Tough question 1

[jiminycricket]

Actually at that point of translation, he did not require the plates to be open. It was mere looking into the hat to see the written translation and its English counterpart. Perhaps, it was a mere confidence builder for him.

To counter any usage of the Bible being recited, what was given on the seer stones, was translated. If not, he could not continue on with the translation. That was the point for him to learn.

I'm a little unclear on your meaning, hemi. Could you clarify?

Also, do you have a reference for the seer stones process? I've always wondered exactly how they, and the U&T, worked.

Thanks,

Jiminy

Edited January 19, 2009 by jiminycricket

[Hemidakota]

Concur....doing our homework first. At times, we can use many resources today to form our conclusions of what transpired.

If most here did their homework, they will understand the mode on how seer stones give translations, by what power the seer stones operate, and why a few men can qualify to be seers. Last, they would also note, church archives currently have a pair of seer stones. :)

[Hemidakota]

I'm a little unclear on your meaning, hemi. Could you clarify?

Also, do you have a reference for the seer stones process?

Thanks,

Jiminy

It was talked about in great lengths on another thread with references and explained on the process how Seer Stones work. Even President Young had a pair of Seer Stones that upon his death, one of his daughters turned it in to the church archive.

When ever I see a strange doctrine given by President Young, my first 'knee jerk' reaction would be did he use the seer stones to look a selected doctrine.

However, let me look to see if I can find the article that did a superb job on details, definition of a seer, who are called, and how it work.

[Hemidakota]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/12454-how-did-joseph-translate-book-mormon.html

http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Gift_of_Seeing.pdf

Edited January 19, 2009 by Hemidakota

[jiminycricket]

Concur....doing our homework first. At times, we can use many resources today to form our conclusions of what transpired.

If most here did their homework, they will understand the mode on how seer stones give translations, by what power the seer stones operate, and why a few men can qualify to be seers. Last, they would also note, church archives currently have a pair of seer stones. :)

Can't wait until we're ready for them to be used!

JC

[Just_A_Guy]

Of the resources that we have at our disposal to do our homework, other believers are perhaps one of the most valuable. It's kind of similar to going to an encyclopedia for academic research. You're getting help from the work of others, not asking someone else to do it for you. Put back into the context of this situation, whoknows isn't (or shouldn't) just accept whatever opinions he gets here, he is going to (or should) ponder them, consider which ones he feels are right, and go to God for a confirmation.

I don't want to get into this too much, because I don't want to make this about Whoknowswhat individually.

Suffice it to say that there's something very powerful about an independently-acquired knowledge of the truth that comes only after a lengthy and exacting struggle. I think there's a reason that the Church's temple prep seminar doesn't include a detailed explanation of what everything means. None of us can resolve Whoknowswhat's concerns the way the Spirit can. (The old commitment pattern used by missionaries was very big on this. Not sure about the degree to which the new program incorporates it.)

As a side note, no offense but I don't think it's appropriate to deny the existence of a fitting blanket-answer simply because you don't know of one.

None taken, and I was probably too strident in my tone. Nevertheless, I must confess that I find the blanket explanations heretofore offered to be unconvincing.

--Change in perspective/time frame accounts for some differences, but not all of them.

--Viewing the BOM account as a "literal translation" and the JST as a "clarification" begs the question of why JS couldn't have done both at the same time (at least with the passages in question), and thus strikes me as unsatisfying.

--The idea of Joseph Smith simply writing the 3 Nephi account based on his (flawed) recollection of the text of Matthew, I think, attributes to him an intellectual capacity that (based on statements of Lucy and Emma Smith) I'm unconvinced he actually enjoyed at that stage of his life. It also displays an extraordinarily cavalier attitude for such a monumental undertaking ("Heck, I won't bother actually getting a Bible out. I think I have this stuff mostly down.") More importantly, it fails to address the thrust of the original question which is why even parts of the BoM that are identical to the original KJV differ from the JST.

I suppose it's possible that there's some simple, elegant theory that explains everything. But I have yet to see such a theory. Given a complex, particularized approach that generally holds water and a simple blanket-answer that doesn't, I'll choose the former.

[Islander]

I have read ALL of affidavits, some of the opposition letters, conspiracy theorists and the like. Without eloquent explanations, Joseph was a poor, illiterate kid from a peasant family in the sticks in upstate NY in the 1830's, with a 3rd grade education, no theological, linguistic, archeological or literary training or any kind or access to texts on those subjects.

From a totally secular standpoint and excluding the religious implications, NOBODY to date has come up with a credible explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon. As often, prophets are always disbelieved, persecuted, imprisoned and ultimately killed for the message condemns a world that enjoys and relishes in the sludge of its own sin. Others, perhaps sincerely but erroneously, have decided that it can not be possibly true (modern prophets and revelation) since it implies that they have been wrong for a very long time. And that is just hard to swallow.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Islander

[KristofferUmfrey]

On being judgmental:

It is time to say, "Enough with the politically correct." and say what we believe once and for all: I believe in prophets. I believe that the LDS church is the most correct church on earth as it is guided by God through His prophets. I believe that anywhere that you differ from His prophets results in you being wrong, Kristoffer. Where you believe the church is incoorrect, I believe you are incorrect. So do most members of the church, though they are polite enough not to phrase it that way.

We believe in the church. You say you fall away only on some of those teachings. Fine. That would be where we believe you are wrong. And it's also where you believe we are wrong. I accept this, but I will not let word attacks stand that try to water down our beliefs. You say "Judgmental" and I say "Direct".

I don't understand people like you FT. I try to be polite and you walk on me like I'm a rug. I don't understand the need to treat people that way.

[BenRaines]

Enough. This is no longer about the thread topic or original posters intent. This is being closed. Any new thread or existing thread that continues these personal attacks will be also closed.

Ben Raines