Joseph Smith was DUPED by the Kinderhook Plates Pt. I

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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]

[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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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]

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

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?]

[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.

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.

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.




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.

Hi Janet. Check the CARM board.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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.

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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.

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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]

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]

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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]

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

[James Banta]

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