Seer Stone and a Hat Translating the Book of Mormon

[Dravin]

Ensign articles, and Friend articles more than 10 years old are not current teachings.

I was unaware that 2013 was more than 10 years ago. Man, time flies.

[skippy740]

I guess under that reasoning we should throw out all our scriptures? After all, it's not a "current teaching", is it?

Then again, it does say that The Book of Mormon was translated 'for our day'... so I guess that makes it current, even though it was written anciently.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[Vort]

I was unaware that 2013 was more than 10 years ago. Man, time flies.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. (Groucho Marx)

[The Folk Prophet]

I guess under that reasoning we should throw out all our scriptures? After all, it's not a "current teaching", is it?

Then again, it does say that The Book of Mormon was translated 'for our day'... so I guess that makes it current, even though it was written anciently.

No, no, no. We only discard Songs of Solomon... ...and anything said by Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie. Oh, or Orson Pratt...and...um...half of what Joseph Smith taught... ...well, and anything we don't like in the Bible, as it was translated incorrectly. And anything published before 2011 that isn't politically correct. :D

[mdfxdb]

I was unaware that 2013 was more than 10 years ago. Man, time flies.

ensign july 1993, friend 1974.. those were referenced in this thread... not by me..

We can go on and on about how generalities are important, but the devil is in the details. Do we really want to lead someone down a primrose path only for them to find at the end things weren't as they were taught. I'm not talking about investigators only, but long-time members who have no clue.

I firmly believe that as members of the church it is our responsibility to take responsibility for our church education as much as possible, but when certain things taught time and time again are misleading either via assumptions, depictions, or outright ignorance then you as the attendee/student accept those things as fact. Most members of the church rely on their teachers (sunday school/elders quorum, relief society) to convey to them those things which are true.

It is true Joseph Smith translated the Book of mormon, but definately not how the picture shows...

[Vort]

ensign july 1993, friend 1974.. those were referenced in this thread... not by me..

We can go on and on about how generalities are important, but the devil is in the details. Do we really want to lead someone down a primrose path only for them to find at the end things weren't as they were taught. I'm not talking about investigators only, but long-time members who have no clue.

I firmly believe that as members of the church it is our responsibility to take responsibility for our church education as much as possible, but when certain things taught time and time again are misleading either via assumptions, depictions, or outright ignorance then you as the attendee/student accept those things as fact. Most members of the church rely on their teachers (sunday school/elders quorum, relief society) to convey to them those things which are true.

It is true Joseph Smith translated the Book of mormon, but definately not how the picture shows...

Is the Church responsible for disseminating the relevant facts about the Church and the gospel to its members? Yes, absolutely.

Is it relevant that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, that he was accused of a great many things (most of which were false and most of the rest of which were out of context), that black people of African descent were not allowed certain Priesthood blessings before 1978, or that some of the apostles have morning breath when they first wake up? No, I don't think such things are relevant.

These things are discoverable. They are talked about during Church meetings. They are available from many sources. They are NOT the central topic of our sacrament, Sunday School, or other meetings, nor should they be.

[mdfxdb]

I agree these things are not the central topic of Sunday School, Sacrament, EQ, RS, but when people state as fact in those meetings that Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Moses, or the bible for that matter.., or relate those translation stories as though it was done in the conventional manner then people in general are being misled.

Should we as members really have to vette where our scriptures came from in a literal sense? Surely it all boils down to individual testimony, but shouldn't we make an effort as a church to get the story straight from the onset?

We expect people to believe Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in the first vision, but omit the seer stone from the "translation" process. We expect them to believe one, but for some reason we obscure the latter because it is too fantastic to contemplate?

correction. not obscure, but hide in plain sight.

[The Folk Prophet]

They are NOT the central topic of our sacrament, Sunday School, or other meetings, nor should they be.

Ah...man!! I was right in the middle of preparing my next Sunday School lesson, Joseph Smith and the Magic Egg. Hmm. Maybe I'll rework it into a Harry Potter fan fiction book instead.

[skippy740]

I agree these things are not the central topic of Sunday School, Sacrament, EQ, RS, but when people state as fact in those meetings that Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Moses, or the bible for that matter.., or relate those translation stories as though it was done in the conventional manner then people in general are being misled.

Should we as members really have to vette where our scriptures came from in a literal sense? Surely it all boils down to individual testimony, but shouldn't we make an effort as a church to get the story straight from the onset?

We expect people to believe Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in the first vision, but omit the seer stone from the "translation" process. We expect them to believe one, but for some reason we obscure the latter because it is too fantastic to contemplate?

correction. not obscure, but hide in plain sight.

Joseph Smith History 1:35

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

I don't know about your experience. I was taught about the seer stones.

Remember that our teachers are all at different levels within the gospel themselves. There is no 'test' or 'accreditation' of our instructors. Only that they serve the Lord and do their best.

Just because you weren't taught this in your youth classes doesn't mean that it isn't being taught, or that it's being 'swept under the rug'.

NO ONE is being misled.

[Dravin]

ensign july 1993, friend 1974.. those were referenced in this thread... not by me..

Guess what else was referenced in this thread?

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.

Ensign January 2013.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Dravin

[Suzie]

I was a Sunday School teacher for quite a few years and when I taught about the translation process, I taught the hat account because this is how it happened and I believe there is a lot of historical accounts to back it up. Also, I think there is a clear consensus among scholars that Smith used this medium to accomplish the translation. And by the way, nobody left my class crying, the class was not visibly shocked or disturbed by the teaching (and they were many who did not know). I think we need to give members more credit. I also taught about the Urim and Thummim being used to translate the first 116 pages and then a seer stone.

Having said that, I do understand how some members may feel when they find out this was the process or why the "hat" is so particularly highlighted by Church critics. If Smith had his face completely buried inside the hat, it means he did not use the plates directly at all in order to translate. They were physically present, yes and yet not directly used for the translation.

Why was it necessary to preserve the records for so many years if they were not going to be directly used to accomplish the translation? (rhetorical question) Is the seer stone Smith used to complete the translation the same one he found at the well of Mason Chase? (also rhetorical question) And if indeed, one of the stones used by Smith is the same one, then we can perfectly understand why the hat and seer stone account isn't popularly taught.

In 1825, Josiah Stoal hired Smith to help him find a Spanish silver mine after hearing that Smith possessed a method in which he could discern things invisible to the "natural eye". He hired him for five long months. Of course, Smith did not find anything. Stoal's family was not impressed and one of the nephews of Josiah's wife laid charges against Smith as an imposter. There are many accounts also that describe Smith having a seer stone and carrying it around along with his hat and burying his face in the hat (same method of translation of the BOM) to find things as trivial as the pin that Harris was using to pick his teeth. It is not really unreasonable then to realize why the Church would prefer not to emphasize this particular method of translation.

[Wingnut]

This all irrelevant as a doctrinal point.

You're right.

[Dravin]

You're right.

I think this, fundamentally, is the big disconnect. I don't rely on the Church curricula to teach me the nuances of Church History. I rely on them to teach me the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Church History does come up, but in a very introductory way designed to highlight a gospel principle or lesson. It simply isn't the point of such lessons to give a nuanced treatment of Church History.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Dravin

[bytebear]

There are very few accounts of the translation process, and the "hat" story was told once, well after the fact by a second hand non-witness. We don't even know if it was about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham or even the JST. So how can we teach something "doctrinally factual" when we don't even have nearly enough facts to start with?

[Finrock]

Good Evening MaringOfError. I hope you're doing well! :)

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.

Just as Eowyn suggests in her comment on the same quote, it makes sense that the Lord would start building Smith with the familiar and gradually develop him into an independent revelator.

I have personally experienced this gradual development in my life. I don't think that this is particularly special. What I mean is that this is a common way for God to teach His children.

I don't want to and I really can't get in to details, but I have had to learn to rely on the Spirit through a process similar to Joseph Smith. God has a work for me and He takes me as I am. By-the-way, I believe God has a work for all people, not just me. I don't think I'm special or anything of the sort. However, over time He has refined me and is continuing to refine me to this day. He has and continues to allow me to use the things I am familiar with or in which I have faith until He can teach me to rely on Him completely without the aid of the arm of flesh or other such things.

I am by no means done with being refined. Unfortunately I am not as humble and as quick to learn as Joseph Smith was (relatively speaking).

My point being that there is nothing negative, outlandish, or wrong with Joseph using a seer stone or relying on his superstitions initially until he could learn that he need not rely on anything other than the Spirit of God. This much seems clear to me from my study of Joseph Smith and his life.

-Finrock

[Vort]

Ah...man!! I was right in the middle of preparing my next Sunday School lesson, Joseph Smith and the Magic Egg. Hmm. Maybe I'll rework it into a Harry Potter fan fiction book instead.

Need LOL.

[Backroads]

Do we really want to lead someone down a primrose path only for them to find at the end things weren't as they were taught.

Except, from what I gather, you (and many others, I assume) weren't actually taught anything persay about the details of translation, you just made an assumption.

That's different than being taught an outright lie.

[bytebear]

I find it funny how we are supposed to detail the recent history, but ignore ancient history, yet, each is about as relevant to us today. Is anyone really upset that they weren't taught the exact process for circumcision or animal sacrifice.

[pam]

Is this the talk to which you are referring? A Treasured Testament - Ensign July 1993 - ensign

We also have the following referencing both the seer stone and the hat: Book of Mormon Translation

Yes that's the talk I was referring to.

[pam]

Here is also something from FAIR. Not sure if this has already been shared.

Joseph the Seer – or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat? | FairMormon

[RipplecutBuddha]

Here's my bit.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a religion, not a school. The purpose, therefore, of the Church's official day-to-day efforts towards its members is rightly directed towards religious teachings, education, and support. Of course the Church has other interests such as public service, etc. but I digress.

The Church's official role is not, never has been, nor should ever be directed at a full historical disclosure of Church history. That is a scholarly pursuit involving a religious organization. It would completely drain the assets of the Church to spread its full history as widely as it has spread its doctrines.

More to the point, suppose the full details about the interpretation of the Book of Mormon were made part of the regular Sunday curriculum...what else should then be added, how the Pearl of Great Price was interpreted? How each and every section of the Doctrine & Covenants was received? Just how detailed should we be about the forced migration to the Salt Lake Valley? What about Brigham's efforts to colonize the west in what turned out to be six states (or seven, not sure)?

The more you demand full historical disclosure on Sunday, the less time there is for doctrinal education, which I feel very safe in saying is an exponentially more important education to receive at church.

The facts of the Church's history are out there for those who want to explore them. The Joseph Smith Papers project is collecting, organizing, and making such facts more available than ever before. You would also do well to notice it's not an official undertaking by the Church directly, though it is heartily supported by it.

The Church has never run from its history, good or bad. As a religious organization, there is more known about the founding and early years of the LDS church than nearly any other religion in the world. Considering how many people and organizations feel the need to attack the Church on its history, I find it fascinating that the Church has never withheld historical information when it has been available.

To paraphrase President Gordon B. Hinkley, I don't fear truth, but for truth to be understood, it's got to be presented in the proper context of the bigger picture of what was going on at the same time. By focusing on the method of translation and whether or not it had been taught, we're glossing over the fact that the only reason Joseph had the plates was by direct revelation from God, and visitation from angels sent to teach and instruct Joseph on what he was to do.

It's like being upset at a winning superbowl team because the numbers on their jerseys weren't the right font or color. Some things we need to know in order to progress to the life God wants for us. How Joseph translated the Book of Mormon (beyond his statement that it was by the power of God) is not something we need to concern ourselves with for our salvation.

[mirkwood]

Arguing about minutiae. Either you have a testimony or not. You (I assume) can accept that a young boy can see and talk to God and Jesus Christ in a forest and restore the ancient church of Christ, but you take exception to how he translated the BoM? Minutiae.

[Canuck Mormon]

Except, from what I gather, you (and many others, I assume) weren't actually taught anything persay about the details of translation, you just made an assumption.

That's different than being taught an outright lie.

I remember growing up in Primary and being taught about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon and hanging on the chalkboard was the picture of Joseph sitting across the table from Oliver with a sheet between them, and Joseph is reading the plates.

Please tell me how I am to think that this was not the way it was done? I'm not saying the church lied, they just left out the details. This is what bothers a lot of people. And for members to mock, dismiss, claim they have weak testimonies, only drives these people further away.

[NeuroTypical]

Some things I learned outside of church through study:

* Joseph Smith exercised his 2nd amendment rights (not just in Carthage jail).

* He once used a swear word in a letter, when talking about men who wouldn't defend their families.

* The dedication of the Kirtland temple was marked with numerous miracles, including people in different areas of the room standing up and singing a hymn, in perfect harmony, in a language that none of them knew.

Things I learned about in church, but only because I was paying attention:

* Brigham Young had some serious anger management issues.

* Joseph was a really horrible business owner.

* Stickpulls were what people did for fun before cars and internet.

Stuff at least one person told me at church that I have somehow failed to accept as true:

* I had a primary teacher tell us that the third part which sided with Lucifer came to earth and got bodies. So one out of every three people you meet in life is actually a demon in disguise.

* A scout leader once told me that gays would destroy the country and God would allow it if we didn't stop them.

* A convert who had once belonged to the Community of Christ (RLDS) told me Nephites and Incas are the same thing.

[NeuroTypical]

I remember growing up in Primary and being taught about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon and hanging on the chalkboard was the picture of Joseph sitting across the table from Oliver with a sheet between them, and Joseph is reading the plates.

Please tell me how I am to think that this was not the way it was done?

You're supposed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The table/sheet thing isn't proven, and doesn't have to be held fast. Not everything you grew up believing is true. Not everything taught to you by good people is true.

I'm not saying the church lied, they just left out the details.

It honestly looks like a simple case of sinning in ignorance. The church is full of imperfect, error-prone, fallible humans, and folks who approve curriculum are no exception.

This is what bothers a lot of people. And for members to mock, dismiss, claim they have weak testimonies, only drives these people further away.

I don't believe mdfxdb (or you) have a weak or a strong testimony - I don't know either of you well enough to make an informed guess.