I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

It just hasn't been proven false, though.  As I posted above, that section on the Kinderhook Plates was added to the book over 50 years after the Prophet passed.   Were there false plates?  Yes.  Was the Church extremely excited about the prospect of them?  Yes.  Was there fanfare about their future translation and that printing?  Yes.  Is there any record that the Prophet claimed to have translated them and printed that translation?  Not to my knowledge.  

It seems like there was much interest, as there should have been.  Then there was absolutely nothing.  Maybe the Prophet was fooled by the plates.  Maybe he tried to translate them and couldn't.  Maybe that, believing the plates to be true, was cause for contention and disbelief of his status as a called Prophet.  Maybe they just set it all aside in hopes it would go away after they couldn't do anything with them.  We could speculate all day.

However, what does seem to be true is that the plates were false.  No translation of the plates is to be found.  The plates themselves were allowed to be taken from Church custody without anyone seeming to care.  The plates seem irrelevant to everyone until long after Smith's death, when the "HAHAHA" talk started.

[estradling75]

Many people make a big deal about wanting truth, and I totally get why people do this, I myself have done so and still do so.

But we need to remember that the purpose of this life is not about how many facts we can uncover.

The purpose of our lives here on Earth is to test our Faith.  Will we act in faith or will we lose faith?

In the Scripture Paul tells us we See through a Glass Darkly.  I have taken this to mean that the Truths of God are by design held back until after the trial of our faith.  Until after we by our words, thoughts and actions we make our choice.

Case in point those that chose to believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God find plenty of evidence and facts to convince them that it is true.  Those that choose to believe that Joseph Smith is a con of some kind find plenty of evidence and facts to convince them that it is true.  But put them in the same room to share their evidences and facts and they will quickly find that the other side thinks their evidences and facts to be nothing of the sort.  Yet both will claim to ardently have discovered the "Truth"

God could easily declare from on high all the Truth... but that would negate the whole point.

Instead we struggle,  we study, we pray, and we make choose while (hopefully) seeking to follow his will.  Because that is the purpose of our lives here

[Jane_Doe]

(Speaking my own personal thoughts)

4 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

I'm not making any excuses here.  I'd rather acknowledge facts:

- The Kinderhook Plates themselves were a forgery.  Joseph and others desired to have them translated.  I'm not denying these facts.  

- There is historical uncertainty as to which actual translation happened / how it happened (codexing or not).  I don't know everything involved with it, nor can I or any other mortal know.  I'm not denying these facts.    Joseph could have made a big error and overstepped his bounds.  I'm not denying that possibility.  But I'm also night denying other possibilities.  I'm acknowledging the fact that I don't know.

- I do know that God can works His wonders with flawed people.  People who have point blank denied they knew Christ- not just once, but three times.  People who when God personally commands them to do things they make lame excuses like "I'm a slow talker".  People who have literally lied about God.  People who's go so far away that God needs to reprimand them with a talking asses or getting swallowed by a whale.  People who get drunk, dance around naked, and then curse their sons.  And so many more!

- Conversely, obviously I do know that being a flawed person doesn't automatically make you an instrument of God.

- We are not to idolize men.

 

Next round of facts I know:

- Who does know what happened: God.  Who is supposed to judge Joseph with His infinite Knowledge, Justice, and Mercy: God.

- Who is commanded supposed to judge another, and not to try to steal God's judgement throne: Me.   It is not my place to judge another.  It is my place to listen to God and follow Him.

 

 

 

So what do I do, not as not to deny facts: I get on my knees and ask God what His judgement is, and what He would have me do.  I will fait out admit the Kinderhook Plates through me for a "what the heck" moment (which was much longer than an single moment).  The answer I personally* received after prayer/contemplation was that men (including Joseph) made mistakes here.  Big ones.  Who / what specifically I don't need to know because I'm not the judge.  But men's folly does not stop God's wonders.  And I do believe that the Book of Mormon is a wonder of God.  I believe that the LDS church is a wonder of God.  The Gospel and Plan of Salvation... frankly, that miraculous knowledge of the restored Gospel literally yanked me out of the valley of death-- no other power could have done that.  The beliefs of the creeds... frankly I would have died with that.  My very life, every minute I breathe, is His miracle and testimony of His restoration.

I can't deny facts- I can't deny that this is His Gospel, so here I am- happily LDS.  I also can't deny that Jospeh made mistakes.  But.. frankly my testimony is NOT rooted in Joseph or any other man- for me, to put down such roots would be downright ideal worship of a man.  Same with rooting in people like Esther, Timothy Isaiah, or King Benjamin (who I super-super-super admire as being great great people who I don't see any fault in).  Rather, I build my testimony on Christ.

 

*Stressing this is my personal answer/perspective, respecting that others have come to other conclusions.  

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[zil]

On 2/3/2018 at 3:44 AM, Blossom76 said:

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.

Please note the following:

On 2/2/2018 at 10:12 PM, bytebear said:

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.

 

On 2/3/2018 at 5:21 AM, askandanswer said:

Footnote 46 of chapter 9 of Nauvoo: A place of peace, a people of promise states:

 46. The Prophet's journal kept by Willard Richards (May 1-9, 1843, Church Archives) does not mention the plates. A report that the plates described a descendant of an Egyptian Pharoah was inserted in the History of the Church (5:372) from William Clayton's personal diary and is thus less reliable than a direct dictation (Clayton, Journals, 100, entry of May 1, 1843; Allen, Trials of Discipleship, 117).

This supports the post from @bytebear that the statement about what the plates said came not from Joseph Smith, but from William Clayon. This, to me, suggests a reason for being cautious about how much weight we can place on it. 

The History of the Church as been found to have used these flawed techniques.  As I understand it, the Joseph Smith Papers project has already revealed various errors including that some material from Church history is actually undocumented or poorly documented.  In other words, it can't be entirely trusted.  Note that what's found on BYU's site may be for educational purposes and cannot be taken as official Church publications / assertions.  You won't find that compilation on LDS.org - because, I assume, it's not official Church material, despite claims it was done "for the Church" - though I'm sure it's in the Church History Library - which is not entirely digitized (and is likely so large it never will be).

Here are some things I know:

1) The Spirit has never said word one to me about William Clayton, nor about the historic (let alone spiritual) accuracy of the 7 volumes known as History of the Church.  Of course, I've never asked and see no reason to ask (see #2).

2) The Spirit has testified to me repeatedly and beyond doubt or denying that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  One of those times, it was in a fashion which was so overwhelming that trying to relate it in words over the internet cannot do it anything close to justice.  I have described it as the Spirit shouting at me - not because there was loud volume, but because the experience was powerful and sure.  Similar feelings come back to me any time I think of Joseph Smith, and overwhelm me every time I listen to or try to sing the words of "Praise to the Man" (words)  (video).  I testify that every word of that hymn teaches truth.  Were you in my physical presence and in a state to feel the Spirit, and I could testify of these things, I believe you would feel the Spirit confirming the truth of my testimony.  I know it to be true, beyond any doubting.  (NOTE: I have as strong a testimony about God, Christ and his Atonement, the Church, the Book of Mormon, all the other scriptures, modern prophet and apostles, the plan of salvation, etc. - I mention this lest you think I'm hanging everything on Joseph Smith - I'm not.)

3) #2 makes the kinderhook plates less than irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether William Clayton had a brain fart, whether Joseph Smith was deceived into thinking he translated those plates, or whether he tried and failed or only managed a character or two, or whether he said what he thought was true and later found out he was wrong.  (I personally won't believe JS knowingly lied about those plates until / unless the Spirit, or God, or Joseph himself tell me so.)  My experience in #2 is undeniable, and undeniably makes Joseph Smith a prophet of God.  As the hymn teaches, Joseph Smith now mingles with Gods.

I recommend studying this page about acquiring spiritual knowledge and its related scriptures.

Edited February 9, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

In law, there is a thing called hearsay.  A court will often not consider a statement made by a witness who is saying something he heard someone else say in the past because such statements are notoriously unreliable.  

Is it just me or do the Kinderhook plate arguments rely completely on basically hearsay?  Isolated statements made many years after the fact by third parties (here William Clayton) about stuff that Joseph Smith may or may not have said or done?

If so I don't think the whole controversy proves anything at all.  I would put it in the "rumor mill" category as far as credibility goes.  If there was more solid evidence behind the whole thing I would maybe take it seriously but frankly there is not.

Edited February 3, 2018 by DoctorLemon

[bytebear]

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.

Edited February 3, 2018 by bytebear

[askandanswer]

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

19 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

thanks for trying to help everyone, I appreciate it.  Unfortunately it doesn't change anything   The questions are still there, the doubt is still there, the information in that CES letter is very hard to explain away, there are a lot of supporting evidence for this guys claims, both from LDS and non LDS scholars as well as respected egyptologists.  Its a very solid argument .

 

 

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

My heart/soul agrees with my brain, even though I am heartbroken over it, this just doesn't add up, solid evidence is solid evidence.  This is not satan trying to get my soul, this is just truth.  But I do appreciate your kindness and I don't want to tell anyone else what to think, but I"m not going to accept things as truth or 'shelf and ignore uncomfortable things' when I know, and can see strong evidence for it being false.

 

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

 

 

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

 

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

@Blossom76 in light of all the response to your question, are you still looking for help or have you made up your mind? I haven't seen anything from you that

a) refutes the point that it was William Clayton, not Joseph Smith who made the statement about translating the plates

b) gives reason to believe why we should no longer believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet based on the possibility that he might have said something that might not have been correct or gives reason why we should consider that Joseph Smith saying something that might not have been true nullifies his calling as a prophet

c) Indicates why we should rely more on the logic and ideas of men rather than inspiration from the Holy Ghost.

 

[bytebear]

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.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

Now this is a decent question. 

Quote

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.

History of the Church, 5:265.

Yes, we have a secondhand account of Joseph relating what he believed to be the nature of the Kinderhook Plates. 

• But we must first allow for the fact that we don't have his exact wording.  We have a secondhand account. 
• Second, we must ask if he was saying so as a prophet or as Joseph?

The fact is that even in all our records, we have no record of Joseph saying how he came to the conclusion.  The fact that the plates never made their way into the canon of the Church should indicate that it must not have been very important to Joseph.  If he had received this information from God, don't you think he would have put more emphasis on it?

The very fact that he didn't consider them important would tell me that the statement made was not a revelation, but a personal endeavor.  As such, he was not acting as prophet when he made such a statement.

[Guest]

@Blossom76,

For more information on how doctrine is determined in the Church, see the following:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Speaking my own personal thoughts)

I'm not making any excuses here.  I'd rather acknowledge facts:

- The Kinderhook Plates themselves were a forgery.  Joseph and others desired to have them translated.  I'm not denying these facts.  

- There is historical uncertainty as to which actual translation happened / how it happened (codexing or not).  I don't know everything involved with it, nor can I or any other mortal know.  I'm not denying these facts.    Joseph could have made a big error and overstepped his bounds.  I'm not denying that possibility.  But I'm also night denying other possibilities.  I'm acknowledging the fact that I don't know.

- I do know that God can works His wonders with flawed people.  People who have point blank denied they knew Christ- not just once, but three times.  People who when God personally commands them to do things they make lame excuses like "I'm a slow talker".  People who have literally lied about God.  People who's go so far away that God needs to reprimand them with a talking asses or getting swallowed by a whale.  People who get drunk, dance around naked, and then curse their sons.  And so many more!

- Conversely, obviously I do know that being a flawed person doesn't automatically make you an instrument of God.

- We are not to idolize men.

 

Next round of facts I know:

- Who does know what happened: God.  Who is supposed to judge Joseph with His infinite Knowledge, Justice, and Mercy: God.

- Who is commanded supposed to judge another, and not to try to steal God's judgement throne: Me.   It is not my place to judge another.  It is my place to listen to God and follow Him.

 

 

 

So what do I do, not as not to deny facts: I get on my knees and ask God what His judgement is, and what He would have me do.  I will fait out admit the Kinderhook Plates through me for a "what the heck" moment (which was much longer than an single moment).  The answer I personally* received after prayer/contemplation was that men (including Joseph) made mistakes here.  Big ones.  Who / what specifically I don't need to know because I'm not the judge.  But men's folly does not stop God's wonders.  And I do believe that the Book of Mormon is a wonder of God.  I believe that the LDS church is a wonder of God.  The Gospel and Plan of Salvation... frankly, that miraculous knowledge of the restored Gospel literally yanked me out of the valley of death-- no other power could have done that.  The beliefs of the creeds... frankly I would have died with that.  My very life, every minute I breathe, is His miracle and testimony of His restoration.

I can't deny facts- I can't deny that this is His Gospel, so here I am- happily LDS.  I also can't deny that Jospeh made mistakes.  But.. frankly my testimony is NOT rooted in Joseph or any other man- for me, to put down such roots would be downright ideal worship of a man.  Same with rooting in people like Esther, Timothy Isaiah, or King Benjamin (who I super-super-super admire as being great great people who I don't see any fault in).  Rather, I build my testimony on Christ.

 

*Stressing this is my personal answer/perspective, respecting that others have come to other conclusions.  

That is a powerful testimony.  Well said!

[Blossom76]

8 hours ago, Grunt said:

The Church reports that quote, while it appears to be written by Joseph Smith, was ACTUALLY an excerpt from the journal of William Clayton.  There is no known evidence, to my knowledge, that the Prophet ever put forth a translation of the fake plates.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng

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. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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. 

Sorry, but I think you're making a wrong assumption.  This was recorded as what he said.  That was a matter of history.  But what part of this quote says that he made an actual translation by the gift and power of God?  I don't see that comment or claim anywhere.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

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.

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.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Now this is a decent question. 

Yes, we have a secondhand account of Joseph relating what he believed to be the nature of the Kinderhook Plates. 

• But we must first allow for the fact that we don't have his exact wording.  We have a secondhand account. 
• Second, we must ask if he was saying so as a prophet or as Joseph?

The fact is that even in all our records, we have no record of Joseph saying how he came to the conclusion.  The fact that the plates never made their way into the canon of the Church should indicate that it must not have been very important to Joseph.  If he had received this information from God, don't you think he would have put more emphasis on it?

The very fact that he didn't consider them important would tell me that the statement made was not a revelation, but a personal endeavor.  As such, he was not acting as prophet when he made such a statement.

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.

 

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, 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.

It bothers you that a quote taken from a diary is in a comprehensive church history.  Why?  What about it bothers you?  The fact that the quote is in there or the fact that the original quote, not made by the church, is misleading?

Either way, what does that have to do with the Book of Mormon and your relationship with Christ?  You started this thread having issues with Joseph Smith, thinking he claimed to have translated the plates.  Now you learn that he apparently never claimed that so you have an issue with the church?

As a new member, one thing I've learned about the church is they record EVERYTHING, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Sometimes it's very difficult to sift through all of it.  I was driving myself nuts until I decided to focus on one spoke of the wheel at a time.  

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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. 

Sorry, I'm confused here- the history department says that Clayton (the scribe) wrote this.  What's untrustworthy about?  (I am honestly confused here, sorry for not following you).

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

Just now, Grunt said:

It bothers you that a quote taken from a diary is in a comprehensive church history.  Why?  What about it bothers you?  The fact that the quote is in there or the fact that the original quote, not made by the church, is misleading?

Either way, what does that have to do with the Book of Mormon and your relationship with Christ?  You started this thread having issues with Joseph Smith, thinking he claimed to have translated the plates.  Now you learn that he apparently never claimed that so you have an issue with the church?

As a new member, one thing I've learned about the church is they record EVERYTHING, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Sometimes it's very difficult to sift through all of it.  I was driving myself nuts until I decided to focus on one spoke of the wheel at a time.  

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.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

 

If it's a massive issue for you, only one person is going to help you with this.  You'll have to pray to receive the answers you want.  You've made it an issue in your own mind and only you can fix that through prayer, study, and discussions with Mormons you know.

[Blossom76]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Sorry, I'm confused here- the history department says that Clayton (the scribe) wrote this.  What's untrustworthy about?  (I am honestly confused here, sorry for not following you).

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

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If it's a massive issue for you, only one person is going to help you with this.  You'll have to pray to receive the answers you want.  You've made it an issue in your own mind and only you can fix that through prayer, study, and discussions with Mormons you know.

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

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, 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.

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

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, 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.  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.

(I'm trying to understand what you're feeling here, no judging attached)

You're upset is that historians are human and make mistakes and not all of history is 100% known?  Despite the fact that this issue was later clarified?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Sunday21]

@Blossom76. The people who write church history are people. Like people everywhere, they have the potential to make mistakes. They are well meaning but sometimes wrong. (This proves to my satisfaction that all lds people are really Canadian, they just don’t know it!)

There comes a time when you have to pray and ask if: 1) Is the church true? 2) should I be baptized?

Only God can answer these fundamental questions.

[Blossom76]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So you're upset is that historians are human and make mistakes and not all of history is 100% known?  Despite the fact that this issue was later clarified?

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.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Blossom76