I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

(Again, I'm trying to understand here, not judging- it's impossible to judge what I don't understand)

Because they're written by imperfect humans?  Do you know a history book not written by humans?

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Grunt]

When I get stuck I find it helpful to back up to my last known truth.  Is the Book of Mormon true?  You've stated you know this to be so.  Then if that is true, then Joseph Smith is the Prophet and this is Christ's true church.  The rest is just branches from that.  

Man is fallible.  You'll find errors in the church all the time.  A General Authority was excommunicated.  Does that mean you can't trust the church?  Of course not.  It means men are fallible, and as much as this is Christ's church, it is carried out by man.

My name was spelled wrong on my baptismal program.  Worse yet, my children's birthdays are wrong in the church record.  The OFFICIAL CHURCH RECORD!  Does that mean I can't trust the church?  Of course not.  It means the imperfect men who carry out God's work here on Earth are just that......imperfect.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

BUT I should be able to trust what the church says about its own history, and it appears that I can not do that.

What exactly has the Church said that was false?  Did Joseph say something like that or not?  That is a historical fact.  Was he acting as a prophet when he did so?  No.  There is nothing in the Church history that contradicts that.  

Again, name exactly what they said that was false?  I've read your quote from CH that you've posted at least twice now.  But I don't see what was falsely recorded.  Explain it.  

So far, all you've done is quoted a large section and simply said essentially "See? That's false."

No, I don't see what was false.  Explain it.

[Blossom76]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Trust in the arm the flesh then?

The wonderful thing is you do not have to.

The awesome thing is that you have already proven to yourself that you know how to take things to God and get an answer from him.

We know this because you told us your story of how you gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon.  That process you used was not a one time Book of Mormon exclusive ofter.  It is to be used for everything.  Do it again for this issue.

Currently you are confused, and thinking things should be one way when they weren't  You had the same exact issues with the Book of Mormon.  Then you got and answer and your confusion left.  You can do exactly the same thing with this issue.  And you have the advantage of having already done it once this time.  Just be patient and study (yes I know that is easier said then done)

 

As a side note you also now have first hand knowledge of why we call anti-mormon stuff poison... Look what it did to you

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

[Blossom76]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What exactly has the Church said that was false?  Did Joseph say something like that or not?  That is a historical fact.  Was he acting as a prophet when he did so?  No.  There is nothing in the Church history that contradicts that.  

Again, name exactly what they said that was false?  I've read your quote from CH that you've posted at least twice now.  But I don't see what was falsely recorded.  Explain it.  

So far, all you've done is quoted a large section and simply said essentially "See? That's false."

No, I don't see what was false.  Explain it.

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.

[Grunt]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

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.

The church history DOESN'T say he said it.  The church history quotes from the journal of a third person.

[NeedleinA]

@Blossom76 Is this the answer you are really looking for? "Joseph Smith is a fraud. The Book of Mormon is false, the Kinder Hook plates prove it. Your eyes have been opened just in time before you fell for those Mormon shenanigans." Thank your husband for sharing the CES letter with you. Thank the Pastor as well. Now you are able to, free of guilt, remove yourself from exploring the Church any further and forget any feelings you ever had towards the BOM, Joseph Smith, etc. Best of luck to you.

Or...

 

[Blossom76]

Just now, NeedleinA said:

@Blossom76 Is this the answer you are really looking for? "Joseph Smith is a fraud. The Book of Mormon is false, the Kinder Hook plates prove it. Your eyes have been opened just in time before you fell for those Mormon shenanigans." Thank your husband for sharing the CES letter with you. Thank the Pastor as well. Now you are able to, free of guilt, remove yourself from exploring the Church any further and forget any feelings you ever had towards the BOM, Joseph Smith, etc. Best of luck to you.

Or...

 

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

[Blossom76]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The church history DOESN'T say he said it.  The church history quotes from the journal of a third person.

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 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

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 

The church history DOESN'T say he said it.  That's what I'm telling you.  I provided you a link that SHOWS the church said he didn't say it.  I provided a link where the church says it was a quote taken from a third party journal and that quote shouldn't have been included because it confuses people.  

Did you not read the citation I provided?  They go very in-depth explaining this.

[Blossom76]

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.

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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

In many ways Anti-Mormon literate is not toxic by what they present... but how they present it.  The quote exist, but the anti primed your understanding to be negative.  And it is still negative in spite of all the other possible understanding we have offered you. 

Let me offer yet another.  I totally get where you are coming from.  If I read from a source I am inclined to trust that Joseph Smith said, "XYZPDQ."  I want to be able to assume that Joseph Smith said, "XYZPDQ."  I tend to be very literal in that sense.  I have the same issue with the Bible, it is full of symbolism. Olive Trees, Opening Seals, Talents, Wheat and Tares.  It makes me want to pull my hair out and yell, "Can someone give this to me in plain English please?"

Sadly I do not get my wish... Instead I have to adapt my understanding (as best I can) to the cultural norms in which it was written.

Cultural norms always changing.  When the church history it was written according norms and best practices of the time.  Its the best one could expect of them.

Now days we have much more ridged expectations for such a Historical work, and the current work is lacking.

This lack is known by the Church and they are working on it.  They have documented the lack and they are working to produce a new historical record that matches our current cultural norms.  But such work takes time.  Although I expect this current effort to be similarly found lacking a hundred years from now

[Blossom76]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The church history DOESN'T say he said it.  That's what I'm telling you.  I provided you a link that SHOWS the church said he didn't say it.  I provided a link where the church says it was a quote taken from a third party journal and that quote shouldn't have been included because it confuses people.  

Did you not read the citation I provided?  They go very in-depth explaining this.

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

[Guest MormonGator]

@Blossom76-we're all praying for you on your journey! I admire you so much for even reading the book of Mormon! 

[Grunt]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

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

Did you read the link I provided you?

[Blossom76]

Just now, Grunt said:

Did you read the link I provided you?

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

[Grunt]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

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

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.

[Blossom76]

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.

[zil]

On 2/3/2018 at 3:56 PM, Blossom76 said:

the fact that it is in Church History, written by the church is my problem

 

On 2/3/2018 at 4:02 PM, Blossom76 said:

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.

 

On 2/3/2018 at 4:11 PM, Blossom76 said:

I should be able to trust what the church says about its own history, and it appears that I can not do that.

...  I can't believe what the church says in its own writings about the Prophet.

 

On 2/3/2018 at 4:13 PM, Blossom76 said:

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.

Except that's not the case.  That volume was compiled by B. H. Roberts from something in a personal journal of William Clayton.  That's not "written by the church".  That's not from Joseph Smith's journals.  That's not a first hand account.

On 2/3/2018 at 4:17 PM, Blossom76 said:

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.

That "church history" is not an official, approved Church document.  "The Church" didn't record it.  William Clayton wrote something in his journal, B. H. Roberts took it out and pasted (so to speak) it into a compilation.  This is not the same thing as good historic record keeping!  You keep ignoring (or at least declining to respond to) this fact.

On 2/3/2018 at 4:34 PM, Blossom76 said:

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.

These are not official "Church writings".  They are a compilation of accounts from a wide variety of sources which may or may not be trustworthy, regardless of how trustworthy the compiler may or may not have been.

I begin to think I and the others saying this are on your ignore list and that you're not even seeing these posts.  Sigh.

Edited February 9, 2018 by zil
Assuming a later post is correct, this was officially commissioned after all (not clear from my copy). It seems to me any official use was discontinued at some point. Though the compilation was official, I'm not sure the sources were always reliable.

[person0]

20 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

No matter what any of you say the facts are still the facts.

I am sorry that you have felt insulted.  I did just have a question come to my mind that is really curious to me about your journey with your spouse.  So far in your study of both religions, have you and your husband not come across just as many inconsistencies in the history of the Catholic church?  I simply ask because what one wants to believe, or continue to believe, will always affect their outlook on situations like what is bothering you both about Joseph Smith.  Is it not equally or more disconcerting that the Catholic church had to make major doctrinal decisions via a council of bishops, and many of the ordained bishops disagreed during those councils?  I do not bring that up to point fingers, but merely to induce introspection, is it possible in the comparison of faiths they are not being given an equal shake?

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

 

No offense, but I have NEVER seen a Catholic Priest actually show the real anti-Catholic messages.  Most of these are based upon some pretty accurate historical facts.  Many of these are not just anti-Catholic, but Anti-Christian spread by Islam and Hinduism.  As Catholicism is one of the Older Christian religions, this is what these other religions can attack in order to invalidate it and validate their own religion.  These guys are VERY EFFECTIVE in their own sphere of influence.  Catholic priests may try to talk about the lesser issues, but when one gets into the major issues proclaimed world wide by other Religions (Islam and Hinduism), they flat out don't address these items that I've seen.  Christianity and Catholicism is CRUSHED in most Islamic nations and Hindi nations because of this (This ALSO INCLUDES MORMONISM IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS DEALT THIS WAY).  This is NOT something to attack Catholic with, but it is interesting that one claims that Catholic Priests do this.  Normally the Catholic Apolgetics that I've known and discussed items with (and I am occasionally ONE of those, even if I'm not Catholic.  Much of this is because an attack on Catholicism many times is an attack on Christianity itself) are dealing more with things directly from other Christian sects (normally the Protestant religions) rather than the accounts raised by other religions (non-Christian) that are trying to destroy the very foundations of Catholicism and thus Christianity itself.

To answer the true anti-Catholic messages, well...most Catholics don't know about his type of stuff either.  I've dealt with it in my travels to the Middle East, but thus far, when you boil everything down to the base arguments and basic ideas expressed, I have yet to meet a single Catholic priest who actually can refute the MAJOR anti-Catholic claims other than to say that the Catholic Church is real church.

I'm not one who wishes to post anti-religion messages against any Christian religion, so I am NOT going to post these things here (plus, if anyone actually relied more on FACTS rather than faith...this stuff probably could make an atheist of someone and I do not want to lose my immortal soul because I convinced someone to lose their faith inadvertently).  I am one that has actually argued in what some would see as the Catholic view of things in some of those instances.  That said, from Facts I can prove to the satisfaction of ATHEISTS that the Book of Mormon is false, that the Bible is False, that Mormonism is a false religion and that Catholicism is False.

In the end, even my arguments in that arena...it boils down to the same aspects for Catholicism as it does Mormonism, it is a matter of faith.  There may be things that people can say or talk about in regards to historical "FACTS" that can refute each religion...at which point one needs to ask whether they are basing their faith on perceived FACTS...or FAITH. 

Perceived Facts or what many would call facts is something Historians do constantly.  There are some that lose their faith in view of what we view as facts.  There are others that see how we view history, and how religion is seen and find their own way between the two.

In regards to the Kinderhook plates...it is not something I have studied in all that much depth.  It seems many know far more than I do.  I DO know the following is claimed

1. Joseph Smith translated ancient records.  These have either been canonized or are available in the LDS printing of scriptures.

2. There is no Kinderhook translation included in the LDS scriptures (I know they are not there now, as far as I know...they have never been in them).

Postulation...since we include all his translations that I know of in the LDS scriptures in some fashion...if he actually did a translation...why was it never included?

3. We KNOW that the Kinderhook plates are NOT considered canon nor anything close to it.  It is not accepted by the LDS church...and apparently...never was.

4.  This story may be found in LDS materials...but the translation, if there ever was one, appears to NEVER have been stated as a TRUE translation by Joseph Smith (there are those that are divine translation as proclaimed by him or other apostles, which are the ones which we have in the LDS scriptures...and those that are basically not considered so). 

My guess is that, even if Joseph Smith said something at the time, it is NOT nor ever was considered by him or anyone else something official or given by the Lord as revelation for us in our time.

The same could be said of some of Brigham Young's opinions that have been stated as facts or even worse...as revelations to him or others such nonsense.

I HAVE heard the story of the giant discovered and talked about by Joseph Smith.  The STORY was DIFFERENT than the one told in this thread...which is interesting.  This one was about another individual completely. 

1. Is it possible that there were two giants discovered?

2.  Is it possible that someone got confused and connected two different stories together?

3. Is it possible that this is similar to the History of Lucy Mack Smith and half of it is a fabrication put together by overzealous Mormons later on?  (as some have suggested in this thread)

I do not know, to be quite honest in any of those.

In reference to #3, we have found out that some church histories were NOT first hand accounts or even accurate (and ironically, anti-Mormons who say they are zealous about seeking things out will eagerly use quotes that have been shown to be false in these histories...and not admit it while claiming they are doing research and such).  We now have many of the original accounts (many located on the Joseph Smith papers online I believe), and have found that there was a massive editing type process by Mormons in the early church in regards to records where they would change what someone stated to be more in accordance with THEIR ideas and understanding rather than the actual words that individual stated or wrote.  We find it in the above history I stated, we find it in the Journal of Discourses, and we find it in other writings from the early church until as late as at least the 1930s and sometimes later.

I don't have your answer for you here.  If you keep you Faith in Christ, even if you remain Catholic, that is important to me.  I know that eventually most have to come to the choice of whether they will keep their FAITH, or whether they will let what the world perceives as FACTS dissuade them.  This probably will hit anyone who extensively studies the things about certain religions...and it becomes a choice at times that one can see as one between what they think Fact are or their Faith.

I did list Four things above in regards to the Kinderhook plates.  I am NO expert on them.  However, the fact that they (as far as I know) never have had a verified translation published and verified/vetted by Joseph Smith (unlike his other translations) is something that I find very remarkable and interesting about it, and why it probably does not affect my faith or opinion of Joseph Smith at all.

It would be similar to me and books. I have written papers in regards to history.  All of them that are published are out there with my name on it.  It is possible someone could claim that I wrote something that was never published (for example, what I wrote here, today, except even this is still publically available). 

However, if I did not consent to it's publishing and was never made available to the public and I never personally made the claim to have written it, but one of my acquaintances at the university did...should that actually be considered something I officially did in my job as a Historian or even any of my academic endeavors?

Personally, I'd be VERY upset at someone who tried to claim this...but that is Me. 

Once again, I do not know much about the Kinderhook plates.  It is NOT something I have studied that extensively, nor am really interested in.  However, it appears some have a LOT more information than I do on the subject.  I hope that you find your answers and whether they are something that deters you from the LDS church and you remain Catholic, or you find your own way and answers and grow your testimony in the Book of Mormon, I hope we remain united in our Faith in the Lord. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by JohnsonJones
Clarification in regards to the Catholic apologists and my status within that community.

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

I am sorry that you have felt insulted.  I did just have a question come to my mind that is really curious to me about your journey with your spouse.  So far in your study of both religions, have you and your husband not come across just as many inconsistencies in the history of the Catholic church?  I simply ask because what one wants to believe, or continue to believe, will always affect their outlook on situations like what is bothering you both about Joseph Smith.  Is it not equally or more disconcerting that the Catholic church had to make major doctrinal decisions via a council of bishops, and many of the ordained bishops disagreed during those councils?  I do not bring that up to point fingers, but merely to induce introspection, is it possible in the comparison of faiths they are not being given an equal shake?

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.

[person0]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

That "church history" is not an official, approved Church document.

Likewise, isn't there a book called "Mormon Doctrine" which is in fact NOT official Mormon doctrine?  This kind of thing seems to happen all the time I suppose.   

 

[Blossom76]

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.

[JohnsonJones]

10 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

This is not meant to be offensive...but point blank...if he is giving you the CES letter he is NOT being a fair man.  That's like me utilizing the Koran and the Hadiths as well as current Islamic study texts in regards to Christianity and saying that this is being FAIR. 

If I did that it would be a distinctively anti-Christian affair.  The CES letter takes things out of context, twists many items around, and was written expressely from an Anti-Mormon view, utilized expressely by Anti-Mormons to try to destroy the LDS church.

To put it in context, it would be as if I utilized the arguments of the Islamic faith in Saudi Arabia against Christianity as the standard to what I should or should not believe in regards to the Catholic Church or Christianity.

They take things out of context, relay things that sound reasonable and based on reality completely out of what it should be in relation to the Catholic church, and many other things.

One could reasonably ask, why I would use something so Anti-Christian and Anti-Catholic in my study of Cathlicism when the real beliefs of Catholics can easily be found in things such as the Vatican II and other writings that more accurately portray Catholic belief and ideas.  Utilizing Those are far more useful in understanding Catholicism and building Catholic faith than something that is utilized to destroy and condemn Catholics in a nation that is basically very avidly against them and the faith of Christians in general.

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

If you decide not to join the LDS church...I would URGE YOU NOT TO ABANDON YOUR OWN.  Even if you do not become Mormon, I would rather you stay strong in your own belief in Christ than to lose hope and faith in both to that degree.

That my personal thoughts (and thus maybe, or probably not agreed upon by most here), but I would rather have a fellow believer, even if it is of another faith, than one that has had this make them lose their faith overall.