I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[person0]

4 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.

I actually applaud this position.  I can admit that if I were to leave my faith, I would not join another, because I would certainly be convinced there is no other that sufficiently holds up.  However, as I presume you have been informed many times, the answer will not come only from study, but from sincere and extremely specific prayer to ask God, in the name of Christ, asking if it is true.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

  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.

 

Well said @JohnsonJones! I think all of us her are seeking Christ and need to remember that He is what we should be striving for! 

[zil]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

My name was spelled wrong on my baptismal program.

Wait, is your name Symonds Ryder?

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

I am being told by you guys that he did not say it

No you're not.  You're being told we don't know for sure what Joseph Smith said, only that B. H. Roberts says that William Clayton's journal says that Joseph Smith said that.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Wait, is your name Symonds Ryder?

No you're not.  You're being told we don't know for sure what Joseph Smith said, only that B. H. Roberts says that William Clayton's journal says that Joseph Smith said that.

Or to use current names @zil said that @Grunt said that  @Blossom76 proclaimed that @estradling75 is awesome.   Even if that was a true statement (And I would like to think that it was) it is totally possible that the message got distorted through that chain

[zil]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Or to use current names @zil said that @Grunt said that  @Blossom76 proclaimed that @estradling75 is awesome.

  Well I never!

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

said that  @Blossom76 proclaimed that @estradling75 is awesome.   

That one is obviously false. No one would say that @estradling75 is awesome in the first place. 

[Blossom76]

33 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

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.  

[Blossom76]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Or to use current names @zil said that @Grunt said that  @Blossom76 proclaimed that @estradling75 is awesome.   Even if that was a true statement (And I would like to think that it was) it is totally possible that the message got distorted through that chain

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

Edited February 4, 2018 by Blossom76

[Jane_Doe]

55 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.

I have always admired that approach of you two.

I also thank you for this thread.  It has been introspective for me, thinking of the ways people learn, definitions of trust, and forgiveness of others.  

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

I have always admired that approach of you two.

I also thank you for this thread.  It has been introspective for me, thinking of the ways people learn, definitions of trust, and forgiveness of others.  

Beautifully said @Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

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

Yet the very human people who wrote the history thought it worth writing.  And undoubtedly if they were here they would defend/explain such a choice.

But they are not... you get us and we are giving you many other different chains of she said he saids as answers .

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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

For me... I see history books as books written by men (all history books, not speaking LDS specifically here).  Men obviously trying their best to tell events, but still men.  They make mistakes.  I try my hardest to learn the best I can, remembering Christ and His perfection, and forgive those who trespass wrongly (whether in their writings or in their actions).  That... such forgiveness is hard.  But I think it's important.  

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For me... I see history books as books written by men (all history books, not speaking LDS specifically here).  Men obviously trying their best to tell events, but still men.  They make mistakes.  I try my hardest to learn the best I can, remembering Christ and His perfection, and forgive those who trespass wrongly (whether in their writings or in their actions).  That... such forgiveness is hard.  But I think it's important.  

For me, history is very important, a lot of the reason for me looking at other faiths is because of the history of my the church I was raised in.  I'm not going to ignore inconsistencies or problems in the history of the LDS faith and acknowledge them in Catholicism.  That's not going to work at all.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

For me, history is very important, a lot of the reason for me looking at other faiths is because of the history of my the church I was raised in.  I'm not going to ignore inconsistencies or problems in the history of the LDS faith and acknowledge them in Catholicism.  That's not going to work at all.

I'm not saying anything about ignoring mistakes of history-- no no!  I'm sorry if my post came across that way-- that was totally not what I was trying to say (I actually believe the opposite- history is important).  

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

For me, history is very important, a lot of the reason for me looking at other faiths is because of the history of my the church I was raised in.  I'm not going to ignore inconsistencies or problems in the history of the LDS faith and acknowledge them in Catholicism.  That's not going to work at all.

If your benchmark for worshipping God is a flawless history you're going to be disappointed.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Grunt

[Guest]

1 hour 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 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.

Ok, several different issues here that you're conflating.  Let me separate them in the hopes that it may help.

1) Church history records that he said it.  As a matter of history people say all kinds of things.  It doesn't make it a matter of doctrine.  The Church is no different.  Historically it was a statement.  There, end of story.  We certainly don't want to hide the fact he said it.  So, why wouldn't it be in our historical documents?  Would you prefer we hide it?

2) You believe because he said this that he was "making stuff up".  No.  He was making the best guess he could since he obviously wasn't getting anything from heaven about this.  I'd ask you to consider that at NO TIME did he claim that he learned this by way of Divine means.  At no time did he claim anything about this that said it was to be scripture.  At no time did he make any claim that he had read the whole thing and determined what the whole record was about.  This would be no different than if I wrote a story about King Arthur in German and presented it to him for translation.  He would get his German-English dictionary out and try his best.  He'd respond that this was a story about some ancient king who united a nation in righteousness.  Would that be inaccurate?  Would he be making it up?  Was he fooled?  No, that was exactly what was written there.  Why is this any different?

3) We say that he didn't say these exact words because it is a secondhand account.  I'm sure he said something to this effect.  But if you're going to get critical about a statement like this, you need to have the exact wording of what fell from his lips, his reasoning, his source, and all appropriate context.  We have none of that.  And we don't really know if we have his exact wording anyway.  So, how critical can you get over a statement like this that never made it's way into our doctrines?

[person0]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

For me, history is very important, a lot of the reason for me looking at other faiths is because of the history of my the church I was raised in.  I'm not going to ignore inconsistencies or problems in the history of the LDS faith and acknowledge them in Catholicism.  That's not going to work at all.

Have you considered just completely ignoring the apparent inconsistencies in both faiths and taking the ultimate prayer challenge?

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Or...

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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

I left an "Or..." in there simply showing that you had at least two options, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Option 1: JS was a fraud, the BOM is false and the Church is full of it.
Option 2: "Or..." here is a great video from Elder Callister you should consider instead.

If you are offended, that is your choice to take it that way. In my observation, the approach you have taken in this thread is a repeat of your previous 'Changes in the Book of Mormon' thread. You discovered/saw something you did understand and didn't like. Then you got yourself all worked up about it. The interesting thing is despite being heavily worked up before, after some time you were able to come to the conclusion that:

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

I believe in the Book of Mormon

So despite, at one time, being overly worked up about a concern... you found the answer later on after a spiritual experience.
Do yourself a favor and breathe, don't get yourself sooo worked up again. Absorb. Think. Ponder. Then go pray about it. Allow yourself room for the Spirit to touch you like it did before.
You may feel like you have uncovered some hidden secret from a dark closet, but you haven't.

Edited February 4, 2018 by NeedleinA

[Blossom76]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok, several different issues here that you're conflating.  Let me separate them in the hopes that it may help.

1) Church history records that he said it.  As a matter of history people say all kinds of things.  It doesn't make it a matter of doctrine.  The Church is no different.  Historically it was a statement.  There, end of story.  We certainly don't want to hide the fact he said it.  So, why wouldn't it be in our historical documents?  Would you prefer we hide it?

2) You believe because he said this that he was "making stuff up".  No.  He was making the best guess he could since he obviously wasn't getting anything from heaven about this.  I'd ask you to consider that at NO TIME did he claim that he learned this by way of Divine means.  At no time did he claim anything about this that said it was to be scripture.  At no time did he make any claim that he had read the whole thing and determined what the whole record was about.  This would be no different than if I wrote a story about King Arthur in German and presented it to him for translation.  He would get his German-English dictionary out and try his best.  He'd respond that this was a story about some ancient king who united a nation in righteousness.  Would that be inaccurate?  Would he be making it up?  Was he fooled?  No, that was exactly what was written there.  Why is this any different?

3) We say that he didn't say these exact words because it is a secondhand account.  I'm sure he said something to this effect.  But if you're going to get critical about a statement like this, you need to have the exact wording of what fell from his lips, his reasoning, his source, and all appropriate context.  We have none of that.  And we don't really know if we have his exact wording anyway.  So, how critical can you get over a statement like this that never made it's way into our doctrines?

If he wasn't get anything from heaven about it, he shouldn't have said anything at all!  Either God told him something or he didn't.  You don't just 'make a guess' because God is silent.  Especially when you have previously proclaimed things that God has said.  It's naturally going to create confusion and is a very unethical thing to do.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

If he wasn't get anything from heaven about it, he shouldn't have said anything at all!  Either God told him something or he didn't.  You don't just 'make a guess' because God is silent.  Especially when you have previously proclaimed things that God has said.  It's naturally going to create confusion and is a very unethical thing to do.

Can a servant of God still be imperfect and error?  

Edited February 4, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I left an "Or..." in there simply showing that you had at least two options, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Option 1: JS was a fraud, the BOM is false and Church is full of it.
Option 2: "Or..." here is a great video from Elder Callister you should consider instead.

If you are offended, that is your choice to take it that way. In my observation, the approach you have taken in this thread is a repeat of your previous 'Changes in the Book of Mormon' thread. You discovered/saw something you did understand and didn't like. Then you got yourself all worked up about it. The interesting thing is despite being heavily worked up before, after some time you were able to come to the conclusion that:

So despite, at one time, being overly worked up about a concern... you found the answer later on after a spiritual experience.
Do yourself a favor and breath, don't get yourself sooo worked up again. Absorb. Think. Ponder. Then go pray about it. Allow yourself room for the Spirit to touch you like it did before.
You may feel like you have uncovered some hidden secret from a dark closet, you haven't.

What I am seeing is I am getting the same response as I did the thread about the 'changes to the book of mormon'

I am not worked up about the information I have read, I am upset about it but to be honest I am more 'worked up' about the responses I get from other LDS members (you guys).  It appears you get so defensive and when I don't see things how you see them it turns nasty.

Option 1: JS was a fraud, the BOM is false and Church is full of it.
Option 2: "Or..." here is a great video from Elder Callister you should consider instead.

And I do not think those are the only two options at all. I think that is a very naive view, I have already said I believe in the Book of Mormon.  It doesn't automatically make every thing else the church or Jospeh said or did right.

[lostinwater]

22 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.

i know i am not expressing the opinion of most here.  '

But i look back a few years ago and i realize i got so wrapped up in being in the right church  i completely lost track of being good and kind.  i mean, of course, it wasn't exclusive - but i think my goals were mixed up.  Not to say that i have somehow met my goals any better now than when they were in a different order (i haven't - as everyone here knows), but the things i consider to be really important have shifted.  

i had become so vested in the idea of being right and defending my religious 'team' that my relationship with God and Jesus was almost destroyed when i found out that my 'team' was not as perfect as it heralded itself to be.  When it didn't hold up to my entirely wildly unreasonable expectations of perfection - either in it's history or it's execution of it's intents.

And honestly, i am not sure how legitimate it is when i blame the culture or the organization - at least, not in my moments of calmer and more reasoned thinking.  i think the problem was my allowing a total lack of balance to be erased from my thought patterns.  Certainly, healthy emotional balance is mostly not encouraged in the church (my opinion) - but one can hardly expect an organization focused on growth to encourage balance.  

i really try not to give my heart to someone or something other than Jesus Himself - even excluding my fellow mortals who assure me that, despite everything i know about our shared fallen nature, their words are equivalent to God Himself - and that any rejection by my conscience of even a single precept is an indication of a lack of faith.

And please don't mistake what i am saying as some korihor-like intent to destroy someone else's faith in what they believe in.  But is it really that unreasonable to offer up the idea that a worldview in which one's belief in God is shaken based on a metallurgical finding - or some other troubling precept in that CES book you mention - is perhaps a bit too extreme?  i have friends who have become atheists for less.  Just so tragic.

i mean, maybe the real lesson of these (apparent) gaffes is to encourage us to let go of some of the absolutist thinking and refocus on the things that are harder (and in my opinion more valuable)  - becoming good and kind and gentle - rather than being right.  And realize that perhaps the full progression of the former is a potential in more than just our sect?

and i hope you don't take this as a criticism of you.  it isn't.  if anything, it is a self-criticism sprinkled with my admittedly insignificant and still-in-progress perceptions.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

If he wasn't get anything from heaven about it, he shouldn't have said anything at all!  Either God told him something or he didn't.  You don't just 'make a guess' because God is silent.  Especially when you have previously proclaimed things that God has said.  It's naturally going to create confusion and is a very unethical thing to do.

I speak Spanish.  But someone came to me asking to translate some Portuguese.  I was able to translate some of it.  Other parts, I had to tell him that I couldn't.  It appears to me that this is exactly what Joseph did.  He translated two characters that looked to be familiar.  The rest was gibberish and he wasn't able to make heads or tails of it.

NOTE: this in no way meant that I couldn't speak Spanish.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Guest

[Blossom76]

9 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I left an "Or..." in there simply showing that you had at least two options, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Option 1: JS was a fraud, the BOM is false and Church is full of it.
Option 2: "Or..." here is a great video from Elder Callister you should consider instead.

If you are offended, that is your choice to take it that way. In my observation, the approach you have taken in this thread is a repeat of your previous 'Changes in the Book of Mormon' thread. You discovered/saw something you did understand and didn't like. Then you got yourself all worked up about it. The interesting thing is despite being heavily worked up before, after some time you were able to come to the conclusion that:

So despite, at one time, being overly worked up about a concern... you found the answer later on after a spiritual experience.
Do yourself a favor and breath, don't get yourself sooo worked up again. Absorb. Think. Ponder. Then go pray about it. Allow yourself room for the Spirit to touch you like it did before.
You may feel like you have uncovered some hidden secret from a dark closet, you haven't.

What I am seeing is I am getting the same response as I did the thread about the 'changes to the book of mormon'

I am not worked up about the information I have read, I am upset about it but to be honest I am more 'worked up' about the responses I get from other LDS members (you guys).  It appears you get so defensive and when I don't see things how you see them it turns nasty.

Option 1: JS was a fraud, the BOM is false and Church is full of it.
Option 2: "Or..." here is a great video from Elder Callister you should consider instead.

And I do not think those are the only two options at all. I think that is a very naive view, I have already said I believe in the Book of Mormon.  It doesn't automatically make every thing else the church or Jospeh said or did right.

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Can a servant of God still be imperfect and error?  

Not in that context, if God isn't telling you something, you don't 'just guess' especially when you know full well that people will more than likely believe you anyway

Edited February 4, 2018 by Blossom76

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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.  

They don't use evidence of the Koran, they use historical evidence which, as I said, I am not going to go into here.  It is historical evidence that is accepted worldwide currently as facts.  It is FAR more proven as historical fact in this regard than just about anything in relation to most other religions.  It is only after proving this via fact that they offer their religions as not being fallible in the same manner (which, at least in the case of Islam, a Catholic apologist that is aggressive could probably make a similar case against them).  It includes VERY similar claims that you find against the LDS church ironically.

No Catholic Priest normally addresses these unless it is either accept the historical facts as true, OR to do a Capernicus/Galileo which is to claim that all science and history is false except that endorsed by the Catholic church.  Normally, they choose the option just to ignore it completely and not address it.

This is why, when you get down to religions in this regard, it is not normally a matter of simply accepting facts from the opposing side, but that of FAITH.  When getting information about a religion, you do NOT get it from those set upon the destruction of that church, but normally from the church itself.

This applies to the Catholic Church just as much as the LDS church.  I did not learn about the Catholic church from those who oppose the Catholic Church, I learned it directly from the Catholic Church and the various items which discuss it's canon and literature.  I think there is a great deal of good in the Catholic church, but they have their own "CES" type of letter which I imagine you have not read, nor that your husband has heard of, or if he has, is not seriously even looking at. 

As I said, if he is using the CES letter, he is NOT being fair, nor unbiased in his approach. 

Let's use a less offensive way of elaborating this example.  We landed a man on the Moon.  There are people who say that we did not.  They use all sorts of excuses and examples of how that was impossible.  They take things WAAAAY out of proportion, take things out of context, and a multitude of other examples of why we could not land on the moon.  When wondering about the history of man in space, do you look to these individuals and say...hey...this is correct?

They take much of what they have directly from NASA accounts and history, but they way they present them is flawed.  ONLY THOSE who are in this group that believe men never went to the moon even take them seriously.  It is because their logic is so flawed and they take things so out of context and twist things that it's not really something to take seriously.  Instead, you read the accounts of the moon, see the evidence presented (for example, looking through a telescope strong enough to see the flag's shadow on the moon) and other things. 

So, let's look at the evidence presented in this thread from what I've seen.

1. I checked my copy of Church History and as some have pointed out, my copy is NOT printed by the LDS church.  It is NOT by the LDS church.  It is published by Deseret Books.  I do not know if yours states it is published by the LDS church, but mine shows that they are NOT.

2.  A check of the official LDS position on this seems to indicate the following

Quote

Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.” It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. …”³

Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However, as will be pointed out later, speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from William Clayton’s journal was reprinted in the Millennial Star of 15 January 1859, and, unfortunately, was finally carried over into official Church history when the “History of Joseph Smith” was edited into book form as the History of the Church in 1909.⁴

In which they appear to state it is actually NOT an account from Joseph Smith and in fact, except for that single item state...

 

Quote

 month and a half later the Nauvoo Neighbor press published a 12″ x 15″ broadside entitled Discovery of the Brass Plates.² (See p. 72.) This handbill contained a reprint of the Times and Seasons story, with the addition of facsimiles of all twelve sides of the six plates. Nothing further regarding the Prophet’s opinion of the plates appeared on the broadside—only a statement that “the contents of the plates … will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed.”

These two oblique references to a “translation” were followed thirteen years later by a more direct published statement that until recently was wrongly thought to have been written by Joseph Smith himself. On September 3 and 10, 1856, the following paragraphs appeared in the Deseret News as part of the serialized “History of Joseph Smith”:

It states here that the comment you are saying is held up by the LDS church as being stated by Joseph Smith is in fact, NOT what the LDS church states on this matter at all.

3. Joseph stated his official translations in relation to the gospel and his revelations in regards to the actual Gospel as opposed to those of his opinions.  These are currently found either canonized in the LDS scriptures, OR found as a part of them elsewhere.  This supposed translation that Clayton talked about is NOWHERE to be found, had NEVER been affirmed by Joseph Smith or the LDS church I know.

I am no expert on these plates, but at least attribute to the LDS individuals in the thread that they are NOT lying to you, they are stating the official LDS positions as found on the LDS site as has already been listed previously in this thread if you want to know what the LDS church officially has stated on this matter in our times.

LDS link about Kinderhook plates

What this is akin to is taking a document from an avowed group that has pledged to destroy the Catholic Church and using those documents as proof against what the Catholic Church states and what apparently history (at least from what I can tell in regards to these, once again, I AM NO EXPERT on this subject itself) shows as well.