I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[bytebear]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Possibly, 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'

I have to think of the early church, when we practiced polygamy, and a new convert said, "I have to do what now?"  

[Blossom76]

Just now, bytebear said:

I have to think of the early church, when we practiced polygamy, and a new convert said, "I have to do what now?"  

I would have told them to stick it and left.  I don't believe for a second that God wanted women to be miserable or put up with polygamy.  That is one the things about the history of this church that I will NEVER be ok with.  I also will NEVER believe that its what God wanted.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

What I mean is there seems to be this culture of 'you have to believe and accept it all or you're out'

Hmmm never said that, in fact the last sentence says otherwise:

1 hour ago, miav said:

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.

Meaning you could choose to still get baptized even if you had doubts about it or you could choose not to be baptized.

As an member I will tell you I don't have testimony of all things (including some parts if church history). I have sometimes have doubts and question things. But it doesn't stop me from going believing in the church, becaus I have a testimony that Jospeph Smith was a Prophet and I believe in the the basic principles of the gospel.

Whenever I have doubts or think about the doubts I always ask myself if the doubts disprove the church and if I find peace about leaving the church because of my doubts. And the answer is always the same. I still have a testimony of the gospel and I have never found peace about leaving the church, despite my doubts.

Edited February 4, 2018 by miav

[bytebear]

And, fortunately, you don't have to believe in polygamy for baptism.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

 

@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'

 

It's totally fine and acceptable. Some parts of church history are hard to deal with. But don't let that distract you from the real fruit of the gospel. If you have a testimony of core principles of the gospel hang on to that testimony and don't let other things hold you down.

[bytebear]

And in the spirit of openness, and the fact that the church puts virtually every detail of the church online, here are the missionary instructions on qualifications for baptism, including the interview questions.

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

I actually found this part more interesting given your situation.

 

Quote

Do I need permission of the spouse in order to baptize a husband or wife?

Yes. Do not baptize a married person without the consent of his or her spouse.

If the father in a family is not ready for baptism, should I baptize the family or wait until the father is ready?

If the father of a family is not ready for baptism and confirmation but other family members are, you may tell the father you prefer not to baptize the family without him because the Church respects the head of the home and because family members will progress in the gospel best as a family unit. If the father continues to decline, you may baptize and confirm other family members with his consent.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by bytebear

[prisonchaplain]

I read the first few posts of this string, and then did a quick Google of "CES letter Mormonism." Of course, the CES letter website came up. I did not dig into the site too deeply, because that's not the purpose of this site. The shortest neutral explanation I can give is that the author of the letter and site is an ex-Mormon. The letter was apparently written by request, because a spiritual mentor had hoped to answer his questions. He's had a bit of back and forth with FairMormon, and a few other apologists, and now seems to be openly opposed to the church and its history.

When it comes to these types of difficulties church members will naturally try to figure out plausible explanations. Most of those answers will make a good measure of sense to the already-committed. Those opposed to the faith will find the defenses naive-at-best. Investigators may drown in the details.

Probably one of the most surprisingly inspirational religious episodes I ever witnessed was seeing the title of a book written by a fallen, defrocked minister, after he'd spent 9-years in prison. Some will remember Rev. Jim Bakker's disgrace, and ultimate incarceration, since it was on national TV for a few weeks, in the 1980s. The title of his post-release book?  I WAS WRONG.

I think some of the posts here have suggested that Joseph Smith got the tablets wrong on this one. If I were a member I would probably want to figure out what I could learn from this episode--how it might make me a better Christ-follower, perhaps one that would exercise more spiritual caution. If I were an investigator I would want to figure out what I really believed about the church and Joseph Smith. It might help me ultimately fine-tune my "Moroni Prayer" of seeking. If I were an anti-LDS person, trying to discredit a religion I perceived as requiring opposition, I would want to protect my reputation by being careful not to exaggerate, or overplay, an apparent error that may or may not be that crucial.

[bytebear]

Oh, and since we're talking about official doctrine, know that the document about baptism is not doctrine.  It's policy.  The doctrine of baptism, like all doctrine is found in scripture.

 

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 20

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.
...
72 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—

73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

 

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, bytebear said:

And, fortunately, you don't have to believe in polygamy for baptism.

 

This reminds me of a saying I've developed--especially since Rob Bell's book Love Wins (challenges the doctrine of eternal hellfire):  You don't have to believe in hell to make heaven.  I still believe our traditional doctrine about everlasting punishment is correct, biblical, and should be preached. However, I would not tell anyone who struggled with the justice of hell that they'd better figure out before they die, or else!

[NeedleinA]

10 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

simply showing that you had at least two options,
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.

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

And I do not think those are the only two options at all. I think that is a very naive view,

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I agree that such 2 option view is naive. 

I said you had "at least" two options, not once did I suggest those were the "only" two options. It is okay to reread things more than once before commenting.

[Sunday21]

I think at some point in a journey of faith, one needs to pray and ask of God. Is this church true? 

[person0]

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I would have told them to stick it and left.  I don't believe for a second that God wanted women to be miserable or put up with polygamy.  That is one the things about the history of this church that I will NEVER be ok with.  I also will NEVER believe that its what God wanted.

Even if you do not believe that polygamy was truly restored in the modern era, surely you believe the Old Testament to be true, even outside the lens of any religion?  I think it is at least very plain and clear that the Lord sanctioned polygamous relationships at one point; even for his anointed.  The prophet, Nathan, wend before David and declared:

Quote

". . . Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.  Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah"

"Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

(2 Samuel 12: 7-8,11) emphasis added

God clearly spoke through Nathan and declared how he had given multiple wives.  I doubt that God ever intends or intended for His daughters to be miserable, although He clearly did intend for them to live in a polygamous relationship, at least with King David.  I'm not trying to change the subject here, but even if you remained catholic, or became protestant, or any other denomination, we all use the Holy Bible, and it clearly indicates that God approved of polygamy at least at one time.

[person0]

Another thing that just came to mind.  The entire reason that we don't have the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon Manuscript is because the Lord commanded Joseph Smith not to re-translate them.  Why?  Because He knew that people would change the original document and claim that Joseph's translation was false and that he couldn't translate the same thing twice, which would cause many to stumble.

Given this is the whole reason God held back the re-translation, I personally find it difficult to believe that Joseph ultimately fell prey to the Kinderhook plates scheme.  If he had, would he not have translated at least one entire plate?

Edited February 4, 2018 by person0

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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

@Jane_Doe is exactly right on this one. There is room for people in the church who think differently on controversial issues and don't think the same on 100% of LDS teaching. 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by MormonGator

[askandanswer]

17 hours 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.

How many completely accurate history books have you read?

[Maureen]

17 hours ago, zil said:

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

Quote

1. I checked my copy of Church History and as some have pointed out, my copy is NOT printed by the LDS church.  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.

 

...Beginning in 1902, a general authority of the LDS Church, B. H. Roberts, was commissioned by the First Presidency to work through History of Joseph Smith and correct errors, add corroborative material, improve the narrative, and provide commentary on the events. Roberts's extensive revision of the work resulted in it being republished by church-owned Deseret Book between 1902 and 1912 as the seven-volume History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The work soon became nicknamed the Documentary History of the Church, a usage which has only recently been abandoned by Mormon historians.

Today, the work is published in essentially the same form created by Roberts. Deseret Book currently publishes the work in paperback under the shortened title History of the Church....

...History of Joseph Smith was initially published as an official publication of the LDS Church. Although Roberts's History of the Church has never been granted "official history" status, it nonetheless is widely used in the church and is often cited in the sermons and magazine articles written by general authorities and other church leaders.

In 1851, extracts from what would become History of Joseph Smith were published in a church publication entitled Pearl of Great Price.^{[citation needed]} This book was canonized by the LDS Church on October 10, 1880. The portion of History of Joseph Smith that was canonized consists of Smith's recitation of events between his birth in 1805 and May 1829 and is officially entitled Joseph Smith–History.

Although History of the Church is no longer an official publication, it is the most-cited source in two histories of the church which are official publications of the LDS Church: Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Church History in the Fulness of Times....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_(Joseph_Smith)

M.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

But proof comes from more than just feelings.

Fair point; but disproof comes from more than feelings of revulsion or presentist assumptions about historical events and documents.

[Grunt]

16 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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

It says "Prophtet", not Prophet.  The Prophtet probably did comment on it.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Grunt

[Grunt]

14 hours 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'

If that was the case, I'd have been tossed out before I was baptized.

[Grunt]

14 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

@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'

 

This is where I was when I decided to be baptized due to an undeniable testimony of a few important things.  Oddly, some of the things I set aside because I thought they were crazy I've since gained a testimony of.   Others, I still think are pretty crazy.

[Grunt]

14 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I would have told them to stick it and left.  I don't believe for a second that God wanted women to be miserable or put up with polygamy.  That is one the things about the history of this church that I will NEVER be ok with.  I also will NEVER believe that its what God wanted.

Never say never.  I'm amazed at the things I now understand.

[Blossom76]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

How many completely accurate history books have you read?

Probably more than you, and on many more subjects than just religion. And when I am researching something, especially something that could change my life  and the way you live it, I look at its history, all of its history, not just the warm and fluffy stuff.  I think you'd be a fool not to

Edited February 4, 2018 by Blossom76

[Blossom76]

6 hours ago, person0 said:

Another thing that just came to mind.  The entire reason that we don't have the first 115 pages of the Book of Mormon Manuscript is because the Lord commanded Joseph Smith not to re-translate them.  Why?  Because He knew that people would change the original document and claim that Joseph's translation was false and that he couldn't translate the same thing twice, which would cause many to stumble.

Given this is the whole reason God held back the re-translation, I personally find it difficult to believe that Joseph ultimately fell prey to the Kinderhook plates scheme.  If he had, would he not have translated at least one entire plate?

I've never heard of this? Can you please explain what happened and if possible can I have some links to read about it.  I thought the Book of Mormon was translated in 56 or so (something like that anyway) consecutive days.

[Blossom76]

7 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I said you had "at least" two options, not once did I suggest those were the "only" two options. It is okay to reread things more than once before commenting.

It's ok not to be a condescending jerk too, those were the two options you stated, perhaps you should take more time to consider what sort of impression you are having on people when you say things.

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Probably more than you, and on many more subjects than just religion. And when I am researching something, especially something that could change my life  and the way you live it, I look at its history, all of its history, not just the warm and fluffy stuff.  I think you'd be a fool not to

Pardon me, but there's no such thing as a 100% accurate history book.