askandanswer

I just want to say, if I could build a neighborhood and pick my neighbors, these are the people I would want living in the houses closes to mine (in no particular order, except that I started my list with people who I feel like I understand well and appreciate, but who others are choosing to be offended at rather than getting to know them well enough to appreciate1 - something that is unfortunate for said offendees; and that's part of my point - these are good, solid people who could be a blessing in your life, if you'd let them, but who are no more likely that I am to tolerate getting walked on, or to coddle to one's drama / over-sensitivity to rational commentary):
@Vort @Carborendum @NeedleinA @Anddenex @mordorbund @NeuroTypical @Just_A_Guy @Grunt @person0 @MormonGator and @LadyGator @LiterateParakeet (our politics would never agree, but we'd have a weekly meeting with @anatess2 and @NeuroTypical where we'd try each others' pens and ink) @pam @Sunday21 (though our politics would never agree, and I'd have to hide the guns when she comes to visit, and leave them at home when I go to visit) @prisonchaplain (who would make sure we were all remembering to be Christian as well as Mormon) @Jane_Doe (even though she'd probably make me look kinda dumb) @estradling75 (but just so the rest of us could give him a hard time by walking on his lawn) @mirkwood (but maybe several houses down, so he wouldn't have to see me coming and going with my fountain pens) @The Folk Prophet (though we would probably argue a lot before realizing we agreed with each other - it's unfortunate he was driven away from here by a member not willing to work through that) @Traveler (though we'd probably annoy each other quite often) @askandanswer (but only so we could regularly dose his property with Noodler's Bay State Blue) NOTE: If you're not on the list, try not to be offended.  It's possible you're a victim of my poor memory.  It's also possible I'd add you to the list if I knew you better.  It's also possible you wouldn't like living next to me any more than I'd like living next to you.  (Apparently I can be quite blunt.)  And I seriously doubt my feelings toward / memory of you is something worth getting offended over.
1IMO, this is the best reason to participate in a wide variety of threads, including those about trivial things - it lets you get to know other people's personalities, which makes it easier to appreciate them as humans rather than as posters.  (ETA: It also lets other people get to know you.)
Robotically Yours,
zil

I kind of thought that with you it just came naturally, without even having to try. 

This also wouldn't work well for funeral directors 
(Hey  @MormonGator is this an improvement?) 

So when you read and pray about the Book of Mormon you feel good and peaceful and calm and sure. I think you feel that way because it is true and the Spirit is confirming to you that it is true.
So when you read about the CES letter and the Kinderhook plates you feel doubt, confusion and uncertainty. Do you think a plausible reason for those feelings might be because what you are reading is not true? The Spirits gives light and peace, the opposition tends to darkness and confusion. 
It seems to me as if your husband is stretching the boundaries of your agreement. My recollection is that you and he would both study about Catholicism and Mormonism for 18 months but what he has given you is much more to do with anti-Mormonism rather than Mormonism. How would he feel about bringing anti-Catholic material to your study sessions?

This also wouldn't work well for funeral directors 
(Hey  @MormonGator is this an improvement?) 

Suicide is not a matter to jole about but I can't resist this one:
If we stick our heads in the sand, and leave them there long enough, no doubt that would increase the rate of suicide, through suffocation. 

There's a real battle going on for your soul right now. What does your soul/heart say/feel about this?
it can be remarkable how quickly and completely a seemingly solid argument can be blown away by the smallest whisper of the Spirit. 

To all my LDS friends, and any LDS leadership that cares to take counsel from a Pentecostal jail preacher, please, no, do not go the way of post-modern Christianity. It seems so easy, so popular, so relevant, so accepting/loving/neighborly to interpret scriptures in light of the culture--rather than interpreting our culture in light of God's word--but doing so is folly. The world will NOT love you back. It will use and abuse you, and then discard you. Easy religion and easy churches will die once persecution comes. People join them because they are non-offensive, yet spiritual-seeming. Once society and culture deem all religion offensive, members will flee the easy-going post-modern churches in droves. I'd much rather engage in conversations with those who live like me than with those who claim to believe like me, yet who've placed cultural acceptance above divine revelation (sadly, I have in mind some of the pastors and churches in my very own fellowship). Stay the course! Please.

This is THE ISSUE on the matter.  Because there are too many people like @changed who thinks we are HATEFUL because we declare homosexual intercourse as contrary to Godliness.  So, they leave the Church, attack the Church (and its members), or get depressed and kill themselves.  It doesn't even matter that we love them.  The only thing that is acceptable to the other side is that we declare homosexual intercourse as Good because it is hateful to declare otherwise.  This is not a matter to be resolved by the non-homosexual side.  Because LOVE IS BRINGING PEOPLE CLOSER TO CHRIST.  The opposite is not Love.  We don't declare we love somebody as we pave their way to hell.
So, my question to changed... why do you think mordorbund is hateful?  What do you propose mordorbund say so you wouldn't think he's hateful?  What do you propose we, as LDS do about homosexuality so we won't be thought of as hateful?  @Blossom76's proposal of doing what the RLDS-COC does is, of course, wrong.  Because, like I mentioned, Love is helping people get closer to Christ, not paving the path for hell.  Progressiveness doesn't get you closer to Christ.  You may gain a lot of people to join you but that's simply bringing more people to the great and spacious building instead of the tree of life.

Probably He does, but He will still rain down fire and brimstone or cause to be burned with fire, or cast mountains on those who sin and consistently reject His prophets.
Genesis 19:2
24  Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
 
3rd Nephi 8
 7 And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.
8  And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.
9  And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.
10  And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.
11  And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.
12  But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;
13  And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.
14  And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.
 

Probably because his wife could cook.

Probably He does, but He will still rain down fire and brimstone or cause to be burned with fire, or cast mountains on those who sin and consistently reject His prophets.
Genesis 19:2
24  Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
 
3rd Nephi 8
 7 And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.
8  And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.
9  And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.
10  And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.
11  And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.
12  But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;
13  And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.
14  And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.
 

I'm posting on this string based largely on the headlined topic. A few years back I watched a rabbi being interviewed. He was asked what Christians could do to earn the trust of the Jewish community. His answer?  "Remove John's gospel from your scriptures." Of course, that's a non-starter. Likewise, now that gay marriages has been declared a human right by SCOTUS, the main target that remains, is for the traditional faiths to declare that same-sex attraction is normative, and that scriptures will be reinterpreted to permit any consensual, loving relationship. Again, for most faiths, that's a non-starter. The difference? I suspect the rabbi knew Christians would never give up the Gospel of John, and that his answer was intended to show the impossibility of full trust ever being accomplished between a Messiah-rejecting religion (from our POV) and a false-messiah-affirming one (from the Jewish POV). The LGBT activists, thanks to a few changes of heart in the Christian community, seem to really believe they can turn the sacred teachings of our faiths in their favor.

It could be a significant problem logistically for whoever was in charge of scheduling.

How can  you remember such a long, long, long time ago?  

Fixed!

As per Wikipedia:  
According to Wilbur Fugate in 1879,[1] the plates were carefully forged by himself and two other men (Bridge Whitten and Robert Wiley) from Kinderhook who were testing the validity of the claims made by Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, at that time headquartered in Nauvoo. According to Latter Day Saint belief, the Book of Mormon was originally translated by Smith from a record engraved on golden plates by ancient inhabitants of the Americas
Knowing very little of the kinderhook plates I will say that I find the timing of Mr Fugate’s revelation, 35 years after Joseph’s murder and during a time of intense persecution of the church, to be problematic.  

Also famous joke:  St. Peter is leading a group of the recently deceased around Heaven.  They stop by the Catholics and see the cathedrals and hear the gregorian chants.  They stop by the evangelicals under their big praise tent and hear the worship music.  They stop by the Lutherans house and get invited in for a little lunch.  
One guy in the group said "Hey, what's that big cliff over there?"  St. Peter says "Oh, you don't want to look over there, that's hell.  The worst sinners go there.  Intrigued, the guy walks over and looks over the cliff.  To his astonishment, he sees lush green hills, peaceful farmhouses, folks milling about looking happy and productive.  "I thought you said that was hell," the guy says to St Peter, "Everyone there looks so happy."
St Peter walks to the cliff and looks over.  Muttering curses under his breath, he says "The [blankety-blank] Mormons are farming again!"

I kind of thought that with you it just came naturally, without even having to try. 

Lol, missionaries are often like that, they feel that baptising people in their main purpose, and the thing that will be of greatest worth to whoever they are teaching. I'd try again telling them not to ask you that, and explaining how it makes you feel, but perhaps a little more firmly this time. How are you doing with reading the Book of Mormon?

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.

@Blossom76, I can't really say much more as to how Church history is recorded, interpreted, and re-published than what has been said here.  It's a messy business; and either one is willing to wade into it, or one isn't.  Fair enough. 
But, I would invite you to identify and challenge your assumptions--all of them--when you approach this, or pretty much any issue that Jeremy Runnells raises.
For example--granting arguendo that Clayton's statement is correct and Joseph Smith did attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates; you are assuming that Smith attempted to make an "inspired" translation in the same vein as his translations of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  
 But, here's the screwy thing:  There's some evidence out there to suggest that Smith's attempt at the Kinderhook Plates was not supposed to be an "inspired translation"--at all.  We know, from Smith's own journal, that when the plates were initially brought to him Joseph asked for his Hebrew  Bible and his "lexicon".  The "lexicon" here refers to the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" (abbreviated "GAEL") that had been produced by Joseph Smith's scribes some ten years previously in connection with the production of the "Book of Abraham"--it basically broke down different Egyptian characters copied from the papyri purchased from Michael Chandler; and offered possible English translations for them. 
Now, here's where things get really interesting.  The very top character on the very first of the Kinderhook Plates looks rather like a boat.  In the GAEL, one of the characters is similar--a boat shape--and its proposed translation reads
 
Hmm--descent from Pharoah (who Joseph already to believed a descendant of Ham), ruler by divine birthright?  That sounds exactly like the description Joseph Smith gave in his journal.  By the way, you can read more about this in the transcript of a great presentation Don Bradley gave back in 2011, here.  
Now, this is important; because there's a disconnect between historical reality versus the picture that Runnells tried to paint for you.  Runnells would have you believe that Smith sat down, prayed, got (or claimed to have gotten) revelation from God, and was in the process of producing a text based therefrom that he would have published at some point.  And naturally, that "inspired" text would have been completely bogus; undermining Smith's status as a prophet.  When But really, what happened is closer to this:
Some guys brought Smith the plates; While those guys are still sitting in his living room, he sent for the GAEL He spent fifteen minutes playing matchy-matchy with--literally--the very first character on the plates Based on that parlor game, he made a quick, off-the-cuff assessment of what the plates may have been.   Bradley's arguments aren't perfect, of course--critics and apologists continue to dicker over them.  And the GAEL has its own issues.  But I'll bet you good money that neither Runnells nor any of his acolytes ever told you any of this--did they?  And why is Joseph Smith using the GAEL to try to evaluate a purportedly ancient text, if he didn't at least believe the GAEL to be substantially accurate?
The thing about Runnells is that he uses an old high school debating trick.  It's called "spread", and its core assessment is that you (and your opponent) only have so much time and energy to do the debate.  So you throw out every argument you can think of--the solid arguments as well as the ones you know to be crappy--and force your opponent to get bogged down in rebutting you step by step.  Eventually they run out of time, and that's when you proclaim victory by virtue of the fact that they weren't able to rebut all of your arguments before the clock ran out (or before they just plain ran out of gas).
Does Letter to a CES Director make you feel tired?  Discouraged?  Overwhelmed?  Inferior?  Hollow?  Like there's just no way you can cope with all this?  Aching for the entire mess to just disappear?
Good.  That's exactly how Runnells wants you to feel; and it's why he produced his work in the way that he did.  

How many completely accurate history books have you read?

I did.  I felt the link I provided was a good explanation of the link you provided.  If I come across anything else I'll share it if you want.
I really liked the link you shared.  It caused me to go research how that book of church history was written, why it remains unchanged with errors, and what other documents were written to expand upon that early history.  Thank you for sharing it.
I'm sorry if you feel attacked.  I certainly didn't mean it that way.  Sometimes I get frustrated when I see something that is plain as day to me, yet can't explain it.  Now I know how my chemistry teacher must have felt.