Blossom76

This is exactly why something like that should not be part of document written promoted by the church on its history.

Umm that is hardly a fair comparison. We are talking about different factions OF Christianity here, and which one is the true church. The catholic Church claims it is the church that Jesus started, the LDS church claims it is 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth' both very big claims. Both claims are Christian claims and how one should worship Christ and God. They can't both be right. I'm not going take 'evidence' of the Koran or Islam as worthy in making a decision in choosing a church, because neither of them believe in the divinity of Jesus. The CES letter is not saying Jesus is not Devine so that's not a fair comparison. And I have presented my husband with LOADS of solid arguments by christians against Catholicism.

At the end of the day I am considering leaving my current faith because I don't agree with everything it teaches and writes. I'm certainly not going to join another one I have the same issues with, what's the point in that? Maybe they are both wrong.

Of course, there are heaps of them and that is a massive problem too, one my husband readily admits and has a big problem with as well. My husband is a fair man, we are looking at BOTH faiths equally. And we are actually taking notes on the things we find troublesome with both faiths.

I AM OUT OF THIS THREAD, IT IS GETTING INSULTING. No matter what any of you say the facts are still the facts. And its not just the Kinderhook plates and weather church history is correct or incorrect, the book of Abraham still bothers me greatly too. I have a very valid concern, just because I don't want think the way all of you do doesn't mean I am wrong or a bad person or 'taken over by the devil' This is ridiculous.

Yes did you read the one I gave you? They can't have it both ways.

It is still in Church History that he did say it, its inconsistent, they need to delete one of them, they can't have one church document saying he did say it and another saying he didn't Again, I'm not commenting on this thread anymore

I am bowing out of this thread because I feel its going to turn into another attack again and I"m not up for that. I believe in the Book of Mormon, I believe it was divinely inspired. That however, DOES NOT give Jospeh, the church or future prophets a free pass on anything that comes after that doesn't make any sense. I can't deny solid evidence, sometimes if the sky is blue - Its Blue On this issue, the wrong thing was done, if it was done by Jospeh or done by the church I don't know, either way it was still wrong. And it does put a shadow of doubt on other things. If they can be wrong about this, what else is wrong (either well meaning or not) This does not mean I'm willing to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' but I'm not just going to believe anything the church or the prophets say now, how can I? I will have to do more investigation.

Comment of the Prophtet on the Kinderhook Plates. I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters. 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. Church History backs up the fact that he said it - so I'm not supposed to trust what church history says? 'Comment of the Prophet on the Kinderhook Plates'. That says he said it, why would church history record that if he did not say it. It's very inconsistent

I find that really really offensive, I believe in the book of mormon. I have said repeatedly I don't want to upset anyone but you guys won't leave it alone

Church History Volume 5 Chapter 19 says Joseph said it, this is my problem, if church history says he said it, I should be able to believe he did, in which case I have an issue that he said it at all because he shouldn't be making stuff up (the kinderhook plates are without doubt a fraud). I am being told by you guys that he did not say it, and it was written in some other guys diary and the church just 'put it in the history later' in which case I have a problem that the Church recorded that he did say it. Either way, it sucks.

I am praying about it and I will continue to do so. BUT I do have an issue with what you are saying about looking at stuff that is is anti Mormon - all the quotes in that letter are from Church Sources, so you can't really call it anti-mormon without calling your own church's writings anti-mormon. It just presented facts, and if the church is true then there should be no problem. “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” PRESIDENT J. REUBEN CLARK

I don't think it was clarified at all, the only thing that was clarified is that I can't read church writings and believe they are factual and honest. This church is only a couple of hundred years old, their writings should be factual.

Its an issue in black and white, not just in my mind, and I am praying about it and like I said before numerous times, I'm not trying to upset anyone and I have already said I don't think you guys can help me with this

Church History Volume 5 Chapter 19 says Joseph said it, this is my problem, if church history says he said it, I should be able to believe he did, in which case I have an issue that he said it. I am being told by you guys that he did not say it, in which case I have a problem that the Church recorded that he did say it. [Page 372] Comment of the Prophtet on the Kinderhook Plates. I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters. 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. This is from The History of The Church Volume 5 Chapter 19 https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-5-chapter-19

The quote says that Jospeh said the plates were the history of a descendant of Ham, I still have a huge problem with that, I should be able to trust what the church says about its own history.

Perhaps he wasn't acting for God when he spoke about the tinder hook plates, if he did say it at all (I still have a problem if he did say it because he shouldn't be just making stuff up like that). BUT I should be able to trust what the church says about its own history, and it appears that I can not do that. Again, thank you all I do know you are acting with good intentions but this really is a massive issue for me, I can't believe what the church says in its own writings about the Prophet.

What troubles me is that I can't trust what the Church writes about it's own history. I'm having a huge issue with it.

The quote is pretty damming evidence though, and the fact that it is in Church History, written by the church is my problem. Because if I can't trust what the church writes about its own history then thats a really big problem.

I know you mean well and are only trying to help. But this doesn't excuse anything that Jospeh did, look, I don't want to upset anyone, but when something is proven false, its false.

Having a spiritual experience with the book of mormon and whilst in prayer does not excuse all of this false revelation and claiming fraudulent plates are the records of Ham, the two have nothing to do with each other, they are seperate. I find it insane to expect someone would excuse it all. There is every chance that Jospeh fell as a prophet, it could have happened and it would explain a lot. Prophets are to be known by their fruits - especially those fruits they claim are of God.

I do not see this in the same light at all, the truth is Joseph smith said something that was not true and claimed it was of God, that's not cool.

Thank you for actually taking the time to read it, I appreciate it, I really do. I'm glad you can do that, but for me I simply cannot. To lie is human, but to lie about something and claim it was from God, well that's something entirely different in my books. For if someone could make false claims about something like that, what else is not true? David Whitmer testified after Jospeh inquired of the Lord after a failed revelation by God to Joseph to sell the copy-right of the Book Of Mormon “...and behold the following revelation came through the stone: ‘Some revelations are of God; and some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.’ So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.” – An Address to All Believers in Christ, p.31 How are we supposed to know what revelations are from God, from the devil, or from the heart of man if even the Prophet Joseph Smith couldn’t tell? It puts everything in a different light.

[Page 372] Comment of the Prophtet on the Kinderhook Plates. I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters. 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. This is from The History of The Church Volume 5 Chapter 19 https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-5-chapter-19 It clearly says that Jospeh Smith claimed the kinder hook plates contain the history of a descendant of Ham, this is in Church History - I don't understand how anyone else can't see the problem with this? Church History Records are claiming something that has been proven to be a fraud, and that claim was made by the prophet who started the church. I find this very very disturbing and very hard to believe that anyone who actually thinks about it for a second wouldn't find it disturbing as well.

He's catholic, catholic priests will show you anti catholic material, they use it for study purposes, it doesn't bother him (or any catholic I know) at all, he just find the answers for it or the reasons for it. He's studied a LOT of anti-catholic material (not that we call it that, its just called opposition viewpoints - like lutheranism for example, the Catholic Church does a lot of study of his works) The kinder hook plates were proven false in 1980, yet Jospeh claimed (as is recorded in church history as I referenced above) that they are the history of a man descendant from Ham. Its just not true, its proven not true, you CAN"T argue with that. You can see that it's true from Church History, that has nothing to do with doubt or anything else, its just a fact. Honestly I'd feel a lot better if someone would just acknowledge that, its a fact, you can't deny it.