="Peter1000, post: 69841486, member: 382212"]
You say: The LDS believed the plates were real until 1981, when they finally admitted they were a hoax.
What online document did you read that evidences this comment?
---"They": LDS historians, apologists, etc. There is no official LDS church statement. (There seldom to never is when it comes to this type of stuff... which is my opinion.)
---"Church historians continued to insist on the authenticity of the Kinderhook plates until 1980 when an examination conducted by the Chicago Historical Society, possessor of one plate, proved it was a nineteenth-century creation."
Rough Stone Rolling, Pro-LDS Historian Richard Bushman, p 490.
The Sept. 1962 issue of
Improvement Era, the official LDS magazine held an article by Welby W. Ricks stating the plates were genuine. Why would they allow such a thing to be published if they didn't know if they were genuine? See also "Kinderhook Plates", by S. Kimball, Ensign, 8/1981, pg. 66-74,
another official LDS publication. The Times and Seasons, yet another LDS publication, stated the plates authenticated the Book of Mormon further. If Mormons can freely quote from "official LDS publications" as authority? So can I. Can you answer why the LDS never said they were fakes in 130 years previously if they believed they were? Neither can I. I admit I know very little about them, and really don't have any interest in their existence, or what the LDS believes about them or not. But doesn't it bother you, like me (for about five minutes total), that there was absolute silence on the issue? You can argue from a "wisdom" perspective, sure, but I could argue just as easily from a "why not say so if you know the truth?" perspective just as easily.
You say: "It's clear from the evidence above that the Church leaders believed the Kinderhook Plates were real and that Joseph translated a portion of them.
Your evidence is your statement, you have provided no documentation for your statement.
1) document that scientists in 1981 said the plates were a hoax.
---- See above.
2) document that the LDS church in 1981 still believed they were real, just prior to the announcement of the scientists.
3) document that JS translated a portion of them.
----They are listed as being translated by JS in the official "History of the Church". You know this. Whether its Wm. Clayton, a man known for his accuracy, part of the Council of 50, and Smith's personal secretary's "hearsay" or not, the LDS
did include them as being "partially translated" by Smith in their "
official" history of the LDS. Pretty sloppy of them if you ask me why they didn't bother to do any "investigating" of their own before
officializing the story.
If you can do that, then you would have at least a basis for making a statement like, "the evidence is clear".
---The evidence is clear to me there were some questionable practices going on here. The rush to "officialize" them works against your church. Will they "revise" the history of your church to correct the rush to prove JS a "prophet"? We have yet to see. Regardless, JS probably lied about them just as his faithful secretary recorded. As you know, Clayton died a popular, staunch Mormon in Salt Lake City, Utah, the husband of 9 wives and 42 children. He was never excommunicated like so many who embarrass the LDS with its history is brought to light have. Do you think he would be if he was alive today? Makes you wonder. History shows there's so much of this same tired stuff throughout LDS history. Too much for it
all to be dismissed as "fables".
