I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[Blossom76]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

And why is that?

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?

 

Because it alludes to the fact that Joseph said something that perhaps he did not say.

And I don't know what you are trying to achieve by citing catholic writings - I am willing to leave the Catholic Church because of all the problem I can see with it.  And just so you know, catholic doctrine is found in the Catechism.

[bytebear]

4 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Comment of the Prophtet on the Kinderhook Plates.

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.

Church History backs up the fact that he said it - so I'm not supposed to trust what church history says? 'Comment of the Prophet on the Kinderhook Plates'. That says he said it, why would church history record that if he did not say it.  It's very inconsistent 

Yes, it's ridiculously inconsistent, but when the History of the Church was compiled in the 1800s, the creators decided to make EVERYTHING in the first person, regardless of the source.  Confusing and annoying.  I agree.

[JohnsonJones]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

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

If we want another thread to discuss problems with the Catholic church I suppose we could.  On the otherhand, I would imagine a Priest who takes his role seriously could be someone better to answer this as they would be personally there to talk with.

I would say that this would be a very good reason to not jump into another faith that does similar types of things.  Personally, I would only want you to join the LDS church if YOU KNOW it is true. 

If you choose not to join the LDS church though, I would be a grieved to find you leaving your Catholic Faith.  I feel it is important and think that much of what the Catholic church does is very defensible and there is good reason behind it.

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, bytebear said:

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.

The history of the church says 'comment of the prophet on the kinder hook plates'

Comment of the prophet! What do you not understand about that.  Church history says 'comment of the prophet' if it was not a comment of the prophet it should not BE IN THERE - that is a problem!

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

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Because it alludes to the fact that Joseph said something that perhaps he did not say.

And I don't know what you are trying to achieve by citing catholic writings - I am willing to leave the Catholic Church because of all the problem I can see with it.  And just so you know, catholic doctrine is found in the Catechism.

I know what it is based upon, but we are not discussing specific LDS doctrine here, we are discussing a history of the LDS church.  I am trying to give Catholic examples to help you better understand my point of view.

In some documentations of Francis of Assisi, there are things that are stated that go contrary to things you would find in Vatican 2 I think.  Vatican 2 itself was somewhat controversial when it first came out among some groups. 

I think it is a decent parallel because we are discussing an older document vs. that of a new statement by the LDS church.  It helps me understand your viewpoint to help me better consider what you are saying.

[Blossom76]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we want another thread to discuss problems with the Catholic church I suppose we could.  On the otherhand, I would imagine a Priest who takes his role seriously could be someone better to answer this as they would be personally there to talk with.

I would say that this would be a very good reason to not jump into another faith that does similar types of things.  Personally, I would only want you to join the LDS church if YOU KNOW it is true. 

If you choose not to join the LDS church though, I would be a grieved to find you leaving your Catholic Faith.  I feel it is important and think that much of what the Catholic church does is very defensible and there is good reason behind it.

I don't want another thread to discuss the problems of the Catholic church, I'm not the one bringing it up, I'm just responding to it.

[bytebear]

4 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

It is still in Church History that he did say it, its inconsistent, they need to delete one of them, they can't have one church document saying he did say it and another saying he didn't

Again, I'm not commenting on this thread anymore

There may be some confusion on what the History of the Church is. It's not a current record of church history.  It isn't updated or maintained.  It was compiled in the 1800s and basically covers the life of Joseph Smith. It was the best historical document for the church at the time, but it is very flawed, especially in terms of modern historical methods. The replacement for this is called The Joseph Smith Papers, started just a few years ago, with the goal to accurately document everything Smith ever said, and has several volumes, and additional volumes on the way.  This is the modern version of what you want to know, and it's done correctly, with every document, quote and text attributed to the correct source, with correct context.  But the church can't just pretend the 1800s document didn't exist. All it can do is clarify the sources now.

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[Blossom76]

7 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Yes, it's ridiculously inconsistent, but when the History of the Church was compiled in the 1800s, the creators decided to make EVERYTHING in the first person, regardless of the source.  Confusing and annoying.  I agree.

Thank You. Thank You So Much. You have no idea how much it means to me to hear you say that.  Thank you ? ? 

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I don't want another thread to discuss the problems of the Catholic church, I'm not the one bringing it up, I'm just responding to it.

You should understand I am NOT catholic because I disagreed with Catholic Doctrine.  I have, at times, defended that doctrine. 

I am LDS because I gained a testimony of the LDS church and knew it to be true. 

Thus, I am saddened when one states that they are thinking about leaving the Catholic church over problems and such.  If one chooses to not become LDS, and are Catholic instead, I would rather that they remain a strong believer in their faith than to leave the Catholic Church...but that is my personal opinion.

Edited February 4, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Blossom76]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

You should understand I am NOT catholic because I disagreed with Catholic Doctrine.  I have, at times, defended that doctrine. 

I am LDS because I gained a testimony of the LDS church and knew it to be true. 

Thus, I am saddened when one states that they are thinking about leaving the Catholic church over problems and such.  If one is not LDS, and are Catholic instead, I would rather that they remain a strong believer in their faith than to leave the Catholic Church...but that is my personal opinion.

I want to be in the church that worships God and Jesus in the way they want to be worshiped.  I'm investigating the LDS church because of its claims to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth.  From my point of view it all comes down to authority.  Who has the authority on earth to act for Jesus Christ.  Turns out that's a rather hard question to answer.

[JohnsonJones]

14 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I want to be in the church that worships God and Jesus in the way they want to be worshiped.  I'm investigating the LDS church because of its claims to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth.  From my point of view it all comes down to authority.  Who has the authority on earth to act for Jesus Christ.  Turns out that's a rather hard question to answer.

This is true.  Most churches have a way to claim authority, and many Christian religions have claims of why they can be the only true church on the earth.  Most of the time these claims can be explained away by the Catholic teachings, whether they are accepted by others or not. 

The ONLY way I know of to find out if the LDS church is it or not is to receive that answer from heaven itself.  It is to pray and ask for an answer.  For me, it has nothing to do with the "FACTS" found with in it.  For many Catholics in the same field as me, their Catholic faith is not founded upon "FACTS" as it were, because facts can be a VERY HARSH thing at times.  It takes either balancing them out and reconciling what you think the facts are with what your faith is, or seeing facts on one side and faith on another. 

I am interested in various facts and opinions though.  I would like you to get an answer to your question, but the only way I know that you can get an firm and positive answer in regards to the LDS church is through prayer and to have it answered.

I believe it took Brigham Young 2 years to actually get his answer, so it is not always a fast or immediate thing. 

WE can tell you our own experiences, or what we have done that convinced us, but the only person that really can find out for themselves in this case is you.  I feel it is more a matter of prayer than one of finding out facts.

This is probably the primary difference in MANY instances (but not all) in regards to many who see the CES letter that you brought up previously or any of the issues it tries to bring up.  Those who base their faith upon facts and not faith from knowledge can have a HARD time reconciling these things.  Those who have had the Lord tell them that the LDS gospel is true will not be shaken by it as theirs is a faith born from being told it is true from the Lord, rather than something they justify by the facts the world gives them.

I agree though, it can be hard.  If I did not receive answers in the way I told you, I would probably favor the Greek Orthodox Church in regards to authority, the Catholic Church in prominence, and the Baptist church in doctrine.

Edited February 4, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[bytebear]

21 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank You. Thank You So Much. You have no idea how much it means to me to hear you say that.  Thank you ? ? 

Sorry, I was still 3 pages behind. You've created  a popular thread!   Glad you're sticking with it. 

But I do want to make sure you understand that History of the Church is not a maintained volume. It's historical, and hasn't changed since it was first published 150 years ago.  It's flawed, and we don't use it as our official history.  It should no be seen that way.  There are LOTS of similar writings.  Journal of Discourses is one.  Another is a sort of encyclopedia of Mormon doctrine called "Mormon Doctrine" which isn't official Mormon doctrine.  Confusing, and annoying, right?  We have lots of official sounding books and stuff, but the only official doctrines we have are found in the scriptural Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).  Only those documents are official.  Historical documents exist.  Rough Stone Rolling is a great biography of Joseph Smith.  The Joseph Smith Papers is an attempt to document everything Smith ever said, but even those are not official doctrine.  Unless the Kinderhook plates ended up in scripture, any and all commentary on them is moot.

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[bytebear]

I wanted to give you an example of official vs historical statements, so you can see what I mean.   The Kinderhook plates are mentioned historically that Joseph Smith may have commented on them.  But there is no scriptural entry about it.  If he had actually had a vision from God that the writings were from the loin of Ham, it would have been recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Another example is the Apocrypha.  Joseph Smith wondered if they were important enough to study and include in the BIble.  He took the question to the Lord, and rather than having a historical record somewhere that he decided they weren't important enough to include in our official version of the Bible, we have scripture confirming it.

 

Quote

 

Doctrine and Covenants 91:1,3

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the ^aApocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

 

So, now you know why we don't include the Apocrypha in our official Bible version.

I hope you can see the difference.

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[Blossom76]

16 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I wanted to give you an example of official vs historical statements, so you can see what I mean.   The Kinderhook plates are mentioned historically that Joseph Smith may have commented on them.  But there is no scriptural entry about it.  If he had actually had a vision from God that the writings were from the loin of Ham, it would have been recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Another example is the Apocrypha.  Joseph Smith wondered if they were important enough to study and include in the BIble.  He took the question to the Lord, and rather than having a historical record somewhere that he decided they weren't important enough to include in our official version of the Bible, we have scripture confirming it.

 

So, now you know why we don't include the Apocrypha in our official Bible version.

I hope you can see the difference.

 

40 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Sorry, I was still 3 pages behind. You've created  a popular thread!   Glad you're sticking with it. 

But I do want to make sure you understand that History of the Church is not a maintained volume. It's historical, and hasn't changed since it was first published 150 years ago.  It's flawed, and we don't use it as our official history.  It should no be seen that way.  There are LOTS of similar writings.  Journal of Discourses is one.  Another is a sort of encyclopedia of Mormon doctrine called "Mormon Doctrine" which isn't official Mormon doctrine.  Confusing, and annoying, right?  We have lots of official sounding books and stuff, but the only official doctrines we have are found in the scriptural Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).  Only those documents are official.  Historical documents exist.  Rough Stone Rolling is a great biography of Joseph Smith.  The Joseph Smith Papers is an attempt to document everything Smith ever said, but even those are not official doctrine.  Unless the Kinderhook plates ended up in scripture, any and all commentary on them is moot.

Thank you and I do get it, I can see the difference,  but I still don't like it, its inconsistent and it invites problems and gives a lot room for doubt.  In my opinion, I should be able to trust these older documents, I think they should have the most truth in them, because they are the oldest source we have on the subject. I don't like that there are so many inconsistencies in them.

[bytebear]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

 

Thank you and I do get it, I can see the difference,  but I still don't like it, its inconsistent and it invites problems and gives a lot room for doubt.  In my opinion, I should be able to trust these older documents, I think they should have the most truth in them, because they are the oldest source we have on the subject. I don't like that there are so many inconsistencies in them.

Yes, it causes a lot of doubt, but that's kind of the point.  You say you should be able to trust the older documents.  Well, no, you shouldn't trust anything other than the Lord.  There is no guarantee that anything you read is true, not from the church, not from the Book of Mormon, not even from the Bible.  You have learned a way to prove truth, but you should never just trust anything. 

I will refer you to the BIble.  Trust me. 
 

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, bytebear said:

Yes, it causes a lot of doubt, but that's kind of the point.  You say you should be able to trust the older documents.  Well, no, you shouldn't trust anything other than the Lord.  There is no guarantee that anything you read is true, not from the church, not from the Book of Mormon, not even from the Bible.  You have learned a way to prove truth, but you should never just trust anything. 

I will refer you to the BIble.  Trust me. 
 

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Now that I believe, and its exactly what I am in the process of doing.   But proof comes from more than just feelings.

[bytebear]

8 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Now that I believe, and its exactly what I am in the process of doing.   But proof comes from more than just feelings.

Yes, it does.  Another scripture for you.

 

Quote

 

Doctrine and Covenants 9:8

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ^astudy it out in your ^bmind; then you must ^cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your ^dbosom shall ^eburn within you; therefore, you shall ^ffeel that it is right.

 

This is your journey.  We're all just trying to help with the study, and most of us are so familiar with the topic, and so comfortable with our answers, that we can come across as rude or impatient.  I suspect that many of us have been where you are now, but have long been past this bump in the road, and are impatient, and it's easier for us to say, get over it, than to help you find your answer. 

I hope our information is helpful, even if our historical records are annoying.  From our perspective, we're just used to how it all works.  Please be patient with us.

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[Guest]

Ok, so Mormonism is a false and you should not the join the church. Does that give you peace in your heart? Does that settle your mind? My guess is that is doesn't. Because you already have a tesimony of certain parts of the gospel.

My suggestion would be for you to set this aside and continue to research and learn about. Church. You have what the church has said about it as well as your friends here on the forum. As you study and learn more maybe the answer will come to you. When you come closer in making your decision return to the issue and see if it' still a major issue for you. You may find as you grow in your faith the spirit will give you understanding. But if you return to it and it continues to be a problem then you  will have to decide if it's a big enough problem to stop you from being baptized.

[Blossom76]

9 minutes ago, miav said:

Ok, so Mormonism is a false and you should not the join the church. Does that give you peace in your heart? Does that settle your mind? My guess is that is doesn't. Because you already have a tesimony of certain parts of the gospel.

Why is it always all or nothing with most LDS members? Its a very childish stance if you ask me

[bytebear]

8 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Why is it always all or nothing with most LDS members? Its a very childish stance if you ask me

I hope my PM to you helped answer that.  The big answers trump the little ones.  Was Joseph Smith a prophet?  If yes, then whatever he did or didn't do regarding the Kinderhook plates can't change that fact.  We get a lot of flack for social issues.  Women and the priesthood is popular right now, and the media would have you believe people are leaving the church in droves over the church's stance on priesthood leadership being exclusively male.  But does their moral outrage change the events of the Sacred Grove?  Or the translation process of the Book of Mormon.  Nope.  And neither does a 19th century hoax involving fake bell shaped plates.   Now, I don't suggest you just get over it, but don't let it stop you from asking the big questions.

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I hope my PM to you helped answer that.  The big answers trump the little ones.  Was Joseph Smith a prophet?  If yes, then whatever he did or didn't do regarding the Kinderhook plates can't change that fact.  We get a lot of flack for social issues.  Women and the priesthood is popular right now, and the media would have you believe people are leaving the church in droves over the church's stance on priesthood leadership being exclusively male.  But does their moral outrage change the events of the Sacred Grove?  Or the translation process of the Book of Mormon.  Nope.  And neither does a 19th century hoax involving fake bell shaped plates.   Now, I don't suggest you just get over it, but don't let it stop you from asking the big questions.

that's not exactly what I meant.  What I mean is there seems to be this culture of 'you have to believe and accept it all or you're out'

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Why is it always all or nothing with most LDS members? Its a very childish stance if you ask me

So if you believe that Joseph Smith did try and translate the kinderhook plates are you going to still join the church?

Edited February 4, 2018 by miav

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

that's not exactly what I meant.  What I mean is there seems to be this culture of 'you have to believe and accept it all or you're out'

Time out: have you not seen me do that two-look only?  or @MormonGator?  

[Blossom76]

@miavPossibly, why not? I think its ok to say 'this is the good parts and I accept them and appreciate them' its also ok to say ' this stuff is crazy and I'm not ok with it at all'

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Blossom76

[bytebear]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

that's not exactly what I meant.  What I mean is there seems to be this culture of 'you have to believe and accept it all or you're out'

No, we have doubts about all sorts of things, but we work through them one at a time.  And we shouldn't let doubts stop us from baptism.  In fact, the only requirements for baptism is Faith in Jesus Christ, and an acceptance that this is his church, plus a commitment to the faith (keeping His commandments).  The missionary lessons are specifically about teaching enough to gain this basic testimony, and lessons on what's expected as a member (tithing, church attendance, Word of Wisdom).  But that's it. You don't need to attend a catechism of lessons to know all the doctrines of the church.  In fact, you don't really need to know any doctrines beyond those basics.   The Gospel Principles Sunday school class is a year long and covers the basics, and you can attend as a non member, or a member, but very few, if any converts have gone through the entire lesson plan.  And my guess is a very few had ever heard of the Kinderhook plates.  So, it's not that you have to believe it all, it's more that the little stuff shouldn't matter if you have a firm testimony of the big stuff.