Joseph Smith was DUPED by the Kinderhook Plates Pt. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urloony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

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>

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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***?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

. . .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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

[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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Banta

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grindael

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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...