Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

[Hemidakota]

ARTICLE EXCERPT: Number 2: Why have we have always been told that Joseph translated the book with the Urim and Thummim? The answer is simple: The early Saints referred to both the Interpreters and the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." The real problem is not that the seer stone is called the Urim and Thummim, but rather that when most modern members hear the phrase they typically envision the Interpreters. Why is this? The critics claim that most members don't know about the stone and the hat because the church hides the information. This claim, however, is false.

ARTICLE LINK: MormonTimes - Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

[Hemidakota]

Well stated Changed. I always wonder if the sealed plates have the same language. I suspect it would if Moroni read it and may have condensed the writings and then told to seal them.

Either way, I come to learn that for uneducated man, he require an aid in helping him to translate, when his first vision required a sight and hearing. But in the end, something I now realize by Misshalfway from past post [giving her credit in opening this meaning], Joseph moved from a sight, hearing, and a seer stone, to listening to that still small voice when receiving revelations. As you stated, we learn by the same means.

[Taldarin]

Yeah, I read this article a few days ago. But the critics do kind of have a point? No one ever mentions the stone and the hat thing.

Not that it's bad, but... No one ever mentions it, haha. I grew up in the church and never knew about that until I was on my mission.

[hordak]

ARTICLE EXCERPT: Number 2: Why have we have always been told that Joseph translated the book with the Urim and Thummim? The answer is simple: The early Saints referred to both the Interpreters and the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." The real problem is not that the seer stone is called the Urim and Thummim, but rather that when most modern members hear the phrase they typically envision the Interpreters. Why is this? The critics claim that most members don't know about the stone and the hat because the church hides the information. This claim, however, is false.

ARTICLE LINK: MormonTimes - Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

I don't know

A search of church content reveals only 2 hits that mention the "seer stone" and "hat". A couple of ensign articles from 16 and 32 years ago.

Meanwhile a search of "translating the book of Mormon" come up with this

And the restoration video also shows this.

So while I do agree the head in the hat translation isn't that strange, especially considering how the 10 commandments were given. I disagree with the notion that it is regularly taught common knowledge. I was born and raised in the church and would never have learn about it if it wasn't for "anti" Mormon websites.

[Maxel]

Milk before meat. Unfortunately, in today's highly cynical society, most people (even the faithful) could be deeply shaken if they're presented with knowledge they're not ready for- even something as simple as "Joseph Smith used a hat to translate the Book of Mormon". Satan will immediately mount hs attack on the member, trying to persuade them that such an idea is so absurd that it can't be true (notice that he doesn't rely on logic or reason, but on an appeal to misguided emotional instability).

In my experience, those who are actually ready for the knowledge will desire the knowledge and actively seek it. Plus, the mission of the Church doesn't encompass teaching the members small details in its history- that's up to members to find out, if they so desire.

[OneEternalSonata]

Plus, the mission of the Church doesn't encompass teaching the members small details in its history- that's up to members to find out, if they so desire.

Exactly, as the fact that he translated by the power of God is more important than the exact process. (Though, I find it uplifting to know Joseph had to grow, too, it strengthens my testimony.)

[Vort]

Alma 37:23 And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.

Joseph Smith called his seer stone "Gazelem". I assume that is the "Gazelem" referenced in this verse*. Interestingly, Joseph used the name "Gazelem" or "Gazelam" as a code name for himself in revelations he received about the united order. (These "unusual names" or code names were kept until the 1981 edition of the D&C.) Perhaps this is actually talking about Joseph himself.

*Maybe Joseph named his stone "Gazelem" based on this verse? Just a thought.

[hordak]

Milk before meat. Unfortunately, in today's highly cynical society, most people (even the faithful) could be deeply shaken if they're presented with knowledge they're not ready for- even something as simple as "Joseph Smith used a hat to translate the Book of Mormon". Satan will immediately mount hs attack on the member, trying to persuade them that such an idea is so absurd that it can't be true (notice that he doesn't rely on logic or reason, but on an appeal to misguided emotional instability).

In my experience, those who are actually ready for the knowledge will desire the knowledge and actively seek it. Plus, the mission of the Church doesn't encompass teaching the members small details in its history- that's up to members to find out, if they so desire.

I don't believe history is "meat" for 2 reasons .

1 it isn't doctrine that has been built upon. Believing that Joseph was a prophet, restored the gospel and temple is necessary to accept the ceremony and teachings at the temple.

Accepting translation method is not something that has been built upon. The history isn't something kept hidden until members are ready to have the truth revealed at a later date.

2 It is something that could be seen as misrepresented. The seer stone hat translation method is rarely spoke of and a less “odd versions” face to face translation is shown in our images.

Something that is definitely meat, like temple ceremonies would never be shown in a “more acceptable version” for lack of a better term. The church wouldn’t want members to get the wrong idea about something so important, so it’s best not to speak of it at all.

Although I do suppose one man’s milk could be anothers man’s meat and vice a versa, and do agree the church isn’t responsible to give history lesson. I don’t think other churches do.

However I do wish the church was more “forthcoming” in these historical issues. Members (of all faiths) accept plenty of “unconventional ideas” I don’t see why we expect someone to accept a talking burning bush, but fear a glowing stone might be “too odd” Of course by the same token I don’t understand how people can see a talking burning bush as normal, while thinking a glowing stone is odd. Add there are plenty who do.

[Maxel]

I don't believe history is "meat" for 2 reasons .

Depends on the facets of the story in question.

For example, some people are not willing to literally accept the doctrine that "all spirit is matter", or that physical objects could affect a person's spiritual insight or could be a conduit of spiritual power. The vague idea of 'translating using a seer stone' doesn't intrude upon that ignorance, but studying the details can by bringing to light the reality of the event in a way hitherto unachieved.

However I do wish the church was more “forthcoming” in these historical issues. Members (of all faiths) accept plenty of “unconventional ideas” I don’t see why we expect someone to accept a talking burning bush, but fear a glowing stone might be “too odd” Of course by the same token I don’t understand how people can see a talking burning bush as normal, while thinking a glowing stone is odd. Add there are plenty who do.

As Snow is fond of saying (and this is just a paraphrase), more elapsed time makes things more believable. Sadly, the feeling that 'God is no longer a God of miralces' is more prevalent than many of us realize- even among Mormons.

[Moksha]

The plates on the table without the breastplate or headgear have been illustrated on the cover of the Ensign to represent the translation process.

Might be good to wait till a picture such as the one below appears on the cover of the Ensign, in order to add truth to such an apologetic as the link in the opening post.

*** Image edited out because it violates the following rule: 1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.***

Edited December 11, 2009 by Vanhin
Rule #1 violation.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is the site where that image came from. Be sure to catch the classy and oh-so-historically-accurate picture of Joseph Smith groping one of his wives (the about-to-be-unclothed Almira Johnson) while an angel gawks in through the open window. Not to mention the one of the obviously inebriated Joseph Smith about to pass out on the floor of Carthage Jail while the oblivious John Taylor belts out an English drinking song . . .

(/sarcasm)

Would Moksha be satisfied with a portrait showing Joseph, with an erect bearing and favorable lighting and the hat a few inches from his head, wearing his typical (per LDS art) serene and contemplative look?

Methinks not.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy
(Removed link to website where Moksha's image originated due to LDS.net rules)

[Vort]

Here is the site where that image came from.

Moksha, in all seriousness, I am shocked. Why on earth would you be linking to pictures from an anti-Mormon site? I realize you have some non-traditional beliefs, but surely even you see that linking to an anti-Mormon site is very far over the line of acceptability. Don't you?

Edited December 12, 2009 by Dravin
Quotes can make catching links fun! :)

[Vanhin]

Thanks Just_A_Guy!

[deseretgov]

I used the think te head in the hat thing was just anti-Mormon stuff. But I found out it was true. Only after that did it become a great faith building experience to know how the translation really happened. Even all the other things Joseph was able to do with seer stones.

I wish the church would talk about this more maybe even have some really nice paintings of it.

[Moksha]

Moksha, in all seriousness, I am shocked. Why on earth would you be linking to pictures from an anti-Mormon site? I realize you have some non-traditional beliefs, but surely even you see that linking to an anti-Mormon site is very far over the line of acceptability. Don't you?

Is there some mass contagion of misunderstanding going around? This was an Illustration of what is being claimed as widespread knowledge (the seer stone in the hat) and not a link to a anti-mormon site. If one clicked on the graphic, they were not taken to any site such an in a link. Links are entirely different.

Such a reaction as its removal and even worse - an infraction given to myself - is pretty darned goofy. Plus it tends to make the original claim, from the Mormon Times, look like insincere window dressing if one cannot even look upon an illustration of what is being claimed without a major overreaction.

The fact that something is found on an anti-mormon site does not make it radioactive. Consider this, even the LDS scriptures can be found there.

The point of wisdom which was missing here is to ask whether this graphic element was in some way anti-mormon. If it is an illustration of something that is being touted as a positive thing in the Church owned Mormon Times, then is it not in furtherance of the Church? It was something that was simply found on Google images typing <Jospeh Smith hat stone>. It represents something that the Church says is part of Church history. Are you sure coming down on me does not represent both an over reaction and a blunder?

This is like shunning postum because it came from a store that stays open on Sunday. Postum itself was really valiant.

[Moksha]

Is there a crossed wire somewhere promoting a contagion of misunderstanding? That was an illustration of what was being claimed in the Church owned Mormon Times of the Deseret News and not a link. Links are where you click something and a website pops up. I did not link to such a website. However, an illustration that supports the Mormon Times contention that such information is openly known by members, seems to be thwarted when the illustration itself is sent to the twilight zone and I receive some sort of board demerit for posting it.

This was a graphic found on Google images by typing the key words <Joseph Smith Seer Stone Hat>. Wisdom regarding the appropriateness of such a graphic should have been to ask if this furthered an anti-mormon point of view. In this case, it was in support of an argument the Church was trying to advance. To say something is contaminated by whether it can be found on what is termed an anti-mormon site, is ill founded. The LDS scriptures can be found on such sites.

If the illustration in itself is substantially correct and this was not a clickable link that could lead the flock astray, then is this reaction not a blunder. Hopefully it does not fall into the category of "rules are regulations" said with a slightly mechanical voice.

.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Moksha
hoping to not lose this post again

[john doe]

Site rule #6 will apply in this matter.

[Vort]

This was a graphic found on Google images by typing the key words <Joseph Smith Seer Stone Hat>.

Then I apologize.

[tubaloth]

ARTICLE EXCERPT: Number 2: Why have we have always been told that Joseph translated the book with the Urim and Thummim?

There is a reason why this is, because Joseph (Went worth letter) and Oliver Cowdrey both talk about the plates being translated by the Urim and Thummim. Those are the accounts that matter.

The answer is simple: The early Saints referred to both the Interpreters and the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." The real problem is not that the seer stone is called the Urim and Thummim, but rather that when most modern members hear the phrase they typically envision the Interpreters. Why is this? The critics claim that most members don't know about the stone and the hat because the church hides the information. This claim, however, is false.

process

I agree, there is some confusion in us now days reading different account and are unsure of which they were talking about.

I think the next problem is now jumping on the Seer stone wagon. It seems like because the seer stone account has more detail (by Martin Harris) it seems easier to follow then Oliver Cowdrey and Section 9 version of how the translation happen. To me the accounts don't match up both in a time line version or in how the process happen.

That brings us to the idea that Joseph Smith was learning and growing. I feel another factor involved in this process is Joseph Smith Baptism and having the Holy Ghost fall upon him. I think sometimes we do forget it was a Non-member trying to translate the book of mormon.

74 Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of.

Not even the U & T could compare.

But in the end the reason the church doesn't teach the seer stone story is because its unclear how it fits in. There are ideas of how it fits in, but for now we leave it to what Joseph Smith said in the wentworth letter. (and Section 9 of the D&C). I think its same reason why the story behind the Melchizedek isn't taught, its got too many holes in it, to have any foundation to really build truth.

[Moksha]

Site rule #6 will apply in this matter.

I was addressing Vort. Hope that is not another violation. What is going on here?

[john doe]

I was addressing Vort. Hope that is not another violation. What is going on here?

You've got mail.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wisdom regarding the appropriateness of such a graphic should have been to ask if this furthered an anti-mormon point of view.

In a roundabout way, I did ask this:

Would Moksha be satisfied with a portrait showing Joseph, with an erect bearing and favorable lighting and the hat a few inches from his head, wearing his typical (per LDS art) serene and contemplative look?

Edited December 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Snow]

ARTICLE EXCERPT: Number 2: Why have we have always been told that Joseph translated the book with the Urim and Thummim? The answer is simple: The early Saints referred to both the Interpreters and the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." The real problem is not that the seer stone is called the Urim and Thummim, but rather that when most modern members hear the phrase they typically envision the Interpreters. Why is this? The critics claim that most members don't know about the stone and the hat because the church hides the information. This claim, however, is false.

ARTICLE LINK: MormonTimes - Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

The claim is NOT false. It is a relative truth.

That is: except for classes that I myself have taught, I have never once been taught, in Church, an accurate account of the translation process and when I have taught it to others, there were plenty of surprised people in class.

It's not so much that the Church "hides" information but it has not actively conveyed the accurate information and what information in has conveyed instead has given people wrong ideas.

[Snow]

Milk before meat. Unfortunately, in today's highly cynical society, most people (even the faithful) could be deeply shaken if they're presented with knowledge they're not ready for- even something as simple as "Joseph Smith used a hat to translate the Book of Mormon". Satan will immediately mount hs attack on the member, trying to persuade them that such an idea is so absurd that it can't be true (notice that he doesn't rely on logic or reason, but on an appeal to misguided emotional instability).

In my experience, those who are actually ready for the knowledge will desire the knowledge and actively seek it. Plus, the mission of the Church doesn't encompass teaching the members small details in its history- that's up to members to find out, if they so desire.

I hate that concept... that the truth is so difficult to digest that we have to give you a watered down version first... or, you are so incapable of understanding the truth, we have to mislead you until you are more developed.

It's condescending and a bunch of nonsense as far as I am concerned. We should be as complete and as accurate as possible in conveying information. To be less than that is manipulative .

[Kawazu]

Hi,

To review, how was the Book of Mormon translated, accurately speaking?

Cheers,

Kawazu