I need help with information on the kinderhook plates

[person0]

12 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I've never heard of this? Can you please explain what happened and if possible can I have some links to read about it.  I thought the Book of Mormon was translated in 56 or so (something like that anyway) consecutive days.

Short version:  Martin Harris helped Joseph Smith by working a s a scribe during translation.  Martin begged to have Joseph let him borrow the translation to prove the value of the work to his wife.  Joseph was warned by God twice not to allow Martin to take them, but then the third time He gave Joseph the go ahead to make his own decision.  Martin did not keep his promise to limit those to whom he would show the translation.  It was stolen.  The 1st Book of Nephi is now the beginning of the Book of Mormon instead of (presumably) the Book of Lehi.

Here is a brief article from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Manuscript,_Lost_116_Pages

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I've never heard of this? Can you please explain what happened and if possible can I have some links to read about it.  I thought the Book of Mormon was translated in 56 or so (something like that anyway) consecutive days.

The Book of Mormon you hold in your hand was translated in that time frame.  The 116 pages are a different (they were lost due to sinful men).  Here's some information on them: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Manuscript,_Lost_116_Pages    And a general timeline of early church days / translation events: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_chronology_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_and_publication%3F

[NeedleinA]

14 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Probably more than you, and on many more subjects than just religion

Some tongue-in-cheek advice I read on a forum once (see below)

9 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

It's ok not to be a condescending jerk too,

[estradling75]

42 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I've never heard of this? Can you please explain what happened and if possible can I have some links to read about it.  I thought the Book of Mormon was translated in 56 or so (something like that anyway) consecutive days.

Others have given related links...  Here is the Word of God on the matter.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10?lang=eng

[Blossom76]

35 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Some tongue-in-cheek advice I read on a forum once (see below)

Sometimes you have to defend yourself when someone is being condescending and insulting

[Blossom76]

7 hours ago, person0 said:

Even if you do not believe that polygamy was truly restored in the modern era, surely you believe the Old Testament to be true, even outside the lens of any religion?  I think it is at least very plain and clear that the Lord sanctioned polygamous relationships at one point; even for his anointed.  The prophet, Nathan, wend before David and declared:

God clearly spoke through Nathan and declared how he had given multiple wives.  I doubt that God ever intends or intended for His daughters to be miserable, although He clearly did intend for them to live in a polygamous relationship, at least with King David.  I'm not trying to change the subject here, but even if you remained catholic, or became protestant, or any other denomination, we all use the Holy Bible, and it clearly indicates that God approved of polygamy at least at one time.

No I just don't believe that God sanctioned polygamist relationships, the polygamist relationships in the bible did not have am good outcome, they ended in misery.  I don't think that was of God at all.  After all, don't mormons believe the bible 'only as correctly interpreted' it was written down by men right? And can't men make mistakes? The LDS church say the same of the mistakes in the Book of Mormon. I think that's something the bible definitely got very wrong.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Never say never.  I'm amazed at the things I now understand.

I'll say Never a 1000 times on polygamy.  I don't have a problem with consenting adults living polygamy of their own choice, BUT I do have a problem with polygamy with penalties.  'you must live polygamy to attain the highest level of heaven' that's polygamy with penalties, that's spiritual coercion and its wrong.  I think the early LDS church was very wrong about polygamy.

[Blossom76]

48 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Pardon me, but there's no such thing as a 100% accurate history book.  

I never said any book was 100% accurate, but I'm not going to sit there and be insulted by a comment 'How many completely accurate history books have you read? and not defend myself.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

I never said any book was 100% accurate, but I'm not going to sit there and be insulted by a comment 'How many completely accurate history books have you read? and not defend myself.

I don't think anyone's goal here is to attack anyone.  Rather, just pointing out that no history book is 100% accurate.  

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I don't think anyone's goal here is to attack anyone.  Rather, just pointing out that no history book is 100% accurate.  

The comment I replied to (which was not made by you) was condensing. If I see something I find questionable in somethings history, I have a right to question it, I have a right to investigate further, I have a right to read BOTH sides of the argument.  Most history books are one sided, you have to read both sides of the argument to even get close to what really happened.  There are 3 sides to every argument after all - side one, side two and somewhere in there is the truth, if you want the truth you can't be afraid to look at both sides.  That is something I am not afraid of and I wish more LDS people were open to that idea.  After all, if you really have the truth, investigation can't hurt it

Edited February 4, 2018 by Blossom76

[Grunt]

Both sides of this discussion are getting a little "snotty".

Sometimes it's best to detach yourself if you're losing objectivity.

[Blossom76]

Just now, Grunt said:

Both sides of this discussion are getting a little "snotty".

Sometimes it's best to detach yourself if you're losing objectivity.

Agreed, but one can only take so much before they bite back, once again I had a very valid question, just because I don't agree with everyone else here doesn't mean I'm a bad person and doesn't mean I'm wrong either.  I am also alone in this, you all think the same way, so it is easy to try and discredit me and my point of view.

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

 After all, don't mormons believe the bible 'only as correctly interpreted' it was written down by men right? And can't men make mistakes? The LDS church say the same of the mistakes in the Book of Mormon. I think that's something the bible definitely got very wrong.

So scripture doesn’t have to be perfect, but history books bearing the church’s imprimatur do?

Interesting.

[Blossom76]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

So scripture doesn’t have to be perfect, but history books bearing the church’s imprimatur do?

Interesting.

I NEVER said that, but it should do its best to be honest, and I can't see that it did.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

If I see something I find questionable in somethings history, I have a right to question it, I have a right to investigate further, I have a right to read BOTH sides of the argument.  Most history books are one sided, you have to read both sides of the argument to even get close to what really happened.  There are 3 sides to every argument after all - side one, side two and somewhere in there is the truth, if you want the truth you can't be afraid to look at both sides. 

I very much agree with that.  Of course, there is a spectrum of one side verse the other (no book being perfectly in the middle).  And less to more better researched / accurate (no book being 100% accurate).  

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

That is something I am not afraid of and I wish more LDS people were open to that idea.  After all, if you really have the truth, investigation can't hurt it

Hey Blossom, it would be nice to have it acknowledged when people are vey acknowledging of history/investigation.  

[Grunt]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

Agreed, but one can only take so much before they bite back, once again I had a very valid question, just because I don't agree with everyone else here doesn't mean I'm a bad person and doesn't mean I'm wrong either.  I am also alone in this, you all think the same way, so it is easy to try and discredit me and my point of view.

I think you'd be surprised to learn we DON'T all think the same way.  We've just worked through things and come to an understanding, even if that understanding is that we don't agree.  

Take me for example:

I got stuck on several church beliefs, almost to the point I was questioning truths I already knew.  I prayed repeatedly for answers and swore I could never join the church because of these issues.  I had many people try to help me understand, as people here are trying to help you.  It didn't seem that way to me, either.  I imagine they were as frustrated as I was, or as you are now.  

On my trip to San Diego, I met a young Sister Missionary at the temple.  Because it was insisted that I stay until the Christmas lights were turned on, I had over an hour to kill.  We talked about the Gospel, and I shared the difficulty I was having about several things.  One of which was the King Follett discourse.  I believe I even turned to this forum for help.  The missionaries tried to help, but they didn't even know what King Follett Discourse was.  

One missionary, I forget now but I believe she was the brand new one, asked me if I ever prayed for peace instead of answers.  We discussed it for a bit, but I didn't want peace.  I wanted answers to something that was shaking my still undeveloped faith.  I pondered it on the way home, and before I went to bed I prayed for God to grant me peace on topics I either didn't understand or took issue with, at least until such a time that He felt I was ready for the answers.  

I woke up the next morning without a worry about any of the things I was agonizing over for weeks.  I wouldn't believe it if it hadn't happened to me.  Since that time, I have come to receive answers to some of the problems I was having.  Others are still out there, waiting for me to tackle them.  I haven't come to accept them at all, I've just come to accept that I either haven't progressed enough to understand them OR God feels I'm not spiritually developed enough to.  We're on this side of the veil.  There are MANY things we just can't comprehend and likely won't until we return home.  We may think we do, but how could we really?

I guess I'll just leave you with that.  I truly believe God doesn't want your spiritual development to stop because you don't understand something.  You may be absolutely correct about your feelings towards that event.  However, I trust God's plan and take my direction directly from him.  My Stake President once said to me we have three methods to learn.  One is the Scripture.  One is the Prophet, Apostles, and modern revelation.  The third is personal revelation.  If one method seems to be telling you something you don't understand or believe to be false, test it with the other two.  

[Jane_Doe]

Thank you @Grunt

[estradling75]

40 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I NEVER said that, but it should do its best to be honest, and I can't see that it did.

Honest?  What was not Honest  (Thats a bite back accusation)

Nearly 100 Years ago the Church asked a guy to compile the History.  Per the standards of the day for Historical Records and his expertise.  He did so.  No one ever claimed it was perfect.

Now he could have omitted the "So and so said so and so said this."  And you would have to ask him why he did not to know his thoughts.   But I am not going to Slander the man and say he was Dishonest nor claim him to be unprofessional (to the standard of his day)

The Church knows there are issues with the Historical Record they had created nearly 100 years ago.  They have documented such (and such documentation has been given you as it relates to this subject), and they are in process of creating a new Historical Record https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-historian-announces-new-4-volume-history-of-the-church?lang=eng

What more do you want for Honesty and Transparency from the Church?

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by estradling75

[Blossom76]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Honest?  What was not Honest  (Thats a bite back accusation)

Now he could have omitted the "So and so said so and so said this."  And you would have to ask him why he did not to know his thoughts.   But I am not going to Slander the man and say he was Dishonest nor claim him to be unprofessional (to the standard of his day)

right there, that's not honest, and the way its presented is misleading, that's not honest

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

right there, that's not honest, and the way its presented is misleading, that's not honest

So because you have an issue with one man... You lock up for the entire organization?  And Organization that is open about what happened and is correcting it 

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

right there, that's not honest, and the way its presented is misleading, that's not honest

I think people get hung up on their perceived definitions.  For me, I see you say it's dishonest and it triggers me a little.  I define dishonesty as a deliberate attempt to lie or mislead.  

Do you believe the church deliberately intended to mislead people or do you believe a person, or the church, just messed up or had poor judgment?

[Blossom76]

55 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So because you have an issue with one man... You lock up for the entire organization?  And Organization that is open about what happened and is correcting it 

Seriously, the 'all or nothing' attitude again. 

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I think people get hung up on their perceived definitions.  For me, I see you say it's dishonest and it triggers me a little.  I define dishonesty as a deliberate attempt to lie or mislead.  

Do you believe the church deliberately intended to mislead people or do you believe a person, or the church, just messed up or had poor judgment?

I believe no matter what the intentions, it was dishonest

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

I believe no matter what the intentions, it was dishonest

Could you try to answer the question, please?  It actually affects how I view your issue.   Do you feel the church INTENTIONALLY tried to deceive or mislead people, or do you believe the someone made a mistake or used poor judgment?

[askandanswer]

There is a 6 volume set of books by B H Roberts called Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and another 7 volume set of books by B H Roberts called History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by Joseph Smith. The story about the kinderhook plates appears in the History of the Church but not in the Comprehensive History. Of the Comprehensive History, the First Presidency said, as recorded by the author in the Preface to Volume 1:

"The Comprehensive History of the Mormon Church, by Elder B. H. Roberts, * * * and published in The Americana, is completed to recent date, and will form six large volumes when bound in book form, containing data and details collated in forcible style, most comprehensive and valuable for reference."

I think the fact that the kinderhook story appears in one History of the Church by B H Roberts and not in the other History of the Church by Joseph Smith gives another reason why this story should be treated with caution.