's expected as a member (tithing, church attendance, Word of Wisdom).  But that's it. You don't need to attend a catechism of lessons to know all the doctrines of the church.  In fact, you don't really need to know any doctrines beyond those basics.   The Gospel Principles Sunday school class is a year long and covers the basics, and you can attend as a non member, or a member, but very few, if any converts have gone through the entire lesson plan.  And my guess is a very few had ever heard of the Kinderhook plates.  So, it's not that you have to believe it all, it's more that the little stuff shouldn't matter if you have a firm testimony of the big stuff.

Yes, it does.  Another scripture for you.
 
This is your journey.  We're all just trying to help with the study, and most of us are so familiar with the topic, and so comfortable with our answers, that we can come across as rude or impatient.  I suspect that many of us have been where you are now, but have long been past this bump in the road, and are impatient, and it's easier for us to say, get over it, than to help you find your answer. 

I hope our information is helpful, even if our historical records are annoying.  From our perspective, we're just used to how it all works.  Please be patient with us.

Now that I believe, and its exactly what I am in the process of doing.   But proof comes from more than just feelings.

Yes, it does.  Another scripture for you.
 
This is your journey.  We're all just trying to help with the study, and most of us are so familiar with the topic, and so comfortable with our answers, that we can come across as rude or impatient.  I suspect that many of us have been where you are now, but have long been past this bump in the road, and are impatient, and it's easier for us to say, get over it, than to help you find your answer. 

I hope our information is helpful, even if our historical records are annoying.  From our perspective, we're just used to how it all works.  Please be patient with us.

Yes, it causes a lot of doubt, but that's kind of the point.  You say you should be able to trust the older documents.  Well, no, you shouldn't trust anything other than the Lord.  There is no guarantee that anything you read is true, not from the church, not from the Book of Mormon, not even from the Bible.  You have learned a way to prove truth, but you should never just trust anything. 

I will refer you to the BIble.  Trust me. 
 
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.