Joseph Smith was DUPED by the Kinderhook Plates Pt. I [Archive]

grindael

04-29-2010, 11:29 PM

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=25&pictureid=206http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=25&pictureid=213

WHO WAS WILLIAM CLAYTON & IS HIS JOURNAL ENTRY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE?

“Beginning in early 1842, William Clayton became involved in nearly every important activity in Nauvoo, including the private concerns of the Prophet. In this respect his life reflects the Nauvoo experience better than does the life of almost anyone else--even better that many church leaders who were often away on missions. He became an intimate friend and confidant of Joseph Smith, writing letters for him, recording revelations, and performing important errands. As a scribe he kept the sacred `Book of the Law of the Lord'; was officially designated to write the history of the Nauvoo Temple; helped prepare the official history of Joseph Smith (indeed, his personal journals became the source for many entries in that history); and kept various other books and accounts as ***igned. He was a member of the temple committee and kept all the financial and other records dealing with the building of the temple, including the collection and recording of ***hes. Later, after the baptismal font was completed, it was up to Clayton to issue receipts certifying that a person was en***led to the privileges of the font (for baptisms for the dead) because he had paid ***hing. He became Nauvoo city treasurer, recorder, and clerk of the Nauvoo City Council, secretary pro tem of the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge, an officer of the Nauvoo Music ***ociation, and a member of the committee responsible for erecting the Music Hall in Nauvoo. He also became a member and clerk of the highly important Council of Fifty, as well as a member of Joseph Smith's private prayer circle. He may have functioned in more public and semi-public capacities than almost any other person in Nauvoo, save Joseph Smith. What is important here, however, is not just the Nauvoo that Clayton saw and helped build, but the Nauvoo that Clayton felt, deep inside. Only by capturing the feelings and emotions of a disciple such as Clayton can we understand the real meaning of Nauvoo in the lives of the Illinois Saints.'' From James B. Allen, ``One Man's Nauvoo: William Clayton's Experience in Mormon Illinois,'' Journal of Mormon History, Vol 6, 1979, pp. 42-3.

[Nauvoo 1] Is the Diary for 27 November 1842 through 28 April 1843 and 25 September 1844
through 31 March 1845. (Original diary in possession of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

[Nauvoo 2] Is the Diary for 27 April 1843 through 24 September 1844. (Original in possession of the LDS Church.)

[Affidavit A] Is a statement made by Clayton and sworn to before a notary on February16, 1874 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Published in Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1888, pp. 224-226. Although not a writing made in Nauvoo, it relates almost exclusively to the Nauvoo period and contains information not found elsewhere, which was possibly taken from Clayton's own diaries. (It was printed as Appendix C in Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, pp. 555-559).

What was Clayton doing on the day he wrote the Journal Entry on the Kinderhook Plates? Here is the entry of 1 May 1843 when Smith & Clayton first saw the Kinderhook Plates:

1 May 1843, Monday [Nauvoo 2]

May 1st. A.M AT THE TEMPLE. at 10. m J to L.W. P.M AT PRES. JOSEPHS ... I have seen 6 br*** plates which were found in Adams County ... Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth (Allen 2, p. 117)

`I have seen 6 br*** plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. [At this
point there is a tracing of a plate in the journal.]

The plates were on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are 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 Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.'' (Allen 1, p.44)

Clayton preformed a marriage ceremony between Joseph Smith and Lucy Walker (Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage p.31)

May 1st, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to Lucy Walker. P.M. at Prest. Joseph's; he has gone out with [Flora]Woodworth. [Affidavit], p. 225

On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own residence. During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly. Letter by Clayton, (Heart Throbs of the West, Vol. 5 (1944): pp. 373-80 p. 78 )

I had the honor to seal one woman /Lucy Walker Smith/ to Joseph under his direction.

So, where was Clayton on that day?

***Officiator for Smith’s secret plural marriage at Smith’s residence in the morning.
***At Smith’s residence & in his company as Smith examined the Kinderhook plates and translated a portion of them.
***House sitting at Smith’s residence while Smith went on a date with Flora Woodworth (who would later become one of Smith’s wives). See, Trials of Discipleship, The Story of William Clayton, James B. Allen, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1987), also "One Man's Nauvoo: William Clayton's Experience in Mormon Illinois, Journal of Mormon History, Volume 6, 1979.

We conclude here that Clayton was intimately familiar with Smith and was with him that day, as attested to by many others. He also did a tracing of the plate which he included in his journal. His comments were not rumours, but came from the lips of Smith himself. But was this an isolated incident, a mistake when not acting as a ‘prophet’. Hardly. Here is an example from eyewitnesses of Smith’s overactive imagination at work, this time with the so called "Book Of Abraham":

Josiah Quincy, Charlotte Haven & ‘The Curiosities’

"And now come with me," said the prophet, "and I will show you the curiosities." So saying, he led the way to a lower room, where sat a venerable and respectable-looking lady. "This is my mother, gentlemen. The curiosities we shall see belong to her. They were purchased with her own money, at a cost of six thousand dollars;" and then, with deep feeling, were added the words, "And that woman was turned out upon the prairie in the dead of night by a mob." There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. "These are mummies," said the exhibitor. "I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!" Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under gl*** and handled with great respect. "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion. "Why, that's as plain as a pikestaff," was the rejoinder. "Before the Fall snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man." We were further ***ured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct inspiration.

grindael

04-29-2010, 11:31 PM

The Curiosities (continued)

http://www.salamandersociety.com/museum/grindael/joseph_smith_writes_book_of_abraham.jpg

Here is an account that Charlotte Haven had with Smith’s mother, when she went to view the same Curiosities in 1843 (Notice the similarities with the Quincy account):

“ Madame Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know. [Perhaps this one was Necho?]

Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady. but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of m****cript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read seven minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like p***ages from the Old Testament -- and it might have been for anything we knew -- but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence.

Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who -- the serpent, I mean -- was standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

They did before the fall," she ***erted with perfect confidence.

The Judge slipped a coin in her hand which she received smilingly, with a pleasant, "Come again," as we bade her goodby.”

Both Qunicy & Miss Haven give first hand accounts of these other ‘hoaxes’ that Smith perpetuated. The BOA has been proved to be NOT the actual writings of Abraham, Moses & Joseph as Smith claimed, but the writings of an Egyptian Priest made sometime in the 2nd Century B.C. But the Mormons believed Smith & as Quincy so aptly put it:

“If the blasphemous ***umptions of Smith seemed like the ravings of a lunatic, he had, at least brought them to a market where "all the people were as mad as he."

This certainly is borne out by the fairytales that Lucy Smith was regurgitating.

The Times & Seasons & Other Accounts

The Mormons lost no time in writing up the ‘great discovery’, as quoted here in the Times and Seasons:

On May 1, 1843, the Times and Seasons reprinted the following from the Quincy Wig:

“A Mr. J Roberts, from Pike county, called upon us last Monday, with a written description of a discovery which was recently made near Kinderhook, in that county... It appeared that a young man by the name of Wiley, a resident in Kinderhook, dreamed three nights in succession, that in a certain mound in the vicinity, there was treasures concealed--Impressed with the strange occurrence of dreaming the same dream three nights in succession, he came to the conclusion, to satisfy his mind by digging into the mound... Finding it quite laborous, he invited others to ***ist him. Finally, a company of ten or twelve repaired to the mound, and ***isted 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 BR*** PLATES, secured and fastened together by two iron wires, but which were so decayed, that they readily crumbled to dust upon being handled. The plates were so completely covered with rust as almost to obliterate the characters inscribed upon them; but after undergoing a chemical process, the inscriptions were brought out plain and distinct... By whom these plates were deposited there must ever remain a secret, unless some one skilled in deciphering hieroglyphics, may be found to unravel the mystery. Some pretend to say, that Smith the Mormon leader, has the ability to read them. If he has, he will confer a great favor on the public by removing the mystery which hangs over them. We learn there was a Mormon present when the plates were found, who it is said, leaped for joy at the discovery, and remarked that it would go to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon--which it undoubtedly will…The plates above alluded to, were exhibited in this city last week, and are now, we understand, in Nauvoo, subject to the inspection of the Mormon Prophet. The public curiousity is greatly excited and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will do more towards throwing light on the early history of this continent, than any man now living.” (Times and Seasons, Vol.4, pp. 186- 187, 1843)

The Times & Seasons was edited by none other than John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, intimates of Smith. There is not one word from them that these were rumours or speculation. They took the find to be genuine, & the comments and partial ‘translation’ by Smith as genuine. They even made the statement: "The contents of the Plates, together with a Fac-Simile of the same, will be published in the 'Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed." This hardly implies Smith had no interest in them. The Kinderhook Plates stirred up much excitement in Nauvoo.

Even Brigham Young saw the plates and drew a picture of one in his diary, which says ‘ “May 3—1843. I had this at Joseph Smith’s house. Found near Quincy.”

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=25&pictureid=225

So the Kinderhook plates were at Smith’s house, as were Brigham Young, William Clayton and many others. They were obviously there for more than 5 days & were returned later in June to be duplicated for the Times & Seasons Broadside. Are Smith’s statements just ‘rumour’ then, as some would have us believe? Here is an interesting account from Charlotte Haven (the same quoted above who was staying with Mormon relatives in Nauvoo), related to her by Joshua Moore (who showed the Plates to Smith):

“We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore... His last call on us was last Sa****ay and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of br***, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them. So a sequel to that holy book may soon be expected.” (“A Girl's Letters From Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly, Dec. 1890, p. 630)

Notice here that Charlotte was shown the little br*** plates by the same man who showed them to Smith. In the journal Willard Richards kept for Joseph Smith, Richards recorded that Smith was "visited by several gentlemen concerning the plates which were dug out of a mound near quincy[;] sent by W[illia]m Smith to the office for Hebrew Bible & Lexicon."

A FARMS contributor makes this comment (where the quote above came from) about the above diary entry by Richards:

“Rather than sending for a seer stone or attempting to translate by direct revelation, Smith sent for the linguistic tools that he used in his ordinary study of Hebrew. All of this suggests that Smith took a secular approach to deciphering the plates and that he did so openly. As the characters on these plates did not convey any genuine meaning, it was impossible for him to have produced any quan***y of actual translation. Apparently he thought he had, but this would only mean that he made a mistake—something he never thought himself above.” (‘A One-sided View of Mormon Origins’ by Mark Ashurst-McGee)

What he fails to take into account is that Smith obviously sent for his lexicon to see if the characters might be genuine. This explains Smith’s wanting the characters on the Kinderhook plates to be sent out for examination by scholars before he would begin a translation. This way, there would be none able to contradict him whey he produced his bogus translation. That Smith did not use his seer stone is not an important issue since Smith himself had said before this time that he was not relying upon it anymore (He was obviously trying to distance himself from his ‘New York Reputation.’)

The Statement by Wilbur Fugate where Smith asked to have them sent out:

“I will give the reason or cause of the joke. We were reading Pratt's prophecy, that truth yet was to spring up out of the earth, and, as they were digging at Kinderhook, we concluded to make the plates, and dig down about eight feet and came to a flat rock and put them under it. They were fastened together with rust made of nitric acid, lead and rusty iron.

grindael

04-29-2010, 11:34 PM

The hieroglyphics were impressions made in beeswax and filled with nitric acid and placed on the plates. We understood Jo Smith said they would make a book of 1,200 pages, but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian Society at Philadelphia, France and England. They were sent, and the answer was that there were no such hieroglyphics known, and if there ever had been they had long since p***ed away. Then Smith began his translation. W. Fugate“ (Letter, as Published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Vol. XVII, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sa****ay, May 10, 1879. No. 22. )

Modern Defense, Rejection & Evidence of the Hoax

“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.” … “A large number of Citizens have seen them (the Kinderhook Plates) and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” (The Ensign, August 1981, p. 73).

At the time of the Civil War the Kinderhook plates were lost. M. Wilford Poulson, of Brigham Young University, later found one of the original plates in the Chicago Historical Society Museum. The plate which he found has been identified as no. 5 in the facsimiles printed in the History of the Church. While Professor Poulson's research led him to believe that the plate was a forgery, Welby W. Ricks, who was President of the BYU Archaeological Society, hailed the discovery as a vindication of Smith’s work:

“A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders... The plates are now back in their original category of genuine.... Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well.” (The Kinderhook Plates, 1962)

Investigate indeed. But not all believed the plates were genuine:

According to Dr. W. Wyl's book, a "Mormon elder" told him that in "1858" the Apostle Orson Pratt said that he "was well convinced the plates were a fraud." (Mormon Portraits, 1886, page 211) Nevertheless, the story became an important part of Smith's History of the Church, and I believe it is still printed there. And, given how Orson Pratt was never taken very seriously by the Church, (research ‘The Seer’ for example) it is not surprising they did not listen to him.

In order for Smith to derive as much information as he did from the Kinderhook plates it would have been necessary for him to have "translated" some of the characters. The History of the Church says that he translated "a portion of them." Since Smith made a false translation of both the Kinderhook plates and the BOA, it also casts doubt on the BOM ‘translation’. James D. Bales make this excellent summary:

"What does it all add up to? Does it merely mean that one of the 'finds' which the Latter Day Saints believed supported the Book of Mormon does not support it, and that there is no real **** dealt to the prophetship of Joseph Smith? Not at all, for as Charles A. Shook well observed - in a personal letter to the author - 'Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.' Where we can check up on Smith as a translator of plates, he is found guilty of deception. How can we trust him with reference to his claims about the Book of Mormon? If we cannot trust him where we can check him, we cannot trust him where we cannot check his translation... Smith tried to deceive people into thinking that he had translated some of the plates. The plates had no such message as Smith claimed that they had. Smith is thus shown to be willing to deceive people into thinking that he had the power to do something that could not be done." (The Book of Mormon? 1958, pages 98-99)

But the truth was waiting to be found out, as Stanley Kimball describes in an Ensign Article:

"Since coming to public awareness in 1920, this plate has undergone a number of tests. For example, in 1953 it was examined by two engravers who made an affidavit stating that “to the best of our knowledge this Plate was engraved with a pointed instrument and not etched with acid”—a conclusion which contradicted the letters claiming the plates to be a hoax, and which therefore fueled the hopes of those who wanted the plates to be proven genuine." (Ensign Article by Stanley Kimball, cited above)

We all know that this is not true and the plates are a hoax. Why would they want them to be genuine so badly, if Smith had shrugged them off. Why devote so many pages in the History of the Church if they were of so little consequence.? No, Smith was fooled as was every other ‘seer & revelator’ (except maybe Orson Pratt) in the Mormon Church up until the acid tests. Here is Fugate’s letter, admitting to the ‘humbug’:

Mound Station, Ill.
June 30, 1879

"Mr. Cobb:

"I received your letter in regard to those plates, and will say in answer that they are a HUMBUG, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself. Whitton is dead. I do not know whether Wiley is or not. None of the nine persons who signed the certificate knew the secret, except, Wiley and I.

"We read in Pratt's prophecy that 'Truth is yet to spring out of the earth.' We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them, Bridge Whitton cut them out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I 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.

"Our plans worked admirably. A certain Sunday was appointed for the digging. The night before, 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. On the following morning quite a number of citizens were there to ***ist 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. Dr. Harris examined them and said they had hieroglyphics on them. He took acid and removed the rust and they were soon out on exhibition.

"Under this rock (which) was dome-like in appearance (and) about three feet in diameter, there were a few bones In the last stage of decomposition, also a few pieces of pottery and charcoal. There was no skeleton found. Sharp, the Mormon Elder, leaped and shouted for joy and said, Satan had appeared to him and told him not to go (to the diggings), it was a hoax of Fugate and Wiley's, but at a later hour the Lord appeared and told him to go, the treasure was there.

"The Mormons wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go. Some time afterward a man ***uming the name of Savage, of Quincy, borrowed the plates of Wiley to show to his literary friends there, and took them to Joe Smith. The same identical plates were returned to Wiley, who gave them to Professor McDowell, of St. Louis, for his Museum.

"W. Fugate

STATE OF ILLINOIS
BROWN COUNTY. ss

"W. Fugate, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the above, letter, containing an account of the plates found near Kinderhook, is true and correct, to the best of his recollection. "W. Fugate

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of June, 1879. "Jay Brown, J. P." (The Kinderhook Plates, by Welby W. Ricks, reprinted from the Improvement Era, Sept.1962)

Even after this came out B.H. Roberts still REFUSED TO BELIEVE IT! Here he is trying to discredit Fugate & his hoax letter:

"Of this presentation of the matter it is only necessary to say that it is a little singular that Mr. Fugate alone out of the three said to be in collusion in perpetrating the fraud should disclose it, and that he should wait from 1843 to 1879--a period of thirty-six years-before doing so, when he and those said to be ***ociated with him had such an excellent opportunity to expose the vain pretensions of the Prophet--if Fugate's tale be true--during his lifetime...The fact that Fugate's story was not told until thirty-six years after the event, and that he alone of all those who were connected with the event gives that version of it, is rather strong evidence that his story is the hoax, not the discovery of the plates, nor the engravings upon them." (The History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 379, footnote)

grindael

04-29-2010, 11:35 PM

Modern Defense...Evidence of Hoax (continued)

Perhaps Roberts had never read the letter from W. P. Harris dated from 1855 (or chose not to believe it). W. P. Harris was one of the nine witnesses to the plates, and he also made a separate statement telling how cleaned them, etc. (see History of the Church, Vol.5, pp.374-377). In 1855 (24 years before Fugate's affidavit) Harris wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine and that Bridge Whitten already acknowledged his part in the hoax:

April 25, 1855

Mr. Flagg,

Dear Sir: Yours of the 4th of April came to hand on the 23rd. This thing is stale with me, although I have feelings and respect for the truth.

Some years since, I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook, and helped to dig at the time the plates were found that I think you allude to. Robert Wiley, then a merchant of that place, said that he had had a number of strange dreams (as I have learned) that there was something in the mounds near Kinderhook. If I recollect right, he began to dig on Sa****ay, and on Sunday the discovery was made. I was present with quite a crowd. The plates were found in the pit by Mr. Fayette Grubb. I washed and cleaned the plates and subsequently made an honest affidavit to the same.

But since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that 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.

'Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten. Fugit lives at Kinderhook and B. Whitten at Alton, Illinois, to both of which you can refer.

'Subsequently to my receiving your letter, I have seen Dr. P. M. Parker, M. D., that graduated at St. Louis, Mo., last winter. Dr. Parker says that R. Wiley graduated at the same place since the finding of the plates at the same school, and that Professor McDowell on Surgery has the plates at his office, and he (Dr. Parker) saw them there last winter.

'If it would be any satisfaction you will write to Dr. P. M. Parker, to Wilbourn Fugit and Bridge Whitten. Esq. W. Murray said that he had wrote you on the subject. What Esq. Murray says you may rely upon.

'I believe that I have stated all as far as I know that would be any satisfaction to you, so with much esteem I remain, Fraternally Yours, W. P. Harris.

'Mr. W. C. Flagg,

'P. S. Mr. Fugit, Mr. Whitten and I are all of us belonging to one order that ought to bear witness to the truth. If anything should transpire that you would wish to hear from me again (an old man rising of sixty) please write me and I will cheerfully give you all the information that I can. It is a late hour and I have worked hard all day in my garden and my health is very poor. So I hope you will excuse. Yours Respectfully, W. P. H'" (Letter from the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1912, Vol.5, No.2, pp.271-273, as quoted in The Book of Mormon?, by James D. Bales, pp 95-96)

Thus we see that Mr. Fugate was not the only one who exposed the hoax. At least 24 years before Fugate made his affidavit one of the witnesses had stated that it was a hoax.

Conclusions

The Mormon point of view on the Kinderhook plates can be summed up by a private conversation in which Neal Maxwell stated:

“He said that if Joseph Smith had felt the Kinderhook Plates were indeed important, worthy of translation and from God, "he would have moved on them," but he did not. Maxwell said Smith's "benign neglect" thus verified that the Kinderhook Plates were not important. Maxwell compared and contrasted the Prophet Joseph's "benign neglect" toward the Kinderhook Plates with what he characterized as Smith's eagerness and quickness in dealing with the Book of Abraham. “

But there was also a ‘Book of Joseph’ that Smith claimed was buried with the Chandler mummies, which he promised to also ‘translate’ but never got around to. This shows Maxwell’s argument of ‘benign neglect’ to be only a smokescreen to hide the fact that Smith was taken in by the hoax. Why did Smith not translate that ‘Book of Joseph’ then? Just as with the Kinderhook Plates we will never know. But just because he put the projects aside for a time does not mean he did not mean to get to them. As late as 1844, the Warsaw Signal reported that Smith was "busy in translating them: The new work... will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to The Book of Mormon;..." (Warsaw Signal May 22, 1844)

In one article at LDS.ORG, Stanley Kimball says the preceding statement by the Warsaw Signal is false, because Smith did not have the plates at this time. But what he conveniently forgets is Smith had pictures with a clear duplication of all the characters on the plates, so he did not need the originals. This is also a reason why Smith did not need to purchase them right away, as he did with the BOA. One other thought as to why Fugate took so long to reveal the hoax was that on November 15, 1843 he wrote a letter to one J. J. Harding suggesting that he was interested in selling the plates to “the National Ins***ute”. If the plates were mistaken as genuine, then Fugate would have been able to ‘fool the prophet’ and make some money off the hoax as well.

As the Tanners so aptly put it:

“Whether or not the writer of the article in the Quincy Whig knew the plates had been forged, it is obvious that Joseph Smith fell for the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Since Joseph Smith did not know the difference between ancient and modern br*** plates, as the evidence clearly shows, and was oblivious to the fact that the hieroglyphics were forged, we cannot have any confidence in his work. While the Mormon leaders are supposed to have special powers of discernment, Joseph Smith certainly did not demonstrate a capability to discern when he was being tricked. Even the present leader of the church, the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, was taken in by Mark Hofmann's forgeries and actually bought some of these documents for the church! In one instance he paid Hofmann $15,000 for a forged letter which was purportedly written by the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith”. (For a complete treatment of the Kinderhook affair see our book, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 111-115)

James Banta

04-30-2010, 07:54 AM

Haven't you heard yet? The History of the church is made up and it worthless as a history.. Nothing in it has ANY anything to do with real events.. Why Smith would even bother keeping records if the happenings of His activities even his sermons were a waste of time.. Mormonism has no history and no authority at all to call themselves the restored Church of Jesus Christ.. This same carelessness for the history of church is also seen in the m***ive changes that have been made to the Standard works. Unlike the over 3,000 changes in the BofM there are over 65,000 changes between the Book of Commandments and Doctrine and Covenants. One of which seems very significant.. This revelation was printed in the Book of Commandments as chapter 4. Verse 2 reads as follows: "And now, behold, this shall you say to him: -I the Lord am God, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show then except I command him. and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." well after the BofM was completed things changed.. D&C 5:4 says "And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished" Tell me how this isn't a MAJOR change? All the sudden Smith had many more gifts when God had first said that no other gifts would be given.. Did God change His mind or did Smith just decided he liked being a prophet and wanted the power and adoration that he saw the office gave him.. It is much more likely that Smith changed his mind than God changed. After all God told us that: Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Too bad mormonism has nothing of worth to offer to the world that hasn't been modified and changed so many thousands of times that it is no longer contains he same message as it did originally.. This above all that the Bible teaches are the "doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” IHS jim

Richard

04-30-2010, 09:07 AM

Mark Beesley

04-30-2010, 09:58 AM

grindael,

wouldn't it be easier to just post a link to UTLM? And haven't you read the forum rules: "No filling up the board with large amounts of pasted material."

James Banta

04-30-2010, 01:01 PM

Viewers, guest, and lurkers and the truth.

Kinderhook Plates
A new Reprint is Stanley B. Kimball's "Kinderhook Plates...Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax," from the August, 1982 Ensign. This LDS Historian reports on the historical background of these metal plates, discovered in Illinois in 1843, and summarizes the documentary and technical evidence which leads to the conclusion that the plates were probably a planted hoax. It is interesting that Joseph Smith aparently did not fall for the scheme, even though some of his ***ociates may have done so.

Quote from urloony:

-Where is the translation made of the plates?

-If this was designed to be a hoax why did the perpetrators of the hoax not reveal their plot until 1879, long after Joseph Smith had died and with little fanfare?

Why was it that Smith wanted the plates authenticated by someone else? Couldn't he as a prophet just have turn to the hoaxers and said "why are you bringing me fraudulent plates.." It's because he wasn't sure and didn't want to slam the door to being able to "translate" them if they proved to be authentic... That proves he was as much a fraud in my eyes as if he had attempted to translate them.. IHS jim

Vlad III

04-30-2010, 01:50 PM

Why was it that Smith wanted the plates authenticated by someone else? Couldn't he as a prophet just have turn to them hoaxers and said "why are you bringing me fraudulent plates.." It's because he wasn't sure and didn't want to slam the door to being able to "translate" them if they proved to be authehtic... That proves he was as much a fraud in my eyes as if he had attempted to translate them.. IHS jim

You belong to the same group of people that were spoken about when the 116 pages of the BoM m****cript were lost and JS was commanded to NOT retranslate them. There are people like you, James, that will **** JS if he DOES translate or if he DOESN'T translate, which only says more about you and your ilk that are so quick to judge JS than it does about anything else.

akaSeerone

04-30-2010, 01:59 PM

You belong to the same group of people that were spoken about when the 116 pages of the BoM m****cript were lost and JS was commanded to NOT retranslate them. There are people like you, James, that will **** JS if he DOES translate or if he DOESN'T translate, which only says more about you and your ilk that are so quick to judge JS than it does about anything else.
I can't believe that anyone would fall for that con man's lie.

What a joke, and it just proves that Smith was nothing more than a con man with lie on top of lie.

It was a smart move on the wife to hide those papers to expose Smith for the liar he was, but he talked his way out of it and is still beguiling people with that ridiculous lie.

You have been duped and have bought into the lie and contrary to what you think you have, you have nothing of Christianity whatsoever.

Andy

Billyray

04-30-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote from urloony:

-Where is the translation made of the plates?

-If this was designed to be a hoax why did the perpetrators of the hoax not reveal their plot until 1879, long after Joseph Smith had died and with little fanfare?
Richard that is a straw man argument. Nobody claims a complete translation of the plates. Per the H of C quote Joseph translated a portion of them and gave a few details about the contents of the plates. Which he obviously got wrong.

urloony

04-30-2010, 02:43 PM

Richard that is a straw man argument. Nobody claims a complete translation of the plates. Per the H of C quote Joseph translated a portion of them and gave a few details about the contents of the plates. Which he obviously got wrong.

Billy, as usual you are missing the bigger picture. We are all aware a full translation was never made, where's the partial translation? This was a monumental event apparently why was no information ever released other than speculation by members of the church? In the end we have an isolated journal entry that has never been substantiated.

RealFakeHair

04-30-2010, 02:46 PM

Billy, as usual you are missing the bigger picture. Where is the partial translation of the plates then. We are all aware a full translation was never made, where's the partial. In the end we have an isolated journal entry that has never been substantiated.

Joseph Smith jr translations.
Facts are Joseph Smith jr got caught and you guys grasp at straws. Clear this all up by answering this, is your Church history worth a warm spit or not?:confused:

Billyray

04-30-2010, 02:52 PM

The partial translation summary was reported in the H of C quote. This has already been quoted multiple times before.

James Banta

04-30-2010, 03:51 PM

You belong to the same group of people that were spoken about when the 116 pages of the BoM m****cript were lost and JS was commanded to NOT retranslate them. There are people like you, James, that will **** JS if he DOES translate or if he DOESN'T translate, which only says more about you and your ilk that are so quick to judge JS than it does about anything else.

SMITH DIDN'T HAVE TO TRANSLATE THE KINDERHOOK PLATES AT ALL. All he had to do was to call them a fraud from day one.. That is what they were and if Smith was indeed a seer he should ben able to see that right away and have said so.. It would appear that he didn't have the confidence in his gifts to do that.. That is called faithlessness..

I am one that thinks the lost pages of the book of Lehi should have been retranslated.. Then we could have seen the same words come out of the stone which would have given the BofM some sort of a evidence other than testimony that it was true.. Why was God so against that? IHS jim

Richard

04-30-2010, 05:31 PM

I can't believe that anyone would fall for that con man's lie.

Or fall for some man made Christian Creeds and approved by a Sun Worshipper.

What a joke, and it just proves that Smith was nothing more than a con man with lie on top of lie.

Well at least there are a few of us who never fell for the lie that God is invisible, or the earth was created in six day, or something can be made from absolutely nothing. Nice lie, and some fell for it hook line and sinker.

[QUOTE]It was a smart move on the wife to hide those papers to expose Smith for the liar he was, but he talked his way out of it and is still beguiling people with that ridiculous lie.

What would be the reason to be deceptive like the wife was obviously being, was she afraid of the truth or was she more likely just being evil?

You have been duped and have bought into the lie and contrary to what you think you have, you have nothing of Christianity whatsoever.

Andy

Sorry to say, but those who were duped believe that God is dead and speaks no more.

Janet.

Richard

04-30-2010, 05:38 PM

SMITH DIDN'T HAVE TO TRANSLATE THE KINDERHOOK PLATES AT ALL. All he had to do was to call them a fraud from day one.. That is what they were and if Smith was indeed a seer he should ben able to see that right away and have said so.. It would appear that he didn't have the confidence in his gifts to do that.. That is called faithlessness..

Since we only have witnesses, what evidence can you provide that JS may not have had his doubts, it's obvious he did not pursue translating, pretty smart move I would say.

I am one that thinks the lost pages of the book of Lehi should have been retranslated.. Then we could have seen the same words come out of the stone which would have given the BofM some sort of a evidence other than testimony that it was true.. Why was God so against that? IHS jim

I wish we had the translation also, but since we have a corrupt person who sought to destroy JS, we have a lost book.

Richard

04-30-2010, 05:45 PM

Richard that is a straw man argument. Nobody claims a complete translation of the plates. Per the H of C quote Joseph translated a portion of them and gave a few details about the contents of the plates. Which he obviously got wrong.

“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.” (Then followed a reprint of material from the Times and Seasons article.)

Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.” It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. …” 3

Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However, as will be pointed out later, speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from William Clayton’s journal was reprinted in the Millennial Star of 15 January 1859, and, unfortunately, was finally carried over into official Church history when the “History of Joseph Smith” was edited into book form as the History of the Church in 1909.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b6a8aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Richard

04-30-2010, 05:47 PM

Joseph Smith jr translations.
Facts are Joseph Smith jr got caught and you guys grasp at straws. Clear this all up by answering this, is your Church history worth a warm spit or not?:confused:

Joseph Smith did not make the hoped-for translation. In fact, no evidence exists that he manifested any further interest in the plates after early examination of them, although some members of the Church hoped that they would prove to be significant. But the plates never did.

urloony

04-30-2010, 11:45 PM

The partial translation summary was reported in the H of C quote. This has already been quoted multiple times before.
No. What has been printed is a summery of the alleged partial translation at best. A partial translation was never published.

Billyray

04-30-2010, 11:57 PM

No. What has been printed is a summery of the alleged partial translation at best. A partial translation was never published.
Correct. Notice my prior post that states this fact that almost mirrors your exact first statement above. And as the quote below states, Joseph translated a portion of them and then proceeds to give a small summary of what was contained within the plates. Therefore if this was true then he was duped, which of course is what the evidence from your own records points to.

The partial translation summary was reported in the H of C quote. This has already been quoted multiple times before.

"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.” LDS quote

urloony

05-01-2010, 12:03 AM

Correct. Notice my prior post that states this fact that almost mirrors your exact first statement above. And as the quote states, Joseph translated a portion of them and then proceeds to give a small summary of what was contained within the plates. Therefore if this was true then he was duped, which of course is what the evidence from your own records points to.

"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.”
You of all people Billy should know that in order to establish "proof" you need multiple sources of evidence. The translation of the KHP has one only one potential source of evidence that has never been corroborated by any other sources. The mountain of evidence that has previously been posted in my thread as well as this one all demonstrate that the plates were never translated. This is a dead issue.

Billyray

05-01-2010, 12:08 AM

You of all people Billy should know that in order to establish "proof" you need multiple sources of evidence. The translation of the KHP has one only one potential source of evidence that has never been corroborated by any other sources. The mountain of evidence that has previously been posted in my thread as well as this one all demonstrate that the plates were never translated. This is a dead issue.

Actually there is more than one, the William Clayton quote in the H of the C and the Parley Pratt quote that mirrors Clayton's quote.

James Banta

05-01-2010, 07:04 AM

[Richard;54849]Or fall for some man made Christian Creeds and approved by a Sun Worshipper.
Janet.

Totally inappropriate for a pagan to find God and make himself subject to Jesus now it's it.. A person had to be born and raised a Christian in order to see God's truth when it is presented to his, right? Where do you get this stuff Janet Ahhh I mean Richard.. IHS jim

urloony

05-01-2010, 07:19 AM

Actually there is more than one, the William Clayton quote in the H of the C and the Parley Pratt quote that mirrors Clayton's quote.
Now you are starting to tell fibs Billy. The Clayton Journal is the only source that ever mentions anything about a partial translation. Let's stick to the facts.

James Banta

05-01-2010, 07:46 AM

Since we only have witnesses, what evidence can you provide that JS may not have had his doubts, it's obvious he did not pursue translating, pretty smart move I would say.

I wish we had the translation also, but since we have a corrupt person who sought to destroy JS, we have a lost book.

This revelation that you are Janet at CARM has me thinking that you will lie about almost anything to try to win an argument.. I have lost all the respect I have ever had for you over this lie Richard.. Is that the kind of thing mormonism teaches you.. Lie and Lie and lie if you think you can make a difference for the church in so doing? I will believe what was said by the witnesses as confirmed in mormon church history that Smith had looked at the plates, heard the stories of the skeleton that was found with them and told everyone what the context of the plates was.. Like you Smith lied about everything.. Brigham Young did teach that without living polygamy a man couldn't be exalted.. Everything you have ever told me is a LIE, You are as bad as Smith! IHS jim

Mesenja

05-01-2010, 08:01 AM

This revelation that you are Janet at CARM has me thinking that you will lie about almost anything to try to win an argument. I have lost all the respect I have ever had for you over this lie Richard. Is that the kind of thing Mormonism teaches you. Lie and Lie and lie if you think you can make a difference for the church in so doing? I will believe what was said by the witnesses as confirmed in Mormon church history that Smith had looked at the plates,heard the stories of the skeleton that was found with them and told everyone what the context of the plates was. Like you Smith lied about everything. Brigham Young did teach that without living polygamy a man couldn't be exalted. Everything you have ever told me is a LIE,You are as bad as Smith! IHS Jim

Any first hand evidence that the prophet ever claimed to have translated the Kinderhook Plates and the other being any translation of said plates. What you have to base your arguments on are second hand accounts of rumors.

James Banta

05-01-2010, 08:16 AM

Or fall for some man made Christian Creeds and approved by a Sun Worshipper.

Well at least there are a few of us who never fell for the lie that God is invisible, or the earth was created in six day, or something can be made from absolutely nothing. Nice lie, and some fell for it hook line and sinker.

[QUOTE]

What would be the reason to be deceptive like the wife was obviously being, was she afraid of the truth or was she more likely just being evil?

Sorry to say, but those who were duped believe that God is dead and speaks no more.

Janet.

Any first hand evidence that the prophet ever claimed to have translated the Kinderhook Plates and the other being any translation of said plates. What you have to base your arguments on are second hand accounts of rumors.

Second hand? This has become part of the History of the church. If it was false why would the church include it or keep it in that document? More inconsistencies from mormonism!!! IHS jim

Mesenja

05-01-2010, 08:40 AM

Second hand? This has become part of the History of the church. If it was false why would the church include it or keep it in that document? More inconsistencies from Mormonism! IHS Jim

With the exception of this one journal entry Joseph Smith never said or wrote anything about the Kinderhook Plates.

"In the forenoon I was visited by several gentleman,concerning the plates that were dug out near Kinderhook." Joseph Smith journal,May 7th,1843

TrueBlue?

05-01-2010, 09:19 AM

Russ

05-01-2010, 09:36 AM

James Banta

05-01-2010, 09:44 AM

With the exception of this one journal entry Joseph Smith never said or wrote anything about the Kinderhook Plates.

The entry about Who the skeleton was and what that main contents of the plates were there isn't a word.. He was fooled by a fraud.. IHS jim

Mark Beesley

05-01-2010, 09:50 AM

I will believe what was said by the witnesses as confirmed in mormon church history . . .
You have a single witness regarding a supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates by the Prophet Joseph -- William Clayton. Parley P. Pratt's account comes from Clayton. But since you are now willing believe what witnesses said regarding plates, and translations, and Joseph Smith, perhaps you are now willing to believe these witness testimonies:

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

And further:

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Welcome back to the fold.

Billyray

05-01-2010, 10:16 AM

You have a single witness regarding a supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates by the Prophet Joseph -- William Clayton. Parley P. Pratt's account comes from Clayton.

Mark, you have two witnesses, William Clatyon and Parley P Pratt. And you have this printed in your own Church writings so this means that people at the time believed what these two guys had to say. I think you hit at the heart of the argument, if these guys state something that you feel is incorrect despite their testimony of it, why then believe other testimony such as the ones that you have posted? To me it is a clear double standard on your part.

Mark Beesley

05-01-2010, 10:20 AM

Mark, you have two witnesses, William Clatyon and Parley P Pratt. And you have this printed in your own Church writings so this means that people at the time believed what these two guys had to say. I think you hit at the heart of the argument, if these guys state something that you feel is incorrect despite their testimony of it, why then believe other testimony such as the ones that you have posted? To me it is a clear double standard on your part.
I never said I believed because of these mortal witnesses, did I? I believe, nay, I KNOW because of heavenly witnesses. No double standard at all.

With regards to Pratt as a second witness, I believe the evidence shows that his source was Clayton. If true, does he really count as a second witness?

Billyray

05-01-2010, 10:28 AM

I never said I believed because of these mortal witnesses, did I? I believe, nay, I KNOW because of heavenly witnesses. No double standard at all.

As I have said before the witnesses to the Book of Mormon are really the only really evidence to Mormonism outside of your testimony, and it you can't believe these witnesses what else do you really have? Some say NHM and others point to chaismus as evidence but these are simply last stabs to come up with something concrete.

With regards to Pratt as a second witness, I believe the evidence shows that his source was Clayton. If true, does he really count as a second witness?
You may be right but we will never really know and the point is that you do have two separate witnesses that perpetuated this idea to the point that many others believed this idea for many years and this was perpetuated along despite any spiritual witness by any of these people that this was false. Thus people and witnesses can be wrong but more importantly your spiritual subjective witness may also be wrong.

Mesenja

05-01-2010, 11:50 AM

The entry about who the skeleton was and what that main contents of the plates were there isn't a word. He was fooled by a fraud. IHS Jim

The fact is that you can not James. Why is this you say? Because all the evidence is to the contrary. All you can do is repeat this false accusation.

James Banta

05-01-2010, 12:42 PM

The fact is that you can not James. Why is this you say? Because all the evidence is to the contrary. All you can do is repeat this false accusation.

This is LDS history not Christian Church history.. We, the Church, have no control as to what the LDS church has chosen to record in these volumes.. We can't change or twist what it says. It's all based on what is or was taught by the LDS church..

"I insert fac-similes of the six br*** 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." Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

You don't like the history that your own church keeps, you don't like the way you feel the records were made.. That is not out problem. What is said in these volumes is said to be your church history. You can attempt to revise it all you wish still these p***ages will live on because the history has been so widely distributed.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-01-2010, 02:01 PM

This is LDS history not Christian Church history. We, the Church, have no control as to what the LDS church has chosen to record in these volumes. We can't change or twist what it says. It's all based on what is or was taught by the LDS church.

"I insert facsimiles of the six br*** 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." Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church,v. 5,p. 372

You don't like the history that your own church keeps, you don't like the way you feel the records were made. That is not out problem. What is said in these volumes is said to be your church history. You can attempt to revise it all you wish still these p***ages will live on because the history has been so widely distributed. IHS Jim

Show that this quote was taken directly from anything that Joseph Smith ever wrote or said on this subject and not from second hand source material.

Billyray

05-01-2010, 02:23 PM

Show that this quote was taken directly from anything that Joseph Smith ever wrote or said on this subject and not from second hand source material.

Who said that this was a direct quote from Joseph (even though it is worded that way in the H of the C quote)?

Again you are making up a straw man argument--you really seem to like straw man arguments.

Note that the quotes are from Parley P Pratt and William Clayton's Journal as noted below in this Ensign article.

Note the following quote attributed to Parley P. Pratt. The statement is Pratt's not Clayton's statement (which follows Pratt's statement).
Ensign » 1981 » August

"Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax

"That the plates had aroused interest in Nauvoo is evident from two accounts that were not published until years later. In a letter written to a friend on Sunday, May 7, Parley P. Pratt said: “A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” A few lines previously, he had begun his comment on the plates as follows:

“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.” 16"

This calls to mind the statement from the William Clayton journal referred to above: (Note--reference to Clayton's journal is made before the Pratt's quote)

“I have seen six br*** plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth which was nine feet high. … President 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.”"
End of Ensign quote

Mesenja

05-01-2010, 05:51 PM

Who said that this was a direct quote from Joseph (even though it is worded that way in the History of the Church quote)? Again you are making up a straw man argument--you really seem to like straw man arguments. Note that the quotes are from Parley P Pratt and William Clayton's Journal as noted below in this Ensign article.

The quotes that you cited from Parley P Pratt and William Clayton were never made by Joseph Smith. Both Parley P. Pratt and William Clayton give conflicting and problematic accounts of the story. For instance in both accounts they said the plates gave a history of the remains of a skeleton which was found at the site of the excavation. This was contradicted by those who excavated the plates and Wilburn Fugate one of the perpetrators of the hoax. These two different accounts would indicate that it was not from a first hand source meaning it did not originate from Joseph Smith and was based more likely on rumors.

James Banta

05-01-2010, 07:37 PM

Show that this quote was taken directly from anything that Joseph Smith ever wrote or said on this subject and not from second hand source material.

That is from the History of your church. It is controlled and published by your church.. There is no secondary source here it is a 100% mormon source and you treat it like Sandra Tanner was your church's historian.. It doesn't matter if Smith wrote it himself or he has his historian do so it is a record of his words and actions..

'At the organization of this church, the Lord commanded Joseph the prophet to keep a record of his doings in the great and important work that he was commencing to perform. It thus became a duty imperative.

Our method of verification, afar compilation and rough draft, was to read the same before a session of the council, composed of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, and there scan everything under consideration.' Richards' Bibliography of Utah, MS., 2-6.

This would make me believe that the History of the church be commanded by God and undergoing verification is a reliable composition and your railing against it is a fight against God and not against me.. If it is reliable then Smith did at least do a preliminary inspection of the Kinderhook plates and believed them to be real at least on first inspection.. IHS jim

Billyray

05-01-2010, 08:04 PM

The quotes that you cited from Parley P Pratt and William Clayton were never made by Joseph Smith.

No kidding--they were made by Parley P Pratt and William Clayton as noted below. Also note that William Clayton states that "President 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. . ."

Parley P Pratt
“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.”

William Clayton
“I have seen six br*** plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth which was nine feet high. … President 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.”

BTW in order for your story to check out three separate pieces of evidence must be flat out wrong.
1. Parley P Pratt
2. William Clayton
3. History of the Church quote

Mark Beesley

05-02-2010, 04:22 PM

That is from the History of your church. It is controlled and published by your church.. There is no secondary source here it is a 100% mormon source and you treat it like Sandra Tanner was your church's historian.. It doesn't matter if Smith wrote it himself or he has his historian do so it is a record of his words and actions.
We don't even believe the Prophet is infallible, but we're supposed to believe historians are?

None of this collateral foolishness will bring a man closer to Christ. And that is the purpose of the Gospel and of the Church. Irrespective of what you think Joseph Smith said or did with regard to the Kinderhook hoax, everything he said and taught with regard to the Savior urges men to believe in Him, to repent, and to be saved. Criticize that.

Billyray

05-02-2010, 05:37 PM

We don't even believe the Prophet is infallible, but we're supposed to believe historians are?

How do you ever know what is right and and what is wrong. If your leaders can't get it right how are the average members suppose to get it right. Oh by the spirit, right? Mark you are involved in a mess of a religion is all I can say.

grindael

05-02-2010, 11:23 PM

1. B. H. Roberts compiled the 7 Volume History of the Church. He had access to all of Smith's writings, diaries, letters, & all of the other important Church documents. Anyone with common sense would know through this and first hand interviews with those that DID know Smith, Roberts is uniquely qualified to write about Smith and draw conclusions about Smith's character and talents.

He DID say there was strong evidence that Smith used View of the Hebrews and other source material for the BOM. No matter what anyone on this thread says, that IS A FACT. Just before he died Wesley P. Lloyd spoke with Roberts & recorded in his journal that Roberts,

"shows that the plates were not objective but subjective with Joseph Smith, that his exceptional imagination qualified him psychologically for the experience which he had in presenting to the world the Book of Mormon and that the plates with the Urim and Thummim were not objective." [THIS MEANS THEY WERE NOT REAL, FOLKS]

"These are some of the things which has made Bro. Roberts shift his base on the Book of Mormon. Instead of regarding it as the strongest evidence we have of Church Divinity, he regards it as the one which needs the most bolstering." (Private Journal of Wesley P. Lloyd, August 7, 1933)

Some Mormons use the same strategy with Clayton, that he really didn't know Smith well, it was rumours, blah, blah, blah. Smith TOLD Clayton what he did, and CLAYTON did his ***, HE WROTE DOWN WHAT JOSEPH TOLD HIM TO. Does anyone really think Clayton thought so little of what he was writing down that he would invent 'rumors' and write them in his journal that they came from Smith? Yeah, I buy that one. Roberts thought enough of Clayton's journal entry to include it AS SMITH'S OWN WORDS [which they were, or was Clayton a LIAR?] in the History of the Church. If this was not good enough, then take out ALL OF CLAYTON'S entries in the History of the Church. If they did that, it would put a BIG HOLE in that series of books. But some Mormons want to have it both ways. Imagine that.

2. As to the Plates, I am aware of the 7th of May letter by PP Pratt. It was probably not 'rumors' from Clayton, there are differences in his and Claytons accounts. If Smith was not interested in the plates, then after the initial five days they were in Nauvoo, he could have said, that's the end. I'm done. But no, that did not happen. They brought the plates back. Why? So the Times and Seasons could make a Broadside of the Plates. Why? Because SMith was going to translate them. Why did Smith not buy them? Maybe Fugate didn't want to sell them to Smith. They could then destroy them, or 'lose' them if Fugate came out with his 'hoax' info. Smith's next best option? They made the tracings of them which were printed in the Broadside, published by John Taylor & Wilford Woodruff. Now, and here is where the Mormons have me laughing...Taylor and Woodruff are really going to go through all that trouble to print all that up, without talking to Smith. What planet are you guys from? Why did Fugate not reveal the hoax until years later - re-read the thread, it's in there. Here is Stanley Kimball, with his damage control mode going full tilt:

"William Clayton evidently had access to the plates at some point, [Clayton HAD ACCESS TO EVERYTHING! - He was at Smith's house or with Smith ALL DAY!]for in his journal entry of Monday, May 1, he included a tracing of one of the plates (Whether or not he was present when Joseph Smith saw the plates in unknown.) Two days later, on Wednesday, Brigham Young also drew an outline of one of the Kinderhook plates in a small notebook/diary that he kept. Inside the drawing he wrote "May 3- 1843. I had this at Joseph Smith's house. Found near Quincy."

"Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown." [AND JUST WHERE DOES HE THINK CLAYTON GOT THE IDEAS FROM...HE JUST MADE IT UP? - NO, IT CAME FROM SMITH.. OR Clayton is a liar, because CLAYTON SAID IT DID.]

"Very soon afterward, the plates were removed from Nauvoo, for the Times and Seasons editorial which was written perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday (May 3 or 4) said: "Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a facsimile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it."

"The plates were apparently in Nauvoo, then, from Sa****ay the 29th through Wednesday the 3rd - a period of five days- and were then taken away. Later however, they were evidently returned to Nauvoo for a time, for by June 24 the Nauvoo Neighbor press had access to them and was thus able to produce facsimiles for the published broadside. A History of the Church entry for Sunday, May 7, says : "In the forenoon I [Joseph Smith] was visited by several gentlemen, concerning the plates that were dug out near Kinderhook." [14] Whether or not the plates were actually returned on that day - or indeed, whether Joseph Smith himself ever had the plates again - is uncertain. [Don't you think if Smith had no interest in them, he would have told the editors, TWO APOSTLES, that 'no boys, don't try to get the plates back to do the broadside, don't publish that I'm going to do a translation in OUR OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE CHURCH, because, I'M NOT INTERESTED. This is all rubbish that these statements did not originate with Smith. - He was duped, and badly.]

3. To those who want to say I cut and pasted this thread, you don't know me. I don't play these little *** for tat games. I see a topic and present what I know to the best of my knowledge. Most of the quotes are from Mormon sources and I put the Mormon side of the argument in the thread. It took me two days just to put the thread together, quoting multiple sources. If anyone does not like it, go to Jill. If she decides I've broken some rule, I'll go with that.

James Banta

05-03-2010, 07:19 AM

You have a single witness regarding a supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates by the Prophet Joseph -- William Clayton. Parley P. Pratt's account comes from Clayton. But since you are now willing believe what witnesses said regarding plates, and translations, and Joseph Smith, perhaps you are now willing to believe these witness testimonies:

And further:

Welcome back to the fold.

I notice that neither of the testimonies were signed by the people said to have written this witness. Many believe that Joseph Smith wrote these testimonies and afixed the name of his witneses to them.. That is not to say that the plates were not seen (Spiritually) by all who said they saw them.. But then again with the sparkling reputations that most of the witnesses had
it isn't suprising they would LIE..

The three witnesses were finally excommunicated from the church. Martin Harris accused Joseph Smith of "lying and licentiousness." The Mormon leaders in turn published an attack on the character of Martin Harris. The Elders' Journal—Mormon publication edited by Joseph Smith—said that Harris and others were guilty of "swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking, with every species of debauchery ..." (Elders' Journal, August, 1838, p. 59).

IHS jim

James Banta

05-03-2010, 07:31 AM

We don't even believe the Prophet is infallible, but we're supposed to believe historians are?

None of this collateral foolishness will bring a man closer to Christ. And that is the purpose of the Gospel and of the Church. Irrespective of what you think Joseph Smith said or did with regard to the Kinderhook hoax, everything he said and taught with regard to the Savior urges men to believe in Him, to repent, and to be saved. Criticize that.

The Bible isn't infallible, the prophets aren't either? Tell me just where is the foundation of your church.. It is the feelings of your heart? Personal revelation? You do know that I and many of the ex-mormon posters here have a totally contradictory personal revelation to what you feel? If you have no solid foundation to test your personal revelation (Infallible Scripture)
and these other people do, which is the most reliable? They also have mountains of evidence that show the Bible is truth while the BofM has NOTHING. Make your feelings match up with the Bible with facts from American historic fact and then tell me about the Joy you have in your faith.. IHS jim

Novato

05-03-2010, 07:31 AM

James Banta

05-03-2010, 07:35 AM

There is no way to give you or Billy more rep for these Great Posts.. I wish I could.. You WOW me with your knowledge and insight of the message God sent us in His word!!! IHS jim

Mark Beesley

05-03-2010, 01:50 PM

Tell me just where is the foundation of your church.. ?

'19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,

20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

Ephesians 2:19-20

James Banta

05-03-2010, 04:42 PM

'19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,

20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

Ephesians 2:19-20

I don't believe you!! I am ignoring verse 19 even though there is a great message there. The foundation of the Church IS the apostles and prophets,Yes. But the prophets that were until John and then the Apostles chosen by God Himself. Do I need to number then again or show you that the name of the twelve are written on the gates of the New City or what it is to quifify as an Apostle?

Biblically I thought you were ready to admit that your churches apostles were not equal in authority to the original 11 plus Matthias. That they could be only an apostle like Paul but then only if they have seen and spoken to the risen Lord.. I doubt that happened to any of your apostles, heck I even deny that.

Once a foundation is laid that is where the building is built.. You don't build it for a century of two and then lay in more foundation. Remember when Jesus said that Abraham Issac and Jacob were the living and not the dead (Matthew 22:32)? And if were were called to keep mortal apostles living among us shouldn't the same be said for a chief cornerstone? So why does mormonism elect a new Jesus? Start THINKING.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-03-2010, 04:49 PM

Mesenja

05-03-2010, 06:23 PM

The fact is that you do not. Your whole post is just based on your speculation. You start of by making an unsupported ***ertion. The quote you cite in the History of the Church was from the journal entry of William Clayton.

Smith TOLD Clayton what he did,and CLAYTON did his ***,HE WROTE DOWN WHAT JOSEPH TOLD HIM TO.

No one is arguing that Parley P. Pratt based his accounts on rumors that he heard from Clayton.

As to the Plates,I am aware of the 7th of May letter by Parley P. Pratt. It was probably not 'rumors' from Clayton,there are differences in his and Claytons accounts.

First of all if your scenario is correct and William Clayton dutifully wrote down what Joseph Smith told him to say why was it written in his own personal journal?

Second why did the accounts of this event differ from Parley P. Pratt who was a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles?

The fact that both of these men had very good access to the prophet Joseph Smith yet gave two different accounts of the events involved means that it could not have come from a first hand source and had a greater probability of being based on rumors.

If Smith was not interested in the plates,then after the initial five days they were in Nauvoo,he could have said,that's the end. I'm done. But no,that did not happen. They brought the plates back. Why? So the Times and Seasons could make a Broadside of the Plates. Why? Because Smith was going to translate them.

Wilburn Fugate one of the perpetrators of the hoax said "he [Joseph Smith] would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia,France,and England."

Joseph Smith resigned from being editor of the Times and Seasons when the article was published. Therefore he had not control over what was published. In the seven pages dedicated to the Kinderhook Plates there was no mention of Joseph Smith saying he was going to translate them. What was included was,a series of affidavits from attesting to the discovery of the plates,facsimiles of the plates,and an editorial from the Quincy Whig.
.

Why did Smith not buy them? Maybe Fugate didn't want to sell them to Smith. They could then destroy them,or 'lose' them if Fugate came out with his 'hoax' information.

Or maybe as I mentioned previously Wilburn Fugate said that Joseph Smith would not agree to translate them until they were inspected by the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia,France,and England.

Mesenja

05-03-2010, 06:43 PM

It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources,collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah,then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.” It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example,the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. …” [Ensign » 1981 » August "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax" By Stanley B. Kimball]

grindael

05-03-2010, 07:51 PM

Mesenja

05-03-2010, 07:55 PM

And? Clayton was with Smith,was a reliable witness, was called to write down all that Smith said and did. The only way to refute this is to call Clayton a liar. Smith looked at the plates read something in them and pretended they were worth translating. He was a phony,and like the Book of Mormon & the Book of Abraham,once again showed he was no prophet.

How do you know this? This is just more of the same. Don't confuse me with the facts because I have already made up my mind.

grindael

05-03-2010, 07:56 PM

.

Or maybe as I mentioned previously Wilburn Fugate said that Joseph Smith would not agree to translate them until they were inspected by the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia,France,and England.

We understood Jo Smith said they would make a book of 1,200 pages, but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian Society at Philadelphia, France and England. They were sent, and the answer was that there were no such hieroglyphics known, and if there ever had been they had long since p***ed away. Then Smith began his translation. W. Fugate“ (Letter, as Published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Vol. XVII, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sa****ay, May 10, 1879. No. 22. )

grindael

05-03-2010, 08:00 PM

"No one is arguing that Parley P. Pratt based his accounts on rumors that he heard from Clayton."

Really?

You have a single witness regarding a supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates by the Prophet Joseph -- William Clayton. Parley P. Pratt's account comes from Clayton.

grindael

05-03-2010, 08:01 PM

How do you know this? This is just more of the same. Don't confuse me with the facts because I have already made up my mind.

Clayton said so.

Mesenja

05-03-2010, 08:31 PM

Clayton said so.

The Times and Seasons collaborates this in an article stating that:"Mr. Smith has had those plates,what his [Mr. Smith] opinion concerning them is,we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away,or we should have given a facsimile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however,that he [the gentleman that owns them] purposes returning them for translation;if so,we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it"

grindael

05-03-2010, 10:33 PM

So the Kinderhook plates were at Smith’s house, as were Brigham Young, William Clayton and many others. [When Smith Said he had translated a portion of them] They were obviously there for more than 5 days:

"Very soon afterward, the plates were removed from Nauvoo, [to be sent out at Smith's request]for the Times and Seasons editorial which was written perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday (May 3 or 4) said: "Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a facsimile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it."

We understood Jo Smith said they would make a book of 1,200 pages, but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian Society at Philadelphia, France and England. They were sent, and the answer was that there were no such hieroglyphics known, and if there ever had been they had long since p***ed away. Then Smith began his translation. W. Fugate“ [which he obviously did not get to, because he was hiding from the Missourians & marrying girl after girl] (Letter, as Published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Vol. XVII, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sa****ay, May 10, 1879. No. 22. )

& then the plates were returned later in June to be duplicated for the Times & Seasons Broadside.

The Broadside was made & Smith had a copy of the characters, & the plates were returned to Fugate, who tried to sell them [as authentic] & so he kept the 'hoax' a secret.

Billyray

05-03-2010, 11:30 PM

I have never read so much unverifiable nonsense by the enemies of the Lord's Truth as I have seen in this decieptful thead.

I testify, to any who read this deciept, that those who write in opposition to God in this nonsense, are of satan. They lie in wait to decive the children of God.

Please stop this deceptive nonsense. Debate with us doctrine, debate with us anything but deciept.

Novato

Novato, you can testify until you turn blue in the face but the facts are the facts and these facts are from your own leaders and LDS publications. The translation of the Kinderhook Plates by Joseph Smith is an important topic because it is one of the few existing m****cripts that can be cross checked to see how good a translator Joseph really was. If you believe that the History of the Church quote which has a partial summary translation of the Kinderhook Plates then this clearly shows that Joseph was NOT an inspired prophet of God who was able to translate these plates. Joseph Smith's translation ability can't be tested for the Book of Mormon because the Golden Plates were magically taken back to heaven and there is not a single ancient m****cript for the Book of Mormon to cross check his translation. The Book of Abraham m****cripts are existing today but LDS back out of this by saying that the portion that was translated is currently missing despite the Alphabet and Grammar document which clearly ***ociate characters with lines from the Book of Abraham.

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 01:52 PM

We understood Jo Smith said they would make a book of 1,200 pages,but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian Society at Philadelphia,France and England. They were sent,and the answer was that there were no such hieroglyphics known,and if there ever had been they had long since p***ed away. Then Smith began his translation. W. Fugate“ (Letter,as Published in the Salt Lake Tribune,Vol. XVII,Salt Lake City,Utah,Sa****ay,May 10,1879. No. 22.)

If Joseph Smith did attempt to translate the plates why didn't any of the conspirators or enemies of the church ever bring up this fact when he was alive? The answer to this is obvious. Joseph Smith never translated the plates. The plates were never returned to Nauvoo. The Prophet died a martyr the following year.

James Banta

05-07-2010, 02:06 PM

If Joseph Smith did attempt to translate the plates why didn't any of the conspirators or enemies of the church ever bring up this fact when he was alive? The answer to this is obvious. Joseph Smith never translated the plates. The plates were never returned to Nauvoo. The Prophet died a martyr the following year.

I don't think any of Smith enemies at that time had the access to the History of the church we have today.. But what am I saying the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies.. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 02:27 PM

I don't think any of Smith enemies at that time had the access to the History of the church we have today. But what am I saying the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church. IHS Jim

Apparently you trust this "pack of rumors and lies" to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates. Also this is completely besides the point. If any of the co-conspirators or enemies of the church had even the slightest indication that Joseph Smith began a translation of these fraudulent plates they would not wait to expose him as a fraud.

RealFakeHair

05-07-2010, 03:06 PM

Apparently you trust this "pack of rumors and lies" to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates. Also this is completely besides the point. If any of the co-conspirators or enemies of the church had even the slightest indication that Joseph Smith began a translation of these fraudulent plates they would not wait to expose him as a fraud.

What you are saying is the LDS, History of the Church, is nothin but a pack of rumors and lies?:confused:

James Banta

05-07-2010, 05:51 PM

Apparently you trust this "pack of rumors and lies" to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates. Also this is completely besides the point. If any of the co-conspirators or enemies of the church had even the slightest indication that Joseph Smith began a translation of these fraudulent plates they would not wait to expose him as a fraud.

I only use what the LDS church says is it's own history.. If you tell me that your own church records are lies and rumors.. That's fine with me.. But since the BofM the D&C and the PofGP are from the same source (Joseph Smith to a scribe) then these too are a pack of rumors and lies.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 07:01 PM

Originally you said that you "only use what the LDS church says is it's own history" and "It doesn't matter if Smith wrote it himself or he has his historian do so it is a record of his words and actions." You also disputed my claim that it was a second hand source by saying "Second hand? This has become part of the History of the church."

I only use what the LDS church says is it's own history. If you tell me that your own church records are lies and rumors. That's fine with me.. But since the Book of Mormon the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price are from the same source (Joseph Smith to a scribe) then these too are a pack of rumors and lies. IHS Jim
That is from the History of your church. It is controlled and published by your church. There is no secondary source here it is a 100% Mormon source and you treat it like Sandra Tanner was your church's historian. It doesn't matter if Smith wrote it himself or he has his historian do so it is a record of his words and actions. IHS Jim
Second hand? This has become part of the History of the church. If it was false why would the church include it or keep it in that document? More inconsistencies from Mormonism! IHS Jim

Then you say that "But what I am saying the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church."

I don't think any of Smith enemies at that time had the access to the History of the church we have today. But what am I saying the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church. IHS Jim

Now you reverse yourself and say that "I only use what the LDS church says is it's own history." And please don't say that I ever claimed that "own church records are lies and rumors". That might be okay with you to use a disinformation campaign against me but it is not okay with me. What is okay with me is your use of Penguin Logic.

I only use what the Latter-day Saint church says is it's own history. If you tell me that your own church records are lies and rumors. That's fine with me. But since the Book of Mprmon the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price are from the same source (Joseph Smith to a scribe) then these too are a pack of rumors and lies. IHS Jim

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 07:51 PM

Here is what you need to understand. You are on my permanent ignore list. Do not try and elicit any further response from me. I am only doing this as a courtesy to you.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 08:13 AM

Apparently you trust this "pack of rumors and lies" to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates.
ALL of the information for this specific issue that I have used has been OFFICIAL LDS material, such as History of the Church quotes and the Ensign. Are you equating these materials as a "pack of rumors and lies"?

Richard

05-08-2010, 08:37 AM

Hi Janet. Check the CARM board.

Oh yea, dad post here.

R/J

RealFakeHair

05-08-2010, 09:13 AM

Here is what you need to understand. You are on my permanent ignore list. Do not try and elicit any further response from me. I am only doing this as a courtesy to you.

and remember you can't kind nothing when nothing is around.:)

James Banta

05-08-2010, 10:41 AM

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 10:53 AM

You misunderstand as usual. You said "Apparently you trust this "pack of rumors and lies" to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates." It is Mesenja that is calling Mormon history a "pack of rumors and lies". I was willing to think it was based on some level of truth. You want it to be lie not me. IHS Jim

Neither did you misunderstand my position. You are deliberately twisting my words to suit your purpose. I am only responding to your previous post saying that "the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church."

But what am I saying the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church. IHS Jim

You know this and I know this. Don't play games with me James. You're not clever enough to fool me or anyone else.

James Banta

05-08-2010, 12:03 PM

Neither did you misunderstand my position. You are deliberately twisting my words to suit your purpose. I am only responding to your previous post saying that "the History of the church is a pack of rumors and lies. It can't be trusted as the real events of the works of Joseph Smith and church."

You know this and I know this. Don't play games with me James. You're not clever enough to fool me or anyone else.

See you didn't understand.. When I said that it was a question.. When you said it I don't know what it was excepted to be unless it was a way to bail on the information that is recorded in it about the Kinderhook plates..

No, I am not clever.. I am very thick, and need people to explain what they mean.. From what I see here you should confess that you are my peer in that position..

Still the question exists.. Do you see the History of the church as being a pack of lies, or is it a reliable history of the events of the early church and the dealing of Joseph Smith? IHS jim

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 12:55 PM

See you didn't understand. When I said that it was a question. When you said it I don't know what it was excepted to be unless it was a way to bail on the information that is recorded in it about the Kinderhook plates. No,I am not clever. I am very thick,and need people to explain what they mean. From what I see here you should confess that you are my peer in that position. Still the question exists. Do you see the History of the church as being a pack of lies,or is it a reliable history of the events of the early church and the dealing of Joseph Smith? IHS Jim

You never asked a question. You used my statement that "Apparently you [James] trust this 'pack of rumors and lies' to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates" which was only quoting what you said and completely distorted it's meaning to imply that "It is Mesenja that is calling Mormon history a 'pack of rumors and lies. I was willing to think it was based on some level of truth."

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 12:59 PM

ALL of the information for this specific issue that I have used has been OFFICIAL LDS material,such as History of the Church quotes and the Ensign. Are you equating these materials as a "pack of rumors and lies"?

It wont work with me Billy. Go play these juvenile games with someone else.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 01:16 PM

It wont work with me Billy. Go play these juvenile games with someone else.

I don't think this is a juvenile game or a unimportant topic. Joseph Smith claims the ability to translated and we don't have the Golden plates or any other ancient B of M m****cripts to validate his translating ability. We do have the Kinderhook plates and we do have a abbreviated summary statement by leaders in the LDS church which are reported to us by official LDS documents that tell us what was in these plates. Joseph's translation is clearly wrong OR the official LDS documents are wrong. Either way there is a problem.

Richard

05-08-2010, 08:35 PM

I don't believe you!! I am ignoring verse 19 even though there is a great message there. The foundation of the Church IS the apostles and prophets,Yes. But the prophets that were until John and then the Apostles chosen by God Himself. Do I need to number then again or show you that the name of the twelve are written on the gates of the New City or what it is to quifify as an Apostle?

Biblically I thought you were ready to admit that your churches apostles were not equal in authority to the original 11 plus Matthias. That they could be only an apostle like Paul but then only if they have seen and spoken to the risen Lord.. I doubt that happened to any of your apostles, heck I even deny that.

Once a foundation is laid that is where the building is built.. You don't build it for a century of two and then lay in more foundation. Remember when Jesus said that Abraham Issac and Jacob were the living and not the dead (Matthew 22:32)? And if were were called to keep mortal apostles living among us shouldn't the same be said for a chief cornerstone? So why does mormonism elect a new Jesus? Start THINKING.. IHS jim

Being a General Contractor James Banta, (Ancient Mariner), I have laid many a foundation and the materials hardly ever change, and once poured it is usually for the life of the building.

Foundation. Dug and formed by God
Material called out by God
Poured into place by God

Can the Foundation be added to? yes. Why would we expect to add to the foundation? Well like the Gospel it is bound to grow and expand and has need to support more members. Does that change the foundation? nope the cornerstone is still there, (Christ). How is it tied together? with pins and re-bar, (Priesthood Authority). Does it weaken the foundation? hardly. You see James, the foundation you seek after was corrupted by those who wanted a new building, they took away the authority and power that once was the cornerstone, (Christ) and in theory conceptually decided that the old cornerstone was not important anymore, and a new and better foundation was added by man. We call that the Creeds, Precepts and corruption that crept into the new building which was patterned after the man who built upon sand and was destroyed when truth rained down and there was nothing to support it anymore, hence the need for a restoration of the old building built once before upon a more and sure foundation that again started with the cornerstone of Christ with power and authority once denied by evil men.

RJ to you James. :-)

James Banta

05-08-2010, 09:12 PM

Being a General Contractor James Banta, (Ancient Mariner), I have laid many a foundation and the materials hardly ever change, and once poured it is usually for the life of the building.

Foundation. Dug and formed by God
Material called out by God
Poured into place by God

Can the Foundation be added to? yes. Why would we expect to add to the foundation? Well like the Gospel it is bound to grow and expand and has need to support more members. Does that change the foundation? nope the cornerstone is still there, (Christ). How is it tied together? with pins and re-bar, (Priesthood Authority). Does it weaken the foundation? hardly. You see James, the foundation you seek after was corrupted by those who wanted a new building, they took away the authority and power that once was the cornerstone, (Christ) and in theory conceptually decided that the old cornerstone was not important anymore, and a new and better foundation was added by man. We call that the Creeds, Precepts and corruption that crept into the new building which was patterned after the man who built upon sand and was destroyed when truth rained down and there was nothing to support it anymore, hence the need for a restoration of the old building built once before upon a more and sure foundation that again started with the cornerstone of Christ with power and authority once denied by evil men.

RJ to you James. :-)

So Janet, you want to hold the same, but different corner stone and call all the Apostles and prophets he has already called corrupt.. Or is it just the word that came though them that you call corrupt? If that is the corruption why do you still use it? If it isn't all corrupt as the BofM would prove out can you list the corrupt parts? IHS jim

grindael

05-09-2010, 10:21 AM

Now you are starting to tell fibs Billy. The Clayton Journal is the only source that ever mentions anything about a partial translation. Let's stick to the facts.

Pratt in his letter said this:

“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.”

This is a partial translation, related by Pratt.

Richard

05-09-2010, 10:56 AM

So Janet, you want to hold the same, but different corner stone and call all the Apostles and prophets he has already called corrupt.. Or is it just the word that came though them that you call corrupt? If that is the corruption why do you still use it? If it isn't all corrupt as the BofM would prove out can you list the corrupt parts? IHS jim

Well ancient mariner (Chuckle) you have your foundation built upon the Creeds of man, and we have the restored foundation with Christ, Priesthood and power. I like the latter, it's more to my liken as explained plainly in the Bible.

RJ.

Richard

05-09-2010, 11:00 AM

Novato, you can testify until you turn blue in the face but the facts are the facts and these facts are from your own leaders and LDS publications. The translation of the Kinderhook Plates by Joseph Smith is an important topic because it is one of the few existing m****cripts that can be cross checked to see how good a translator Joseph really was. If you believe that the History of the Church quote which has a partial summary translation of the Kinderhook Plates then this clearly shows that Joseph was NOT an inspired prophet of God who was able to translate these plates. Joseph Smith's translation ability can't be tested for the Book of Mormon because the Golden Plates were magically taken back to heaven and there is not a single ancient m****cript for the Book of Mormon to cross check his translation. The Book of Abraham m****cripts are existing today but LDS back out of this by saying that the portion that was translated is currently missing despite the Alphabet and Grammar document which clearly ***ociate characters with lines from the Book of Abraham.

Don't you just wish JS really had translated them, my gosh what a huge plus for you guys. When you find the translations please notify us.

Rj>

Richard

05-09-2010, 11:05 AM

The Question of Translation
But what does the above conclusion mean in relationship to the earlier references to a “translation” of the Kinderhook plates by Joseph Smith? Did he actually attempt to translate any of the plates?

To answer that question, it is necessary to look at the events of April and May 1843 in sequence:

The plates were “discovered” on Sunday, 23 April 1843, and taken home by Dr. Harris for cleaning, Then, according to a story in the Quincy Whig, they were exhibited in Quincy during the following week. 11

There is some question about who brought the plates to Nauvoo. The Quincy, Illinois, certificate printed in the Times and Seasons article said, “The above described plates we have handed to Mr. Sharp [a Latter-day Saint present at the excavation] for the purpose of taking them to Nauvoo.” However, Wilbur Fugate wrote in his 1879 letter: “The Mormons wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go. Some time afterward a man ***uming the name of Savage, of Quincy, borrowed the plates of Wiley to show to his literary friends there, and took them to Joe Smith. The same identical plates were returned to Wiley.”

Charlotte Haven, a somewhat antagonistic non-Mormon who was visiting her sister (a Mormon) in Nauvoo at the time, wrote a letter on May 2 that gives the following account:

“We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore, who p***es through that place and this in his monthly zigzag tours through the State, traveling horseback. His last call on us was last Sa****ay [April 29] and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of br***, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like writing, and strange figures like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them.” 12

It is possible, then, that Mr. Joshua Moore was the one who obtained the plates by pretense and brought them to Nauvoo. In any event, the plates had apparently arrived in Nauvoo by Sa****ay, April 29, and had been shown to Joseph Smith.

William Clayton evidently had access to the plates at some point, for in his journal entry of Monday, May 1, he included a tracing of one of the plates. (Whether or not he was present when Joseph Smith saw the plates is unknown.) Two days later, on Wednesday, Brigham Young also drew an outline of one of the Kinderhook plates in a small notebook/diary that he kept. Inside the drawing he wrote: “May 3—1843. I had this at Joseph Smith’s house. Found near Quincy.” 13

Very soon afterward the plates were removed from Nauvoo, for the Times and Seasons editorial, which was written perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday (May 3 or 4), said: “Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac simile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning with them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it.”

The plates were apparently in Nauvoo, then, from Sa****ay the 29th through Wednesday the 3rd—a period of five days—and were then taken away. Later, however, they were evidently returned to Nauvoo for a time, for by June 24 the Nauvoo Neighbor press had access to them and was thus able to produce facsimiles for the published broadside. A History of the Church entry for Sunday, May 7, says: “In the forenoon I [Joseph Smith] was visited by several gentlemen, concerning the plates that were dug out near Kinderhook.” 14 Whether or not the plates were actually returned on that day—or indeed, whether Joseph Smith himself ever had the plates again—is uncertain.

In any case, the translation for which hope had been expressed in the Times and Seasons did not appear. In a letter dated April 8, 1878, Wilbur Fugate recalled: “We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.” Furthermore, a review of other entries in Joseph Smith’s history indicate that he was occupied during the following weeks with mayoral duties, Church business, the Nauvoo Legion, and four different trips to neighboring cities; there is no indication of translating activities. 15 Then on June 23, just one day before publication of the broadside that repeated the Saints’ hopeful expectation of an eventual translation, the Prophet was abducted by Missourians who tried to get him to Missouri for prosecution on charges of “treason.” He made it back to Nauvoo on June 30, but the habeas corpus proceedings took up more than two weeks of his time.

Just when the plates were taken from Nauvoo for the second and perhaps final time is uncertain. But we know that by fall of that same year they were back in Robert Wiley’s possession, for on November 15 he wrote a letter to one J. J. Harding suggesting that he was interested in selling the plates to “the National Ins***ute,” and that he was also interested in the “opinions of your different Entiquarian friends.” In reference to having the plates examined by “the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England,” Wilbur Fugate went on to say: “They were sent and the answer was that there were no such Hyeroglyphics known, and if there ever had been, they had long since p***ed away. Then Smith began his translation.” (The reference to Joseph Smith having begun a “translation” of the plates is in error, since they were never returned to Nauvoo. The Prophet died a martyr the following year.)

However, the question of when the plates were taken from Nauvoo is not as important as the fact that they were taken away. In spite of the considerable excitement they generated in Nauvoo after their “discovery” the plates were allowed to leave the Saints, apparently without fanfare. No known record exists which intimates that Joseph Smith or those around him ever purchased or attempted to purchase the plates (as were the mummies ***ociated with the Book of Abraham papyrus), even though their owner, Wiley, was prepared to sell them.

That the plates had aroused interest in Nauvoo is evident from two accounts that were not published until years later. In a letter written to a friend on Sunday, May 7, Parley P. Pratt said: “A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” A few lines previously, he had begun his comment on the plates as follows:

“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.” 16

This calls to mind the statement from the William Clayton journal referred to above:

“I have seen six br*** plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth which was nine feet high. … President 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.”

It seems, then, that there was considerable talk about the plates in Nauvoo—and apparently as much misinformation and hearsay was current among people as there was fact. Pratt heard of a discovery in Pike County; Clayton said Adams County. Clayton said that the find was made six feet underground; Pratt, fifteen. Elder Pratt spoke of a cement vase—an item mentioned in no other account. Clayton mentioned a skeleton nine feet tall—also unmentioned in any other account. Clayton said that the plates gave a history of an Egyptian; Pratt mentioned a Jaredite.

Richard

05-09-2010, 11:06 AM

The elements that these two accounts have in common suggest a basic jist to the hearsay stories circulating in Nauvoo and also that Joseph Smith with others saw and wondered about the nature of the material that had been brought to Nauvoo. But there is, obviously, leagues of difference between an actual translation of sacred records and a consideration of artifacts of uncertain origin—the former requiring study, prayer, and revelation; the latter characterized perhaps by an examination for points of similarity, etc., in a setting where various suggestions are likely aired by those present and elaborated on as discussion continued. And the actual presence of William Clayton or Parley P. Pratt in any discussion on the topic with Joseph Smith is simply unknown.

It is hard to imagine that the Prophet Joseph Smith wouldn’t have been intrigued by the plates. When they were first shown to him, he may well have noted certain correspondence between some characters on the plates and “reformed Egyptian” and contemplated the possibility of authenticity and translation, as the Charlotte Haven letter suggests. 17 But how much of the conjecture that was current in Nauvoo at the time might be attributable to him would be a speculation in itself, impossible to verify from the available accounts. The one account that was published in the Times and Seasons, whose editors were equally as intimate with Joseph Smith as William Clayton and Parley P. Pratt, could only report that “Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is we have not yet ascertained.”

The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected “translation” did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting—that it was never carried to completion. That the Kinderhook plates were not authentic artifacts is no longer in doubt; but if the plates were faked, why wasn’t the hoax revealed right away?

It has been suggested that the whole Kinderhook plate incident was, as Wilbur Fugate said in his 1878 and 1879 letters, a heavy-handed, frontier-style “joke.” On the other hand, the conspirators’ objective might have been more pointed—to produce a bogus set of plates and then reveal the hoax in a shower of ridicule after the Prophet made a purported “translation.” In either case, they were frustrated in their scheme because no translation ever appeared. In fact, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever concluded the plates were genuine, other than conflicting statements from members who hoped that a translation would come forth—and in fact no evidence that the Prophet manifested real interest in the “discovery” after his initial viewing of the plates. The statement taken from William Clayton’s journal didn’t appear until September 1856 in Salt Lake City’s Deseret News. At that point, time itself had eroded away the opportunity for a hearty joke, if that were the hoaxers’ intent; and the absence of an actual translation in spite of the Clayton entry in the “History of Joseph Smith” could only have added to their frustrations—***uming that the hoaxers even knew of the Deseret News account, which appeared thirteen years later and a thousand miles away.

Another possible explanation for the hoax never having been carried through may lie in Robert Wiley’s desire to sell the plates as genuine artifacts. For him to have exposed the hoax before the attempted sale would, of course, have scuttled any negotiations; and to expose it afterward may have landed the sellers and conspirators in jail for attempted fraud—turning the tables and making them the object of ridicule instead of Joseph Smith.

Significantly, there is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever took up the matter with the Lord, as he did when working with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. And this brings us to the other side of the story, for those of us who believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet: Isn’t it natural to expect that he would be guided to understand that these plates were not of value as far as his mission was concerned? That other members may have been less judicious and not guided in the same way cannot be laid at the Prophet’s feet. Many people, now as well as then, have an appe***e for hearsay and a hope for “easy evidence” to bolster or even subs***ute for personal spirituality and hard-won faith that comes from close familiarity with truth and communion with God.

So it is that in the 100-year battle of straw men and straw arguments, Joseph Smith needs no defense—he simply did not fall for the scheme. And with that understood, it is perhaps time that the Kinderhook plates be retired to the limbo of other famous faked antiquities.

Mesenja

05-09-2010, 11:25 AM

I don't think this is a juvenile game or a unimportant topic. Joseph Smith claims the ability to translated and we don't have the Golden plates or any other ancient Book of Mormon m****cripts to validate his translating ability. We do have the Kinderhook plates and we do have a abbreviated summary statement by leaders in the LDS church which are reported to us by official LDS documents that tell us what was in these plates. Joseph's translation is clearly wrong OR the official LDS documents are wrong. Either way there is a problem.

Trying to ascribe to me a statement I neither said or endorsed is both juvenile and a waste of time.

Billyray

05-09-2010, 11:34 AM

Trying to ascribe to me a statement I neither said or endorsed is both juvenile and a waste of time.

OK. Now would you like to make a comment about my prior post OR would you rather p***?

. . .Joseph Smith claims the ability to translated and we don't have the Golden plates or any other ancient B of M m****cripts to validate his translating ability. We do have the Kinderhook plates and we do have a abbreviated summary statement by leaders in the LDS church which are reported to us by official LDS documents that tell us what was in these plates. Joseph's translation is clearly wrong OR the official LDS documents are wrong. Either way there is a problem.

James Banta

05-09-2010, 12:22 PM

Well ancient mariner (Chuckle) you have your foundation built upon the Creeds of man, and we have the restored foundation with Christ, Priesthood and power. I like the latter, it's more to my liken as explained plainly in the Bible.

RJ.

This is either an example that you don't know what you are talking about or you are being purposely deceptive.. I guess you now what I think of those two choices..

The Church's foundation is the Prophets and the Apostles, The Jesus is the God who is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2). He is Power, and He alone in the High Priest offering blood for the sin of the world. But mormonism insistence that Jesus is a creation of yet another created god. This makes the Jesus of mormonism just as finite as all the rest of us..

And yes I have heard the argument that He always was so that fulfills the Psalm 90 p***age, but does it? That p***age doesn't say that He always existed but that He always existed as God.. I guess you just gloss over that part of the p***age. It doesn't fit what mormonism teaches about who God is.. Therefore because mormonism (Smith) has changed the nature of God from what he once held:

2 Nephi 31:21
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
Into what he taught later in 1843:
B]
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)[/B]
He must be seen for the Polytheist these teaching make him out to be. This is a huge problem. Which Joseph Smith do we believe, the one who said God is one God or the one that said God is plural, three Gods?

The Christian Church believes in one God as the BofM and the Bible both attest to. Joseph Smith slid from proper Christian doctrine concerning God into out and out polytheism and showed himself to be a false prophet falling in condemnation of Deut 18. Then to add to the foundation Jesus laid for the Church in the Prophets and Apostles He chose, Smith appointed new apostles that couldn't meet the requirements of:

Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
It's time to set aside these commandments of men you are so addicted to just trust Jesus in His word He promised to keep pure for us.. No one can become one of the twelve unless they can meet those qualifications.. No man alive since the end of the second century has been able to say they can.. Your foundation is false. It is built of the dreams and wishes of a false prophet. IHS jim

grindael

05-09-2010, 01:25 PM

I find the description of Charlotte Haven by Richard (from whatever source he is quoting from) as antagonistic typical. She just didn't buy into Smith's phoney con-game. What IS interesting, is this little tid-bit, where she makes an astute observation about someone that Smith had the utmost confidence in - at least for awhile. Let's see how far off the mark she was, and then maybe we can apply the same to her observations about Smith:

“We have seen but little of the Judge this summer. We think he has been around the country, electioneering for the Whig party. Last Sunday afternoon, to our surprise, he made his appearance. He told us Joseph Smith was talking as he p***ed the grove, so Miss S_____ and I soon had our bonnets on and were on our way to the grove. Mr. Smith had evidently been giving a political discourse. As we seated ourselves he was most vehemently berating the lawyers as a pack of hounds and extortioners, who corrupt the people, deceive by vain words, like Judas are ready to be bought or sold -- for less than thirty pieces of silver. "Yes," he says, "even like Esau, for a mess of pottage; they will sell themselves for a promise of some little office to a politician, no matter how corrupt he may be. Instead of dealing justice, they promote strife and envy, and rob the widow and fatherless. Now, if any of you have any difficulties to settle, there are in the Church apostles, prophets, and teachers, men appointed by the spirit of revelation, who will settle all disputes without money and without price."

From the lawyers he turned to the doctors, whom he termed "a parcel of ******** quacks, going about the country pretending to cure you of all diseases, and you swallow what they give you like young robins, without knowing what it is. I wonder you don't die, taking their nostrums! They are wolves in sheep's clothing, seeking whom they may devour. Have we not many gifts vouchsafed to us, among which is healing the sick by the laying on of hands, in which you ought to have faith? Why, there is more virtue in the laying on of my handkerchief than in all the doctors' so-called medicines," -- and he took from his pocket and flourished before us a very dingy affair. " But," he added, "if any of you are so wedded to the gods of your fathers, and can't do without a doctor, I advise you to have Dr. Bennett, one of our faith, who has just come among us with high recommendations."

I had noticed a gentleman seated on the platform just behind the speaker. On this introduction he stepped forward to Joseph's side, and bowed graciously low to the audience. He was apparently about fifty years old, slightly gray, with a decided military bearing. I thought he looked much more like a wolf in sheep's clothing than any Gentile doctor I had seen here.”

Funny, how Ms. Haven saw through Bennett when even the great Mormon Prophet could not. The description of her could not be more wrong, and I found her letters interesting and intelligent. Here is what she said about Smith, a first hand account from one not taken in by the con:

"Joseph Smith is a large, stout man, youthful in his appearance, with light complexion and hair, and blue eyes set far back in the head, and expressing great shrewdness, or I should say, cunning. He has a large head and phrenologists would unhesitatingly pronounce it a bad one, for the organs situated in the back part are decidedly the most prominent. He is also very round-shouldered. He had just returned from Springfield, where he has been upon trial for some crime of which he was accused while in Missouri, but he was released by habeas corpus. I, who had expected to be overwhelmed by his eloquence, was never more disappointed than when he commenced his discourse by relating all the incidents of his journey. This he did in a loud voice, and his language and manner were the co****st possible. His object seemed to be to amuse and excite laughter in his audience. He is evidently a great egotist and boaster, for he frequently remarked that at every place he stopped going to and from Springfield people crowded around him, and expressed surprise that he was so "handsome and good looking." He also exclaimed at the close of almost every sentence, "That's the idea! " I could not but with wonder and pity look upon that motley and eager crowd that surrounded me, as I thought, "Can it be possible that so many of my poor fellow mortals are satisfied with such food for their immortal souls?"

I found her believable, and her observations about the Kinderhook plates credible in the light of what Clayton reported in his journal THAT HE GOT FROM JOSEPH. So, either Clayton is a liar, or Smith told him what he wrote down. That is the bottom line here, and all the speculation in the world won't change the fact that Clayton wrote what he did AND ATTRIBUTED IT TO SMITH.

Richard

05-09-2010, 06:17 PM

I found her believable, and her observations about the Kinderhook plates credible in the light of what Clayton reported in his journal THAT HE GOT FROM JOSEPH. So, either Clayton is a liar, or Smith told him what he wrote down. That is the bottom line here, and all the speculation in the world won't change the fact that Clayton wrote what he did AND ATTRIBUTED IT TO SMITH.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you found her believable since she also witnessed the Papyri and what we have now in our possession, which doesn't seem to jive with her description. Which makes her a good witness for the fact that there was a whole lot more to the Papyri, meaning a much longer roll and even more figures.
So she is creditable with the facts about the Papyri, Interesting.

When Charlotte Haven saw the papyri in February 1843, she described seeing "a long roll of m****cript" and seeing "hieroglyphics from another roll.

The next year, in 1843, a nonmember named Charlotte Haven visited Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to her own mother about it:

Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of m****cript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like p***ages from the Old Testament—and it might have been for anything we knew—but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who—the serpent, I mean—was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear.

grindael

05-10-2010, 01:22 PM

[COLOR="Green"][B][I]I'm glad you found her believable since she also witnessed the Papyri and what we have now in our possession, which doesn't seem to jive with her description. Which makes her a good witness for the fact that there was a whole lot more to the Papyri, meaning a much longer roll and even more figures.
So she is creditable with the facts about the Papyri, Interesting.
.

I've never disputed there was more than one papyri Richard. What I do dispute is that the other one which Smith said was the 'Book of Joseph', had the writings of Joseph on it OR WAS USED TO WRITE THE BOA. The one he used for the Book of Abraham (proof of this is the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar) shows he had no skill at all as a translator. But her testimony puts Mormons in a dilemma, for Ms. Haven, corroborates that Smith believed and said the papyri were 4500 years old, had the writing of Abraham & Moses, etc. etc. (See Josiah Quincy's account). The story of The Roll of Joseph being used for the current BOA is a Mormon fairytale, to divert attention from the fact that Smith was a phony.

Mesenja

05-11-2010, 03:09 PM

And? Clayton was with Smith,was a reliable witness, was called to write down all that Smith said and did.

The quote in question was from a journal entry he made on 1 May 1843. If you compare William Clayton's account to that of Parley P. Pratt's you find that they differ on 6 points of which only one fact was correct. The plates were found in Pike county. If William Clayton gave an actual account of the events that happened in his journal then the only logical conclusion to this was the unlikely prospect that Joseph Smith had no knowledge of the actual events or with any of those present at the dig.

grindael

05-12-2010, 03:18 AM

The quote in question was from a journal entry he made on 1 May 1843. If you compare William Clayton's account to that of Parley P. Pratt's you find that they differ on 6 points of which only one fact was correct. The plates were found in Pike county. If William Clayton gave an actual account of the events that happened in his journal then the only logical conclusion to this was the unlikely prospect that Joseph Smith had no knowledge of the actual events or with any of those present at the dig.

So, Clayton was LYING in his journal? He was with Smith all day. Your conclusion is interesting, but I'll still let Clayton's journal speak for itself.

Richard

05-12-2010, 08:15 AM

Into what he taught later in 1843:
B]
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)[/B]

He must be seen for the Polytheist these teaching make him out to be. This is a huge problem. Which Joseph Smith do we believe, the one who said God is one God or the one that said God is plural, three Gods?

Nope, as we see this Christian who must believe that God is invisible, yet His incarnate Jesus Christ is a God of Flesh and Bone, LOL at how you accept the Creeds of Man.

The Christian Church believes in one God as the BofM and the Bible both attest to. Joseph Smith slid from proper Christian doctrine concerning God into out and out polytheism and showed himself to be a false prophet falling in condemnation of Deut 18. Then to add to the foundation Jesus laid for the Church in the Prophets and Apostles He chose, Smith appointed new apostles that couldn't meet the requirements of:

Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
It's time to set aside these commandments of men you are so addicted to just trust Jesus in His word He promised to keep pure for us.. No one can become one of the twelve unless they can meet those qualifications.. No man alive since the end of the second century has been able to say they can.. Your foundation is false. It is built of the dreams and wishes of a false prophet. IHS jim[/QUOTE]

Yep, I worship one God the Father as did Jesus Christ honor the Father in the Scriptures and worshiped him also.
Your foundation is a Creed and have been proven over and over to be a false foundation that can't support the false building erected, and it will come down eventually to rain upon you the dread of having to acknowledge you were fooled by the precepts of man.

RJ, chuckle.

James Banta

05-12-2010, 08:33 AM

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b6a8aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Not one word in the article of the content included in the 1909 History of the church.. (Intresting) IHS jim

Richard

05-12-2010, 08:44 AM

Not one word in the article of the content included in the 1909 History of the church.. (Intresting) IHS jim

But it is a authorized Web Site Ancient Mariner. Interesting.

Jan oh, I mean Richard.

James Banta

05-12-2010, 09:16 AM

But it is a authorized Web Site Ancient Mariner. Interesting.

Jan oh, I mean Richard.

Whoops almost told the truth there for a second Richard.. We couldn't have that now could we..

No it wasn't an authorized web site the Church won't make an authorized printing of ANYTHING that isn't promoting of faith in their lies.. You understand lies very well as I have have seen these past few weeks..

Corver up the facts hide all the warts that is the example I have seem from mormonism.. Those that follow it closely don't seem to have any problem in following that example..
IHS jim

Mesenja

05-13-2010, 11:53 PM

So,Clayton was LYING in his journal? He was with Smith all day. Your conclusion is interesting,but I'll still let Clayton's journal speak for itself.

Also William Clayton was with Joseph Smith much of the day but not all day.

grindael

05-14-2010, 01:07 AM

Also William Clayton was with Joseph Smith much of the day but not all day.

Yeah, he probably had to make some trips to the bathroom and such.. And later that eve he was by himself when the prophet was on a date with one of his young .... prospects...

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 10:03 AM

Yeah,he probably had to make some trips to the bathroom and such. And later that eve he was by himself when the prophet was on a date with one of his young prospects.

There is no primary evidence Joseph Smith said the Kinderhook plates are authentic or that there was any translation made by the prophet. William Clayton's entry in his diary was a products of the "rumor mill."

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 10:16 AM

No kidding--they were made by Parley P Pratt and William Clayton as noted below. Also note that William Clayton states that "President 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. . ."

Parley P Pratt

“Six plates having the appearance of Br*** have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.”

William Clayton

“I have seen six br*** plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth which was nine feet high. … President 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.”

By the way in order for your story to check out three separate pieces of evidence must be flat out wrong.

1. Parley P Pratt
2. William Clayton
3. History of the Church quote

He simply did not fall for the scheme by translating the plates. This hoax was never carried to completion.

Although this [first-person] account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith,it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources,collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah,then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.”

It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example,the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion.

The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith's involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected "translation" did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting — that it was never carried to completion.

So it is that in the 100-year battle of straw men and straw arguments,Joseph Smith needs no defense — he simply did not fall for the scheme.

[Excerpts from Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax By Stanley B. Kimball;Ensign»1981 »August]

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 10:26 AM

OK. Now would you like to make a comment about my prior post OR would you rather p***?

"It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print." [Excerpts from Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax By Stanley B. Kimball;Ensign»1981»August]

Billyray

05-14-2010, 12:32 PM

"It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work,even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him;thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print." [Excerpts from Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax By Stanley B. Kimball;Ensign»1981»August]

This leaves you with the second option, that the History of the Church is wrong? Is that your position?

grindael

05-14-2010, 12:48 PM

This leaves you with the second option, that the History of the Church is wrong? Is that your position?

Obviously, some will read the evidence and choose not to believe it. They will say Clayton, called by Smith to virtually 'shadow' him where ever he went, just wrote down a 'rumor' that Smith translated a portion of them. The fact is, he did, Clayton wrote it down, and all the denials in the world, and all the 'spin' in the world can't change it.

Russianwolfe

05-14-2010, 01:58 PM

Also William Clayton was with Joseph Smith much of the day but not all day.

And Br. Clayton was reporting what he had heard, not necessarily what he had witnessed. It was, after all, his personal journal and not the journal he was keeping for Joseph. You will not find in any journal kept by Br. Clayton for Joseph Smith any reference to the plates being translated.

Marvin

Billyray

05-14-2010, 02:00 PM

Obviously, some will read the evidence and choose not to believe it. They will say Clayton, called by Smith to virtually 'shadow' him where ever he went, just wrote down a 'rumor' that Smith translated a portion of them. The fact is, he did, Clayton wrote it down, and all the denials in the world, and all the 'spin' in the world can't change it.

A major problem that I had with Mormonism is the deceit when it came to writings of LDS leaders in LDS material. If LDS people don't like something they simply say that it is not inspired or that the leader was speaking as a man or Clayton was wrong etc. And the biggest kicker is that acceptance of these leader's quotes change over time. When I was LDS I was taught that blacks were not as valiant in the pre earth life. Now this is completely denied.

Russianwolfe

05-14-2010, 02:03 PM

Obviously, some will read the evidence and choose not to believe it. They will say Clayton, called by Smith to virtually 'shadow' him where ever he went, just wrote down a 'rumor' that Smith translated a portion of them. The fact is, he did, Clayton wrote it down, and all the denials in the world, and all the 'spin' in the world can't change it.

But he didn't write it in the journal he was keeping for Joseph. He wrote in his personal journal making it his personal opinion and shows that he was not "virtually shadow[ing]" Joseph. I don't have to deny anything just look at the evidence and it's source. If he didn't write in the journal he kept for Joseph Smith, then what he wrote in his personal journal was not something he witnessed but more likely something he heard.

Marvin

RealFakeHair

05-14-2010, 02:05 PM

And Br. Clayton was reporting what he had heard, not necessarily what he had witnessed. It was, after all, his personal journal and not the journal he was keeping for Joseph. You will not find in any journal kept by Br. Clayton for Joseph Smith any reference to the plates being translated.

Marvin

All of mormonlandism is either, witness, heard, might-have, could-have, probably, evidence is forth-coming, it's faith, test0money, burning in the bosom, and gree-jello, but never anything you can sink your teeth into.:confused:

Russianwolfe

05-14-2010, 02:06 PM

This leaves you with the second option, that the History of the Church is wrong? Is that your position?

It was written to the standards of the 19th century which are very different than what we follow today. Does not mean that it is wrong just not as correct as we would do today.

Marvin

Billyray

05-14-2010, 02:10 PM

He simply did not fall for the scheme by translating the plates. This hoax was never carried to completion.

Straw man--nobody said he completed a translation of the plates. The LDS quotes say that only a portion were translated.

Joseph Smith needs no defense

Joseph Smith needs no defense.

Billy
By the way in order for your story to check out three separate pieces of evidence must be flat out wrong.

1. Parley P Pratt
2. William Clayton
3. History of the Church quote

So you agree that ALL 3 of the above were wrong? Correct?

Billyray

05-14-2010, 02:13 PM

It was written to the standards of the 19th century which are very different than what we follow today. Does not mean that it is wrong just not as correct as we would do today.

Marvin
Marvin, you say you want honest discussion? Yet you pull the answer above. Is the quote true or is it false as it stands?

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 05:46 PM

A quotation was taken from the journal of William Clayton when compiling the“History of Joseph Smith” and and as was common practice of 19th century biographers written in the first person even though Joseph Smith did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him.

In the William Clayton Diary we are told that the plates "are 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 Pharoah king of Egypt,and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Parley P. Pratt in a letter to John Van Cott said that the plates are "filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah."

Both the Parley P. Pratt and William Clayton account are problematic. Not only do they both contradict each other but the actual events that transpired.

1. Both of these accounts say that the plates were a history of Ham whose skeleton was found with the plates. Wilburn Fugate,who was one of the perpetrator's of the hoax both wrote to a Mr. Cobb and signed an affidavit on 30 June 1879 stating that "There was no skeleton found."

2. In the Parley P. Pratt account he mentions a "vase (made of Cement)" while no mention of it was made by William Clayton. The plates were not contained in a cement vase according to both the Quincy Whig and Wilburn Fugate.

3. William Clayton said that the plates were found at Adams county which was false. Parley P. Pratt gives the location of the dig as Pike county which was true.

Both of these accounts can not be correct if your theory holds true that they were either taken directly from statements made by Joseph Smith or the first hand accounts of what transpired. It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith had no knowledge of the events that transpired or with those involved with the dig. What is more probable is that William Clayton was basing his accounts on rumors about the Kinderhook Plates.

An excerpt from the Clayton journal stating that “President J. has translated a portion …” is the only proof to support the claim of a partial translation. This is contradicted by a broadside or poster published in June of 1843 available for sale at the Times and Seasons office stating that "The contents of the plates,together with a facsimile of the same,will be published in Times & Seasons as soon as the translation is complete.”

Mark Beesley

05-14-2010, 05:54 PM

For someone who was supposedly duped, Joseph sure lost interest in the plates fast. That fact that he insisted on authentication of the plates by independent third parties speaks volumes as to whether he was actually duped. Clayton's and Pratt's comments are inconsequential in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Joseph did not trust in the authenticity of the plates, showed little interest after their initial discovery, and there is not one single word of translation written by Joseph or a scribe contemporaneously with his supposedly having translated any portion of them.

This topic is a proverbial dead horse. Educated critics of LDS Christian theology don't touch it.

Billyray

05-14-2010, 06:01 PM

This topic is a proverbial dead horse. Educated critics of LDS Christian theology don't touch it.
Mark just because you say it is a dead horse does not make it such. This subject is important because it shows either: 1. That Joseph could not translate based on the short portion as noted by Clayton OR 2. That you can't really trust multiple LDS sources for accuracy.

Mark Beesley

05-14-2010, 06:06 PM

Mark just because you say it is a dead horse does not make it such. This subject is important because it shows either: 1. That Joseph could not translate based on the short portion as noted by Clayton OR 2. That you can't really trust multiple LDS sources for accuracy.
Oh, I think it shows a couple of other things, neither of which is particularly important. :cool:

grindael

05-15-2010, 12:52 PM

And how does anyone know is Smith further elaborated to Pratt? No one does. It still does not change the facts of what the two men wrote, and that Clayton said it came from Smith.

Richard

05-18-2010, 08:11 AM

Whoops almost told the truth there for a second Richard.. We couldn't have that now could we..

No it wasn't an authorized web site the Church won't make an authorized printing of ANYTHING that isn't promoting of faith in their lies.. You understand lies very well as I have have seen these past few weeks..

Corver up the facts hide all the warts that is the example I have seem from mormonism.. Those that follow it closely don't seem to have any problem in following that example..
IHS jim

Want to talk about your favorite topic Ancient Mariner, adultery? Accuse someone falsely? Hmmm, very interesting.

James Banta

05-18-2010, 11:26 AM

Nope, as we see this Christian who must believe that God is invisible, yet His incarnate Jesus Christ is a God of Flesh and Bone, LOL at how you accept the Creeds of Man.

The Christian Church believes in one God as the BofM and the Bible both attest to. Joseph Smith slid from proper Christian doctrine concerning God into out and out polytheism and showed himself to be a false prophet falling in condemnation of Deut 18. Then to add to the foundation Jesus laid for the Church in the Prophets and Apostles He chose, Smith appointed new apostles that couldn't meet the requirements of:

Acts 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
It's time to set aside these commandments of men you are so addicted to just trust Jesus in His word He promised to keep pure for us.. No one can become one of the twelve unless they can meet those qualifications.. No man alive since the end of the second century has been able to say they can.. Your foundation is false. It is built of the dreams and wishes of a false prophet. IHS jim

Yep, I worship one God the Father as did Jesus Christ honor the Father in the Scriptures and worshiped him also.
Your foundation is a Creed and have been proven over and over to be a false foundation that can't support the false building erected, and it will come down eventually to rain upon you the dread of having to acknowledge you were fooled by the precepts of man.

RJ, chuckle. [/QUOTE]

The Father can be called God and properly so for so He is.. Jesus can be called God for So He is.. And yet the Bible is clear that there is One God.. You own BofM explains this as Smith wrote it before allowing the seeds of the truth to burst forth in the shallow rocky soil that was his life, and die from lack of truth..

2 Nephi 31:21
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
The Bible is clear even in the direct words of Jesus "the Lord Our God is One Lord".. And the words that cames from God through Isaiah "is there a God beside me? I know not any". So the creeds whose purpose I have told you many time restate these biblical truths and say The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one God in three Persons.. Not until you put away your idol of a Jesus Smith created in his mind and convinced you is the true God will salvation come into your life and by you to your house.. My that follow quickly is my prayer to God for you Richard... IHS jim

Mesenja

05-18-2010, 12:33 PM

I can understand the futility of trying to resurrect this non issue.

grindael

05-18-2010, 04:23 PM

I can understand the futility of trying to resurrect this non issue.

I have presented my evidence. Continual banter on your opinions will produce nothing. If you have something NEW or COMPELLING to submit, please do so, I'll be monitoring the thread.

Mesenja

05-18-2010, 06:26 PM

I have presented my evidence. Continual banter on your opinions will produce nothing. If you have something NEW or COMPELLING to submit,please do so. I'll be monitoring the thread.

Save your lecture for him. If he has something NEW or COMPELLING to submit that is on topic why doesn't he do so?

James Banta

05-18-2010, 06:29 PM

I can understand the futility of trying to resurrect this non issue.

Nonresponsive.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-18-2010, 06:40 PM

Save your lecture for him. If he has something NEW or COMPELLING to submit that is on topic why doesn't he do so?

I have also shown you from LDS documents that Smith did a quick examination of the plates showing them to be something that they were not. You won't accept that because it makes Smith look like a fool.. It's too bad that this is from your own church controlled history and not from some anti-mormon reference.. It's much harder for you to deny but still you do.. I am told that even the scripture fall in second place to the teachings of prophets but dead prophets aren't to be listened to or studied. It's because there is so many problems with their words recorded in history.. So then you see these problems you can just dismiss it all as false.. But this proves that your present leaders are all based on the lies of earlier men.. Your have no foundation at all your church is built on is sifting sand.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-18-2010, 08:53 PM

I have also shown you from LDS documents that Smith did a quick examination of the plates showing them to be something that they were not. You won't accept that because it makes Smith look like a fool. It's too bad that this is from your own church controlled history and not from some anti-mormon reference. It's much harder for you to deny but still you do. I am told that even the scripture fall in second place to the teachings of prophets but dead prophets aren't to be listened to or studied. It's because there is so many problems with their words recorded in history. So then you see these problems you can just dismiss it all as false. But this proves that your present leaders are all based on the lies of earlier men. Your have no foundation at all your church is built on is sifting sand. IHS Jim

You haven't shown any evidence that shows conclusively that Joseph Smith made a partial translation of the plates. It's not that I don't accept the documentary evidence. What I don't accept is your conclusions.

Billyray

05-18-2010, 08:55 PM

I accept the evidence. I just don't accept your conclusions.

If you accepted the evidence then you would accept what Pratt, Clayton, and the History of the Church stated. But you don't, so don't kid us.

James Banta

05-19-2010, 08:27 AM

You haven't shown any evidence that shows conclusively that Joseph Smith made a partial translation of the plates. It's not that I don't accept the documentary evidence. What I don't accept is your conclusions.

You don't accept your own LDS church controlled history, fine run toward the Lake of fire with your eye sewn shut.. I have made no conclusions I have just read what is stated in your history and held it up so that honest people can see that Smith was a fraud as much as the Kinderhook plates were a fraud..

In the rest of the History he said that he would translate them once they were certified as authentic. Why is it that a prophet who could translate the plates of the BofM and the scrolls of the BofA couldn't tell just from looking at them that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud and turn them away? Could it have been that he had no gift from God to do anything at all? That is how it looks to me.. Why didn't he just pop his magic rock back in his hat and pull out a revelation that people were out to trick him? I'll tell you why...BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A GIFT, HE WAS A FALSE PROPHET, A FALSE TEACHER, AND A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-19-2010, 08:52 AM

Want to talk about your favorite topic Ancient Mariner, adultery? Accuse someone falsely? Hmmm, very interesting.

You are a good one to talk about being false. I have still to see you confess your lies as evil before God. And yes Smith committed adultery at the drop of a hat.. Oh yes he said he married them but even before God it is not permitted to marry a women who was already the wife of another man and even had children by him.. Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young was such a woman.. She married Henry Jacobs on March 7 1841. Then on Oct 27 that same year. Shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, Zina married Brigham Young.

In May of 1846, Henry was sent on a mission to England. In Henry’s absence, Zina began to live openly as Brigham’s wife and remained so throughout her life in Utah. Henry seemed to struggle with this arrangement and later wrote to Zina:

“...the same affection is there...But I feel alone...I do not Blame Eny person...may the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham...all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph.” (In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith pgs 81)
This is out and out adultry commited firstly my Smith and then by Young. Both men claimed to be prophets of their god. And as you can see my Jacobs' letter to Zina he felf Joseph Smith was his GOD.. This is the history of your church. A church that condoned and praticed adultry as though it was righteousness. It shows where mormonism is spiritually.

Isaish 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
What more can you say about my sin? I have confessed it saw it for the evil that it was.. I don't call it good, I call it evil and have turn away from it.. You and your church still celebrate the workers of these sin as men of God.. So woe unto you since you call evil good and good evil!! IHS jim

alanmolstad

02-12-2014, 09:23 PM

I read the opening posts, but I kinda get lost in all the quotes.

Can you tell me what is the short version of this story?

James Banta

02-13-2014, 10:06 AM

I read the opening posts, but I kinda get lost in all the quotes.

Can you tell me what is the short version of this story?

A group of people made some metal plates. They said they found them in one of the mounds that dot the Midwest. Smith pronounced them as authentic and said he would translate them. before he stated to do so the plates were proven to be a fraud and then Smith said that he knew it all the time.. That is the short story. It goes to the gift and power of Smith's gift from God to bring the world the BofM.. Could he even tell if a record was an ancient record or if it was a fraud? This story attacks Smith's credibility.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

02-13-2014, 10:29 AM

ok....

Interesting....

One thing does pop up to me then.

Now the real truth is that the Mormon Golden Plates were fake,

We all know they were fake.
We all understand 100% that they were fake...

and we all know that Joe Smith made them and that he knew all the while that they were totally fake and a lie of his.

Thats a given.

But then one day he hears a story in the news that some other guys just dug up some of their own plates that look a lot like his!

Well.....if I were in Smith's place I would know right away that "Someone is copying me"
I would know that the new found plates were just as fake as the ones I made.

However....if I could get a look at them and I noticed that they kinda looked close enough to mine that they might be useful as being turned into a support for my own plates?....then I would try to be very careful in what I said about them until I knew for 100% that they were as fake as my own.

But once I was sure they were as fake as mine, (and did not actually say anything) then I could do my fake "head in the hat" trick and come out with a translation saying whatever I wanted them to say.....

Apologette

02-14-2014, 09:52 PM

This is an excellent little video on one of Smith's gravest errors, pretending he could translate the Kinderhook plates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeLlOLswyuQ

RealFakeHair

02-15-2014, 09:38 AM

This is an excellent little video on one of Smith's gravest errors, pretending he could translate the Kinderhook plates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeLlOLswyuQ

Sad, but even if Jesus came down from Heaven and preached on the streets of Salt Lake City, begging the good mormon folk to repent and come to Him, and only Him for forgiveness of their sins, the TBMs would comment to each other; "oh pay no attention to him he isn't the mormon jesus, and of course they would be correct.

Apologette

02-15-2014, 11:17 AM

Sad, but even if Jesus came down from Heaven and preached on the streets of Salt Lake City, begging the good mormon folk to repent and come to Him, and only Him for forgiveness of their sins, the TBMs would comment to each other; "oh pay no attention to him he isn't the mormon jesus, and of course they would be correct.

They are reprobate unto every good work.

alanmolstad

02-18-2014, 06:02 PM

James Banta

02-19-2014, 09:24 AM

from what people tell me of this story, (And NO I have not read the account as its mind-dulling long) But the truth is, I dont actually think that Smith was duped into thinking the new found plates were real.

You have to understand that Smith was a con-man....and if its one thing a con-man can see a mile away its the "con" of another con-man....

But I do think that there was a chance that Smith tried to use these other plates to his advantage....

Then why didn't he just expose these fraudulent plates for what they were? He would have gained a lot more credibility for doing that that saying that he could translate them. The History of the Church had a remark from Joseph Smith that says:

"I have translated a portion of [the plates] 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, p. 372)

Are you really so sure that he wasn't hoodwinked? Because of that statement recorded in volumes owned and controlled by the LDS church it appears as though Smith believed the plates were real. Alan.. I like that you are posting a lot.. It does the forum good, but please do the work to check these matters before you post.. Your posts make you sound like an LDS apologist, like Libby.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

02-19-2014, 09:50 AM

ahhhhh....um the plates were fake....and Smith could not translate squat....thus it tells me that Smith was just up to his normal bag of tricks with these new plates and saying that he translateed them.

So i dont think he was fooled about them for a moment....he was a con man and i bet he knew they were fake right away.

the fact is that had Smith thought the plates were real he would not have dared to pretend he could translate them as that would have shown that he didnt have a real clue how to translate anything....even his own plates.

I think that the moment Smith heard about the plates he knew that "Someone was copying him" as in, someone else was making fake plates just like he did.

thus the moment Smith saw the plates and knew for sure they were just as fake as the Mormon Golden Plates, he knew he actually could say he could translate them anyway he wanted.

Smith could say they translated as "Tom and Jane went up a hill with Sally" and as no one could disagree with him ( because they were fake from the beginning), Smith's translation would look real.

I think this also is why Smith did not want to go on record about what it said on the plates until after an expert had proved they said nothing.

Once Smith knew for sure that the plates did not actually say anything, then Smith could go ahead with his own fake translation and as far as his followers were concerned Smith was once again correctly translating found plates just like he said he did with the Mormon Plates.

It would fool the Mormons, but everyone else will know that Smith is just faking it like he did before.

Phoenix

02-19-2014, 02:08 PM

the fact is that had Smith thought the plates were real he would not have dared to pretend he could translate them as that would have shown that he didnt have a real clue how to translate anything....even his own plates.
...thus the moment Smith saw the plates and knew for sure they were just as fake as the Mormon Golden Plates, he knew he actually could say he could translate them anyway he wanted.

But if that were the case, wouldn't he have to worry about Fugate, Whitten, and Wiley--the guys who allegedly made those fake plates--springing their trap by confessing that the plates were fake, and that the reason they had made them was to expose Smith as a person UNABLE to translate, and in fact unable to tell real plates from fake ones?

Wasn't that supposedly their plan? If Smith was a con man, and knew right off the bat that the Kinderhook plates were made by other con men, then shouldn't he have just come right out and said "Those plates aren't authentic ancient plates" ? Wouldn't that have strengthened his reputation as an inspired man? By lying, and knowingly saying that something he knew to be faked by some anonymous hoaxers was authentic, wasn't he setting himself up for a huge fall? He had everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing that, don't you think?

Smith could say they translated as "Tom and Jane went up a hill with Sally" and as no one could disagree with him ( because they were fake from the beginning), Smith's translation would look real.
Couldn't Fugate, Whitten, and Wiley--the con men who allegedly made the plates--disagree with him by announcing that they'd made them for the purpose of exposing Smith as a fake seer? Wasn't that their stated purpose, when they finally confessed decades later?

Once Smith knew for sure that the plates did not actually say anything, then Smith could go ahead with his own fake translation and as far as his followers were concerned Smith was once again correctly translating found plates just like he said he did with the Mormon Plates.
But wouldn't he have known that there were some con men out there--the ones who made the plates--who knew they were fake? Isn't that different from the alleged scenario of the Book of Mormon plates, since in that case, if Smith was the one who made them, he didn't have to worry about anyone spilling the beans about their being fake?

It would fool the Mormons, but everyone else will know that Smith is just faking it like he did before.
But not everyone DID know that he made the Book of Mormon plates. The proof is that thousands of converts left their old churches and joined the LDS church, believing the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it and Smith claimed it was--authentic. And how would the Mormons be fooled if Fugate, Whitten, and Wiley could have proved that they had made the Kinderhook plates? Wouldn't that have disillusioned lots and lots of LDS people?

RealFakeHair

02-19-2014, 03:51 PM

alanmolstad

02-19-2014, 04:21 PM

Wasn't that supposedly their plan? If Smith was a con man, and knew right off the bat that the Kinderhook plates were made by other con men, then shouldn't he have just come right out and said "Those plates aren't authentic ancient plates"
Professional courtesy.How would he know?

Smith is no expert in real plates...
so Smith could not say for 100% sure they were fake....or they were 100% real.

I think that is why he did not try to say he could do a full translation until he was 100% there were fake.

however I think that Smith guessed they were fake, as one con man knows a good con when he sees one...

alanmolstad

02-19-2014, 04:34 PM

ouldn't he have just come right out and said "Those plates aren't authentic ancient plates" ?

put yourself.in Smiths position.
You made some fake golden plates yourself then someone says they found more of them.....right awa you can guess that these 2nd plates are jusst as fake as your....but because you are not an expert you can say anything untill some real expert comes out with a statement telling everyone if they are real or not.....

only after an expert can cast some doubt on them would a person attempt to dream up a fake translation........

if an expert came out and said they were 100% real it would mean they had real words on them...and so Smiths fake translation would be seen as clearly fake at that point...

RealFakeHair

02-19-2014, 04:38 PM

How would he know?

Smith is no expert in real plates...
so Smith could not say for 100% sure they were fake....or they were 100% real.

I think that is why he did not try to say he could do a full translation until he was 100% there were fake.

however I think that Smith guessed they were fake, as one con man knows a good con when he sees one...

Joseph Smith jr. Walked a tight rope, and first had to see and feel the at***ude of the people. Any good con-man will first judge his audience before he shows his hand. I believe ol jo thought it best to play it safe.

alanmolstad

02-19-2014, 05:06 PM

Phoenix

02-19-2014, 05:54 PM

Joseph Smith jr. Walked a tight rope, and first had to see and feel the at***ude of the people. Any good con-man will first judge his audience before he shows his hand. I believe ol jo thought it best to play it safe.

Playing it safe would be to avoid any position either way, and to avoid even the attempt at translating them. That way, if they ended up being branded fakes, he could say "I knew that--that's why I chose to have nothing to do with them." And if they ended up being labeled authentic, he could say "I knew that secular linguists would be able to translate them--that's why I left their translation to those guys."

alanmolstad

02-20-2014, 07:55 AM

correct....

While Smith could likely talk way out of any jam, Smith had to think to himself that it would be a lot smarter for him to let things play out for a time before he came out with his own faked finished translation.

Smith must have known the new plates were as fake as his own, but also had to have known of the small chance that some man of science might find that the new plates were real and therefore would naturally have a totally different real translation to them that would cause everyone both inside his church and outside it to see how Smith was a con man and that his own Mormon Golden Plates were just another con game.

RealFakeHair

02-20-2014, 08:39 AM

Playing it safe would be to avoid any position either way, and to avoid even the attempt at translating them. That way, if they ended up being branded fakes, he could say "I knew that--that's why I chose to have nothing to do with them." And if they ended up being labeled authentic, he could say "I knew that secular linguists would be able to translate them--that's why I left their translation to those guys."

In no way could he not look to position himself in a way to escape from being cornered. Jo always looked for a way out, even in his sexual escapades by using the revelation in his pocket trick.
All TBMs over look the one fact that every time something came up that could have proven LDSinc. To be the truth, it always went the other way for ol jo.

Phoenix

02-21-2014, 06:38 AM

Smith must have known the new plates were as fake as his own,
I think some people would disagree with you on that. They would say that it's not for sure that Smith would have known that the Kinderhook plates were fake.

but also had to have known of the small chance that some man of science might find that the new plates were real
I am not understanding. How can it be certain that he knew the K. plates were fake, but also have known that they were possibly authentic?

and therefore would naturally have a totally different real translation to them that would cause everyone both inside his church and outside it to see how Smith was a con man and that his own Mormon Golden Plates were just another con game.
But since history shows that this didn't happen, what is your opinion regarding why it didn't happen? The K. plates were not definitively proven to be a hoax until the 20th century, so for over 100 years, their existence had very little impact on anyone. Even after Fugate finally "confessed," about 30 years later, that he and his 2 buddies created the hoax, it didn't really cause a m*** exodus from the LDS church. So all the evidence seems to indicate that the plan to prove that the Book of Mormon is NOT the translation of an ancient book, failed. And it didn't cause the collapse of the LDS church. It failed to make all LDS become "unconverted."

Why did the plan fail? What did the tricksters do wrong? What could they have done differently that would have ensured the success of their plan to trap Joseph Smith and destroy the LDS church?

alanmolstad

02-21-2014, 07:46 AM

I am not understanding. How can it be certain that he knew the K. plates were fake, but also have known that they were possibly authentic?

Phoenix, perhaps I did not word it clearly in one of my posts that you read,I wrote a few of these posts on my darn phone, and i tend to not spell things out as fully as i should with a phone.

Or,

Perhaps you read one of my posts that was building on one point I had made in an earlier post , so it may have mixed your understanding up of my point?

Regardless, with any luck at all this new post should help.:)

Let me try again to make more clear what I think the history shows us was going on behind the curtain.

Let put ourselves in the place of Smith--------------------------------------------------------(dotted line to represent a change of mood, and build drama LOL)---------------------------------------------

We are Joe Smith.

We are a con man.

We have conned people that trust us into thinking we "found" something called the Mormon Golden Plates, but in reality we made them up ourselves.

We know our Mormon Golden Plates are fake....because we made them.

Then one day there is a story in the news that someone now claims to have "found" some plates that are like "ours"

Well lets face the facts here, because we know that our Golden Plates were in reality just something we made up to fool people and are fake, the moment we read in the newspaper that someone else found some Plates like our we got to guess that "Someone is attempting to copy us"....in other words - Someone is trying to do the same thing we did with our fake plates with their own fake plates!

So right off the bat we got to guess that there is about a very good chance these new plates are just as fake as our Mormon Golden Plates.

BUT.......But because we are just a con man and not any type of an expert in archeology we would not be 100% sure they were fake or 100% sure they might not be real.

So what would we do?

Well, first we would want to have a look at them, because if it's one thing a con man knows its how to spot a fake from another con man.

What would we do next?

Even if after looking at the new plates and now being 99% sure they are just as fake as all get out, we yet would think it best if we kept very foggy what we think the plates say....
We dont want to go on the record too quickly that we know what it says on them word-for-word because of this small chance some scientist will actually translate them and therefore show the whole world that we dont know what we are talking about with our translation.

So we keep the story foggy what we think that say.

and we allow them to be tested by others so that we have some hint later what we can pull out of thin air should there be some doubt about them.

HOWEVER .....However there is ONE thing we should NEVER DO!!!!

The one thing we should never do is say we have translated them via the same means we claim to have translated our own Golden Plates!

If we say we have translated them with that same story that we said we translated our own Golden Plates, and then later some scientist comes out and says, "The new Plates are Fake" it would then also mean that "Smith's translation is also fake!"

and on the other hand, if we also said we translated the new plates and then later the plates turn out to be real and clearly the real translation is nothing like the "pulled-out-of-thin-air" story we came up with in our translation , then our ABILITY to translate would then come into question.
At that point people would then cast doubt on our ability to have translated our Golden Plates correctly if we had been shown to have clearly screwed up the translation of the new plates.

So that is why I don't think Smith was fooled by the new plates at all!

I dont think he was fooled for a second!

He knew they were likely a con the moment he first heard about them , and so that is why he played it cool the way he did....

alanmolstad

02-21-2014, 09:43 AM

So all the evidence seems to indicate that the plan to prove that the Book of Mormon is NOT the translation of an ancient book, failed.

Yes very true.

I can't read the minds of the con men who came up with this whole plan, but from the way the history of events reads it does clearly look to me like it was an attempt to get Joe Smith to "bite' on the hook they had placed before him.

The New Plates were the bait.

I'm not sure how it would have played out had it gone according to their "plan", but my guess is that they wanted Smith to think he would be able to use these New Plates to help build support for his own Mormon Golden Plates and so Smith would produce a "Translation" via the same means (Lucky stone in his hat) that Smith used to translated his Mormon Golden Plates. Then once Smith was on record what the New Plates said and how they would in his translation fully supporting the Mormon story, then the hoax would be uncovered and Smith's story of the Mormon Golden Plates and the whole Mormon religion would collapse.

The best way to cheat a con man is to have the con man think he is cheating you.

So that was the plan it seems...

The plan was to get Smith to try to use the New Plates to pull another con, and then spring the trap on him by admitting it was all a hoax.

But the plan did not work-out due to the fact that Smith never really came out with the "Word-For-Word" translation that then could be used against him when the story that the New Plates were a hoax came out.
The whole con hinged on the need to get Smith to "take the bait" and try to use the New Plates as support for the Mormon Plates.

They wanted Smith to use his claimed means of translation of the Mormon Golden Plates on these New Plates.
This would have put Smith's truthfulness on record, as well as the image he had to other Mormons of being able to translate things correctly by putting a stone into a hat.

This was the thing that was the target....they were after smiths reputation as a "seer"

Once you show that's a hoax, the whole support for the Mormon Golden Plates falls apart.

alanmolstad

02-21-2014, 10:07 AM

Why did the plan fail? What did the tricksters do wrong?

What could they have done differently that would have ensured the success of their plan to trap Joseph Smith and destroy the LDS church?

Im not a con man, so Im not really a guy who would know of 100 things the guys could have done differently next time.

But they might actually have been able to pull this off had the cover-story lasted and had Joe Smith lived and had the free time, and a need for a bit more "new truth" to help in his plans.

There were a few problems with how this hoax was created.
1st - any time more than one person is in on the hoax you have a risk that "Someone will talk" and the cover story will fall apart.

2nd- it would have been a LOT more tricky for Smith to walk away from the New Plates had he been the one there to witness the New Plates being found.

Im not sure how they would have gotten Smith included in the bunch of guys that would be there when the plates were so-called "discovered' but had they been able to get Smith there in person it would have really snagged Smith into this hoax.

3rd - The best way to fool a con-artist is to convince the con-artist that he is the one pulling the hoax on people.
Im not sure how to go about doing this, but I believe that if you could somehow get Smith to believe he was pulling a fast-one with the New Plates, that this would have taken away Smith's hesitation about coming out with his own fake "stone-in-the-hat" Translation.

4th - From what i understand, Smith's life ended before smith had the free time with nothing else going on, where he could sit back and come up with a reason to make use of the New Plates...

So it might just be a case of bad timing as to really why this hoax failed.

Phoenix

02-21-2014, 10:39 PM

Thanks for the comments. I will try to respond to at least some of them when have more time.

James Banta

02-28-2014, 02:28 PM

Thanks for the comments. I will try to respond to at least some of them when have more time.

You haven't had time in a week? Sorry that your life is so consumed with earthly issues.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

02-28-2014, 02:37 PM

It would seem that playing on the computer is not so near the top of his "To do" list as it is with others....

RealFakeHair

02-28-2014, 03:30 PM

It would seem that playing on the computer is not so near the top of his "To do" list as it is with others....

If I had to defend Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind, I'd have many an excuse too.

Phoenix

02-28-2014, 05:44 PM

Thanks for your patience. I have a few minutes now to respond.

Im not a con man, so Im not really a guy who would know of 100 things the guys could have done differently next time
That's OK.

But they might actually have been able to pull this off had the cover-story lasted and had Joe Smith lived and had the free time, and a need for a bit more "new truth" to help in his plans.
So it was just bad luck that Fugate and his co-hoaxers didn't get away with it? Could it also be because Smith was clever enough to avoid being caught in their trap, which they realized and therefore delayed confessing their plan to trick him?

There were a few problems with how this hoax was created.
1st - any time more than one person is in on the hoax you have a risk that "Someone will talk" and the cover story will fall apart.
True, although if the Book of Mormon itself is a conspired hoax, the hoaxers never "talked" and blew the cover story.

2nd- it would have been a LOT more tricky for Smith to walk away from the New Plates had he been the one there to witness the New Plates being found.
I suppose you are right about that.

3rd - The best way to fool a con-artist is to convince the con-artist that he is the one pulling the hoax on people.
Im not sure how to go about doing this, but I believe that if you could somehow get Smith to believe he was pulling a fast-one with the New Plates, that this would have taken away Smith's hesitation about coming out with his own fake "stone-in-the-hat" Translation.
That is an interesting hypothesis.

4th - From what i understand, Smith's life ended before smith had the free time with nothing else going on, where he could sit back and come up with a reason to make use of the New Plates...
So it might just be a case of bad timing as to really why this hoax failed.
Perhaps. So they may have just had bad luck, as we noted earlier.

Thanks for setting a good example of non-hostility in your posts, by the way.

Apologette

02-28-2014, 07:33 PM

You haven't had time in a week? Sorry that your life is so consumed with earthly issues.. IHS jim

Trying to scrounge the back ***hing he owes in order to get in the temple and firm up his godhood application?

alanmolstad

03-01-2014, 06:39 AM

phonex.....im on the road
i cant post much on my phone.
i just wanted to say "hi" and let you know i will respond when i return home to my computer.

if i have wifi later i wwill send you short posts on my answeres to your questions

alanmolstad

03-01-2014, 06:45 AM

phonex:

it was bad luck the scam failed....but i dont think they ever got smith to believe the plates were real..

the most they might hope for would be that smith would recognixe the plates were fake but still something he might try to use to support his own fake mormon plates....

but things did not work out....smith never seemed to have free time to develop a plan to make use of the plates...and smith had to know that the guys who made the plates were still alive and must have had their own plans....

so smith played it cool....

alanmolstad

03-01-2014, 06:51 AM

phonex:

as for the fact that smith's own scam never fell apart.....it is to smiths credit that he did run his scam very much like a textbook example of how to do it.....

if smith was alone in the creation of the golden plates then it is no shock he was able to maintain the different cover stories.....

it is always best to have the fewest number in on the con as you can

Phoenix

03-01-2014, 08:02 AM

phonex:it was bad luck the scam failed....but i dont think they ever got smith to believe the plates were real..
the most they might hope for would be that smith would recognixe the plates were fake but still something he might try to use to support his own fake mormon plates....
but things did not work out....smith never seemed to have free time to develop a plan to make use of the plates...and smith had to know that the guys who made the plates were still alive and must have had their own plans....
so smith played it cool....

Thanks. The part I underlined is the part I agree with the most.

James Banta

03-01-2014, 08:23 AM

[QUOTE=Richard;54849]Or fall for some man made Christian Creeds and approved by a Sun Worshipper.

Well at least there are a few of us who never fell for the lie that God is invisible, or the earth was created in six day, or something can be made from absolutely nothing. Nice lie, and some fell for it hook line and sinker.

Kinda let the cat out of the bag Richard/Janet. What's going on here?

While it is true that God is and did everything the Bible teaches about Him, the LDS love to call the word of God lies.. Does the Bible say that God created the world in 6 days?

Gen 1:31-2:1
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

We can believe God in this or call Him a liar. But what is a day? Is God restrained to a 24 hour slot of time to do His work? Why not see all his works done is just one day?

Gen 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Was God so silly as to change His mind about the time He took to create the universe just a few sentences after He revealed it was a 6 day creation? No, and neither is it commanded that each of the days of creation were 24 hour days.. They were eras, time periods..

The Bible also tells us that God made all things.. That includes the very elements of which all other things are made..

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If God created ALL things just what things existed before He formed the earth and the heavens? Nothing.. And that is what God CREATED the earth and the heavens from.. NOTHING.. He spoke them into existence by the power of His word.. He commanded "let there be light", and there was light!

Now is God invisible? Unable to be seen? YES Only in Jesus can we see the image of God..

Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature

Did some sun worshiper come up with these points of doctrine or were they given to us as doctrine by God the Holy Spirit through His Apostles? Is it better to believe the wild eyed statements of a man that was convicted of fraud in these matters or trust God through His word? To quote a real prophet "As for me and my house we will trust the Lord".. You can deny these points but in so doing you don't deny a false teaching but instead you deny the word of God. You call God a liar, that sounds like a very dangerous practice to me.. IHS jim

Phoenix

03-02-2014, 12:26 PM

Trying to scrounge the back ***hing he owes in order to get in the temple and firm up his godhood application?

Was that intended to be a personal insult/attack?

Phoenix

03-02-2014, 12:29 PM

the LDS love to call the word of God lies..

They do? Do you have quotes of them saying they love to call the word of God lies? Do you even have quotes of them calling the word of God lies, even if you can't find a quote of them saying they love to do it?

Or do you have nothing, and that was just a mean, insulting lie?
If it's true that that what you said is a lie, should we jump to the conclusion that you love telling that lie, and that anti-Mormons in general love telling lies about the Mormons?

James Banta

03-02-2014, 03:03 PM

[Phoenix;153298]They do? Do you have quotes of them saying they love to call the word of God lies? Do you even have quotes of them calling the word of God lies, even if you can't find a quote of them saying they love to do it?

I don't have to look to deep to find those references.. I can go right to the AofF and see that the LDS don't trust God to keep His word pure.. From the very beginning it was true only as far as it is translated correctly.. There there are others in the seats of the GAs that have attacked the Bible.

There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost... Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men" (Talmage, AofF, p. 237).

There is not one principle pertaining to the salvation of men that is so clearly stated in the Bible, as it has come down to us, that men do not stumble over — not one thing. There is not one principle they can be united on that has been so clearly stated that they do not find their interpretations of it conflicting" (Joseph Feilding Smith, DofS, Vol. I, p. 278).

Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Joseph Smith TofPJS, p. 327)

If it be admitted that the apostles and evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote.... Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, in his right mind could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original? (Orson Pratt, Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47)

Do you need more than that?

Or do you have nothing, and that was just a mean, insulting lie?

I don't like being called a liar anymore than you like seeing your church called Bible haters.. The difference is I have evidence that the LDS church has little respect for the Bible and do all they can do to discredit it.. To me and to any honest thinking Christian this is solid PROOF that the LDS church hates the Bible..

If it's true that that what you said is a lie, should we jump to the conclusion that you love telling that lie, and that anti-Mormons in general love telling lies about the Mormons?

You so easily jump to the conclusion that everything I say is a lie.. Sad thing is when you are shown where what I say here is referenced you still deny it and still call me a liar.. I can't say I have not name called in the past but that is past for me.. I refereed to the whole church as being Bible hating not one specific person. I will not degrade my posts again with personal attacks. You have now seem some of the evidence that I believe holds up my accusation against mormonism that is it a Bible hating church.. All the lip service to the contrary won't do unless your central leadership were to come out and tell the world that the words spoken against the Bible were wrong and such will never again be allowed coming from any GA or across the pulpit where any GA presides over an official meeting of the church.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

03-02-2014, 04:31 PM

I Dont know how to do that thing where you break someone's post up into sections...So my words will be in BOLD type

Thanks for your patience. I have a few minutes now to respond.

That's OK.

How come whenever I have the time to hang out on this forum Im the only one here, and no one puts up any new comments all day, BUT the moment I have to work on the road away from any computer or wifi I return and see about 100 new posts?

So it was just bad luck that Fugate and his co-hoaxers didn't get away with it?
Well kinda.
But they could have done it different and had a better chance of getting Joe Smith to bite on their hook.

Could it also be because Smith was clever enough to avoid being caught in their trap, which they realized and therefore delayed confessing their plan to trick him?
I dont think ever thought the plates were any more real that the ones he faked.
If its one thing a good Con Man can spot its another con Man pulling a scam. So I dont think Smith ever felt the plates were real.

But Smith also knew that the makers mof the plates likely had plans, ...secret plans for them, and so Smith had to play it cool untill he knew whatever he said about the plates could not be countered.

True, although if the Book of Mormon itself is a conspired hoax, the hoaxers never "talked" and blew the cover story.

The Golden Plates and the Book of Mormon are a hoax, but they told a story that a lot of people wanted to believe so much that their errors and problems with them were overlooked.

One of the key things when pulling a magic trick is to get the people watching the trick to want the magic to be real....then misdirect their attention...

I suppose you are right about that.

That is an interesting hypothesis.

Perhaps. So they may have just had bad luck, as we noted earlier.

Thanks for setting a good example of non-hostility in your posts, by the way.

We have something like the Mormon Plates, (and the other ones we are talking about here) here near where I live.
It's called the "Kensington Rune Stone"

For a time it was considered a real find...something that would change the history books.
But as time went on and science learned a bit more about their history the hype around them had went away....
Now they are just seen for what they are.....a con.

But they tell a nice story and so even to this day we find websites that spring up and add their little extra to the hype that still surrounds them.

I grew up in the town where they are on display.
They are fun.......nothing more.