I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

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.

I agree that such 2 option view is naive.  People are... bad people do some good things- even devilish people do some good things.  Conversely, good people do some bad things, even Godly people.    

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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

Are you familiar with the Catholic concept of ex cathedra?  (this is actually very much on topic) 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

 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. 

You could not be more wrong. We have seen more what you would call 'anti catholic' material (very well researched and full of good evidence too) than you know.  And my husband not only looks at it but finds it himself and gives it to me.  He also doesn't get all defensive and come back with weak arguments and excuses for it either, if it's proven then its proven. Simple as that, no need to have a hissy fit over it.

[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.

Let me tell you another story.  As I heard it, it was a true story.  And I have no reason to believe otherwise.  But the point it makes is what is important.

A farmer and his family had been living in what used to be a chicken coop.  They cleaned it up and enlarged it a bit.  but they were able to keep the wind away.  After some years, they decided they needed a bigger home.  But the farmer was very poor and didn't have any foreseeable means of getting more money.

They knelt as a family and prayed about it.  The father then addressed his family and said that the children were to take some time each day and go out to the road where there would be some coins dropped by passersby. 

Each day, the children would pick up anywhere from 15 cents to $1.50 in loose change.  They took this money towards buying materials to build an actual home.  It was no mansion.  But it was a home.  They moved out of the chicken coop and felt elated to be in this home.

The children continued their trips out to the road for the next three weeks after the home was finished.  During that three weeks, not a single penny was ever found.  The noted this to their father and asked what happened.  Their father said, the money was a gift from the Lord.  We no longer need it.  So, why would there be any more money out there?

******************

Joseph had gotten so used to translating ancient writing because it was a gift from God, that he found it difficult to shake the habit.  It took a moment to realize that the "gift" was no longer there.  Just as these children continued walking out on the road, Joseph got out his lexicon that he had made and made the attempt. 

I have been given the gift of tongues off and on in my life.  And it is an odd thing.  It isn't easy to determine when your earthly abilities end and heavenly gift begins.  I do speak Spanish fairly fluently.  But there are times when I'm in a conversation and I just stumble over my words.  But whenever I've been in a particular calling where it was required of me to speak Spanish, I always spoke it fluently and I even used some words that I never used before.

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

You could not be more wrong. We have seen more what you would call 'anti catholic' material (very well researched and full of good evidence too) than you know.  

In fairness to @Blossom76, she's exactly right. In my Catholic high school we had a class specifically on the reformation and it's causes. In college, we had several theology classes where all types of theology were taught. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by MormonGator

[JohnsonJones]

13 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

You could not be more wrong. We have seen more what you would call 'anti catholic' material (very well researched and full of good evidence too) than you know.  And my husband not only looks at it but finds it himself and gives it to me.  He also doesn't get all defensive and come back with weak arguments and excuses for it either, if it's proven then its proven. Simple as that, no need to have a hissy fit over it.

You may have seen Anti-Catholic Material, but I'm pretty certain if he has, he is NOT utilizing it in an even basis.   I KNOW the arguments and normally what is addressed and what is NOT addressed.  When has he seen the Islamic Pledge against Christianity and can he state the 1000 historical facts found there in (and these are things normally accepted by Historians and known, rather than minute and miniscule things like the Kinderhood Plates you have brought up) I might think he has some problems that need to be addressed as a Catholic as he's basically committing apostasy (against the Catholic church) by bringing that document up? 

Yet, he goes and gets the equivalent and uses that against Mormons?

This is not a hissy fit, it's actually being very nice.  Using the CES letter as your starting point you basically (and your husband) did the equivalent of someone using the KKK manifestos as a key document for justifying racism and discrimination in our day, except in this case it is against the LDS church.  That document is from an avowed Anti-Mormon with the objective of destroying the LDS church outright.  It is utilized today as an anti-Mormon tool to destroy the LDS church.

It is NOT used by Historians.  It is not used as official Canon by any religion or church.  It is solely an Anti-Mormon tool and normally is used to identify those who are Anti-Mormon or those who are their targets.

It is used as an insult to the LDS community and LDS thought.  Considering HOW offensive it is in regards to LDS, it is actually rather amazing how considerate people have been in this thread in that regard.  I think it is because people accept that you are NOT trying to be offensive, but I do not think you understand just how offensive that document of some of it's arguments are or how insultive it is towards Mormons in some of the misrepresentations it presents.

I'm willing to discuss it, as I hope that you are honestly asking questions.  However, when you are insisting the LDS church is saying something that it does NOT say...it makes it difficult to actually discuss it.  I'm not an expert (as I have stated repeatedly) in regards to the Kinderhook plates...but I have at LEAST LOOKED  at the different references given in this thread and found the official LDS statements in regards to them. 

When you disregard this, it makes one wonder why you are disregarding the OFFICIAL LDS church and instead utilizing something that is NOT official to the LDS church as far as I can tell. 

I have tried to be as honest as possible with you.  I am not here to mislead you or misdirect you, but I am telling you, someone who is using the CES letter is NOT being non-biased.  It is one of the biggest tools used to destroy the LDS church today, and used in many ways as an insult to the church and it's members.

[Jane_Doe]

@JohnsonJones, let us be kind here, filled with charity to ALL men.  

[Just_A_Guy]

21 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

[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, I can't really say much more as to how Church history is recorded, interpreted, and re-published than what has been said here.  It's a messy business; and either one is willing to wade into it, or one isn't.  Fair enough. 

But, I would invite you to identify and challenge your assumptions--all of them--when you approach this, or pretty much any issue that Jeremy Runnells raises.

For example--granting arguendo that Clayton's statement is correct and Joseph Smith did attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates; you are assuming that Smith attempted to make an "inspired" translation in the same vein as his translations of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  

 But, here's the screwy thing:  There's some evidence out there to suggest that Smith's attempt at the Kinderhook Plates was not supposed to be an "inspired translation"--at all.  We know, from Smith's own journal, that when the plates were initially brought to him Joseph asked for his Hebrew  Bible and his "lexicon".  The "lexicon" here refers to the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" (abbreviated "GAEL") that had been produced by Joseph Smith's scribes some ten years previously in connection with the production of the "Book of Abraham"--it basically broke down different Egyptian characters copied from the papyri purchased from Michael Chandler; and offered possible English translations for them. 

Now, here's where things get really interesting.  The very top character on the very first of the Kinderhook Plates looks rather like a boat.  In the GAEL, one of the characters is similar--a boat shape--and its proposed translation reads
 

Quote

 

"Honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh, possession by birth, one who reigns upon his throne universally. Possession of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth."

 

Hmm--descent from Pharoah (who Joseph already to believed a descendant of Ham), ruler by divine birthright?  That sounds exactly like the description Joseph Smith gave in his journal.  By the way, you can read more about this in the transcript of a great presentation Don Bradley gave back in 2011, here.  

Now, this is important; because there's a disconnect between historical reality versus the picture that Runnells tried to paint for you.  Runnells would have you believe that Smith sat down, prayed, got (or claimed to have gotten) revelation from God, and was in the process of producing a text based therefrom that he would have published at some point.  And naturally, that "inspired" text would have been completely bogus; undermining Smith's status as a prophet.  When But really, what happened is closer to this:

1. Some guys brought Smith the plates;
2. While those guys are still sitting in his living room, he sent for the GAEL
3. He spent fifteen minutes playing matchy-matchy with--literally--the very first character on the plates
4. Based on that parlor game, he made a quick, off-the-cuff assessment of what the plates may have been.  

Bradley's arguments aren't perfect, of course--critics and apologists continue to dicker over them.  And the GAEL has its own issues.  But I'll bet you good money that neither Runnells nor any of his acolytes ever told you any of this--did they?  And why is Joseph Smith using the GAEL to try to evaluate a purportedly ancient text, if he didn't at least believe the GAEL to be substantially accurate?

The thing about Runnells is that he uses an old high school debating trick.  It's called "spread", and its core assessment is that you (and your opponent) only have so much time and energy to do the debate.  So you throw out every argument you can think of--the solid arguments as well as the ones you know to be crappy--and force your opponent to get bogged down in rebutting you step by step.  Eventually they run out of time, and that's when you proclaim victory by virtue of the fact that they weren't able to rebut all of your arguments before the clock ran out (or before they just plain ran out of gas).

Does Letter to a CES Director make you feel tired?  Discouraged?  Overwhelmed?  Inferior?  Hollow?  Like there's just no way you can cope with all this?  Aching for the entire mess to just disappear?

Good.  That's exactly how Runnells wants you to feel; and it's why he produced his work in the way that he did.  

Edited February 4, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Blossom76, I can't really say much more as to how Church history is recorded, interpreted, and re-published than what has been said here.  It's a messy business; and either one is willing to wade into it, or one isn't.  Fair enough. 

But, I would invite you to identify and challenge your assumptions--all of them--when you approach this, or pretty much any issue that Jeremy Runnells raises.

For example--granting arguendo that Clayton's statement is correct and Joseph Smith did attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates; you are assuming that Smith attempted to make an "inspired" translation in the same vein as his translations of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  

 

Im not assuming that at all, I'm saying that if he said it (which church history both backs up and then kind of denies at the same time) then thats a problem, because he should not just be 'guessing', it's either of God or it is not, no room for guessing, and if he didn't say it then the church should not have recorded that he did.

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@JohnsonJones, let us be kind here, filled with charity to ALL men.  

Thank you.  If you note, I am NOT listing the Catholic documents (first, because I would find them offensive as a Catholic, and secondly, I am not going to be responsible for destroying someone's faith). 

However, as one who is not all that knowledgeable about the Kinderhook plates, I have easily been able to discern from the various postings what the actual LDS position is. 

I'm was not necessarily making any judgments of what the official LDS position was until I read through the evidence that others had presented.  In that I am in a similar boat as @Blossom76 but relied on what the LDS church says it believes, rather than some letter which is by someone who sought the destruction of the faith and has tried to misrepresent it's beliefs. 

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In fairness to @Blossom76, she's exactly right. In my Catholic high school we had a class specifically on the reformation and it's causes. In college, we had several theology classes where all types of theology were taught. 

I understand that, and I also understand what is taught at higher levels at the Catholic seminaries.  They discuss far more then just the reformation and it's causes. 

I am not discussing those subjects.  These are things that Catholic Priests DO discuss.  Members of the Catholic church find out about it.

I'm discussing the same type of attacks against the Catholic Church that are made against the LDS church in regards to trying to discredit the founders of the LDS church in order to prove the LDS church false.

In this, most of the attacks against the actual foundation of the Catholic church are not done by Protestant religions (as they have the same foundations...if one proves the Catholic Church to be false, it also has a huge implication against themselves), but by other world religions (most of what I have argued against in defense of the Catholic church have been Muslim and Hindu religionist).  Normally these arguments from other world religions are not addressed by any Catholic Priest that I've met in a serious manner. 

However, in attacks against the very leaders of the Catholic Church and it's foundation, the only real parallel to that which occurs to Mormons is that found in these types of attacks worldwide.

I'm giving my honest assessment of what it appears to be in regards to the arguments stated and the problems given.  Maybe I'm being too honest in my thoughts here

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

  Maybe I'm being too honest in my thoughts here

Too honest? No. 

Too wordy? YES. 

[Blossom76]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Blossom76

Does Letter to a CES Director make you feel tired?  Discouraged?  Overwhelmed?  Inferior?  Like there's just no way you can cope with all this?  Aching for the entire mess to just disappear?

Good.  That's exactly how Runnells wants you to feel; and it's why he produced his work in the way that he did.  

It gives me questions that need answering, and it highlights some serious problems with church history and the authority structure of the church.  It most certainly doesn't make me feel inferior, tired discouraged to overwhelmed.  It does however, make me feel upset that these questions don't seem to have an easy go to answer.

[Blossom76]

41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You may have seen Anti-Catholic Material, but I'm pretty certain if he has, he is NOT utilizing it in an even basis.   I KNOW the arguments and normally what is addressed and what is NOT addressed.  When has he seen the Islamic Pledge against Christianity and can he state the 1000 historical facts found there in (and these are things normally accepted by Historians and known, rather than minute and miniscule things like the Kinderhood Plates you have brought up) I might think he has some problems that need to be addressed as a Catholic as he's basically committing apostasy (against the Catholic church) by bringing that document up? 

Do not assume to know the intentions of my husband, he is a very honest and decent man, and once again I remind you that we are talking about different denominations of Christianity (specifically LDS and Catholicism) and the arguments for and against each one.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam, this is ridiculous. 

And there are plenty of attacks against Catholicism by other christian denominations, actually if you read the history of Catholicism it does a pretty good job of attacking and discrediting itself!

Edited February 4, 2018 by Blossom76

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

Im not assuming that at all, I'm saying that if he said it (which church history both backs up and then kind of denies at the same time) then thats a problem, because he should not just be 'guessing', it's either of God or it is not, no room for guessing, and if he didn't say it then the church should not have recorded that he did.

I can understand that, but that's not what the LDS church history states.

It's what a book published by Deseret Books labeled as Church history states from what I understand what various individuals have been stating here.  I followed their link and it states something entirely different than what you stated.

As such, I presented what we knew and what we did not know apparently. 

The link presented by others and which I reposted also explained why this happens.

Here's another way to look at it. 

I'm a historian, I do NOT know that much about these plates.  I am willing to look at authentic sources from both sides.  Thus, using me as the target, convince me one way or the other.

Thus far, I have seen the evidences put out by you and by others.  I have stated what I've read and understood.  Sometimes the best way to run through things is to try to convince the person who doesn't really know a LOT on the subject.

I've listed what I understand has been stated thus far.  I have a copy of the LDS church history, thus far the other side, by pointing me to the official LDS version of the Kinderhook plates have done far more at convincing me thus far. 

Their explanation does a LOT to state WHY the church history states what it does, while at the same time letting those volumes of church history actually still stand as being somewhat valid.

I will relate my main doubt is that the story I HEARD of the Giant found was VERY different than the one that's been related in this thread.  It had to do with the Giant actually being a Nephite, rather than a relation of Pharoah...which raises even more questions in my mind.

[Guest MormonGator]

@JohnsonJones, I'm seriously just playfully teasing you, so please don't take this the wrong way, please, please, please. Nothing but respect for you. 

[Blossom76]

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I will relate my main doubt is that the story I HEARD of the Giant found was VERY different than the one that's been related in this thread.  It had to do with the Giant actually being a Nephite, rather than a relation of Pharoah...which raises even more questions in my mind.

I hope you find the answers to your questions, and I hope when you ask them you are not attacked or made to feel like you have no right to question it.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

Do not assume to know the intentions of my husband, he is a very honest and decent man, and once again I remind you that we are talking about different denominations of Christianity (specifically LDS and Catholicism) and the arguments for and against each one.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam, this is ridiculous. 

You  have to realize what the arguments you are utilizing are doing. Your arguments are trying to attack the founder and foundations of the LDS church.  NO protestant religion or even the Eastern Orthodox religions do this against the Catholic Church because to attack the foundations of it and the founders stand a strong chance of invalidating them as well.

Thus, the only equivalents of what you are doing come from religions that are bent upon destroying the Catholic church by destroying it's founders, it's foundations, and it's motives.

In history one learns it is almost impossible to be fair and balanced.  However, if one is comparing something, it means you take apples to apples (in otherwords, other documents that attack the same principles as other ones) rather than apples and oranges (or, if one is going to attack the foundations of Mormonism, one does not simply just talk about the problems that the Catholic Church had from tenth to 19th centuries).

That said, if you want one to bounce ideas off of, I am willing to have ideas bounced off of in this manner.  However, you are trying to convince me, and as I presented above...I do want valid sources (the CES letter is not considered a valid source by just about anyone except Anti-Mormons, which I think I tried to point out...but your church history source I DO accept as a valid source).  The particular point you brought up though was answered officially already by the LDS church site...which is where I got my information after reading your items...which means I would like to hear why you accept the Deseret Book version but not the LDS church's version. 

I'm open to hearing it.

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I hope you find the answers to your questions, and I hope when you ask them you are not attacked or made to feel like you have no right to question it.

You have actually done that in this thread.  I thought perhaps its because I brought it up the wrong way, which is why I'm approaching it differently now.  Instead of viewing me as someone saying you have no right...instead address the things I brought up and convince me of what you are thinking. 

As someone who is not all that knowing of the Kinderhook plates I read what you wrote and what others wrote and gave my honest assessment of what I thought the things were (I even bolded them) as presented from both sides.

I would normally accept what the LDS church history states as being very valid (as such I normally would be in the same boat as you), but when I read links and things others posted in this thread, the very links that were officially from the LDS church seemed to explain the very causes of your questions...

So, at this point I'm trying to understand the rest of the justifications.

[Blossom76]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

You  have to realize what the arguments you are utilizing are doing. Your arguments are trying to attack the founder and foundations of the LDS church.  NO protestant religion or even the Eastern Orthodox religions do this against the Catholic Church because to attack the foundations of it and the founders stand a strong chance of invalidating them as well.

Thus, the only equivalents of what you are doing come from religions that are bent upon destroying the Catholic church by destroying it's founders, it's foundations, and it's motives.

In history one learns it is almost impossible to be fair and balanced.  However, if one is comparing something, it means you take apples to apples (in otherwords, other documents that attack the same principles as other ones) rather than apples and oranges (or, if one is going to attack the foundations of Mormonism, one does not simply just talk about the problems that the Catholic Church had from tenth to 19th centuries).

That said, if you want one to bounce ideas off of, I am willing to have ideas bounced off of in this manner.  However, you are trying to convince me, and as I presented above...I do want valid sources (the CES letter is not considered a valid source by just about anyone except Anti-Mormons, which I think I tried to point out...but your church history source I DO accept as a valid source).  The particular point you brought up though was answered officially already by the LDS church site...which is where I got my information after reading your items...which means I would like to hear why you accept the Deseret Book version but not the LDS church's version. 

I'm open to hearing it.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I"m not taking the CES letter as a source, but the church documents it references - very different thing.  And you have to remember that the LDS church attacks every other christian church on the earth. "for they were all wrong” and “all their creeds were an abomination.”- pretty strong language.

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I would normally accept what the LDS church history states as being very valid (as such I normally would be in the same boat as you), but when I read links and things others posted in this thread, the very links that were officially from the LDS church seemed to explain the very causes of your questions...

So, at this point I'm trying to understand the rest of the justifications.

I dont think the links posted by others are an acceptable explanation, honestly I view them more like an excuse, an excuse I am not willing to accept.  If you are then that's great, but I don't and that doesn't make me or you wrong or right, it just makes us different. And that's ok

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I"m not taking the CES letter as a source, but the church documents it references - very different thing.  And you have to remember that the LDS church attacks every other christian church on the earth. "for they were all wrong” and “all their creeds were an abomination.”- pretty strong language.

That IS pretty strong language, but my opinion differs...for better or for worse.  My take on the LDS ideas is that all religions (at least Christian ones) have a part of the truth, just not the entirety of it. 

On this though, see it as trying to convince me.  You are asking questions, but your line of thoughts can also be something others are reading.  Look at me as someone who is willing to see your point of view, if you can convince me why I should see it that way.

Right now, though, the ones that have been telling you that this is actually NOT something the LDS church believes and have an explanation of why it states what it does is pretty darn convincing to me.  You state it is not to you, which is why I am trying to understand why it is not. 

Hence, make me understand your point of view, after considering what the other people have said in this thread and reading the link (and I posted quotes from it on what I thought were actually the most relevant to convince me of their position in the passage you stated).

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

That IS pretty strong language, but my opinion differs...for better or for worse.  My take on the LDS ideas is that all religions (at least Christian ones) have a part of the truth, just not the entirety of it. 

On this though, see it as trying to convince me.  You are asking questions, but your line of thoughts can also be something others are reading.  Look at me as someone who is willing to see your point of view, if you can convince me why I should see it that way.

Right now, though, the ones that have been telling you that this is actually NOT something the LDS church believes and have an explanation of why it states what it does is pretty darn convincing to me.  You state it is not to you, which is why I am trying to understand why it is not. 

Hence, make me understand your point of view, after considering what the other people have said in this thread and reading the link (and I posted quotes from it on what I thought were actually the most relevant to convince me of their position in the passage you stated).

I dont have to justify why I think something is not acceptable, I don't have to 'convince you' of anything, and I'm certainly not going to try.

And if god said to Jospeh "for they were all wrong” and “all their creeds were an abomination.” and you or other members believe something different, then I have a very big issue with that too.  After all that is the whole reason the LDS church was established in the first place.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Are you familiar with the Catholic concept of ex cathedra?  (this is actually very much on topic) 

I'm willing to leave the Catholic Church for reasons like this, I'm not going to jump into another faith that does the same kind of things

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I dont think the links posted by others are an acceptable explanation, honestly I view them more like an excuse, an excuse I am not willing to accept.  If you are then that's great, but I don't and that doesn't make me or you wrong or right, it just makes us different. And that's ok

And why is that?

The LDS church's official explanation is that the source document was discovered.  It was never stated directly by Joseph Smith.  It was something written down by Clayton. 

In history we have primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.  In a direct quote, if it was written down by Joseph Smith it is considered a primary source.

However, this is someone else claiming something was stated by him but not by him, which is what we call a secondary source typically (though if it was something they directly experienced, it could be considered a primary source).

However, to make it worse, it appears the LDS church is claiming that the Church History is actually a summation written by somebody else taking the words of Clayton and transposing them as if said by Joseph Smith which makes it a tertiary document and in the way it was done, hence an unreliable document (not something I would actually want to hear as a historian who would use the Church history as a primary document).

This raises all sorts of questions in regards to the validity of Church History as a valid source.  Is it just this particular episode, or is it far more than that?

In that light, what makes you disregards the LDS church's official statements in lieu of the Deseret Books statement?

To help understand the question, does this mean I should take official Catholic Doctrine from that written by documentations of other authors about Francis of Assisi over that written in Vatican II?

 

[bytebear]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

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

And this is why it's anti-Mormon because the anti-Mormons what you to believe Smith said it, and not give you the actual history, all because when someone started the "History of the Church" it was really the "History of Joseph Smith" and was started in the first person, and for whatever reason the rest of the volumes (all 7 of them) were written in first person even if the sources weren't from Smith himself. 

This is critical in understanding the history, and the anti-Mormons don't want you to know it.