Question for non LDS Christians.

[thews]

Nah. Presented in a kind and civil manner, questions are fine. It's not at all cool to show a bad attitude over simple questions, and I'm appalled when I see people acting like that. People are sometimes simply curious. And sometimes they do have a problem with it, they don't believe it, but they have every right to their opinion, and are often very polite about expressing it.

I'm thinking more of the rude, ignorant questions, the "UR A MORMON LOL HOW MANY WIVES DO U HAVE THAT'S SO WRONG LOL" stuff.

I would never do that, as respect goes both ways. In that respect though, I do find I'm attacked for asking the question that some LDS have issues with, or have not resolved it themselveswithin their own monds. In asking it (the question), I get a lot of flack. What can I expect in here to asking a question to what you believe you've already answered (someone else), but I believe has not been answered? I have questions... what is off limits?

[Lstinthwrld]

I would never do that, as respect goes both ways. In that respect though, I do find I'm attacked for asking the question that some LDS have issues with, or have not resolved it themselveswithin their own monds. In asking it (the question), I get a lot of flack. What can I expect in here to asking a question to what you believe you've already answered (someone else), but I believe has not been answered? I have questions... what is off limits?

If some one is seeking the truth as others see it and proclaim it then nothing should be off limits. If its true then there is no harm in answering the question. Without getting mad or defensive. Ever.

[thews]

If some one is seeking the truth as others see it and proclaim it then nothing should be off limits. If its true then there is no harm in answering the question. Without getting mad or defensive. Ever.

Can you tell me why the LDSchurch hides the papyrus (with map glued on its back), along with he EAG (Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) written by Joseph Smith (along with receipts from Emma Smith), his peep stone and stivepipe hat from its members? Why do they (the LDS church) keep these sacred documents from its members?

[Lstinthwrld]

Can you tell me why the LDSchurch hides the papyrus (with map glued on its back), along with he EAG (Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) written by Joseph Smith (along with receipts from Emma Smith), his peep stone and stivepipe hat from its members? Why do they (the LDS church) keep these sacred documents from its members?

I am not LDS. Bit good questions be interesting to see if its true.

[thews]

I am not LDS. Bit good questions be interesting to see if its true.

It is true. Sorry... my bad.

[Just_A_Guy]

Can you tell me why the LDSchurch hides the papyrus (with map glued on its back),

Which papyrus? As far as I know, the remnants of the papyri the Church purchased wound up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

. . . along with he EAG (Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) written by Joseph Smith . . .

As far as I know, most of which were published by BYU Studies back in the 1970s (yes, after the Tanners leaked them. The saga of Church Archives is a long and twisted one; suffice it to say that the powers that be have had, IMHO, a fairly simplistic view of what purposes LDS history is supposed to serve).

. . . (along with receipts from Emma Smith), . . .

Huh?

. . . his peep stone and stivepipe hat from its members?

I'm not aware that the hat still exists. The stone certainly does, and is occasionally mentioned in fairly basic LDS texts; but I have no quibbles with the Church not wanting to turn it into a circus attraction.

[thews]

Which papyrus? As far as I know, the remnants of the papyri the Church purchased wound up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Actually no. Of the 4 mummies purchased by Joseph Smith, the papyrus Joseph Smith used to translate the BOA, is well documented, as it has a map of Navoo on the back and matches the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar exactly, and comes with the receipts from Emma Smith when she sold them.

As far as I know, most of which were published by BYU Studies back in the 1970s (yes, after the Tanners leaked them. The saga of Church Archives is a long and twisted one; suffice it to say that the powers that be have had, IMHO, a fairly simplistic view of what purposes LDS history is supposed to serve).

Huh?

The papyrus was given to the Mormon church in 1967... that is a fact. There is no question, as this is a fact.

I'm not aware that the hat still exists. The stone certainly does, and is occasionally mentioned in fairly basic LDS texts; but I have no quibbles with the Church not wanting to turn it into a circus attraction.

I've seen picutres of the peepstone, and have read that the LDS church has both the peepstone ands stovepipe hat. Edited September 16, 2009 by thews

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually no. Of the 4 mummies purchased by Joesh Smith, the papyrus Joseh Smith used to translate the BOA, is well documented, as it has a map of Navoo on the back and matches the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar exactly, and comes with the receipts from Emma Smith when she sold them.

You're referring to the Church Historian's fragment--1/11th of the entire Book of Abraham, and which was published long ago.

The papyrus was given to the Mormn church in 1967... that is a fact. There is no question, as this is a fact.

And has been thoroughly documented. The Mormons are not the only ones to elect not to put original, very old documents on public display.

I've seen picutres of the peepstone, and have read that the LDS church has both the peepstone ands stovepipe hat.

In point of fact, Joseph Smith used several seerstones throughout his life. The one that figures in the Book of Mormon translation is the Chase stone. It resides in the First Presidency vault; we have verbal descriptions of it but no photographs. There are, however, photographs of several other seerstones floating around the net.

[thews]

You're referring to the Church Historian's fragment--1/11th of the entire Book of Abraham, and which was published long ago.

I disagree. Can you give me a link to see what you're claiming?

And has been thoroughly documented. The Mormons are not the only ones to elect not to put original, very old documents on public display.

Why not? If the papyrus the Mormon church has matches the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (written by Joseph Smith) exactly letter for letter, and they had it on public display back in 1842 and charged money to see it, why would it not be on display now? It would prove without a doubt iwhether or not Joseph Smith knew how to translate Egyptian wouldn't it?

In point of fact, Joseph Smith used several seerstones throughout his life. The one that figures in the Book of Mormon translation is the Chase stone. It resides in the First Presidency vault; we have verbal descriptions of it but no photographs. There are, however, photographs of several other seerstones floating around the net.

Cool. Can you link me to a picture of the peep stone used to translate the Book of Mormon?

Edited September 16, 2009 by thews

[cougarfan]

Wait. I just can't believe that Joseph Smith used a stovepipe hat to translate. Where does it say that???

Is this one of those mysteries that we need to just not discuss?

[Just_A_Guy]

I disagree. Can you give me a link to see what you're claiming?

See the Wikipedia entry--not ideal, but it'll do. There are eleven fragments. If I've read it correctly, ten were at the Met and one turned up in LDS archives in the late sixties.

Why not? If the papyrus the Mormon church has matches the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (written by Joseph Smith) exactly letter for letter, and they had it on public display back in 1842 and charged money to see it, why would it not be on display now? It would prove without a doubt iwhether or not Joseph Smith knew how to translate Egyptian wouldn't it?

I highly doubt you'd think it proved much of anything, regardless of how accurate it turned out to be.

There are a variety of logistical reasons not to display a particular item, as anyone acquainted with museums and archives could tell you. As long as there are reliable copies accessible to historians, I really don't see what the issue is.

Cool. Can you link me to a picture of the peep stone used to translate the Book of Mormon?

Apparently you missed it when I said "we have verbal descriptions but no photographs". :)

Wait. I just can't believe that Joseph Smith used a stovepipe hat to translate. Where does it say that???

Is this one of those mysteries that we need to just not discuss?

David Whitmer recorded the use of a seer stone. For more, see this issue of Dialogue (starting at page 48) by Van Wagoner and Walker; or Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling).

[bytebear]

Cool. Can you link me to a picture of the peep stone used to translate the Book of Mormon?

I find it funny when people are critical of "mystical" artifacts used by Joseph Smith when the Bible is filled with similar tools. In fact, the "peepstone" may never have been used in the translation of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon describes the "interpreters" as a kind of glasses which fit into a breast plate. Well after the translation was complete and the interpreters were returned with the plates did Parley Pratt (I think) figure out the connection with the Urim and Thummin in the Bible and they were then described and called as such. The "peep stones" more accurately called seer stones, were used in deciphering the Book of Abraham, but again, these are interpreters, not translators, so when Smith tried to decipher the alphabet, he wasn't using it to decipher the translation, but rather was taking his prophetic interpretation and trying to work backwards toward a literal translation.

[thews]

See the Wikipedia entry--not ideal, but it'll do. There are eleven fragments. If I've read it correctly, ten were at the Met and one turned up in LDS archives in the late sixties.

Wikipedia is hardly a source for factual information... it's uploaded by users. The papyrus was given to the Mormon church in 1967 after is was found... after the fire. It's a common papyrus... something one would expect to find in a mummy.

I highly doubt you'd think it proved much of anything, regardless of how accurate it turned out to be.

There are a variety of logistical reasons not to display a particular item, as anyone acquainted with museums and archives could tell you. As long as there are reliable copies accessible to historians, I really don't see what the issue is.

I don't understand. We're talking about documents (the papyurs and EAG) that are known to exist, and were displayed for a fee in the arly 1800's. What is your point?

Apparently you missed it when I said "we have verbal descriptions but no photographs". :)

What about this photograph?

http://nowscape.com/mormon/scrl-xl.jpg

David Whitmer recorded the use of a seer stone. For more, see this issue of Dialogue (starting at page 48) by Van Wagoner and Walker; or Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling).

David Whitmore also said this: "God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter- day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."

Do you disagree?

[thews]

I find it funny when people are critical of "mystical" artifacts used by Joseph Smith when the Bible is filled with similar tools. In fact, the "peepstone" may never have been used in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

What are you talking about? Joseph Smith, with the aid of a peep stone and stivepipe hat used it to translate the golden plates. Do you deny this?

The Book of Mormon describes the "interpreters" as a kind of glasses which fit into a breast plate. Well after the translation was complete and the interpreters were returned with the plates did Parley Pratt (I think) figure out the connection with the Urim and Thummin in the Bible and they were then described and called as such. The "peep stones" more accurately called seer stones, were used in deciphering the Book of Abraham, but again, these are interpreters, not translators, so when Smith tried to decipher the alphabet, he wasn't using it to decipher the translation, but rather was taking his prophetic interpretation and trying to work backwards toward a literal translation.

Joseph Smith used his seerer stone to decipher the golden plates. Do you deny this?

[Just_A_Guy]

Wikipedia is hardly a source for factual information... it's uploaded by users.

Based on factual sources. And Wikipedia is not exactly a hotbed of pro-Mormon sentiment.

The papyrus was given to the Mormon church in 1967 after is was found... after the fire. It's a common papyrus... something one would expect to find in a mummy.

To Egyptologists, yes. But these particular papyri have a 19th-century American historical connection that sets them apart, and makes them of infinitely greater value to Mormons.

I don't understand. We're talking about documents (the papyurs and EAG) that are known to exist, and were displayed for a fee in the arly 1800's. What is your point?

You argue they are being suppressed. That's an asinine argument where the contents of the papyri are well-known. Document preservation techniques have evolved just a tad bit over the past two centuries.

What about this photograph?

http://nowscape.com/mormon/scrl-xl.jpg

Your link isn't showing up on my browser. But neither this stone, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one are the Chase stone which lies in the First Presidency vault.

David Whitmore also said this: "God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter- day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."

Oh, OK. If you don't think Whitmer was telling the truth about the use of a seer stone, then why are we having this conversation?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

What are you talking about? Joseph Smith, with the aid of a peep stone and stivepipe hat used it to translate the golden plates. Do you deny this?

Yes, I do. Because all records of him using the seer stone (please use the correct term) were recorded years or decades after the translation by third party sources. In other words, I know the sources exist with this premise, but I believe them to be misunderstood speculation.

Joseph Smith used his seerer stone to decipher the golden plates. Do you deny this?

Yes, as I said, no first person account supports this assertion. I think the church takes no official position on the matter, believing it is really unimportant in the full scheme of things, but I can easily make an argument against the claim.

Now a question for you. Do you agree that the Bible is filled with "mystical" practices performed by prophets of God?

[prisonchaplain]

Why do you think LDS people in general are so quick to get defensive when questions on their faith/doctrine are presented.

(be nice with your replies please)

The more I think about this question the more I'm convinced it's frot with the potential for trouble and misunderstanding. LDS can be sensitive becasue it most parts the world they are a small minority, and their faith has received considerable criticism from most sectors of the Christian world. My faith had the same beginning, but after a generation moved into the mainstream, and ultimately became widely accepted in Protestantism, and even with Catholicism (both have a Charismatic Renewal in them).

Now, if I lived in certain parts of Georgia, and constantly had my Baptist neighbors asking me how I could open myself up to demonic influences by speaking in unknown tongues, after awhile, I'd probably develop a bit of a chip on my shoulder.

My experience at LDS.net is that when questions are asked in openess and sincerity, I, a clergperson from a denomination that has lodged some serious anti-LDS criticisms, receive almost no flack. I've had maybe three posters here give me somewhat of a hard time, in nearly four years of posting. And two of those quickly backed off, when others let them know that I was fair and reasonable.

So, my answer to the question of why LDS can be so sensitive is...they sure don't have to be...the tone probably depends much more on the questioner than the answerer.

[Lstinthwrld]

The more I think about this question the more I'm convinced it's frot with the potential for trouble and misunderstanding. LDS can be sensitive becasue it most parts the world they are a small minority, and their faith has received considerable criticism from most sectors of the Christian world. My faith had the same beginning, but after a generation moved into the mainstream, and ultimately became widely accepted in Protestantism, and even with Catholicism (both have a Charismatic Renewal in them).

Now, if I lived in certain parts of Georgia, and constantly had my Baptist neighbors asking me how I could open myself up to demonic influences by speaking in unknown tongues, after awhile, I'd probably develop a bit of a chip on my shoulder.

My experience at LDS.net is that when questions are asked in openess and sincerity, I, a clergperson from a denomination that has lodged some serious anti-LDS criticisms, receive almost no flack. I've had maybe three posters here give me somewhat of a hard time, in nearly four years of posting. And two of those quickly backed off, when others let them know that I was fair and reasonable.

So, my answer to the question of why LDS can be so sensitive is...they sure don't have to be...the tone probably depends much more on the questioner than the answerer.

I can buy into this and definitely agree when you say they don't have to be. I would take that a little further and say no christian lds or other should ever be defensive when asked criticized or called on the carpet to defend their faith. If you honestly believe what you say you do and that the person you are talking/debating/arguing with is lost without understanding the fullness of the truth as you do then you feel sorry for them and deep pity. How can you be mad at someone in this condition. Its like being mad at a child when they burn themselves on the stove when they don't know it is hot and dangerous. You feel compassion for that child and do everything in your power to relieve their suffering. You don't get mad.

[Kawazu]

My experience at LDS.net is that when questions are asked in openess and sincerity, I, a clergperson from a denomination that has lodged some serious anti-LDS criticisms, receive almost no flack. I've had maybe three posters here give me somewhat of a hard time, in nearly four years of posting. And two of those quickly backed off, when others let them know that I was fair and reasonable.

This is because you are awesome. You and a cousin of mine are two Protestants who have increased my acceptance and understanding of Protestantism as a whole.

Thank you.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Elphaba]

In fact, the "peepstone" may never have been used in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

All Mormon historians, scholarly or otherwise, agree that Joseph used the seer stone during a significant part of the translation process.

According to D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View: . . . .

Nevertheless, other LDS leaders have affirmed that Smith used the seer stone. First Presidency Counselor George Q. Cannon’s Life of Joseph Smith, stated: One of Joseph’s aids in searching out the truths of the [Book of Mormon] was a peculiar pebble, or rock which he called a seer stone, and which was sometimes used by him in lieu of the Urim and Thummim. For nearly 25 years, assistant church historian B.H. Roberts published the same description in LDS publications.

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 the Urim and Thummim, since by means of it--as described above--as well by means of the Interpreters, found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraved on the plates, Brigham Young University’s Richard L. Anderson affirmed.

Thus should it impose no religious difficulty that Joseph’s seer stone of his youth was later applied to the higher use of inspired translation of the Book of Mormon.

The following is David Whitmer’s account of the translation process. Whitmer was at one time one of Joseph’s scribes. He wrote:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which The Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone in a hat, and then put his face in the hat, drawing it close around his face go to exclude the light’ and then in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. He repeated this in numerous interviews. . . ..

Emma Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and other believing observors affirmed that the stone translation occurred through the gift and power of God. None of these scribes and witnesses saw any inconsistency in God’s employing a treasure digger stone for sacred translation. These believers had a world view which regarded success with such images provided by folk magic as divine gift. (D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, pp. 173-177.)

It's extremely important to note we have four first-hand witnesses of Joseph using the seer stone while translating the BoM. There is no doubt about this. And all of them agree Joseph would put the seer stone in his hat, and then put his face deep enough into the hat that all sunlight was blocked. He would then see the next words of the BoM, which he would tell to his scribe.

Personally I think it's unfortunate the Church doesn't teach this version of the translation more often. Actually, it's been twenty-five years since I was a member, so perhaps they do. But I have seen a very small few people be taken aback when they learn about this.

From another source, Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 74

we learn that Joseph and (Oliver)Cowdery talked late into the evening the Sunday of his arrival. Cowdery learned more of the story and decided to stay. On April 7, he noticed the purchase agreement for the Isaac Hale property, and the next day the translation began, moving forward with only a few pauses until the book was completely by late June. “Day after day,” Cowdery reported in 1834, I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth has he translated from the Urim and Thummim.

When Martin Harris had taken dictation from Joseph, they at first hung a blanket between them to prevent Harris from inadvertently catching a glimpse of the plates, which were open on a table in that room.

By the time Cowdery arrived, translator and scribe were no longer separated. Emma said she sat at the same table with Joseph, writing as he dictated, with nothing between them and the plates wrapped in a linen cloth sitting on the table.

When Cowdery took up the office of scribe, he and Joseph translated in the same room where Emma was working. Joseph looked into the seer stone and the plates lay covered on the table.

I do believe the initial Urrim and Thummiim, the interpreters, as you say, were taken away from Joseph after the Martin Harris fiasco. I don't remember for sure if God returned it back to Joseph or not.

But the fact is, Joseph only used the seer stone to translate the remainder of the book. As I said above, Joseph would sometimes do this with only the seer stone and his hat. Other times he had the plates right there with him, but didn't need to open them to translate.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Which papyrus? As far as I know, the remnants of the papyri the Church purchased wound up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

As far as I know, the Met gave all of the papyri back to the Church.

As far as I know, most of which were published by BYU Studies back in the 1970s.

These photos were low quality, and I believe black and white.

Since then newer pictures have been taken, and a petty turf war calling for the Chuch to provide high-quality photos may be hanging on. I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Brent Metcalfe owns what is probably the best copy of the papyrus ever taken. In fact, it is so good that it has solved a number of issues the black and white copy could never address.

The last I heard, Brent was working on a book which was going to include the high res copy; however, the last time I talked to him was about two years ago, and I haven't heard of anything in the works yet. When I say I met him I mean I mentioned his name, and he came to the board to see what all the fuss was about. In reality I don't know the man.

Maybe he'll get wind of my post and answer me again.

( The saga of Church Archives is a long and twisted one; suffice it to say that the powers that be have had, IMHO, a fairly simplistic view of what purposes LDS history is supposed to serve).As a completely uneducated historian wannabe, I personally think the powers that be are in a precarious position on this one. Certainly not for everyone, but some people care about this information a great deal,, and are willing to pay whatever it takes to get the high-quality photos. There has been some question as to whether the Church will cooperate or not.

Man, I am totally out of the loop on this one. I'm slippin'!

Elphaba

[RiversideGuy]

Why do you think LDS people in general are so quick to get defensive when questions on their faith/doctrine are presented.

(be nice with your replies please)

Possibly for the very same reasons evolutionists are so quick to get defensive when questioned by creationists.

[thews]

Based on factual sources. And Wikipedia is not exactly a hotbed of pro-Mormon sentiment.

I find WIkiipedia to be quite biased.

To Egyptologists, yes. But these particular papyri have a 19th-century American historical connection that sets them apart, and makes them of infinitely greater value to Mormons.

I understand

You argue they are being suppressed. That's an asinine argument where the contents of the papyri are well-known. Document preservation techniques have evolved just a tad bit over the past two centuries.

I don't believe the contents of the papyrus Emma Smith sold is well known at all. I've heard many stories about the papyrus, like it's "as big as a room" and a lot of people believe it was burned in the fire. The Mormon church has the exact papyrus Joseph Smith used to translate the book of Abraham, and it matches letter for letter the book by Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

If they are not suppressed, can you link me to a source?

Your link isn't showing up on my browser. But neither this stone, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one are the Chase stone which lies in the First Presidency vault.

Thanks... I didn't know that.

Oh, OK. If you don't think Whitmer was telling the truth about the use of a seer stone, then why are we having this conversation?

It's not so much about who was telling the truth, but the David Whitmer also had a seer stone, as did many of the 11 witnesses. My question was why it isn't put on display.

[thews]

Yes, I do. Because all records of him using the seer stone (please use the correct term) were recorded years or decades after the translation by third party sources. In other words, I know the sources exist with this premise, but I believe them to be misunderstood speculation.

What I don't understand is why people just can't accept history for what it was, instead of attempting to twist it into something they want it to be. Joseph Smith was convicted of "glass looking" a few years prior, so my assumption is that he didn't want to tell other he was using the same method.

Yes, as I said, no first person account supports this assertion. I think the church takes no official position on the matter, believing it is really unimportant in the full scheme of things, but I can easily make an argument against the claim.

1830 was a long time ago. You could make an argument, but since other witnesses used seer stones, I hardly see this as worth the argument.

Now a question for you. Do you agree that the Bible is filled with "mystical" practices performed by prophets of God?

The bible warns against the use of magic. What was used by people before the bible is hardly an argument for what Jesus Christ left for us in the bible.

Now my question for you: If many of the witnesses used seer stones, why don't Mormons use them today?

[prisonchaplain]

I can buy into this and definitely agree when you say they don't have to be. I would take that a little further and say no christian lds or other should ever be defensive when asked criticized or called on the carpet to defend their faith. If you honestly believe what you say you do and that the person you are talking/debating/arguing with is lost without understanding the fullness of the truth as you do then you feel sorry for them and deep pity. How can you be mad at someone in this condition. Its like being mad at a child when they burn themselves on the stove when they don't know it is hot and dangerous. You feel compassion for that child and do everything in your power to relieve their suffering. You don't get mad.

The one exception I would make is when a person who worships the same God could see, but won't. Jesus leveled some pretty serious criticism at the Pharisees and Sadduccees. Even Nicodemus, who came to him out of apparent sincerity and humility had to hear Jesus say, "YOU, a teacher of the Law, don't undersand these things?"

In contrast, Jesus' showed little towards the Roman soldiers who brutalized them, only praying, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." We really must err on the side of patience and understanding. At times this can be truly hard.