jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 First off I want to make clear that my intention is not to bash LDS. If at times I come across as over-zealous---my apologies ahead of time. I am NOT anti-LDS. I am anti-deception and a truth seeker. My Truth comes from revelation in the Bible---. Here is just a snippet of a comment I received the other day.... from someone on this site, from someone I actually find interesting and have a degree of admiration.Here is the comment: " Because you're unprepared to receive it, you're gagging and choking on the strong spiritual meat of the gospel in fulfillment of Paul's warning that if the mysteries of the gospel are served to the unprepared they will, as it were, spit them out of their mouths and tell all who will hear that the deeper things of God are evil." Yes, I am left gagging and choking when I do historical research using LDS own historical recordings. And Yes I am not willing to gloss over such findings as if they are irrelevant. Below are facts that I can not just brush aside and pretend they have not importance in revealing the character of JS. "Here is a simple example of how Joseph Smith was a fraud. You can read this in the official Mormon History, but few Mormons ever bother to read it. Some farmers in Kinderhook devised a hoax in 1843 and made up some copper plates which they claimed contained ancient writings. They planted them in an Indian burial mound and later dug them up again. When Smith saw the plates, he immediately "translated" part of them, which (he claimed in his diary) identified the writings as from "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh...". Here is the exact quote from the Documentary History of the Church:"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. "For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings, in spite of the fact that the farmers later admitted the hoax - evidently the fact that Smith had translated part of them made it too embarrassing to accept the hoax. After resorting to more and more "implausible" and "desperate" arguments, the church flip-flopped about 10 years ago, now ADMITS that the plates are PHONY. The 1981 August Ensign has the statement where the church admits that the plates were a hoax. Of course, this leaves them with the embarrassing quote from Smith's diary.... In spite of the fact that this quote is confirmed by contemporary newspaper reports, they conclude that THIS has to be a false report (indeed, many supposed entries in Smith's diary are generally regarded as fraudulent -- something that church historians don't like to emphasize).The essential problem here is not the Kinderhook plates themselves, of course. The problem is that since Smith is revealed as credulous or deceitful in cases where he CAN be checked, the Book of Mormon translation, where he cannot be checked, is rendered highly suspicious."Is JS credible or deceptive?
CCRW Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 dang kenster ... woot exited for ya ... remember to be checking out the chicks ... I'm thinking a love at first sight type of deal
Freedom Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Why does Joseph Smiths attempt to translate the plates make him a fraud? He never claimed he was using inspired means. He simply translated by using his 'Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language'.
Storm Rider Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Jack, you do get that we have all reviewed this data and found it of no value in our search for truth. What I find odd for a person that is searching for truth is that you are not asking any questions about truth; you are trying to reveal to us what is untrue. That is not the role of a seeker, but of a teacher. Are you a teacher of truth?
Popular Post Sevenbak Posted April 18, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) Here, I'll make it easy for you. Book Of Mormon---Fact Or Fiction Fact.Started by jackson20, Today, 03:49 PM Welcome.JS---credible or deceptive Credible. Edited April 18, 2015 by Sevenbak 6
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Thanks for starting your own thread. Cheers Bluebell and thanks for the thanks
CCRW Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 jackson, Tell me a bit about yourself, are you a ex/post/less active Mormon? Other? Age? Married, got kids? Having a feel of where you are and what you are looking for could help elicite some genuine dialog.
carbon dioxide Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings...I am not personally aware of this. Need some references that the Church for many years claimed these plates were authentic. Edited April 18, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Kenngo1969 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 You're 34 years too late. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng
CCRW Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 My brain is so toast ... who was it, name is on the tip of my tounge ... went in active for a spell, came back to the church a few fews back and in the last two years or so did a paper on this?
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Why does Joseph Smiths attempt to translate the plates make him a fraud? He never claimed he was using inspired means. He simply translated by using his 'Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language'. Seriously ! For 140 years, a partial translation of the plates as recorded by JS's personal secretary and witnessed by several Mormon Elders was more than enough evidence for the Mormon Church. But this is no longer the case. Why? The Mormon Church seems to recognize the Kinderhook Plates are yet another piece of historical and archeological evidence that point NOT to the authenticity of Mormonism, but to the fraudulent nature of their prophet, Joseph Smith.
CCRW Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Don Bradley http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Don-Bradley-Kinderhook-President-Joseph-Has-Translated-a-Portion-1.pdf
cinepro Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I am not personally aware of this. Need some references that the Church for many years claimed these plates were authentic. Though there was little evidence of whether the Kinderhook Plates were ancient or a contemporary fabrication, some within the LDS Church believed them to be genuine. The September 1962 Improvement Era, an official magazine of the Church, ran an article by Welby W. Ricks stating that the Kinderhook plates were genuine.[11] In 1979, apostle Mark E. Petersen wrote a book called Those Gold Plates!. In the first chapter Peterson describes various ancient cultures that have written records on metal plates. Then Peterson claims: "There are the Kinderhook plates, too, found in America and now in the possession of the Chicago Historical Society. Controversy has surrounded these plates and their engravings, but most experts agree they are of ancient vintage."[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates
Sevenbak Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Where's the ouch? Just 2 years later, in 1981, the official church magazine puts the matter to rest. What was controversial is no longer. This is why there is correlation and we don't believe in the infallibility of the apostles, especially single interpretations. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/08/kinderhook-plates-brought-to-joseph-smith-appear-to-be-a-nineteenth-century-hoax?lang=eng
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 I am not personally aware of this. Need some references that the Church for many years claimed these plates were authentic. Thanks for the response Carbon D There is definite proof that Joseph Smith claimed he had translated a portion of the plates. The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary. Clayton wrote the following: "I have seen 6 brass plates... covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and 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." (William Clayton's Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship — The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117) The information in Clayton's journal was deemed so important that it was used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates which is printed in the History of the Church. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith: "I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... "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." (History of the Church, Vol. 5 page 372) Since Clayton's journal was apparently used as the major source for the statement attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, it shows that the highest leaders of the church at the time theHistory was compiled believed that Joseph Smith did, in fact, "translate a portion" of the plates. It is evident that President Brigham Young and other church leaders seriously believed in Joseph Smith's work on the Kinderhook plates for at least eleven years after the plates were discovered.
CCRW Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I thought I had heard Don (super nice guy) had come up with some fairly revolutionary information on this. In reading his paper just now, I'm a bit disapointed. The ouch was jackson stating the church believed them authentic for many years ... he was called on it, and it appears he was correct.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 I thought I had heard Don (super nice guy) had come up with some fairly revolutionary information on this. In reading his paper just now, I'm a bit disapointed. The ouch was jackson stating the church believed them authentic for many years ... he was called on it, and it appears he was correct.Thanks CCRW....I respect that.
Sevenbak Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Actually, his highlighted text in the OP states that the Church switched position 10 years ago, even though it was a single apostle and not the Church. That's false on many levels, but if we want to get calendarically correct, last time I checked, 1981 was still 1981. Welcome to 2015.
Bobbieaware Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) First off I want to make clear that my intention is not to bash LDS. If at times I come across as over-zealous---my apologies ahead of time. I am NOT anti-LDS. I am anti-deception and a truth seeker. My Truth comes from revelation in the Bible---. Here is just a snippet of a comment I received the other day.... from someone on this site, from someone I actually find interesting and have a degree of admiration.Here is the comment:" Because you're unprepared to receive it, you're gagging and choking on the strong spiritual meat of the gospel in fulfillment of Paul's warning that if the mysteries of the gospel are served to the unprepared they will, as it were, spit them out of their mouths and tell all who will hear that the deeper things of God are evil." Yes, I am left gagging and choking when I do historical research using LDS own historical recordings. And Yes I am not willing to gloss over such findings as if they are irrelevant.Below are facts that I can not just brush aside and pretend they have not importance in revealing the character of JS. "Here is a simple example of how Joseph Smith was a fraud. You can read this in the official Mormon History, but few Mormons ever bother to read it. Some farmers in Kinderhook devised a hoax in 1843 and made up some copper plates which they claimed contained ancient writings. They planted them in an Indian burial mound and later dug them up again. When Smith saw the plates, he immediately "translated" part of them, which (he claimed in his diary) identified the writings as from "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh...". Here is the exact quote from the Documentary History of the Church:"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. "For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings, in spite of the fact that the farmers later admitted the hoax - evidently the fact that Smith had translated part of them made it too embarrassing to accept the hoax. After resorting to more and more "implausible" and "desperate" arguments, the church flip-flopped about 10 years ago, now ADMITS that the plates are PHONY. The 1981 August Ensign has the statement where the church admits that the plates were a hoax. Of course, this leaves them with the embarrassing quote from Smith's diary.... In spite of the fact that this quote is confirmed by contemporary newspaper reports, they conclude that THIS has to be a false report (indeed, many supposed entries in Smith's diary are generally regarded as fraudulent -- something that church historians don't like to emphasize).The essential problem here is not the Kinderhook plates themselves, of course. The problem is that since Smith is revealed as credulous or deceitful in cases where he CAN be checked, the Book of Mormon translation, where he cannot be checked, is rendered highly suspicious."Is JS credible or deceptive?Just for the record, be it known that following words of the Book of Mormon Prophet Nephi will stare all men in the face on the day of judgement: 10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good. 11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2Nephi 31) And be it known I am fully confident the above words are true for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is not possible the semi-literate and poorly educated farm boy, Joseph Smith, could not have produced the inspired, Christ-centered historical masterpiece known as the Book of Mormon without the inspiration of God to aid him. And I now hereby issue the following challenge to all the world: I call upon a very young man of a similar semi-literacy and lack of education as young Joseph Smith to produce a book of similar length, complexity, deep spiritual profundity, illuminating Christ-centeredness and life-changing spiritual power as the miraculous Book of Mormon. And I say now say that in spite of all that might be arrayed against the Prophet Joseph Smith, there is still no way to explain how he did what he did in bringing forth the Book of Mormon without including the miraculous power of God in the equation. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding," And I solemnly testify that one day all the world will come to realize the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is one of the greatest miracles in all of sacred history. And one day all will the world will realize God really does choose the weak things of the world to confound the haughty and worldly-wise. Edited April 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware 3
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Don Bradley http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Don-Bradley-Kinderhook-President-Joseph-Has-Translated-a-Portion-1.pdf Hey CCRW, here is some incredible info on the kinderhook plates imo. Some fascinating insights. Debunking FairMormon - Letter to a CES Director ...cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/kinderhook-plates.html
Freedom Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Seriously ! For 140 years, a partial translation of the plates as recorded by JS's personal secretary and witnessed by several Mormon Elders was more than enough evidence for the Mormon Church. But this is no longer the case. Why? The Mormon Church seems to recognize the Kinderhook Plates are yet another piece of historical and archeological evidence that point NOT to the authenticity of Mormonism, but to the fraudulent nature of their prophet, Joseph Smith.More than enough evidence for the church of what? What reference do you have that the church recognizes these plates as evidence Joseph Smith was a fraud? You seem to lack some fundamental reasoning skills. Joseph got the plates, he tried to translate the plates, the plates were later discovered to be fake. So what? If you were given a book in English that was authored by Micheal Jackson which you subsequently try to translate into french, does proof that the book was not written by Michael Jackson prove that you are a fraud? No, it only proves that you tried to translate a book that was erroneously attributed to Michael Jackson. You, as was Joseph Smith, would be innocent of any wrong doing.
Recommended Posts