Revision as of 15:33, 11 October 2013

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

A FairMormon Response to Questions Asked in Swedish Fireside with Elder's Jensen and Turley

Question:
One of my questions is regarding the process of how the Book of Mormon came about.

• The fact that how the Book of Mormon came about was actually by Joseph Smith looking into the hat in the seer stone, the stone that he found in a well, and the stone that he used both before and after becoming a prophet in seeking for treasure.
• There’s a lot of efforts being made in order to make these plate[s] come about and they weren’t even part of the process, they were hidden away most of the time, sometimes not even in the same room where the writing was being done....Why, why do we still keep to this version that the plates were used in an actual translation process...Why some sort of revelation?

• Question: Why were the plates needed?
  Answer: To demonstrate that the record actually existed.

The plates were needed because the plates were real and they were preserved and they were passed down from generation to generation. Once Joseph Smith got them, then the method of translation was up to the Lord and the Lord chose to use a method of translation that was far more efficient, far better, and far more accurate than anything Joseph Smith could have done letter by letter. Because it would have taken him — he didn’t know the language. How else was he going to translate it if God didn’t help him?
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Question: Why the Urim and Thummin and why the hat?
  Answer: To block out the light so that the revelatory tool could be used effectively.

The hat was apparently to block light out so that Joseph could see what he was doing with the record. If you have a computer sometimes the light, you know, affects the screen. We don’t know exactly how it works, Joseph Smith said he wasn’t meant to know how it works, but he did say this: in the early days of his translation, he was relying on revelatory tools of some sort or another— Urim and Thummim, seer stones, whatever the case may be.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Question: Did Joseph translate the plates using both the Nephite interpreters (the "Urim and Thummim") and a seer stone?
  Answer: Yes.

To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, September 1974, 7.

• Question: Did Joseph translate the plates using a seer stone placed in a hat?
  Answer: Yes.

David Whitmer wrote: "Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine."
—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, 61.

• Question: Were both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone referred to as the Urim and Thummim?
  Answer: Yes.

He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30). He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones.
—Gerrit Dirkmaat, "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God," Ensign, January 2013.

• Question: Did Joseph locate his seer stone while digging a well?
  Answer: Yes.

The seer stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it-as described above-as well as by means of the “Interpreters” found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.
—B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907), 1:257.

For a detailed answer, we recommend:

{{{extauthor}}}, "The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation," {{{extpublication}}} —This essay seeks to examine the Book of Mormon translation method from the perspective of a regular, nonscholarly, believing member in the twenty-first century, by taking into account both what is learned in Church and what can be learned from historical records that are now easily available. (Click here for full article)

Question:
I have a difficult question.

• The time of Abraham, God reveals that.... it’s OK to have more than one wife....does the church believe that it was a teaching from God that he married women who had other men that were still alive, and even some apostles wives when they were away on missions?
• One woman said the child that she bore she didn’t know if it was the child of Joseph or the child of, in this case, Orson Hyde....So that indicates that it was definitely not a spiritual marriage.

Question:
According to information I have read

• The wives were forced into marriage.
• They were put under tremendous pressure to accept the marriage.
• You have only until, let’s say, tomorrow to decide and to marry me but it will have terrible consequences if you don’t accept the marriage.

Question:
my other question was about the Book of Abraham if you please can tell us a little bit about your view of this? We all believe or the church members believed that this was actually a translation of the information Joseph got before as you know? .... And we also know through the Rosetta Stone that it actually is possible to translate it to English or any other language. And we know now that it has actually nothing to do with translation. This was something written 1500 years after Abraham, about 500 before Christ, and has no connection to Abraham whatsoever. And this is such a fundamental thing in church, I mean this is what we’re told in the temple, and this is what we have as a holy scripture. So, I’ve seen a number of explanations from the church of how this could be. I would like to hear what kind of version you have today.

Short Answer:

Question:
I have a question that’s really related to polygamy.

• When I was on my mission in London in the seventies, we were taught a very important principle called lying for the Lord. I mean, we were taught that.
• And it’s supposed to have been coined, this phrase, by I think John Taylor.
• Do you think that there are circumstances where it’s OK to withhold or manipulate truths just to defend or uphold the reputation of the Church?
• Is lying for the Lord still alive?

• Question: Was a "very important principle called lying for the Lord" a policy of the Church?
  Answer: No.
  "Lying for the Lord" is not, nor has it ever been, a policy of the Church.

Are there circumstances where lying is justified? The church teaches the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments say, don’t bear false witness, right? The book of Mormon says wo be unto the liars.... Was it practiced? In all societies, there are clashes of moral imperatives, OK? The Ten Commandments say thou shalt not kill. But countries go to war and people kill. If somebody attacks you in your home, you can defend yourself, OK? There are these clashes where sometimes one moral imperative or ethical imperative becomes superior to another. If you’re protecting your children and I’m a killer and I come to you and say where are your children, are you going to tell me? Probably not. OK? When people bring up this topic, what they’re usually talking about is during plural marriage time periods when people were asked about plural marriage and, again, it’s a complicated subject but basically, people were trying to decide, do I say something, or do I not? Do I tell the truth or do I not? Do we teach as a church that you should lie? No, we don’t. I was brought up on the principle of strict honesty and that’s what I try to follow.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Question: Was "lying for the Lord" taught to missionaries in the 1970s, or at any other time?
  Answer: Not officially.
  Elder Oaks has, however, responded to this:

Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord....As far as concerns our own church and culture, the most common allegations of lying for the Lord swirl around the initiation, practice, and discontinuance of polygamy. The whole experience with polygamy was a fertile field for deception. It is not difficult for historians to quote LDS leaders and members in statements justifying, denying, or deploring deception in furtherance of this religious practice....

I do not know what to think of all of this, except I am glad I was not faced with the pressures those good people faced. My heart goes out to them for their bravery and their sacrifices, of which I am a direct beneficiary. I will not judge them. That judgement belongs to the Lord, who knows all of the circumstances and the hearts of the actors, a level of comprehension and wisdom not approached by even the most knowledgeable historians....

I ask myself, “If some of these Mormon leaders or members lied, therefore, what?” I reject a “therefore” which asserts or implies that this example shows that lying is morally permissible or that lying is a tradition or even a tolerated condition in the Mormon community or among the leaders of our church. That is not so.

—Dallin H. Oaks, “Gospel Teachings About Lying,” BYU Fireside Address, 12 September 1993, typescript, no page numbers; also printed in Clark Memorandum [of the J. Reuben Clark School of Law, Brigham Young University] (Spring 1994).

• Question: Does the Church teach "lying for the Lord"?
  Answer: No.
  The Church teaches and and continues to teach that honesty and integrity are character traits that we should develop in order to become more like God.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. (The 13th Article of Faith)

• Question: Was the phrase "lying for the Lord" coined by John Taylor?
  Answer: No.
  The phrase was not invented by Taylor. The reason that the phrase is associated with John Taylor is because of a talk he gave in 1850. John Taylor stated that Latter-day Saints were not marrying multiple wives, yet he himself had already done so. Polygamy would not be publicly announced for another two years. Elder Taylor stated:

From the report of Elder Taylor's Discussion in France, as follows:—We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. ("Doctrine and Covenants," page 330).... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized, contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.
—"Anti-Mormon Objections Answered," The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, Volume 20, 381.

• Elder Taylor's statement was a rejection of polygamy as an adulterous relationship called "spiritual wifery," rather than "plural marriage" (From the Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star):

Elder Taylor's Discussion in Boulogne took place in the year 1850, seven years after the Prophet Joseph had received the Revelation on Celestial Marriage, but two years before that revelation was published to the Church. Elder Taylor, therefore, had no authority to preach polygamy. He neither preached it, contradicted it, condemned it, nor publicly denied it. His controversial opponents adverted to certain absurd stories about seraglios of "spiritual wives," and sisterhoods of the "white vail" and "black vail," and other lying reports propagated by the apostate [John C.] Bennett fraternity and republished by Caswall [an anti-Mormon author]. Our objector, in making his extract from the Report, gives forth the notion that the speaker was "stoutly denying polygamy, and stigmatizing it" as "indelicate, obscene, and disgusting." But where the stout denial is to be found, we know not. His words are—"We are accused here of polygamy," (referring to accusations made even before the doctrine of polygamy was revealed, and which were false accusations,) "and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." The idea of his "stigmatizing" polygamy as "indelicate, obscene and disgusting," is an interpretation of his words which is altogether gratuitous on the objector's part. We do not so understand them. Such a meaning as that attached to them by the objector could certainly never have been intended by their author. Elder Taylor, instead of entering into a formal refutation of the charges cited by his opponents, which he considered as "too outrageous to admit of belief," contented himself with simply reading a passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants on the existing marriage-law of the Church....Polygamy was not then a revealed doctrine of the Church; and therefore the Saints, as a matter of course, adhered to the general monogamic law. If they had practised polygamy without "command" from God, their conduct would have been in that respect, as censurable as that of the ancient Nephites. It would have been a "crime" on their part; nor does the Book of Doctrine and Covenants intimate that it is.
—"Anti-Mormon Objections Answered," The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, Volume 20, (June 19, 1858) 395-396.

• Question: Is it OK to withhold or manipulate truths just to defend or uphold the reputation of the Church?
  Answer: The truth may be withheld if the alternative is dangerous to the safety of others.
  When the early Church was under command to practice polygamy and Church leadership struggled against the legal persecution that was heaped upon the Church and the physical danger in which the practice placed the Saints, a similar moral choice was made. More correctly, this would be saying: My duty to obey God, and protect myself and other innocents from persecution and physical harm, requires me to withhold the truth from those perpetuating the persecution. There are times in our lives in which we must choose between conflicting moral choices. Such was the case when Abraham told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, rather than stating the she was his wife. Had Abraham told the truth in this instance, he would have been killed by those who desired to have his wife. Such cases are rare, and we know of none in the present-day Church.

For a detailed answer, we recommend:

{{{extauthor}}}, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (HTML) (Gregory L. Smith, FAIR Publications, 2005)," {{{extpublication}}} —Attacks upon Joseph Smith and the Church regarding polygamy have generally taken one or more of the following forms: Irreligious, Illegal, Lying, Lascivious, Implementation, Hiding history. (Click here for full article)

Question:
I came across something, and it was the first time I really stopped and pondered. S

• Somebody smart enough to write documents that were false, the church buying them from this man....Mark Hofmann.

• Question: Why did the Church buy forged documents from Mark Hofmann?
  Answer: The Church thought that they had great historical value.
  If these documents had been true historical documents, as the Church Historical Department thought they were, then they would have been an important addition to the historical archives of the church.

Mark Hofmann. I’ll just recommend a book, and not because I wrote it, but I did write a book on this. It’s called Victims. It was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1992. Go to that book for answers on that one.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Question: Did the Church try to suppress their existence before they discovered that they were forgeries?
  Answer: No. After the documents were obtained, the most important ones were published, not suppressed.

Hofmann succeeded in deceiving many: experienced Church historians, sophisticated collectors, businessmen-investors, national experts who administered a lie detector test to Hofmann, and professional document examiners, including the expert credited with breaking the Hitler diary forgery…Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.
—"Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," Ensign, October 1987; "Document Dealer Confesses," Ensign, April 1987

For a detailed answer, we recommend:

{{{extauthor}}}, "Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, by Richard E. Turley, Jr.," {{{extpublication}}} —(From Google Books) Three pipe bombs exploded in Salt Lake County in 1985, killing two people. Behind the murders lay a vast forgery scheme aimed at dozens of other victims, most prominently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mark Hofmann, a master forger, went to prison for the murders. He had bilked the church, document dealers, and collectors of hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years while attempting to alter Mormon history. Other false documents of Americana still circulate. The crimes garnered intense media interest, spawning books, TV and radio programs, and myriad newspaper and magazine articles. Victims is a thoughtful corrective to the more sensationalized accounts. (Click here for full article)

Question:

• Blood atonement. It’s just a strange thing altogether in my view.
• How many years was it practiced during this time?
• Did anybody die with blood atonement?

• Question: Did the Church practice blood atonement?
  Answer: Church leaders associated it with capital punishment.

My personal belief is that during Joseph Smith’s time period, based on statements in the bible, Joseph Smith said that when men shed blood, their blood should be shed. He’s talking about scripture. And I think that when you got into the Brigham Young times, that scripture was taken literally for a time [because] leaders taught that if people killed, then they deserved capital punishment. That [yeah] Old Testament-style event. [And t]hat sort of bounces around in the 1850s in particular when people are talking about, well how do you do this, you know? Is it literal? How do you shed a person’s blood in the process of capital punishment? And it gets to the late 1870s when they’re basically saying to people, hey look our belief on this is the same belief that other people have who believe in capital punishment. Now that’s, [that's] my very rapid historical summary of it.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.

• Question: What is the Church's position on blood atonement?
  Answer: The Church states that blood atonement is not necessary.

From a church standpoint, blood atonement, meaning that it’s required for people to have their blood shed when they commit capital crimes, the church has gone on record saying that’s not necessary. So that’s the church position on it.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.

Question:
I also have the same feeling when reading about the first vision and Joseph Smith.

• After the First Vision he claims that he was persecuted because of the vision.
• Nobody really, not many at least, found out about the First Vision until it was written in 1838.
• There was one account in 1832....It came about much later and the question is why....most of them hadn’t even heard.
• So why they join the church mainly because of the Book of Mormon and the issue of the new Israel and all that.
• The First Vision as we teach today is not the foundation of the church originally.

• Question: Was Joseph Smith persecuted because of the First Vision?
  Answer: Yes, from the perspective of a 14-year-old.

First Vision and persecution. Why does Joseph Smith say he was persecuted for talking about the first vision? I believe he was. He immediately went and told his story to a religious leader in his community. That religious leader scoffed at what he had to say. And the result of that was what from his vantage point felt like persecution. From the vantage point of others it may not have seemed like a big deal, but to a young boy, it seemed like a big deal.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.

• Question: Is it true that nobody really, not many at least, found out about the First Vision until it was written in 1838?
  Answer: No.
  Joseph Smith's own journal demonstrates that he was telling the story of the First Vision to at least two non-Mormon strangers in 1835. Joseph's 1832 account of the vision was primarily written down by his scribe Frederick G. Williams.
• This criticism comes from anti-Mormon authors that are decades out of date. New research demonstrates that the First Vision was discussed very early on:
  • 1827: A skeptical account from Rev. John A. Clark mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).
  • 1830: DC 20꞉5 mentions the First Vision (see here for details).
  • 1831: LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).
  • 1832: LDS missionaries were teaching with regard to Joseph Smith: "Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse [to] prayer" (The Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
  • October 1832: Another Protestant minister wrote to a friend about the Latter-day Saints in his area: "They profess to hold frequent converse with angels; some go, if we may believe what they say, as far as the third heaven, and converse with the Lord Jesus face to face." (Rev. B. Pixley, ‘’Christian Watchman’’, Independence Mo., October 12, 1832).
  • 1833: A few months later, in March of 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote a letter to a ministerial friend, regarding the activities of Joseph Smith himself in Ohio: "The following Curious occurrance occurred last week in Newburg [Ohio] about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles." [Richmond Taggart to the Reverend Jonathan Goings, 2 March 1833, 2]
  • 1833: A Missouri newspaper contains an article on a mass meeting of Latter-day Saints in July 1833, and refers to the Saints’ “pretended revelations from heaven… their personal intercourse with God and his angels… converse with God and his angels….” [Missouri Intelligencer (August 10, 1833)]
  • 1833: Philastus Hurlbut, following his excommunication from the Church in 1833, went east to Palmyra. He there interviewed many who claimed to have known Joseph Smith before the organization of the Church. Among those interviewed were some who left statements which give us more information on what the Prophet had been claiming at that early period. On November 3, 1833, Barton Stafford testified that Joseph had “professed to be inspired of the Lord to translate the Book of Mormon.” Stafford claimed to have known them “until 1831 when they left this neighborhood.” Five days later, on November 8, Joseph Capron testified that Joseph had made “the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God.” [Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834), 251&ndash 252, and 258–260. (Affidavits examined) ]
  • 1834: Oliver Cowdery published the beginning elements of the First Vision story as part of a history of the Church [(December 1834) Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1:43.]
  • 1835: William W. Phelps published a reference to the First Vision in October 1835 in the Church's newspaper [(October 1835) Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2:208.]
  • 1836: The First Vision reference by William W. Phelps was republished as part of hymn #26 in the Saints' first hymnal—March 1836 (see Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1176).
• In short, when the published 1830s fragments of the First Vision story are compared to the as-yet-unpublished 1838 recital, it becomes apparent that the Prophet's account of things stayed steady during this time frame and was probably known among a wider cross-section of the contemporary LDS population than has been previously acknowledged by Joseph’s critics.
• Question: Did early Church members complain that Joseph changed his story of the First Vision?
  Answer: No.
  This criticism was only made decades after Joseph's death. Contemporary members and apostates never raised the issue—that seems strange if early members of the Church (many of whom later left) had reason to believe that Joseph was changing his story. This criticism of Joseph only became possible after a lot of historical distance sat between him and those exposed to the criticism.
• Question: Was the First Vision as we teach today not the same foundational event of the church originally?
  Answer: No
  Critics have downplayed the vast evidence that shows how important the First Vision was even to 19th century members. See here.
  • Early converts and members were less impressed by the First Vision because claiming visions was a rather common thing at the time. The Book of Mormon was far more persuasive to them, because it offered tangible evidence that Joseph's claims were true. Few of Joseph's audience doubted the existence of God; a vision of God would not much change their ideas about God's reality. New scripture accompanied by other eyewitnesses, however, altered their perspective.
  • In our more skeptical age, if Joseph really translated an ancient record, then his account of God's existence tells many people something new.
•  ^{[needs work]}

Question:

• I discovered that the church as an organization had systematically deceived me by only telling a carefully selected, one-sided version of church history.
• Do the leaders of the church really believe that they are actually inspired by God to act in such a way? Just to tell a selected, nice version of the church—the history of the church—in order to get more converts? Do they believe they are inspired to do this?

Question:

• Elder Packer says there, it is not good for the members to know all the truth.
• He used to say things, like last conference, as well, that changed afterwards.
• He says that it’s not good for a member to know all the truth.
• He said as a watchman on the tower he might stop things that could hurt.

Question:
One thing that really bothers me is the lack of contemporary sources for the angelic visitations.

• There are sources from 1820-1830— affidavits, letters, minutes— but none of them ever mentions any angelic visitations or a priesthood
• Why are there not any contemporary testimonies. Or are there?

Question:
When I read about the priesthood and the blacks.

• David O. McKay .... he had made OK that they should have the priesthood. But three of the apostles were not there and when they come back, they said no.
• Is this true that there were some apostles that went against the question to give the priesthood to the Blacks?
• Mark E Peterson....talks a lot about the blacks and the pre-existence and they are damned and so on because they were black.

Question:

• When I went to the temple the first time, it was 1970 in Switzerland. And after being in there the first day, I was terrified. I couldn’t sleep at night. I thought, what is this, you know? There was a black hole in my heart and I had nightmares the whole week. I thought, what is this? Have I been deceived?

Question:
We had some Vikings visit North America about 1000 years ago, and today we know exactly where they lived actually, there are archeological evidence that they leave there, etc. So what about all the millions of people who have been Lamanites or Nephites … What kind of evidence can you show that actually exist? Every single small Indian tribe in the whole of America we know about today because they all leave buildings and tombs and anything which we can prove that they are there, have been there. And as far as I know there is nothing prove there have been Lamanites or Nephites in America. If we have time also could you comment on the American Indians and the DNA, and the connection to Lamanites, Nephites, and then back to the Jewish people. Interesting to hear.

Short Answer:

Question:
Could I please ask you a short question? Cause I’m just really happy that you’re here so I’m taking the chance now, it might be a bit risky, so I see this [0:51:55] It’s about the Adam-God theory. And my question is not so much about –I’ve heard answers to how Brigham might have thought about it, but my question is, how come it divided the church at the time? There was a lot of Apostles and leaders that didn’t agree to what Brigham had to say so if, I don’t know, what is church opinion on Adam-God out there in Utah and why didn’t they clear it up if it is the way I think they they that he actually thought that Adam in not Heavenly Father, but why couldn’t he make other apostles understand that?

Short Answer:

Question:
It’s the same thing with Kinderhook Plates where Joseph said yes this is good thing. But it’s a fraud.

Short Answer:

• Question: Did Joseph translate the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates?
  Answer: No.
  No translation of the plates exists, apart from the initial "portion."

If you walk through all of the evidence from the time the Kinderhook Plates were discovered, down to the time they take them to Nauvoo, to the time they had the editorial published in the Times and Seasons, to the time that broadside published in the Nauvoo Neighbor newspaper, to the time that Wilbur Fugate one of the proponents of that fraud, made his statement, there’s clear evidence that Joseph wanted to translate them and never did. Why didn’t he? I think because they were a fraud. Wilbur Fugate, the man who helped to perpetrate this fraud, said explicitly that they wanted Joseph Smith to translate it. Joseph Smith said he would not translate it until they sent it to the Antiquarian Society in Philadelphia, France, and England. So he never did translate it.
—Elder Turley's answer to this question at the Sweden fireside.

• Question: Was William Clayton's journal entry stating that Pres. Joseph had "translated a portion" of the Kinderhook plates correct?
  Answer: Yes.
  Joseph attempted to translate one of the characters on the plates by matching it to a similar character on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), a document that was produced in the same timeframe as the Book of Abraham. It is from the GAEL that he derived the "descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh" meaning.
• Question: Did Joseph attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates by revelation?
  Answer: No.
  Joseph's initial attempt at translation was done using non-revelatory means.
• Question: Did Church leaders believe for many years that the Kinderhook Plates were legitimate?
  Answer: Yes.
  The plates were lost and there was no way to determine their authenticity. The Church believed that they were genuine until one plate was rediscovered and proven to be a fraud.
• This data was introduced by Don Bradley at the 2011 FAIR Conference. For a detailed explanation, see Don Bradley "‘President Joseph Has Translated a Portion’: Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates," 2011 FAIR Conference.