Seer Stone and a Hat Translating the Book of Mormon

[The Folk Prophet]

Bushman documented this pretty well in Rough Stone Rolling. If you'd like a fair treatment on the subject, I'd refer you to him.

I'm familiar. Still interpretive. Still hearsay. And I still think its hogwash.

It has nothing to do with Bushman's qualifications as a historian, or anyone else's, for that matter. It's the nature of the history itself. To draw a concrete conclusion of this nature is unfair. You are certainly free to draw that conclusion. I am pointing out that it is not requisite for everyone to -- not on your word or on Bushman's.

Joseph Smith was, is, and will be spoken of for good and evil. So anything said of him may be suspect to prejudice. History is also extremely susceptible to error of communication, misreporting, and the general fallibility of human kind. Bushman reports the facts and doesn't assume prejudice or stupidity in them one way or another unless there is evidence of prejudice or stupidity. But that doesn't mean that no prejudice or stupidity existed.

If a reliable quote from Joseph himself existed saying something along the lines of, "I was highly influenced by the seer-witch-woman in the village and that's why I started looking at seer stones," then I'll reconcile my thinking. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, I think it makes sense to say that the Lord initially made a habit of revealing His power to Joseph in a way that Joseph was accustomed to looking for it.

Sure...to an extent. I would content it's much more along the lines of the similarities to masonry and the temple. The same could be argued, of course, the Joseph Smith used what he knew, (or that the Lord used what Joseph knew), or one could look at it in the light of some truth was maintained in the masonry rituals through the years. One doesn't prove the other, etc...

I see it the same way with seer stones. The fact that others used them previously to Joseph, that it was common in any regard, doesn't prove that Joseph was influenced by them. Moreover, it could very reasonably have influenced the interpretation of those who saw Joseph use them, and thereby create the reports from others as we read them. But it doesn't concretely prove that he was influenced by them in any way. Seer stones are documented Scripturally, stones prepared for seers and translation LONG before they were popular in Joseph's time.

I admit, my "hogwash" p.o.v. is my own. But it is as supportable a p.o.v. as is making otherwise a statement of historical fact.

[Backroads]

I guess I'm failing to see what the big deal is. I'm in my late twenties and somehow have always known about the hat and the stones (at least, according to my memory). I know a lot people who know about it and a lot of people who don't.

But why make such a big deal about how it was taught? And why stop there? There are so many other little bits many in the church don't know. Let's bring those up for in-depth instruction!

The argument that we have the facts and therefore should teach them in a dangerous one--we would spend so much time going over every little detail and historical footnote and factoid "just because we have the information" we wouldn't get the gospel stuff taught.

[Dravin]

I guess I'm failing to see what the big deal is. I'm in my late twenties and somehow have always known about the hat and the stones (at least, according to my memory). I know a lot people who know about it and a lot of people who don't.

But why make such a big deal about how it was taught? And why stop there? There are so many other little bits many in the church don't know. Let's bring those up for in-depth instruction!

The argument that we have the facts and therefore should teach them in a dangerous one--we would spend so much time going over every little detail and historical footnote and factoid "just because we have the information" we wouldn't get the gospel stuff taught.

I tend to agree. I view Gospel Doctrine as Gospel Topics from Church History and Doctrine and Covenants 101 rather than Church History 315 that some seem to consider it. Would throwing in random historical curios destroy the class? Most likely not, but the teaching of Church History really (though it covers it in an introductory fashion) isn't what the class is about, it is about teaching the Gospel through Church History and Doctrine and Covenants.

If we're considering the topic more broadly for, "The Church should teach this." You've got seer stones mentioned in a 2013 Ensign Article (Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God - Ensign Jan. 2013 - ensign ) and the link from LDS.org ( Book of Mormon Translation ) discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon mentions both a seer stone and the use of the hat*. While I suppose the Church isn't making the information a priority, it is hardly hiding it.

*It's always funny to me that people seem to get hung up on the hat as if it's significant.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dravin

[Vort]

I say magic egg because one of his seer stones is described as being approximately the size of an egg. I get that he was not a fully complete package, it just seems as if the church teaches as if he was. I don't ever recall having it made clear exactly how the "translation" process was done. Seems as if we are left to the understanding that the translation took place exactly how we think translation should happen. I speak a different language, and know what it is to translate something. That's not how it happened, but we are not taught the "he looked into a hat" version in sunday school.

That stone (which you incorrectly refer to as a "magic egg") had a name: Gazelem. This was the "secret" name used to refer to Joseph Smith himself when many of the Doctrine and Covenants sections were first published using "placeholder" names for many of the leading brethren, to protect their identities from enemies. Note Alma 37:23, which uses the term:

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.

How do we parse this? If we read it as "my servant Gazelem", that might well be a reference to Joseph Smith (or some other prophet), for whom "a stone" is being prepared to "shine forth in darkness", possibly a reference to Jesus, the Stone of Israel. If we read it as "Gazelem, a stone," then the name of the stone itself is "Gazelem" -- which of course was the name of Joseph's stone that you mention. In either case, the use of a revelatory stone, either literally or metaphorically, is well-attested in scripture.

I have heard that the First Presidency still has that stone. It is, of course, just a stone. Nothing magical about it.

I disagree somewhat with MoE's characterization. Remember the Urim and Thummim, also called the "seer stones". The idea of using stones for receiving revelation is very old. It may be superstition, but if so it's very old superstition, not merely a 19th-century rustic American idea. When Joseph stopped Hiram Page from using his stone to receive revelation (the story is that he had the stone ground to dust to illustrate the dangers of such deceptions), neither he nor the Lord mentioned the foolishness of looking at a rock to receive revelation; rather, the point was made that his revelations were false and from the wrong source. I rather suspect that looking unto the Stone of Israel and the Rock of our salvation is tied in with this idea of "urim and thummim".

In any case, I do agree with MoE that Joseph seemed eventually to "outgrow" the need for the stone. So whether it was an actual agent of revelation or simply a superstitious good-luck charm, it seems to have fulfilled its purpose.

[NeuroTypical]

My question is: Why isn't the translation process taught exactly as it happened? Why are we left to suppose and infer how it happened?

Well, I went and googled for about 30 seconds, here's what I found.

BYU: Book of Mormon Translation By Joseph Smith, 1992

Little is known about the translation process itself. Few details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC 1:220).

It's a good summary of what happened, and mentions seer stones. And it would seem to answer your question about why your sunday school classes left you feeling uneducated.

There's also:

LDS.org: Book of Mormon Translation

The Mechanics of Translation

In the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith wrote: “I would inform you that I translated [the book], by the gift and power of God.” When pressed for specifics about the process of translation, Joseph repeated on several occasions that it had been done “by the gift and power of God”24 and once added, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.”25

Nevertheless, the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.26 The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”27

The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”28 According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.” When asked if Joseph had dictated from the Bible or from a manuscript he had prepared earlier, Emma flatly denied those possibilities: “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.” Emma told her son Joseph Smith III, “The Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity—I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me for hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”29

Another scribe, Martin Harris sat across the table from Joseph Smith and wrote down the words Joseph dictated. Harris later related that as Joseph used the seer stone to translate, sentences appeared. Joseph read those sentences aloud, and after penning the words, Harris would say, “Written.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”30

The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”31 In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.

All good?

[Vort]

Sunday School is not the time for instruction in the mechanics of historical processes, or even in the supposed "realities" of Church governance or the foibles of LDS leaders or members. The purpose of Sunday School is to feel the Spirit bearing witness to the truths of the gospel. Anything else is out of place.

[Vort]

(Modified and reposted)

I say magic egg because one of his seer stones is described as being approximately the size of an egg. I get that he was not a fully complete package, it just seems as if the church teaches as if he was. I don't ever recall having it made clear exactly how the "translation" process was done. Seems as if we are left to the understanding that the translation took place exactly how we think translation should happen. I speak a different language, and know what it is to translate something. That's not how it happened, but we are not taught the "he looked into a hat" version in sunday school.

That stone (which you incorrectly refer to as a "magic egg") had a name: Gazelem. This was the "secret" name used to refer to Joseph Smith himself when many of the Doctrine and Covenants sections were first published using "placeholder" names for many of the leading brethren, to protect their identities from enemies. Note Alma 37:23, which uses the term:

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.

How do we parse this? If we read it as "my servant Gazelem", that might well be a reference to Joseph Smith (or some other prophet), for whom "a stone" is being prepared to "shine forth in darkness", possibly a reference to Jesus, the Stone of Israel. If we read it as "Gazelem, a stone," then the name of the stone itself is "Gazelem" -- which of course was the name of Joseph's stone that you mention. In either case, the use of a revelatory stone, either literally or metaphorically, is well-attested in scripture.

I have heard that the First Presidency still has that stone. It is, of course, just a stone. Nothing magical about it.

I disagree somewhat with MoE's characterization. Remember the Urim and Thummim, also called the "seer stones". The idea of using stones for receiving revelation is very old. It may be superstition, but if so it's very old superstition, not merely a 19th-century rustic American idea. When Joseph stopped Hiram Page from using his stone to receive revelation (the story is that he had the stone ground to dust to illustrate the dangers of such deceptions), neither he nor the Lord mentioned the foolishness of looking at a rock to receive revelation; rather, the point was made that his revelations were false and from the wrong source. I rather suspect that looking unto the Stone of Israel and the Rock of our salvation is tied in with this idea of "urim and thummim".

In any case, I do agree with MoE that Joseph seemed eventually to "outgrow" the need for the stone. So whether it was an actual agent of revelation or simply a superstitious good-luck charm, it seems to have fulfilled its purpose.

[MarginOfError]

I disagree somewhat with MoE's characterization. Remember the Urim and Thummim, also called the "seer stones". The idea of using stones for receiving revelation is very old. It may be superstition, but if so it's very old superstition, not merely a 19th-century rustic American idea. When Joseph stopped Hiram Page from using his stone to receive revelation (the story is that he had the stone ground to dust to illustrate the dangers of such deceptions), neither he nor the Lord mentioned the foolishness of looking at a rock to receive revelation; rather, the point was made that his revelations were false and from the wrong source. I rather suspect that looking unto the Stone of Israel and the Rock of our salvation is tied in with this idea of "urim and thummim".

In any case, I do agree with MoE that Joseph seemed eventually to "outgrow" the need for the stone. So whether it was an actual agent of revelation or simply a superstitious good-luck charm, it seems to have fulfilled its purpose.

To clarify my characterization, I don't dispute that these stones were used in ancient times. Whether the use of stones was novel to Smith or not isn't the point I was trying to make. Rather, if the Book of Mormon were to be revealed today, I highly doubt that looking at stones in a hat would be the mechanism used for that revelation because we find the idea somewhat ludicrous. (if new scripture were to be revealed today, it would likely come through our current mysticism of "in your mind and in your heart" and "stupor of thought" and "discuss in your councils.")

Which is exactly the point. The idea wasn't so ludicrous in 1823, and we shouldn't judge the use of objects in 1823 from a 2014 mindset.

This also speaks to why we don't spend much time discussing such matters in church meetings. We simply lack the time to put into context these kinds of nuances and so it creates more confusion than clarity.

Edited January 21, 2014 by MarginOfError

[mdfxdb]

My point in this discussion is that the general understanding of how the Book of Mormon was translated is not generally known by the membership of the church at large. As a missionary I never mentioned the seer stone to anyone. I never even knew about it. At no point in my church education Primary, sunday school, seminary, BYU did anyone ever mention this.

Granted it isn't a secret, but you will never find out going to regular church. It is on LDS.org, and is easy to find, but couldn't we agree that it is hidden in plain sight?

Sure, it isn't important to our salvation, and if we can believe Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, then we shouldn't have any problem swallowing the seer stone story. It just seems to me that things could have been made a little clearer along the way. And if Joseph Smith was reluctant to reveal his methods, then why does the church perpetuate the picture of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry seated at a table with a sheet between them? I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've seen that particular illustration over the years.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon
Please use the proper term for the seer stone and not negatively slanted slang terms.

[NeuroTypical]

Look. It seems like you're coming down a very normal learning curve that everyone travels eventually. As we mature, we start doing our own research and forming our own opinions and coming to our own conclusions, independent of our parents or teachers or peers. You drop their worldview and create your own. It happens differently for everyone (I started in my 20's, moving away from my dad's political beliefs and into my own). This is a human being thing, not a mormon thing.

It's important for all of us to understand what we believe, and why we believe it. As you move through life, you will find out more and more (if you haven't already) instances of stuff you were taught that you no longer believe. I predict that as years go by, you'll have much less "because that's what I was taught" as answers there. Think, read, study, pray, research, keep an open mind. (I'm not suggesting them in any order.)

The church "perpetuates the picture of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry seated at a table", because that's what our church libraries have in stock, the church has a miserly restocking budget, and folks who are called to teach the youth don't know any better. There's nothing nefarious about it - nothing that signals the death of the truth claims of the BoM or restored church. The prophet is not leading the church astray by failing to purge libraries of these heretical pictures. If you're looking for historical accuracy in paintings, don't get me started. You know how many problems I have with this?:

Edited January 21, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

mdfxdb, please check your PMs.

[MarginOfError]

If you're looking for historical accuracy in paintings, don't get me started. You know how many problems I have with this?:

For that matter, I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find a lot of historical inaccuracies in this picture

[The Folk Prophet]

My point in this discussion is that the general understanding of how the Book of Mormon was translated is not generally known by the membership of the church at large. As a missionary I never mentioned the seer stone to anyone. I never even knew about it. At no point in my church education Primary, sunday school, seminary, BYU did anyone ever mention this.

Granted it isn't a secret, but you will never find out going to regular church. It is on LDS.org, and is easy to find, but couldn't we agree that it is hidden in plain sight?

Sure, it isn't important to our salvation, and if we can believe Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, then we shouldn't have any problem swallowing the seer stong story. It just seems to me that things could have been made a little clearer along the way. And if Joseph Smith was reluctant to reveal his methods, then why does the church perpetuate the picture of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry seated at a table with a sheet between them? I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've seen that particular illustration over the years.

Seems like this has been asked and answered. Answered pretty thoroughly too. Harping on about it makes it fairly clear that the intention is merely to disparage and vilify.

[The Folk Prophet]

What?! Are you saying the horse should be a llama?

[mdfxdb]

Seems like this has been asked and answered. Answered pretty thoroughly too. Harping on about it makes it fairly clear that the intention is merely to disparage and vilify.

Disparage and vilify? lol.....

So let me sum up my understanding:

The church has a small budget, so they don't rotate out incorrect pictures/depictions of the translation process. No effort is made to correctly teach how the translation process worked.

I do agree that it makes little difference to our testimonies at the end of the day. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't, but if it makes little difference then why would the church make a fomal declaration of the process? Why not just maintain the status quo and let those that wish to know find out on their own?

[The Folk Prophet]

Disparage and vilify? lol.....

Well...yes. That's my read, "lol" notwithstanding. Is not your intention to make the church out as inept and/or mistaken? If not, then what, exactly, is your objective here? Sincere seeker of truth? It sure isn't coming across that way. The "magic egg" talk doesn't help, btw.

But if I'm mistaken and misread you.... Well...no....can't quite finish that thought.... Still...just in case I'm wrong..........disengaging....................

[skippy740]

Why don't children in Elementary School learn the real truth behind Christopher Columbus or the First Thanksgiving? Or anything else that they learn in history? Why do teachers 'gloss' over this stuff?

Maybe it's because they are at the age where they don't need to learn about it all... until they get to higher grade levels???

The same applies to everyone else with their spiritual development. Not everyone needs the full 'nitty-gritty' of the history of everything that has ever happened in the history of the Church.

And, let's suppose that everyone does... it's not the job of Sunday School or quorums or Relief Society to teach it. Let everyone grow at their own pace and learn on their own.

Let's quit blaming the Church, the teachers, the leaders, and everyone else for getting things 'wrong' when you finally discover something that's a little different than while you were 'growing up'.

[Dravin]

Eh, found another Ensign article that mentions seer stone: “By the Gift and Power of God†- Ensign Jan. 1997 - ensign

Curse the Church for hiding things in it's official publications!

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

So let me sum up my understanding:

The church has a small budget, so they don't rotate out incorrect pictures/depictions of the translation process. No effort is made to correctly teach how the translation process worked.

No effort?

LDS.org - Book of Mormon Translation

Ensign, July 1993: A Treasured Testament

Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual: Section 30 "Your Mind Has Been on the Things of the Earth"

Heck, it's even in a 1974 edition of Friend Magazine: A Peaceful Heart

And double-heck, it's in scripture: Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet Chapter 1

Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't, but if it makes little difference then why would the church make a fomal declaration of the process? Why not just maintain the status quo and let those that wish to know find out on their own?

Not sure what you mean by 'formal declaration'. You mean that stuff on LDS.org? The church is responding to common criticisms on it's website more and more. Mountain Meadows Massacre. Blacks and the priesthood. Polygamy. That's what websites are for - to make information easy to access. Don't get me wrong - the church spent a lot of time not being very internet savvy. Those days seemed to end about four or five years ago.

[Dravin]

No effort?

While not concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon there is also:

Reference to the use of a seer stone to receive revelation: Orson Pratt's Call to Serve

Reference to Martin Harris swapping out the seer stone to see if Joseph would notice: The Contributions of Martin Harris

It is interesting to note the domain: Church History

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dravin

[mdfxdb]

I have found independently all that you have referenced. As to the elementary school explination of Columbus and such. Well I'm not 5 years old, and I venture to guess neither are most converts.

The thing is I have found this stuff, everyone who looks can find this stuff, but it is definately not front page news. Ensign articles, and Friend articles more than 10 years old are not current teachings. We do not read those publications as we read the scriptures, nor are they typically discussed in church. The majority of church members rely on the church manuals for instruction on church history, and doctrine. Fine, if they want to put some shine on the "translation" process, but why not just pull the misleading stuff then (pictures depicting Joseph Smith "translating" the Book of Mormon with Oliver Cowdry behind a sheet being the scribe)? I'm not kidding when I mention this to 1 out of 20 members they have no clue about the seer stone, or the hat.

If I mention Joseph Smith posessed more than one seer stone then the smoke really starts coming out of their ears, and if I mention that one of the seer stones was on the alter of the Manti Temple at it's dedication they are even more blown away.

This all irrelevant as a doctrinal point. When I was on my mission if someone had confronted me with those facts I wouldn't have known what to say, other than to bear my testimony and maybe do some research. I know I wasn't much different than my companions, nor much different than any current missionaries who are teaching "the translation of the book of mormon".

[Backroads]

I suppose we could sends letters of request to Church headquarters asking for them to commission a new painting or two...

The end result is that more people know about the seer stones. That's about it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I suppose we could sends letters of request to Church headquarters asking for them to commission a new painting or two...

The end result is that more people know about the seer stones. That's about it.

We should include requests to add a whistle to his speech in videos...oh, and his limp.

[skippy740]

The Challenging and Testifying Missionary

I used to emphasize then, when I was only 18, that the way to teach the gospel was by the "Power of the Holy Spirit." This has been with me all my life - there can be no other effective way to teach the gospel.

Or to remain faithful within the gospel.

I want to do a little reasoning with you in a spiritual sense. This life is an intermediary in God's plan. Everyone of us who are here were in the preexistence with our Heavenly Father, and were all other children born in this life. They were there in varying degrees. We have been given special charge to come into the world and proclaim the gospel unto others. We were told before we left the pre-existence there would be a powerful influence that would testify to us of the gospel and this influence would cause others to do better and accept the gospel plan. This great gift we are trying to give to people will prepare them for the celestial kingdom of administration where the kings and queens, and priests and priestesses will abide and will have power over the telestial and terrestrial planets We could talk about this for a long time.

Do you suppose that this selection of people to go into that kingdom will depend upon the arguments of a missionary upon the subjects known as the Godhead, Apostasy and Restoration? Do you suppose for a minute that a determination of a man's place in the presence of God will be determined by such things as that? Of course it won't. These become only secondary tools that a missionary uses if he has to use them.

There are TONS of minutia out there in regards to Church History. Does it really matter that much?

I know missionaries who cling to the idea that they can't be baptized until they know what they are being baptized for. You teach about the Godhead and the apostasy. often they don't know what you are talking about. Neither did you until you studied it for a few weeks. Now these lessons are important. I'm not saying they are not. When people are baptized they have an eagerness to learn everything about the Church. But you can teach them. But be alert to the investigator challenge from the first time you meet them. The Lord knows who he wants in his Church.

This topic isn't important for investigators, or even new converts. It's okay to wait to learn about it in Gospel Doctrine.

But by no means is anyone deceived because we don't talk about every single facet of Church History with new converts. We stick to the basics.

When Christ appeared to the Nephites and He had been prophesied of by Samuel and others - and the people were gathered in the valley of Bountiful, He appeared unto them, and the people bowed before Him. Nephi came forth and bowed and was told to stand. In the hush of this great congregation he people listened to what He should say to them, This was the long awaited moment. He said to Nephi to take these people, teach them to repent and baptize them into the Church.

Before He left He said, " . . . who so shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil . . . and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them."

This is why we keep it very simple for all investigators who are learning the gospel. We start with faith, move to repentance, and invite to baptism. If we get hung up on every single detail... the Spirit will be lost and they will become confused.

All those other details... simply don't matter in the grand scheme of things.