Joseph Smith was DUPED by the Kinderhook Plates Pt. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

'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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novato

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

---

I am sorry but I gave a mormon reference to the fact that there was all this infighting and backbiting within mormonism. Smith calling his own witnesses liars and thieves. Then asks the world to believe heir witness of the BofM.. I am sorry that you didn't see my reference. Here it is again (Elders' Journal, August, 1838, p. 59). IHS jim

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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]

---

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 BOM & the BOA, once again showed he was no prophet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

.



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. )

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

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novato

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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

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."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

Hi Janet. Check the CARM board.

---

Oh yea, dad post here.

R/J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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."



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."



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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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.