Teaching my kids about LDS History

[EarlJibbs]

I understand all that. That is what is taught in Sunday School/Seminary. Priesthoodpower's OP specifically addresses those that are not taught in Sunday School/Seminary (i.e., reconciling Dinosaurs with Genesis, local or total flood, authenticity of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith's wives, etc.) and those are things missionaries don't really like talking about - they'll bring you back to the Sunday School stuff.

I agree. And the missionaries are most likely not knowledgeable about that kind of teaching or history to effectively navigate it. 

[Blackmarch]

I forget which apostle in recent times said that in regards to Joseph Smith using the seer stone in a hat ..."some of the truth is not neccesary" (not an exact quote but along those lines).

 

I find it very hard not to teach my 12,8,6 yr old kids about the truth. I want to teach them our history in my own home so that they will feel empowered when confronted with it later on in life maybe as missionarys or on the internet.

 

How should I approach this? I dont want my kids to know the truth and then in church have people look at them like they are crazy because our leaders dont even teach it (some leaders still probably dont even know about it).

Well if I was going to teach church history from the ground up, i'd probably start with the bible one year, then go to the BoM, and then the restoration times.A good proinciple to know is "trust God when things get crazy". If someone has the miracles god has performed over the millenia in their mind a lot of things that critics try to make out as extreme or devilish turn out not to be so.

A good source at least for starting out for going through church history would be the series of books "History of the Church". I've always found tidbits like the seerstone quite fascinating, but is it really important to know? not necessarily.

i'd say sfind a good source that covers what you want to cover and go with that. one of the big things in teaching is questions, especially when the learner has them- that provides good opportunity to show something or to explore off the path a bit.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree. And the missionaries are most likely not knowledgeable about that kind of teaching or history to effectively navigate it.

-

I agree too...sort of (I think, perhaps, the missionaries may be much more capable than we're giving them credit for). I just wonder if there really is that much value in "navigating" these issues. As far as I can tell, the church's essays and other navigation methods are just as likely to drive people away from the church as to bring them closer. As you pointed out, the core foundational issues matter much more.

[Blackmarch]

https://deseretbook.com/p/history-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-volume-1
7 volumes

 

https://deseretbook.com/p/comprehensive-history-church-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints-vol-1-b-h-roberts-78351
6 volumes

[Guest]

-

I agree too...sort of (I think, perhaps, the missionaries may be much more capable than we're giving them credit for). I just wonder if there really is that much value in "navigating" these issues. As far as I can tell, the church's essays and other navigation methods are just as likely to drive people away from the church as to bring them closer. As you pointed out, the core foundational issues matter much more.

Yes, some missionaries can be very capable and some just aren't. But, the thing is, it's just not part of their mission instructions.

Yes, the church's essays can - and have, like our 1st counselor to the bishopric's wife - drive people away. Hence it is designed to be studied outside of Church for those who are truthfully and humbly seeking answers and would more than likely get the anti-LDS bias if the Church stayed mum about it. The guidance of a faithful Saint (such as a parent, home teacher, visiting teacher) can help in holding on to the iron rod.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes, some missionaries can be very capable and some just aren't. But, the thing is, it's just not part of their mission instructions.

 

Cannot the exact same thing be said (and even more so) of most parents or home and visiting teachers, etc.?

 

Most parents are pretty bad (imo) at guiding their children through these issues. Some are excellent. Most home and visiting teachers are even worse -- some are great. So I'm not really getting the whole "missionaries aren't good at it" argument.

 

That being said, I looked back at the original question and realize I did misread. I missed the "members" part of it. In the case of young members who do not have LDS parents, the mantle does, indeed, fall to others beyond the missionaries.

[Guest]

Cannot the exact same thing be said (and even more so) of most parents or home and visiting teachers, etc.?

 

Most parents are pretty bad (imo) at guiding their children through these issues. Some are excellent. Most home and visiting teachers are even worse -- some are great. So I'm not really getting the whole "missionaries aren't good at it" argument.

 

That being said, I looked back at the original question and realize I did misread. I missed the "members" part of it. In the case of young members who do not have LDS parents, the mantle does, indeed, fall to others beyond the missionaries.

I don't think it's a matter of whether the missionaries are good at it or not. It simply is not part of their duties to teach members non-essential gospel topics. Their duties are harvesting - investigators and inactives (although, inactives are really the main responsibility of the ward missionaries, the ft missionaries just assist).

Also, it's not a matter of whether parents/ht/vt are good at it or not. It simply is where the responsibilities lie in the house of order.

Our ward is in this really interesting position of teaching a 15 year old non-member who has been an active participant in everything the Church does for over a year. His parents won't approve his baptism until he's 18. The only thing he doesn't do is all the stuff that requires ordination (Sacrament, etc.). He goes to seminary, firesides, dances, youth activities, even scouting (although he's not really interested in earning merits, he just goes and helps out). He even goes on temple trips! Yes, he can't go where membership is required to go, but he still takes the trip. Sometimes he babysits younger siblings in the visitor's area, sometimes he just hangs out until the other kids are done. The last time he went, he joined a group in cleaning the outside of the temple. He is a very inquisitive chap and is reading everything about the Church he can lay his hands on. So, the EQP assigned him Home Teachers. And he's peppering them with Church History questions as they don't cover those in seminary or sunday school.

[Finrock]

I forget which apostle in recent times said that in regards to Joseph Smith using the seer stone in a hat ..."some of the truth is not neccesary" (not an exact quote but along those lines).

 

I find it very hard not to teach my 12,8,6 yr old kids about the truth. I want to teach them our history in my own home so that they will feel empowered when confronted with it later on in life maybe as missionarys or on the internet.

 

How should I approach this? I dont want my kids to know the truth and then in church have people look at them like they are crazy because our leaders dont even teach it (some leaders still probably dont even know about it).

 

Hi priesthoodpower. I hope you are well! :)

 

First, I wouldn't worry about what other people, whether inside or outside of the church, might think about your kids having been taught truths that are not commonly taught.

 

The idea or what is important is that you are teaching your children the truth, to the best of your knowledge and ability. In my family my wife and I do not shy away from the perceived "tough" issues in church history or other so called tough questions in the church and gospel. We teach core doctrine and gospel topics most of the time but when the questions arise or when appropriate because of other circumstances, we freely speak about what has happened and give informed responses.

 

We try to teach in our family the idea that I am not that much different than most men and most men are not that much different than I am in our core feelings, core motivations, and core life dilemnas. One way to say this is that we are all fallibly human seeking satisfaction/happiness.

 

Another important factor is that we are here on this earth experiencing an experience that we all wanted to be a part of and agreed to be a part of and in fact took part in making it come to pass. So, we knew the conditions of mortality before we entered it. First, we knew that the standard was perfection. Second, we knew that we would ALL fail except for One. We knew, understood, and agreed to enter the world in a fallen state. When we "set forth into the [fallen world]" we did so "...commending [ourselves] unto the Lord [our] God" (Ether 6:4).  

 

We are all fallen. We cannot cross the sea of life with our own strength. In fact, it wasn't in the plan. We needed a Savior. We must rely on Jesus Christ and on His atonement. What this means is that we can expect to see men and women being men and women. In other words I want to teach my children that we don't need to expect perfection or unrealistic holiness from those around us. We should not judge others because we are all weak and fallen. Our job is to discern the truth that is being taught, if it is being taught, and then to apply it. I try to teach my children that we can't or shouldn't get stuck on what are ultimately silly things, like seer stones, but try to find the truth that God is trying to teach us or what truth we can learn from the experiences of our forefathers. In the end I think the attitude that it isn't our place to judge how God deals and dealt with His children makes it easy to talk about pretty much any topic in sacred and productive ways. At this point what more can you do? What others might think doesn't matter.

 

-Finrock

Edited April 7, 2015 by Finrock

[priesthoodpower]

Church is for BUILDING UP FAITH. If it doesn't build up faith, it should not be taught in Church - hence, teachers are adviced not to stray from the lesson especially into areas that have been known to shake faith. It is just NOT the time nor place for it.

Anatess let me say that I dont have the most attentive mind and no matter where im at (church/school/business meeting..) I only absorb half of whats said and 1hr later I forget the other half...lol.

 

BUT

 

...I have never heard it put like this about the purpose of Church, it makes sense and I am now subscribed to that belief but is it ok for me to use this as official information and repeat it in my church lessons and callings? I have been the sunday school president for a year now and in the church handbook my duty is ....

 

"..participates in efforts to build faith and strengthen individuals and families..He comes to ward council meeting prepared to suggest ways members can improve learning and teaching at church and in their homes."

 

it does not say anything about when and where to learn about "controversial" topics.

 

Things that lead to confusion and contention but deemed necessary for learning is to be discussed at home. That's what Family Home Evening is for.

 

I wish this was common knowledge with all our leaders and in all our wards, this is the first time I have heard it put this way.

The only thing I have ever heard from an interview with stake president or bishop is "do you have regular family home evenings?" he never gets personal with me and help to address the concerns of my family members and suggest me what to teach. I think this is the reason why so many people that leave the church complain about a leadership that act like robots and repeat the same things over and over again ...."do u read the scriptures? do you pray?...etc.."

 

1 Corinthians 14 ...is also about contentious questions not having a place at Church - rather, they need to be asked at home under the Priesthood Authority of the Family Patriarch.

Where is the priesthood/parents of the home supposed to learn about the "controversial" topics? Dont you think the church would want to control the message about these topics and teach it in their way rather then letting its members search the internet for the answers and then end up being swaded by the critics who are way more active at exposing the "controversial" topics with their bias attached to it. Instead of burying the church essays or journals in pages of text on lds.org why not make a 2 minute video of each of those topics?

[estradling75]

Where is the priesthood/parents of the home supposed to learn about the "controversial" topics? Dont you think the church would want to control the message about these topics and teach it in their way rather then letting its members search the internet for the answers and then end up being swaded by the critics who are way more active at exposing the "controversial" topics with their bias attached to it. Instead of burying the church essays or journals in pages of text on lds.org why not make a 2 minute video of each of those topics?

 

 

That is why the church is so big on personal study...  With the spirit and the scriptures as your guide you as an individual a bear the primary responsiblity for you faith, learning and knowledge.  

[priesthoodpower]

That is why the church is so big on personal study...  With the spirit and the scriptures as your guide you as an individual a bear the primary responsiblity for you faith, learning and knowledge.  

 

I agree with that and that is the BEST way but it isnt the most realistic. Especially in this day and age where attention spans of our children are getting shorter because of the vast amounts of media content on the internet.

 

When I got called as the sunday school president a year ago the bishop approached me and emphasized the new curriculum for the "come follow me" youth program. Its a better approach to how our leaders want us to teach the youth, basically by choosing among several topics of the month and having an open discussion rather then a book lesson. The reason he said this? because we are losing our youth to other churches that are catering to their young minds via fun and engaging activities.

 

As an adult surrounded by all this technology I find myself becoming more like the young generation and doing all my secular and spiritual learning from the internet. I have learned more about the details of LDS doctrine from this forum then anywehre else in my whole life. why? because there are a lot of smart LDS members here in this forum sharing their spiritual knowledge on topics that are not discussed in church and I do feel the spirit while studying in this forum or other places on the internet

Edited April 8, 2015 by priesthoodpower

[estradling75]

I agree with that and that is the BEST way but it isnt the most realistic. Especially in this day and age where attention spans of our children are getting shorter because of the vast amounts of media content on the internet.

 

When I got called as the sunday school president a year ago the bishop approached me and emphasized the new curriculum for the "come follow me" youth program. Its a better approach to how our leaders want us to teach the youth, basically by choosing among several topics of the month and having an open discussion rather then a book lesson. The reason he said this? because we are losing our youth to other churches that are catering to their young minds via fun and engaging activities.

 

As an adult surrounded by all this technology I find myself becoming more like the young generation and doing all my secular and spiritual learning from the internet. I have learned more about the details of LDS doctrine from this forum then anywehre else in my whole life. why? because there are a lot of smart LDS members here in this forum sharing their spiritual knowledge on topics that are not discussed in church and I do feel the spirit while studying in this forum or other places on the internet

 

 

Where you agreeing with me or disagreeing?   Because the path you describe  sounds to me exactly like you seeking out the information you wish to know about with the guide and filter of Faith, prayer, scripture and spirit... to filter your worldly sources

[Guest]

Yeah, what estradling said.

Think of it this way... I have 2 children that for quite a while were completely dependent on me. If I don't feed them, if I give them the wrong medicine, if I leave them in the tub, if I put them in this-or-that carseat or this-or-that crib, etc. etc. etc. THEY CAN DIE.

But, I never went to Sunday school on how to raise kids, what to do with them, how to even make one... I didn't go to Elementary or College for them either. Sex ed was not part of Catholic School when I went.

Somehow, I figured it all out. Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I do quite magnificent things...

And yeah, a lot of what I do is something I learned from what my parents did. But, I'm raising my children completely different from how my parents or my husband's parents raised their children. And how did I figure it all out? You read baby books/magazines/blogs your head is going to spin... "You put your baby on its belly to sleep, otherwise, he'll die" "You put your baby on its side to sleep, otherwise, he'll die" "You put him on rear-facing carseat, otherwise, he'll die" "put him front-facing, otherwise, he'll die" "You feed him formula, he'll die" "You don't supplement breastmilk with formula, he'll die"... etc. etc. etc.

I figured it out the same way I figure everything else out - Knees on the floor, eyes closed, hands clasped... asking God to show me the way.

[Palerider]

I agree, just start with the Bible, and all of the strange things that happen in that - compared to the Bible, LDS church history fits right in!

With all the miracles that happened in church history and in the scriptures ... I love all of it.

[Finrock]

Anatess let me say that I dont have the most attentive mind and no matter where im at (church/school/business meeting..) I only absorb half of whats said and 1hr later I forget the other half...lol.

 

BUT

 

...I have never heard it put like this about the purpose of Church, it makes sense and I am now subscribed to that belief but is it ok for me to use this as official information and repeat it in my church lessons and callings? I have been the sunday school president for a year now and in the church handbook my duty is ....

 

"..participates in efforts to build faith and strengthen individuals and families..He comes to ward council meeting prepared to suggest ways members can improve learning and teaching at church and in their homes."

 

it does not say anything about when and where to learn about "controversial" topics.

 

 

I wish this was common knowledge with all our leaders and in all our wards, this is the first time I have heard it put this way.

The only thing I have ever heard from an interview with stake president or bishop is "do you have regular family home evenings?" he never gets personal with me and help to address the concerns of my family members and suggest me what to teach. I think this is the reason why so many people that leave the church complain about a leadership that act like robots and repeat the same things over and over again ...."do u read the scriptures? do you pray?...etc.."

 

Where is the priesthood/parents of the home supposed to learn about the "controversial" topics? Dont you think the church would want to control the message about these topics and teach it in their way rather then letting its members search the internet for the answers and then end up being swaded by the critics who are way more active at exposing the "controversial" topics with their bias attached to it. Instead of burying the church essays or journals in pages of text on lds.org why not make a 2 minute video of each of those topics?

 

Hi priesthoodpower!

 

The Church has a specific purpose and responsibility which may not include the suggestions that you are making.

 

I think a major part of the challenge of this life is for each invididual or each family to learn to live by the spirit. For instance, the Church teaches the principle is to have Family Home Evening. Now, it is up to you to determine what it is that you or your family needs. There are many, many, things that we can and ought to learn and do by our own initiative. Nothing wrong with listening and obeying the prophets. That is what we ought to do. But the prophets ultimately are there to lead YOU to Christ. You and I and each individual must learn the gospel, learn to hear and obey the Spirit which shall then tell you all things which you should do, say, think, or teach.

 

All truth, all knowledge, all light that you obtain must be obtained and received individually. Once you receive light and truth you can then testify of that light and truth but you cannot control or make whether another individual receives and retains that light and truth. 

 

-Finrock

[Bycote]

My comments are to the user who posted this question.

 

I respect your desire to teach your children the truth.  I wonder, how is it that you determine what is true with respect to church history?  You indicated that you consider it true that Joseph Smith translated part of the Book of Mormon by peering into a seer stone in a hat, but you neither cited a source for this information nor did you cite a source in quoting "an apostle" who spoke on the subject.

 

Before you endeavor to teach anyone what is true, I advise you to take the time, maybe lots of time, to carefully discover for yourself what is true.  Go and look up who said what you attempted to quote, get the words in context, clarify your memory, and remind yourself what they were really talking about.  Then go and learn where the information about Joseph and the hat came from.  Compare that information with other accounts of the translation process, compare them for consistency and weigh them for veracity.

 

I won't spoil the search for you, but if you do this I am confident you will find that there is no reason to teach your children about Joseph and the hat.  The source from which it comes, David Whitmer, gave an account of the translation process entirely at odds with both Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdery's accounts, furthermore his account is self-contradictory and at odds with revelation given in DC 8 and 9.  One excellent analysis that will aid your search for truth is provided in "Revelations of the Restoration" (McKonkie and Osltler), commentary on DC 9:7-10.

 

Now, consider that when you posted this question you were convinced that something probably false (Joseph and the hat) and entirely inconsequential was actually true and that it was very important to teach it to your children.  You were settled, it seems, upon teaching them false or inconsequential information in the name of truth.  Obviously, you didn't know any better, but it is still an epic blunder, is it not?

 

How do you avoid making the mistake again?  I can only advise careful and lengthy study, and teaching only what is found to be officially taught by the church (for example, in the "Church History for the Fulness of Times" manual) as those sources will keep you right and prevent further blunders.

God bless you and your children and lead you in paths of righteousness!  To Zion!!

Edited April 12, 2015 by Bycote

[pam]

Sorry but I too believe in the story of the seer stones in the hat.

[Bycote]

Pam, why do you believe that story?

 

I have spent some time this morning studying it and I discovered that Joseph's brother William Smith corroborated the account with the following words:

 

"The instrument caused a strain on Joseph's eyes, and he sometimes resorted to covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part"

 

I do not know if Joseph ever did anything like the above, but I do know the much more detailed accounts given by David Whitmer are not to be trusted or taught by men and women of sound understanding.  Nor is there any corroborating witness given by Joseph or Oliver that anything like the above occurred, though it is entirely inconsequential whether it did or not.  

 

As for myself, I neither believe nor disbelieve he ever peered into a hat while translating.  Insufficient evidence exists to make a sound judgement and it does not matter.  However, I must echo my preceding warning that a Latter-day Saint must study carefully and teach more carefully with respect to these matters.

 

As an illustration of my point.  Say you trust the above account and consider it important to teach it to your children.  Additionally, say you trust the source from which it sprang.  These are some of the other teachings you will find yourself in company with:

 

According to David Whitmer, the source of your information.  After the loss of the 116 pages of the manuscript by Martin Harris, Moroni took the golden plates and Urim and Thummim from Joseph and never returned either of them.  In the stead thereof, the prophet used a chocolate-colored seer stone to accomplish the remaining translation.  Joseph repeatedly testified that both were returned to him.  Who do you believe?

 

For more than fifty years, David Whitmer rejected Joseph Smith and publicly taught he was a fallen prophet.  Do yo believe that?

 

David Whitmer held a highly rigid view of Joseph's translation; it was not a process that Joseph's mind participated in at all (which plainly contradicts DC 9), but it was pure dictation from God as in the case of Muhammad and the Quran.  Whitmer claimed that if a word was misspelled by the recorder, Joseph would not continue until it was corrected.  However, 3,913 changes have been made to spelling and punctuation in The Book of Mormon since its original publication so he was clearly mistaken.  Do you believe he was correct?

 

Whitmer also gave inconsistent accounts of the instrument used to translate.  It is from him that the idea of the "seer stone" came.  In different accounts, Whitmer sometimes claims the seer stone was used by Joseph, while elsewhere he claims it was the Urim and Thummim.  He cannot get his story straight so you cannot agree with him on this point.

 

Also of important note is the instrument used by Joseph to translate.  I have heard it commonly taught by Latter-day Saints that Joseph used Urim and Thummim AND a seer stone of his own to translate.  They are mistaken.  Again, I will not deprive you of the search to find the truth for yourself.  But I will point you to DC 10:1, invite you to compare its text with the original publication text, then study why it was changed and what Joseph learned in the years between the two publications.

[bytebear]

The problem with the hat story is that it's misrepresented.  The implication is that the hat was part of some sort of ritual, or specific task required to use the interpreters and/or seer stone.  It wasn't.  Smith was essentuially having the same problem I have when I try to read my cell phone on a sunny day.  I move into shade or cover the screen with my hand. Now, if I was reading and writing from my cell phone for hours at a time, I would probably look for some more convenient way to make the process easier.  Whether Smith did this a lot or not is debatable, but he seems to have done it at least enough for a few people to take note of it. 

But in this context, I actually gain a testimony, because in the 1820s, I doubt Smith came up with the notion of an iluminated device that we take for granted today.  Yet, today we would think nothing of such a miraculous device.

[Maureen]

Bycote, your own church admits that Joseph used the "seer stone".

 

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.”...

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

 

M.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Maureen

[Bycote]

Maureen, I did not communicate clearly if you believe the things you shared contradicted me.  

 

In very plain language, I was saying that Joseph did not have his own "seer stone" in addition to the Urim and Thummim he received with the golden plates.  I do not claim that the Urim and Thummim itself is not a "seer stone."  It is not inaccurate to use the terms interchangeably.  

 

Furthermore, I was not addressing a specific statement from another user when I addressed this issue, I was simply sharing this fact to shed more light on the overall circumstances of the question being addressed and David Whitmer's views on the subject.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Bycote

[Pa Pa]

I forget which apostle in recent times said that in regards to Joseph Smith using the seer stone in a hat ..."some of the truth is not neccesary" (not an exact quote but along those lines).

 

I find it very hard not to teach my 12,8,6 yr old kids about the truth. I want to teach them our history in my own home so that they will feel empowered when confronted with it later on in life maybe as missionarys or on the internet.

 

How should I approach this? I dont want my kids to know the truth and then in church have people look at them like they are crazy because our leaders dont even teach it (some leaders still probably dont even know about it).

I would suggest most know all truths concerning translation. Emma spoke often of the translation process, where Joseph and Oliver made no attempt to hide the plates other than just covering them. Also in the beginning she helped with the translation and handled the plates herself. Many saw the plates during the translation. Yes later on he used a white Seer stone as he got better at translation. Those who are faithful in this life relieve a new name, and will one day receive our own white "Seer Stone" as told in the Bible (Revelation 2: 17) when I speak of this to those who believe only the Bible ("A Bible, A Bible, there can be no other Bible") 99.9 % to 100 % have never heard of this. We are also thought that the earth will also told that the earth will become an entire Urim & Thummim, where we can see all things, "past, present and future".

So when mature enough...teach them boldly and proudly. Do so because it is the truth...for it is a marvel. Even Joseph's sister handled the plates the night he brought them home, placing them in the box that would hold them. Sadly she did not join as wives had to obey their husbands. Sadly not only Emma lost her husband the day he was murdered by a Christian mob, Lucy Mack Smith lost 3 sons...Joseph, Hyrum and (I think William) who running for his life got pneumonia about three weeks later. I guess they thought will killing he sons that was what they all deserved. Apparently they deserved nothing for their murders as all were acquitted. How does this happen in America, while Governor Ford lied about protecting him, lying right to Emma and Lucy Mack Smith's face. It is no wonder the Saints fled America. Now on line daily they seek to kill Joseph daily, and seek for the death of the Church and continue to attack the Saints again and again. So as I said teach the truth and be not ashamed that he used different methods and Biblical methods. It is,only the would that seeks to call them,of the devil. But the would has always sought to call God's ways evil...they do this because they want to feel better about their own evils.

[Maureen]

...In very plain language, I was saying that Joseph did not have his own "seer stone" in addition to the Urim and Thummim he received with the golden plates.  I do not claim that the Urim and Thummim itself is not a "seer stone."  It is not inaccurate to use the terms interchangeably....  

 

Bycote, are you saying that you don't believe that a seer stone existed, that Joseph Smith only used the Urim and Thummim and that when a seer stone is mentioned, it is synonymous with the Urim and Thummim? If that's what you're saying, I think you are mistaken.

 

M.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Maureen

[Leah]

Bycote, are you saying that you don't believe that a seer stone existed, that Joseph Smith only used the Urim and Thummim and that when a seer stone is mentioned, it is synonymous with the Urim and Thummim? If that's what you're saying, I think you are mistaken.

 

M.

 

 

Actually, in Gospel Topics on LDS.org, it discusses how and why the terms Urim and Thummim are used interchangeable with seer stone.

 

So, are you saying the church is "mistaken"?

 

I will take the church's word over that of a non-member any day.

 

Perhaps I should join a Protestant forum and repeatedly try to tell Protestants that I know more about their faith than they do.

 

But then, I don't feel a need to do that (nor do I possess the arrogance that would lead me to believe I know more about a faith than those who live that faith), nor do I have an axe to grind against them, making me obsessed with repeatedly getting in shots against their churches and members.

[bytebear]

The Angel never called them Urim and Thumim. They were called interpreters.  It was later connected to the U&T of the OT, and apparantly they served the same if not similar purpose. So, from that I gather that a device or even a stone can be consecrated as an interpreter, and used as Joseph Smith decribed.