Church releases picture of seer-stone


classylady
 Share

Recommended Posts

Omega, for the specific code names see the Wiki link I included.

 

For the existence of code names generally--it was in the pre-2013 section headers to D&C 78 and 82 (see pp. 50 and 52 of the PDF at https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf).  Proving, once again, that the best way for the Church to keep a fact a secret, is to publish that fact right in its scriptures.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you so obsessed that the translation process not appear as Joseph looking into a hat?  

 

I'll let JaG answer for himself, but from my read, not a single person has even hinted at the slightest inkling of such an idea as that this method should "not appear".

 

I wonder why?

 

Do you really? Do you really, honestly, truly and wooley wonder why? Or do you believe you know exactly why and you're just being facetious in an effort to try and annoy others?

 

Though it strikes me that the why, having been plainly declared by the church on many occasions, is quite obvious.

 

If I were an artist and were going to spend literally hundreds of hours creating a piece of art work depicting what I considered a sacred thing, why would I not choose to depict it, first, as sacredly as possible, and secondly, as artistically beautiful as possible? Add to that -- as has been pointed out -- not everyone knew about the hat, so how could they have created such a depiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you so obsessed that the translation process not appear as Joseph looking into a hat?

 

I'm not.  Nice straw man, though. 

 

 

I have been a member my whole life, and in all those years I have not once seen a depiction during sunday school of Joseph looking into a hat.....I wonder why?

 

Maybe because Joseph Smith himself tended to emphasize the Urim and Thummim, and the distinction between that term's application to the Nephite interpreters versus the Chase stone was not clearly understood? 

 

Maybe because the seer stone's role in the translation process vis a vis the Nephite interpreters is still debated by historians?

 

Maybe because the primary accounts of the seer stone's role came from people who disaffiliated themselves from the Utah church, leading the Utah authorities to question their reliability and choose to stick with Joseph's own statements about the matter?  

 

Maybe because it was the seer stone, not the hat, that was the means of translation; and it's kind of hard to show that or emphasize the sacred nature of the seer stone by drawing a picture where it (the stone) isn't even visible?

 

Or, we can just go back to our "the Church lied to me!!!!" pity party, which I suspect is where a lot of people are more comfortable anyways.  There is, I concede, a surprising amount of (perceived) power in having been somehow victimized. 

 

 

Nobody is suggesting Joseph never used the Nephite interpreters during the translation process. 

 

Then maybe Omegaseamaster should measure his criticisms about how that story keeps popping up in Church manuals when Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Smith, and Emma Smith all affirmed that they were indeed used.

 

 

But he did not use them for the bulk of the translation process.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you; but we don't know that for certain.  Pretending that we know stuff we don't really know, tends to get us into an awful lot of trouble.

 

 

Secret code names may well have historical foundation.  I tend to believe in the scripture quoted (Thanks Vort).  The reality is most people do not know about the seer stone, and the hat.

 

The code name issue rather proves my point.  The fact that such names existed was noted in the headers for two different sections of the D&C, published from 1981 through 2013.  And yet, this fact was still a surprise to at least two participants to this discussion, and one participant initially openly mocked the idea that such names existed.

 

C'mon, guys.  The Church puts things like this in its scriptures--but then the members won't read them.  So the Church puts it in the Ensign--but members complain that the Ensign is too schmaltzy/saccharine, and blow it off.  The Church puts it in its written histories--but the members complain that the histories are doctored and decline to engage with them. 

 

But then, here comes the progressive wing, saying "Yeah, for the last thirty years we've been moaning about how crappy the Sunday School and CES curricula are.  But--honest!--if you'd just talk about chastity and obedience and tithing and scriptures less, and talk about arcane details of Church history more--that would, like, totally increase our testimonies.  We swear!"

 

I call bull.  We give 'em the seer stone, they'll talk about Fanny Alger.  We give 'em Fanny Alger, they'll want to talk about the Kirtland Safety Society.  We give 'em the Kirtland Safety Society, they'll be on to Mountain Meadows.  We give 'em Mountain Meadows, they'll be on to the Book of Abraham.  We give 'em the Book of Abraham, and--hey, you know what we haven't talked much about lately?  The seer stone, and the Salt Lake's failure to engage on the topic of late is a massive threat to the testimonies of the good members of the Church!

 

It's theo-historical whack-a-mole, easily 75% of which is merely concern-trolling from latter-day libertines who wish the Church would talk about something--anything!--other than what it has chosen to emphasize over the past few decades.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can sugar coat it if we want. Our depictions of "translation" are not what happened. 

 

Are you familiar with the concept of "artistic license"?  Allow me a few examples ==>>

 

-- A painting of Christ and the apostles, each one with a halo.

---The manger scene with the baby Jesus, his parents, the shepherds, AND the three wise men.  That stable was pretty crowded

--Angels depicted with wings in the scriptures and paintings. The angel Moroni blowing a trumpet

 

Give it some thought, my friend, why these artistic depictions are not "real" or factual.

 

sugar coated

 

 

 May  I suggest this word implies that you are making a serious accusation.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's theo-historical whack-a-mole, easily 75% of which is merely concern-trolling from latter-day libertines who wish the Church would talk about something--anything!--other than what it has chosen to emphasize over the past few decades.

 

 

:clap:

 

JAG, if I knew you and you were my neighbor, I'd totally be baking you cookies right now, because that post was glorious.

Edited by Eowyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

coocoo-o.gif

 

Wow. I am really disappointed.

 

I wrote what I thought was a rather insightful post with good information to contribute about the nature of "seer stones" and the esoteric properties and traditions of stones in general through the ages. It was relating to the topic people were discussing about how the stones work, why the Lord would use such a thing, is it the Indian or the arrow, what the role could be concerning such things in the modern Church, etc....

 

....and that was your response. Like I'm some nut speaking gibberish no one can understand. I am saddened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, didn't find it funny. Just insulting.

 

It's further insulting that you think I don't know what a sense of humor is. Or suggest I don't have one.

 

When people are snarky to you when you're being thoughtful and sincere, do you laugh?

Edited by Magus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, didn't find it funny. Just insulting.

 

It's further insulting that you think I don't know what a sense of humor is. Or suggest I don't have one.

 

When people are snarky to you when you're being thoughtful and sincere, do you laugh?

 

I'm sorry you were offended, but I meant it as a kindly jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not.  Nice straw man, though. 

 

 

 

Said the kettle to the pot

 

Maybe because Joseph Smith himself tended to emphasize the Urim and Thummim, and the distinction between that term's application to the Nephite interpreters versus the Chase stone was not clearly understood? 

 

Maybe because the seer stone's role in the translation process vis a vis the Nephite interpreters is still debated by historians?

 

Maybe because the primary accounts of the seer stone's role came from people who disaffiliated themselves from the Utah church, leading the Utah authorities to question their reliability and choose to stick with Joseph's own statements about the matter?  

 

Maybe because it was the seer stone, not the hat, that was the means of translation; and it's kind of hard to show that or emphasize the sacred nature of the seer stone by drawing a picture where it (the stone) isn't even visible?

 

 

They decided that it was important enough in the translation process to openly talk about it now, throw around your what ifs, but why not talk about it 100 years ago? or 30 or 20 or 10?

 

No attempt by the church to bring the seer stone to light in a big way until recently. Sure mentions in old Ensigns, or books written if you paid attention. Hey we have an actual picture of it, who knew?

 

I can agree that if you looked you could find it. But your average LDS was wholly unaware. So yes some might feel deceived. How can you not see this?

 

 

 

The code name issue rather proves my point.  The fact that such names existed was noted in the headers for two different sections of the D&C, published from 1981 through 2013.  And yet, this fact was still a surprise to at least two participants to this discussion, and one participant initially openly mocked the idea that such names existed.

 

Any particular reason its still not in print? I also think I asked for section numbers in D&C a reference you have yet to provide. 

 

 

I call bull.  We give 'em the seer stone, they'll talk about Fanny Alger.  We give 'em Fanny Alger, they'll want to talk about the Kirtland Safety Society.  We give 'em the Kirtland Safety Society, they'll be on to Mountain Meadows.  We give 'em Mountain Meadows, they'll be on to the Book of Abraham.  We give 'em the Book of Abraham, and--hey, you know what we haven't talked much about lately?  The seer stone, and the Salt Lake's failure to engage on the topic of late is a massive threat to the testimonies of the good members of the Church!

 

It's theo-historical whack-a-mole, easily 75% of which is merely concern-trolling from latter-day libertines who wish the Church would talk about something--anything!--other than what it has chosen to emphasize over the past few decades.

I agree its historical whack-a-mole. The church migrated to Utah and had the opportunity to write history how they wanted and they did too the victor go the spoils, did they think this stuff would just go away on its own?

 

The point is they knew about the seer stone all along why not be up front about it? What ever roll it played in the translation process big or small? 

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, did I tell you guys about that one time when I was 21 and painting my first house, and forgot to but a paint can opener so I had to use a screwdriver instead? Oh, I didn't? I guess that makes me a big fat liar then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any thoughts about what I said or.....

 

Sure. I always have thoughts. Not sure how valuable they'll be. But...

 

I think you guys should do some research into the esoteric world of crystals and gemstones.

 

I feel that if this were important or valuable that we would be advised to do so.

 

God gave light to all religions, after all, 

 

I don't know much about Chakras, but this particular statement is not true.

 

Anyway, I've recently been experimenting with crystals and gemstones. I do feel an energy about them and they have positively affected me in helping me be in a better state of mind. Whether or not that is placebo or the real thing, it's hard to say, but I've had a few interesting experiences that suggest there may really be something to it

 

As you point out yourself -- potential placebo. A one person focus group isn't very useful.

 

Now where in the Church do we see a LOT of crystal quartz?

 

This doesn't mean anything. It is employment of non-sequitur logic.

 

 

The Celestial Room. With those huge crystal chandaliers. I'm beginning to think there's a reason that they are crystal, and more than just aesthetics. I'm beginning to think that they are there with the purpose of amplifying and enhancing the spiritual nature of the environment in the temple.

 

This is nonsense in my opinion. If there were conscious choices being made about materials used in the temple due to their spiritual power, the church wouldn't, exactly, have any reason to keep that some big hush-hush secret. The implication is that they have a set plan to use crystal to this end. But there are no records or indications of this that I'm aware of. So either it's a big church conspiracy that involves total secrecy, or it's simply not true.

 

 

There are some of my thoughts. As you can see -- I'm quite skeptical about this sort of thing. I don't think you're "coo-coo" as I jested. I do think that focusing on these sorts of things is off the mark and has the potential of leading us down paths that are potentially highly dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not the same thing....

 

Okay so let's take it farther. 

 

My husband came in and saw me painting the walls using a roller and brush. The next day his dad dropped by, and I was using the roller but also an extension pole to paint the ceilings. 

 

So if they had taken pictures, then what would exist would be pictures of me with a roller, and maybe something else. If someone asked them how I painted, they'd say I used a roller, and Faramir would say a brush, while his dad would say an extension pole.  

 

Does the fact that there wasn't a picture or journal account of me using the screwdriver (because I already knew how to use one and that's what I had available) in the beginning, and that that wasn't a big part of explaining how I painted, mean that I or my husband or FIL were lying about how I painted? Sugar-coating it? Telling it wrong? 

 

Or could it be that it wasn't so important which tools I used as the fact that the house got painted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even a quick search on lds.org reveals that the church has hardly hidden these things.

 

The Friend Magazine 1974

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. 

 

Ensign 1974

Did Joseph use the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone? Did he study the plates as he translated, or did they lay covered on the table? Did he dictate what the Lord said, or did he repeat the message in his own words? There is evidence that all of these might have been true.

 

Ensign 1977

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. 

 

Neal A. Maxwell 1997

“The Prophet Joseph alone knew the full process, and he was deliberately reluctant to describe details. We take passing notice of the words of David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and Martin Harris, who were observers, not translators. David Whitmer indicated that as the Prophet used the divine instrumentalities provided to help him, ‘the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language … in bright luminous letters.’ Then Joseph would read the words to Oliver (quoted in James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News, 25 Mar. 1884, 2). Martin Harris related of the seer stone: ‘Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin’ (quoted in Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, 6 Feb. 1882, 86–87). Joseph Knight made similar observations (see Dean Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,”

 

Russell M. Nelson 1993

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...

 

I dunno. Seems pretty upfront about it to me.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They decided that it was important enough in the translation process to openly talk about it now, throw around your what ifs, but why not talk about it 100 years ago? or 30 or 20 or 10?

 

They did talk about it 100 years ago.  And 30, and 20, and 10.  Let's do a timeline, shall we?

 

1888:  Seer stone is publicly displayed during the dedication of the Manti temple.

 

1930:  B.H. Roberts describes the seer stone in his Comprehensive History of the Church.

 

1955:  Joseph Fielding Smith's affirmation that the seer stone remains in the Church's possession, is published in his Doctrines of SalvationDoctrines of Salvation will be reprinted repeatedly through the present date. 

 

1974:  Seer stone use mentioned in The Friend.

 

1977:  Seer stone use mentioned in The Ensign.

 

1987:  Seer stone use mentioned in The Ensign.

 

1993:  Seer stone use mentioned in The Ensign.

 

1994:  Seer stone/Bainbridge trial mentioned in The Ensign.

 

2012:  Oliver Cowdery's use of a divining rod as an alternative means of obtaining revelation, mentioned in an installment of LDS.org's Revelations in Context essay series.

 

2013:  Seer stone use mentioned in Gospel Topics essay on translating the Book of Mormon published on LDS.org.

 

2015:  Photograph of seer stone incidentally included in a published volume whose focus is actually the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

 

These are official sources.  They don't include semi-official sources like:

 

--1979:  Church Historian Leonard Arrington mentions the stone in his book, The Mormon Experience.

--1984:  Richard Bushman publishes Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, including significant discussion of the seer stone.  The book was originally intended as the first of a collaborative Church-sanctioned, in-depth, multi-volumed history of the Church.

--1992:  Managing Director of Church Historical Department Rick Turley mentions Mark Hofmann's claims to have seen the seer stone and the First Presidency vault in his book, Victims.  

--1992:  BYU staff colloborate on Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which includes an article on the translation process that mentions the stone.

--2002:  Dennis Largey and a slough of other BYU professors produce Book of Mormon Reference Companion, published by Deseret Book, which discusses the seer stone.

--2006:  Bushman borrows extensively from his earlier Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism to produce Rough Stone Rolling.

 

No attempt by the church to bring the seer stone to light in a big way until recently. Sure mentions in old Ensigns, or books written if you paid attention. Hey we have an actual picture of it, who knew?

 

The Church has been reluctant to publish photos of temple ceremonial clothing, too--not because it has historically denied that such things exist, but because it felt those objects were sacred.  But, by all means, continue to push your conspiracy theories.

 

But, I'll bet you that twenty years from now the events of this year won't be seen as "bring[ing] the seer stone to light in a big way", either.  Just like now, in 2015, you are unwilling to admit that the Church's discussions of the seer stone in 1888, 1930, 1955, 1974, 1977, 1987, 1993, 1994, 2012, or 2013 "br[ought] the seer stone to light in a big way".

 

Which brings me back to my prior post.  For some people, it's not enough and it will never be enough.  Because--and I repeat this accusation--it's not about historical accuracy; it's about getting the Church to shaddup about whatever it is talking about at the moment (or at least getting it to abandon its pretenses of moral authority on those issues).

 

I can agree that if you looked you could find it. But your average LDS was wholly unaware. So yes some might feel deceived. How can you not see this?

 

I can see that a minority would be--particularly if they don't speak English, or particularly if they are so young as to lack the academic skills to obtain and digest the materials the Church--or third parties--have offered. 

 

But generally speaking there are few excuses for not looking, and no excuses for trying to push off one's own failure to look as some kind of failing on the Church's part.  People who expect to have their historical knowledge--or their salvation--spoon-fed to them; will find themselves ultimately lacking in both.

 

Any particular reason its still not in print? I also think I asked for section numbers in D&C a reference you have yet to provide. 

 

I did provide them, with a side-by-side comparison of the pre- and post-2013 versions.

 

I agree its historical whack-a-mole. The church migrated to Utah and had the opportunity to write history how they wanted and they did too the victor go the spoils, did they think this stuff would just go away on its own?

 

And nefarious men in smoke-filled rooms laughed diabolically and twirled the tips of their heavily-waxed mustaches as they imagined how the truth would remain forever unknown. 

 

(Except, that they publicly displayed the seer stone.

 

And, they kept the darned thing, instead of taking it out to the desert and chucking it in the nearest dry creek bed.

 

And, they did write the seer stone into the histories they authored, repeatedly.

 

In the words of Mr. Incredible:  "We look like bad guys.  Incompetent bad guys!!!")

 

The point is they knew about the seer stone all along why not be up front about it? What ever roll it played in the translation process big or small?

 

Have you ever considered that--like modern historians--the early LDS leadership just didn't know exactly what role the seer stone played and, in the absence of absolute knowledge, chose to stick with Joseph Smith's own statements on the matter?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the words of Mr. Incredible:  "We look like bad guys.  Incompetent bad guys!!!")

 

Frozone, actually.

 

 

I admire and appreciate those who calmly pursue the discussion in the face of willful ignorance. One day, maybe I'll be grown-up enough to join in. Until then, my anger at the willful blindness and hypocrisy of many arguing that the Church and its leaders are guilty of cover-up is such that my best course is mostly just to keep quiet.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frozone, actually.

 

 

That wasn't a mistake.  I was deliberately trying to misrepresent the plot of the movie, and I thought the true version of the script would just go away on its own.

 

And I'd have gotten away with it, too--if it weren't for you meddlesome kids.

 

Curse you, Youtube!!!! 

 

[JAG raises his fist to the sky as his anguished cry reverberates around the valley.  Cue fade-out . . .]

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did talk about it 100 years ago.  And 30, and 20, and 10.  Let's do a timeline, shall we?

 

 

Now JAG, are you really trying to say again, that the best way for the Church to hide something -- not teach about it -- is to actually teach and publish it?  Shame on the Church for such efforts to hide it.  You mean church members only had to purchase church materials and read them to know about it, at least to the knowledge we have -- Shame on the Church again for all that hiding and no teaching.  Has nothing to do with lazy lay members who didn't read the published materials which they could of.

 

:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a primary child, I was taught the book of mormon was translated with the urim and thummin.  I'm sure I even drew pictures/colored in worksheets very much like the one I posted here earlier.  While growing up in the church the translation process was always illustrated as Joseph reading the plates to one of his scribes, separated by a sheet or some sort of obstruction so the other person could not view the plates.

 

I'm not upset that it was taught this way, however it is incorrect.  2015 curriculum: “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. 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’ [Alma 37: 23–24]”

 

For those who are unaware, this is out of the Foundations of the Restoration 2015 manual.  

 

The quote is not definitive about Alma 37:23-24, nor does it prescribe any one way in which the Book of Mormon was translated, although it does state that most accounts describe urim and thummin and/or seer stone, while many describe seer stone only.  

 

Church members aren't lazy in general.  As I was taught as a child I knew how the book of mormon was translated, I never thought I would need to reference a 1970-something ensign article, or review a speech Elder Maxwell gave in 1997 which mentions the stone, but leaves out the hat part.  

 

Even in light of these recent, and frequent........ proclamations by our Church, we are still being taught something in sunday school / primary, that just isn't correct.  

 

I for one firmly believed my sunday school teachers / primary teachers were teaching me history as it actually happened.  Most members of the church feel the same way.  They do not request bibliography's for sunday school classes just to make sure what they are being taught is correct, and certainly our primary children do not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder what the objective of the complaint here is. Let's say we all acquiesce and proclaim omega and mdfqrx7z correct. Is it just a matter of being right? Just determined that you win the point? Or do you actually have a point -- you know, that might actually be useful to our lives beyond just tearing the church down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, the church as a whole is teaching the translation process through visual aids, and historically through curriculum, that the Book of Mormon translation process was in fact a traditional translation process.  For the simple folk (like me) we like to think that what we are being taught in primary and Sunday school is accurate as a preponderance of what actually occurred.

 

I'm pretty sure the church isn't going to get torn down because I don't like how they teach the Joseph Smith translation to primary children.....

 

I believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.  We either come clean about the whole process, including the Urim and Thummin, Seer Stone, and reading of characters, or we just leave it at Gift and Power of God.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share