"Joseph Smith'S Reported Translation From The Kinderhook Plates" - Don Bradley

[Thinking]

It is merely one of a thousand silly excuses to leave the church.

If I were an LDS apologist, I would have chosen a much smaller number than a thousand to make my point. Perhaps you should have written, "It is one of merely a few silly excuses to leave the church."

[Nathair/|\]

If I were an LDS apologist, I would have chosen a much smaller number than a thousand to make my point. Perhaps you should have written, "It is one of merely a few silly excuses to leave the church."

Maybe we should start a thread cataloging silly excuses people have used to leave the church. I bet we could come up with at least 1000.

[cdowis]

If I were an LDS apologist, I would have chosen a much smaller number than a thousand to make my point. Perhaps you should have written, "It is one of merely a few silly excuses to leave the church."

Well, as the saying goes, "There are a hundred reasons to leave the church, and only one to stay."

[cinepro]

I understand that those who ask that question do not understand the role of a prophet. The prophets Joshua, Nathan, Jonah were all simularily mistaken. A prophet leads us to Christ, and administers the priesthood. It is not his role to satisfy our idle curiosity.

Even so, it would be awesome if the Prophets had some sort of spiritual gift that allowed them distinguish forgeries from the real thing. Especially before spending Church money on them.

Oh well. "Leading to Christ" and "administering the Priesthood" are also good things.

[why me]

Even so, it would be awesome if the Prophets had some sort of spiritual gift that allowed them distinguish forgeries from the real thing. Especially before spending Church money on them.

Yes, it would be nice but not very practical. I am not sure that Paul had such a gift either. But it certainly would be convincing to the unbeliever if such a thing did happen. However, it seems that the leadership of the lds church can advise people on how to live now in this moment as a preparation for the future. And that seems to work okay.

[wenglund]

Even so, it would be awesome if the Prophets had some sort of spiritual gift that allowed them distinguish forgeries from the real thing. Especially before spending Church money on them.

Oh well. "Leading to Christ" and "administering the Priesthood" are also good things.

I don't know that it would be all that awesome for prophets to have infallible gifts of discernment because such may somewhat rob members and investigators of tests of faith that are important to growth in faith in the gospel. It may also inadvertently discourage some from properly developing and utilizing their own spiritual gifts of discernment.

In short, as others have pointed out, what some may think would be awesome, may inadvertently betray their lack of correct understanding of the gospel and its intent and purposes. Case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, my friend buddy and pal, I think that you need to reevaluate your tactic here. Trained historians take courses on how to deal with testimony and how to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant minutiae. Don does this extremely well. The depth of the hole is an irrelevant minutiae unless of course you want to argue that no excavation every took place. Wade you are extremely good at detailed comparisons and identifying similarities and differences. But a historian's job is to calm the waters so that one can see the boat on the sea floor and the gold doubloons that have spilled from it hull. Muddying the water is not the role of a historian.

George, my friend, what are you supposing is my "tactic here." I ask because judging from the things you have just said, it doesn't appear that you rightly know. (Hint: my "tactic" thus far on this thread has absolutely nothing to do with what Don may or may not present in the future, and everything to do with explaining why people (historians and non-historians alike) in the past have drawn varied conclusions from the historical data known to them at the time. It was, as I said, in part because of conflicting data.If you would like me to go through some of the varied conclusions of the past and point out the varied and conflicting historical data upon which they were based, I can do that, But, hopefully if you think about it, you will agree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

I don't know that it would be all that awesome for prophets to have infallible gifts of discernment because such may somewhat rob members and investigators of tests of faith that are important to growth in faith in the gospel.

Who said anything about "infallible"? I think most would be satisfied with a gift of discernment that was only operative for the big things (major fraud, child molesters or adulterers in leadership callings etc.)

[Deborah]

I find it amusing that Br. Bradley hasn't even given his presentation and people are already arguing about what they think he is going to say. It's like those news commentators who start giving opinions about who was responsible for something before we even know what happened.

[Jaybear]

Who said anything about "infallible"? I think most would be satisfied with a gift of discernment that was only operative for the big things (major fraud, child molesters or adulterers in leadership callings etc.)

I believe that Wade's point is that LDS prophet do have the gift of discernment, but because that they are not infallible, it doesn't always work.

Which leads to the next question, if someone has the gift of discernment, and they attempt use that gift to discern whether someone is worthy of the leadership role, and the gift fails, does that gift fail in the sense that they get a false positive, or do they get no answer, so they proceed to rely on own best judgment instead?

Or perhaps Wade is suggesting that because leaders are fallible, sometimes they forget to use the gift of discernment, when in hindsight, it could have proven invaluable.

So what is Wade? How does fallibility explain why, for so many years, the LDS Church allowed its members to believe that the Kinderhook plates were authentic BOM artifacts.

[Doctor Steuss]

Don,

I'm late to this little party, but just wanted to say that I'm really excited that your findings are finally going to be presented. I doubt I'll make it to the FAIR conference (I keep telling myself "one of these days..." and then life gets in the way), but I will definitely be reading the published version when it is available.

I hope you are well, and your spirits are high.

Hugs,

-Stu

[wenglund]

Who said anything about "infallible"? I think most would be satisfied with a gift of discernment that was only operative for the big things (major fraud, child molesters or adulterers in leadership callings etc.)

Church leadership does have the power of discernment in those areas, though not to an infallible degree. Yet, there are people like yourself who are not satisfied--ironically, owing perhaps to your own fallible spiritual discernment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So what is Wade? How does fallibility explain why, for so many years, the LDS Church allowed its members to believe that the Kinderhook plates were authentic BOM artifacts.

The lack of action on the part of the Church regarding this issue isn't so much a matter of fallibility, but rather a matter of irrelevance of the issue to the intent and purpose of the gospel. From the standpoint of the Church, it is a relative non-issue (as evinced, in part, by its noticeable lack of mention of the issue in the Church educational materials as well as conference talks over the years).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

The lack of action on the part of the Church regarding this issue isn't so much a matter of fallibility, but rather a matter of irrelevance of the issue to the intent and purpose of the gospel. From the standpoint of the Church, it is a relative non-issue (as evinced, in part, by its noticeable lack of mention of the issue in the Church educational materials as well as conference talks over the years).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I was hoping that you would clarify how fallibility manifests itself as it pertains to the gift of discernment.

Based on your posts, I assume that you not only believe that LDS leaders have that gift, but to a lesser extent, you have that gift as well.

If it helps, I promise that I fully realize that such a discussion may not be relevant to the "intent and purpose of the gospel".

[wenglund]

Wade,

I was hoping that you would clarify how fallibility manifests itself as it pertains to the gift of discernment.

Based on your posts, I assume that you not only believe that LDS leaders have that gift, but to a lesser extent, you have that gift as well.

If it helps, I promise that I fully realize that such a discussion may not be relevant to the "intent and purpose of the gospel".

Beyond indicating that we LDS have the gift of discernment, but not to an infallible degree, yet sufficient for our practical purposes, I am not sure what else to clarify for you on this off-topic matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Beyond indicating that we LDS have the gift of discernment, but not to an infallible degree, yet sufficient for our practical purposes, I am not sure what else to clarify for you on this off-topic matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As far as I can tell, everybody has "the gift of discernment" to some fallible degree. So ultimately this defense is arguing that Priesthood leaders are the same as everyone else, only we give a common human trait a name and call it a "gift".

It's like saying Priesthood leaders have the gift of putting their pants on one leg at a time.

[wenglund]

In a previous post I indicated that between the 16th and 22nd of April, 1843, Robert Wiley had been digging atop a large mound near Kinderhook, Ill., which is about 60 miles south by south east of Nauvoo.

Rumor had it that he was digging due to several dreams he had about finding treasures concealed in the mound.

THE FRAUDULENT PLAN

After digging some 8 to 10 feet without much success, Wiley along with W. Fugate and Bridge Whitton, conspired to create some plates that they hoped to pass off as ancient--presumably to make money and gain notoriety.

So, "Bridge Whitton cut them out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I [W. Fugate] made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust." (W. Fugate letter to Cobb, June 30th, 1879)

Then, on the evening of the 22nd, "Wiley went to the Mound where he had previously dug to the depth of about eight feet, there being a flat rock that sounded hollow beneath, and put them under it." (ibid)

Years later, Whinton is said to have admitted: "he cut and prepared the plates and he (B. Whitten) and R. Wiley engraved them themselves, and that there was nitric acid put upon them the night before that they were found to rust the iron ring and band. And that they were carried to the mound, rubbed in the dirt and carefully dropped into the pit where they were found.." (W.P. Harris letter to Flagg, April 25th, 1855)

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Beyond indicating that we LDS have the gift of discernment, but not to an infallible degree, yet sufficient for our practical purposes, I am not sure what else to clarify for you on this off-topic matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its really not that complicated Wade. Not sure why you don't understand the question. I will try one more time.

I am trying to understand what you mean by ... "but not to an infallible degree."

In what sense is this "gift" of discernment fallible..

A: The spirit sometimes gives you the wrong answer;

B: The spirit never gives you the wrong answer, but the answer can be misinterpreted;

C: The spirit sometimes doesn't give you an answer, leaving one to rely one's own reason, common sense and intuition;

Since you claim the gift is "sufficient for our practical purposes", I can only surmise that C is the correct answer. As it would seem impractical to rely on this gift to make a decision having life consequences, if A and C were true.

Thanks in advance. As for being on topic, your explanation could certainly help me understand why you believe that Smith, having such a gift, failed to discern that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud.

[wenglund]

As far as I can tell, everybody has "the gift of discernment" to some fallible degree. So ultimately this defense is arguing that Priesthood leaders are the same as everyone else, only we give a common human trait a name and call it a "gift".

It's like saying Priesthood leaders have the gift of putting their pants on one leg at a time.

Were it not you, I would be surprised in having to explain to a long-time member the fundamental notion of the gospel--i.e. that measure and adeptness in use of gifts of the spirit is a function of several things:

1) Spiritual worthiness. Since spiritual gifts operate according to the laws of the spirit, they may be utilized better the more the agent is in compliance with spiritual laws.

2) Spiritual growth and practice. Like with any gift, agents become more adept with spiritual gifts the further they are along in their spiritual progression and the more practiced they are in using the gifts.

3) Keys and stewardship. Where much is expected in terms of spiritual responsibility, much is given by God in relevant gifts. In other words, along with the mantle of greater spiritual authority come a greater measure and adept use of the gifts.

This means that members and leaders can differ immensely in measure or adeptness of spiritual gifts depending upon their spiritual worthiness, their spiritual progression and familiarity with the gifts, and their respective callings. On the one hand, we can have members, such as yourself, who are so spiritually underdeveloped in terms of the gospel, and so out of practice in spiritual gifts, as to lack the ability to discern the fundamental difference between "common human traits" and "spiritual gifts." Whereas, on the other hand we have Christ, who is able, in his role as judge and advocate, to correctly discern the hidden things in the very hearts of men.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

1) Spiritual worthiness. Since spiritual gifts operate according to the laws of the spirit, they may be utilized better the more the agent is in compliance with spiritual laws.

2) Spiritual growth and practice. Like with any gift, agents become more adept with spiritual gifts the further they are along in their spiritual progression and the more practiced they are in using the gifts.

3) Keys and stewardship. Where much is expected in terms of spiritual responsibility, much is given by God in relevant gifts. In other words, along with the mantle of greater spiritual authority come a greater measure and adept use of the gifts.

So, which was missing?

[wenglund]

Its really not that complicated Wade. Not sure why you don't understand the question. I will try one more time.

I am trying to understand what you mean by ... "but not to an infallible degree."

In what sense is this "gift" of discernment fallible..

A: The spirit sometimes gives you the wrong answer;

B: The spirit never gives you the wrong answer, but the answer can be misinterpreted;

C: The spirit sometimes doesn't give you an answer, leaving one to rely one's own reason, common sense and intuition;

Since you claim the gift is "sufficient for our practical purposes", I can only surmise that C is the correct answer. As it would seem impractical to rely on this gift to make a decision having life consequences, if A and C were true.

First of all, I believe it oversimplifies things a bit to look at this in binary terms of "right" and "wrong." rather than in terms of consistency with the will of God or pragmatically in terms workability in fulfilling the plan of God.

Take for example the call and ordination of Judas Iscariot to the Quorum of the Twelve during Christ's mortal ministry. Depending upon how one looks at it, this decision, and the discernment associated therewith, may reasonably be viewed as both right and/or wrong. Given the betrayal, some may conclude that the decision was wrong, and figure that Christ lacked discernment in extending such a high calling to a man with such poor character. Others may reasonably conclude that Christ correctly discerned Judas' poor character, and called him to the position because it may have been necessary to affect the crucifixion, which made the atonement possible.

Then there is the example of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. Was Abraham's decision to sacrifice his son a "right" or "wrong" decision, or was his discernment right or wrong? Depending upon one's perspective, it can be argued either or both ways.

Second, it oversimplifies things to look at things in the either/or options you listed above, rather than as a combination of those things. In any given spiritual situation, fallibility of spiritual discernment may be a varied combinations of your A, B, and C, as well as other options not listed.

Third, as explained to cinepro, it may oversimplify things to think of discernment in the binary sense of either you have the full gift, or you haven't the gift at all, whereas the measure and adeptness of the gift, and fallibility in use thereof, can be quite varied among members depending upon spiritual worthiness, growth and practice in faith, and spiritual responsibility.

Thanks in advance. As for being on topic, your explanation could certainly help me understand why you believe that Smith, having such a gift, failed to discern that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud.

We don't know that he didn't discern they were a fraud. We have reason to believe he may have been skeptical. But, whatever the case, it doesn't matter one wit to the verity of the gospel or Joseph's prophetic calling whether he discerned them to be fraudulent or not. The spiritual gift of discernment that Joseph had, is designed for spiritual purposes and with the intent of fulfilling God's plan. It is not designed for secular purposes like detecting criminal fraud. As such, the less the thing being descerned has to do with the intents and purposes of the gospel, the less the spiritual gift of discernment is a factor, and the more fallible one's discernment.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So, which was missing?

None of them apply. The pictured event falls outside the scope of spiritual gifts (which scope is fixed by the intent and purpose of the gospel). You may have known this were you the least bit familiar with spiritual gifts and the intent and purpose of the gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-continued-

THE DISCOVERY

The next morning (Sunday the 23rd) a crowd had gather at the excavation. A Mr. J. Robert explained at the time: "For fear of being laughed at, if he [R. Wiley] made others acquainted with his design, he went by himself, and labored diligently one day in pursuit of the supposed treasure, by sinking a hole in the centre of the mound. Finding it quite laborous, he invited others to assist him. Finally, a company of ten or twelve repaired to the mound, and assisted in digging out the shaft commenced by Wiley. After penetrating the mound about 11 feet, they came to a bed of limestone, that had apparently been subjected to the action of fire, they removed the stone, which were small and easy to handle, to the depth of two feet more, when they found SIX BRASS PLATES, secured and fastened together by two iron wires, but which were so decayed, that they readily crumbled to dust upon being handled." (Quincy Whig, May 3, 1843)

W.P. Harris remembered it this way: "On the 16th of April last a respectable merchant by the name of Robert Wiley, commenced digging a large mound near this place: he excavated to the depth of 10 feet and came to rock; about that time the rain began to fall, and he abandoned the work. On the 23d he and quite a number of the citizens with myself, repaired to the mound, and after making ample opening, we found plenty of rock, the most of which appeared as though it had been strongly burned; and after removing full two feet of said rock, we found plenty of charcoal and ashes; also human bones that appeared as though they had been burned; and near the encephalon a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass, of a bell shape, each having a hole near the small end, and a ring through them all, and clasped with two clasps, the ring and clasps appeared to be of iron very much oxidated, the plates appeared first to be copper, and had the appearance of being covered with characters." (W.P. Harris, MD, Letter to Editor of Times and Seasons, May 1st, 1843)

A decade after the fact, Harris recalled that it was Fayette Grubb who first uncovered the plates. (W.P. Harris letter to Flagg, April 25th, 1855) However, 24 years later, Fugate recalls: "On the following morning quite a number of citizens were there to assist in the search, there being two Mormon elders present (Marsh and Sharp). The rock was soon removed but some time elapsed before the plates were discovered. I finally picked them up and exclaimed, 'A piece of pot metal!' Fayette Grubb snatched them from me and struck them against the rock and they fell to pieces." (W. Fugate letter to Cobb, June 30th, 1879)

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

On the one hand, we can have members, such as yourself, who are so spiritually underdeveloped in terms of the gospel, and so out of practice in spiritual gifts, as to lack the ability to discern the fundamental difference between "common human traits" and "spiritual gifts."

You may have known this were you the least bit familiar with spiritual gifts and the intent and purpose of the gospel.

Wade, do you think you could have made your point, without the personal insults?

[cinepro]

Wade, do you think you could have made your point, without the personal insults?

Experience would seem to indicate the answer is "no".