So sick of the peeping stone story


Recommended Posts

Am I the only one that still believes what the Prophet Joseph said about translating the plates. He used the breastplate and Urim and Thummim spectacles to translate the record. The picture on the left, not on the right. He may have used the seer stone once in a while but the first is the one he did most of the time. Otherwise, why in creation would Moroni have buried them with the plates in the first place if Joseph was just going to find some chocolate covered stone that could do the exact same thing.

I am so exasperated about this constant re-writing of history from hearsay sources like Emma's final testimony from the RLDS group. Same thing goes for the Meso-America theory, it all started with the RLDS "scholars" and has infected modern historical thinking.

Arghhhhhhh.

bomt6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It bothered me as an investigator.  Once I received a testimony of the Book of Mormon I stopped caring.  There are so many things I don't understand and need to learn.  

It's scripture.  Whether it was dropped off by aliens or translated through a rock in a hat is irrelevant to me at this point.  There are so many things that I need to do and learn for myself and my family.  I may never have time to get to things lower on my list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Whether it was dropped off by aliens

dropped off by aliens. I am going to use that one now. LOL

I am just so sick of the focus being on that at BYU. Can we focus on the fact that it is an actual historical record of a people that it appears have been completely wiped from history, at least until we find a stone monument written in Hebrew about a guy named Coriantumer? Honestly, the Book of Mormon is true and the Spirit testifies to my heart every time I read it.

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I am so exasperated about this constant re-writing of history from hearsay sources like Emma's final testimony from the RLDS group.

Emma's testimony is not hearsay. It's a first-hand account. She said, "I know 'Mormonism' to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

As I stated, not hearsay, but first-person testimony. And not a one-time or short occurrence, but "frequently" and "hour after hour with nothing between us".

I share your frustration with antiMormon duplicity, but Emma's testimony is no such example. Joseph did what he did, and I am not ashamed of it. He used the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the Nephite interpreters, but apparently also to his goose-egg-sized "seer stone". The only reason this bothers us is because we have not been exposed to it from our childhood, and because antiMormons use it to ridicule us. As well might the antiMormons ridicule Christ for spitting in clay to heal a man's vision.

EDIT: Several have pointed out that a transcription of remarks uttered by Emma Smith don't count as "first-person testimony". They are right, of course. But I have no reason to believe that her remarks were changed or recorded incorrectly, and they are direct and clear enough to dispel any argument about Joseph's translating methods as witnessed by his wife, unless you claim that Emma was some combination of senile, psychotic, and duplicitous. I don't believe she was any of those things, though her remarks absolutely denying Joseph's practice of polygamy don't square with the otherwise-known historical record and do suggest that her testimony, at least regarding polyandry, is not reliable. But plural marriage was always a sore point with Emma; she was arguably psychotic or at least self-deluded regarding that specific topic.

But I don't see why I should suppose that would carry over to her memories and understanding of her husband's translation efforts and activities. Emma was not the only one to talk about Joseph using his seerstone in a hat; both Martin Harris and David Whitmer gave the same testimony. I think his brother William said something about it, too.

I don't actually have a dog in this fight. The foundation of my testimony of the Restored Church isn't based on whether Joseph put a seerstone in a hat to translate the gold plates. But my understanding of the historical record is that the stone-in-a-hat idea is basically true. And since I don't see how the idea impacts the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims, I think it's an irrelevant detail and that it's better simply to acknowledge it and move on rather than pick at it and spend endless hours either denying it ever happened or worriedly striving to contextualize it so people don't think we're weird. Let them think what they think. No skin off our collective noses.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, as Joseph Smith jr translated the Book of Mormon, and later the Book of Abraham and the "translation" of the New Testament, Joseph slowly stopped using tools and eventually was translating the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham without even the original source material (Golden Plates and original writings holding the book of Abraham). Having a period where Joseph used a seer stone in a hat doesn't seem too far off base of what to expect.

What annoys me is the illogical thought process of those who try to dismantle the Book of Mormon and translation. Did he, Martin Harris and/or Oliver Cowdery all fabricate the whole thing? If so, then we have to assume that either every scribe was in on it or JS jr had an incredible memory as he recited thousands of phrases out of memory as his face was in a blackened hat.

But clearly they were all in on it. Everyone that assisted in translation, all the witnesses, everyone that was present for every miracle involving the arrival of an angel or Christ. All the while preventing any journal entry, personal writing, and convincing everyone who disaffected from the church to not spill the beans on their giant con.

If this were all true, calling JSjr the greatest con man in history is a GROSS understatement and is an insult to his legacy of conning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The only reason this bothers us is because we have not been exposed to it from our childhood, and because antiMormons use it to ridicule us. As well might the antiMormons ridicule Christ for spitting in clay to heal a man's vision.

Indeed. 

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone cares. What is this taboo over this method over that? 

I now wonder if there is some sort of psychology about what "offends" on this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Backroads said:

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone cares.

Some people think the church was misleading people over the years and only recently "came out" with the seer stone history. It's not what I believe, it's what I've been seeing/hearing. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Am I the only one that still believes what the Prophet Joseph said about translating the plates. He used the breastplate and Urim and Thummim spectacles to translate the record. The picture on the left, not on the right. He may have used the seer stone once in a while but the first is the one he did most of the time. Otherwise, why in creation would Moroni have buried them with the plates in the first place if Joseph was just going to find some chocolate covered stone that could do the exact same thing.

I am so exasperated about this constant re-writing of history from hearsay sources like Emma's final testimony from the RLDS group. Same thing goes for the Meso-America theory, it all started with the RLDS "scholars" and has infected modern historical thinking.

Arghhhhhhh.

bomt6.png

It does irritate me to a degree...yes.

For over 100 years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints BELIEVED Joseph's story.

Anti-Mormons had the same claims they do today.  The church held firm to the story of the Urim and Thummim.

And then one day...someone...for some reason...felt that they should believe the Anti-Mormons.  And I feel that whoever this is has been dead set at destroying the church from the inside ever since.

I feel it has weakened the church.  No item that I've seen has been more devastating to much of the church than the change in many of it's dialogues into accepting the items which anti-Mormons have claimed for over a hundred years prior.

If I were trying to destroy the church slowly and secretly from the inside, some of the things done in the past 15 years would be the perfect way to do it.  I couldn't do a better job.

My take was that we either accept Joseph's testimony or we don't.  If we call him a liar...then why are we even accepting that the Book of Mormon is true.  If he is a prophet, then his account probably is true.  If he isn't, then obviously we need to turn to other accounts because he probably was a liar in the first place.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Emma's testimony is not hearsay. It's a first-hand account. She said, "I know 'Mormonism' to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

As I stated, not hearsay, but first-person testimony. And not a one-time or short occurrence, but "frequently" and "hour after hour with nothing between us".

I share your frustration with antiMormon duplicity, but Emma's testimony is no such example. Joseph did what he did, and I am not ashamed of it. He used the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the Nephite interpreters, but apparently also to his goose-egg-sized "seer stone". The only reason this bothers us is because we have not been exposed to it from our childhood, and because antiMormons use it to ridicule us. As well might the antiMormons ridicule Christ for spitting in clay to heal a man's vision.

List the source for that, and WHY it is suddenly acceptable.  Or...is it more like Martin Harris's account, written many decades afterwards but supposedly stated by him, gotten by a tertiary source, and even if stated at the time it is said he gave it, pretty open to the fact that seeing he (and whitmer) were in support and trying to bolster the argument of another who said they ALSO translated via a peepstone or seerstone...is highly suspect...

Normally, these have traditionally been given by the Anti-Mormons as first hand accounts, even though if you search for the actual source it typically comes from a tertiary source when you track down the actual text it is derived from.

However, if it is directly from her journal...I would be interested if you have that as a source...it could be interesting to see that.

Most of the time it's supposedly from an interview, and when you track down the interview for some reason it's several decades after the fact that it was recorded...and not surprisingly...normally an interview given to anti-Mormons for the reason to attack those Mormons (which should raise a member's eyebrows instantly...THERE'S A REASON these stories were not accepted by the Church for decades, and by members for decades.  They KNEW the sources and why they were written and the sources of attack.  It's only after the death of those in the know that we have come to forget the reasons they were not accepted in the first place).

50 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Indeed. 

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone cares. What is this taboo over this method over that? 

I now wonder if there is some sort of psychology about what "offends" on this matter. 

Because this was the story of the anti-Mormons and their accusations that the story that Joseph told (along with other things) was false and that he was a liar from the start.  Why did we suddenly start calling the Prophet Joseph a liar and accept that his story was false?

There are many excuses people try to come up with to try to say...well...it was changed by Oliver Cowdery or others, and various other things.  Overall, the story the Mormons held to was the one that Joseph supposedly told others and verified by those who are dead now (Prophets such as Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff, and several of the apostles). 

Some are trying to pretend that this is new stuff that we are discovering.  It is NOT.  This stuff has been around itself now for over 100 years.  I have NO IDEA why we suddenly capitulated like we have in the past two decades. 

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

dropped off by aliens. I am going to use that one now. LOL

I am just so sick of the focus being on that at BYU. Can we focus on the fact that it is an actual historical record of a people that it appears have been completely wiped from history, at least until we find a stone monument written in Hebrew about a guy named Coriantumer? Honestly, the Book of Mormon is true and the Spirit testifies to my heart every time I read it.

As you can tell, the change in the church dialogue has deeply bothered me. 

At this point, when these things come up, many times I'd now prefer to just focus on the Book of Mormon itself.

However, with the victory that the Anti-Mormons have gotten in having us acknowledge that they've been right all along in many things, it now has them trying to use this to discredit Joseph Smith with the rest of their stories to show that his accounts and history were a lie, and that means that the Book of Mormon was a lie as well. 

With how much they've achieved, at this point, yes, I'd love to hear more about the Book of Mormon only without the church focusing on it's "new" story that's being told today about it's translation.

I'm not sure how this will run in the long run, but I still have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

It's just SOOO discouraging to see the stories told by anti-Mormons while I was younger to discredit Joseph and call him a liar and a fake, gaining so much traction as the official church history today.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize there was debate as to whether JSjr used this form of revelation or not. I assumed it was widely accepted? I don't understand why the process of how the translation occurred has created such a stir?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

I didn't realize there was debate as to whether JSjr used this form of revelation or not. I assumed it was widely accepted? I don't understand why the process of how the translation occurred has created such a stir?

It's been debated for nigh...180 years or more now.  His accusers came out pretty early on.

He DID use a seer stone, that was never the question.  It was that he stated that he primarily translated the Book of Mormon by the Power of the Urim and Thummim.  Mormons accepted this story.

Anti-Mormons said...not so quick.  However, it was in the 1870s that they start getting all these sources of information and other things to build up evidence that Joseph Smith lied about how the Book of Mormon was translated.

One particular interviewer is pretty notorious (or used to be, we probably accept him as a bona fide neutral journalist now rather than the anti-Mormon he was viewed as during Brigham's time and afterwards) for gathering such interviews. 

Originally Martin Harris's interview and others were considered not that strong of a witness due to the source.  The strongest source that the anti-Mormons had ironically was David Whitmer.  The REASON why he would do so would be to either bolster his claims to being the church leader at the time, or if earlier, another who claimed the use of a seer stone to translate plates.  As per the whitmer families (if you accept the interviews) the portrayal they give is that they...not Oliver Cowdery, were mostly the primary scribes at many points of the translation.

Thus, this accusation against Joseph has been ongoing for well nigh over 100 years at this point.  The church always stuck to it's guns previously that the Urim and Thummim were the primary instruments of translation.  The entire stone in a hat thing was actually scoffed at by some Church Presidents in the past. 

Thus, this story was used to not only say Joseph Smith was a liar, but many of the Prophets and leaders of the church after him were also liars.  The claim is that they knew the true story but purposefully lied about it. 

I got a full earful of many of these stories (and more) when investigating the church.  I knew all these stories prior to them coming more popular again in recent years because I heard most of them from those in my original church and religion who were dead set on convincing me that I shouldn't be part of the so called Mormon Cult (as they would call it).  (To be clear though, there ARE some new stories about that I hadn't heard of before, but this is not a place I care to talk or relate about them unless they come up and then I would give my opinion on them as well).

Luckily, not all of those stories are accepted in the church...yet.  It is a rather bizarre time to live in relation to what the church used to teach and what they are teaching about church history currently.  In some ways it really boils down to whether you believe Joseph and other Prophets of the Church after him, or if you think that for some reason they all forgot the real story, or whether you actually believe they flat out lied to us.

I, personally, do NOT believe they lied to us.  That's just me though.

Now to be clear, Joseph DID use a seer stone.  It's WHAT he used it for which was under debate and in question, and most specifically in relation to the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Abraham and his translation of the Bible was never as explicit in how he translated them as it was about the Book of Mormon.  Whether he used the Urim and thummim (which was what many supposed, but not really stated outright that I know of), or the Seer Stone, or merely revelation...it wasn't told as far as I am aware.  In the past, there are many things that were somewhat different in relating church history. 

But yes, this was a pretty serious point of contention if you go back a few decades.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's been debated for nigh...180 years or more now.  His accusers came out pretty early on.

He DID use a seer stone, that was never the question.  It was that he stated that he primarily translated the Book of Mormon by the Power of the Urim and Thummim.  Mormons accepted this story.

Anti-Mormons said...not so quick.  However, it was in the 1870s that they start getting all these sources of information and other things to build up evidence that Joseph Smith lied about how the Book of Mormon was translated.

One particular interviewer is pretty notorious (or used to be, we probably accept him as a bona fide neutral journalist now rather than the anti-Mormon he was viewed as during Brigham's time and afterwards) for gathering such interviews. 

Originally Martin Harris's interview and others were considered not that strong of a witness due to the source.  The strongest source that the anti-Mormons had ironically was David Whitmer.  The REASON why he would do so would be to either bolster his claims to being the church leader at the time, or if earlier, another who claimed the use of a seer stone to translate plates.  As per the whitmer families (if you accept the interviews) the portrayal they give is that they...not Oliver Cowdery, were mostly the primary scribes at many points of the translation.

Thus, this accusation against Joseph has been ongoing for well nigh over 100 years at this point.  The church always stuck to it's guns previously that the Urim and Thummim were the primary instruments of translation.  The entire stone in a hat thing was actually scoffed at by some Church Presidents in the past. 

Thus, this story was used to not only say Joseph Smith was a liar, but many of the Prophets and leaders of the church after him were also liars.  The claim is that they knew the true story but purposefully lied about it. 

I got a full earful of many of these stories (and more) when investigating the church.  I knew all these stories prior to them coming more popular again in recent years because I heard most of them from those in my original church and religion who were dead set on convincing me that I shouldn't be part of the so called Mormon Cult (as they would call it).  (To be clear though, there ARE some new stories about that I hadn't heard of before, but this is not a place I care to talk or relate about them unless they come up and then I would give my opinion on them as well).

Luckily, not all of those stories are accepted in the church...yet.  It is a rather bizarre time to live in relation to what the church used to teach and what they are teaching about church history currently.  In some ways it really boils down to whether you believe Joseph and other Prophets of the Church after him, or if you think that for some reason they all forgot the real story, or whether you actually believe they flat out lied to us.

I, personally, do NOT believe they lied to us.  That's just me though.

Now to be clear, Joseph DID use a seer stone.  It's WHAT he used it for which was under debate and in question, and most specifically in relation to the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Abraham and his translation of the Bible was never as explicit in how he translated them as it was about the Book of Mormon.  Whether he used the Urim and thummim (which was what many supposed, but not really stated outright that I know of), or the Seer Stone, or merely revelation...it wasn't told as far as I am aware.  In the past, there are many things that were somewhat different in relating church history. 

But yes, this was a pretty serious point of contention if you go back a few decades.

So just so I got this clear.

You do NOT believe he used a seer stone in the hat to translate? But he did use a seer stone... and that this was taught by previous prophets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Luckily, not all of those stories are accepted in the church...yet.  It is a rather bizarre time to live in relation to what the church used to teach and what they are teaching about church history currently.  In some ways it really boils down to whether you believe Joseph and other Prophets of the Church after him, or if you think that for some reason they all forgot the real story, or whether you actually believe they flat out lied to us.

I, personally, do NOT believe they lied to us.  That's just me though.

It is interesting and I find myself pondering this often.

So I grew up knowing about plural marriage, seer stone, the hat thing, “polyandry”, blacks and the priesthood, Book of Abraham translation, exaltation (in 8th grade a friend of mine and I would joke about putting our planets next to each other in the celestial kingdom), and countless other topics that I hear causing problems for others. When it comes to the hat and seer stone, I always just assumed it was accepted in the church as a whole.

When it comes to the change in teaching/opinion on things but like this, my trump card I play is Bruce R McConkie’s statement after facing BYU following the change in the priesthood policy concerning blacks (which he famously believed would never happen).

“disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

To me, whether it is a seer stone in a hat, black’s premortal standing, word of wisdom, or Book of Abraham Translation. If modern day teaching conflicts with earlier prophet’s teachings, I revert to what Elder McConkie taught and the 9th article of faith “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

I don’t think we should align ourselves with statements by any earlier church leaders regardless of position. We should align ourselves with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christ’s current representatives. If the current leaders are comfortable publishing a book teaching that JSjr used a hat and seer stone... I believe we should be on with that too (churchofjesuschrist.orgchapter-6-the-gift-and-power-of-god)

I don’t think anyone was lying... just that they were wrong or maybe putting too much weight on something that really doesn’t matter.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph Smith used both the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone and a hat for translation.  This account is accepted in almost all church sources.

It's even in our lesson manuals:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-3-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

If you go to our church website and plug in seer stone hat into the search box dozens of sources come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Joseph Smith used both the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone and a hat for translation.  This account is accepted in almost all church sources.

It's even in our lesson manuals:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-3-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

If you go to our church website and plug in seer stone hat into the search box dozens of sources come up.

From my understanding of what is happening, this acceptance by the church is only recent. Previous church leaders rejected this completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Emma's testimony is not hearsay.

Definition of hearsay: Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

This from a 'supposed' interview of Emma just before her death. Testimony given decades after an event is usually not a good source for the truth, as human memory is flawed. Also, this interview was conducted by enemies of the 'Utah Mormons' who had a grudge and therefore may have altered the statement of an old woman who may not have had all of her mental faculties. An attorney would be able to have such testimony thrown out for a myriad of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

 Also, this interview was conducted by enemies of the 'Utah Mormons' who had a grudge and therefore may have altered the statement of an old woman who may not have had all of her mental faculties.

While true... You are forgetting the fact that the RLDS where not and are not hostile to Joseph Smith.  While they might be more then happy to call out Brigham Young as wrong and apostate.  To do so at the expense of the character of Joseph Smith or truthfulness of the Book of Mormon would be to slit their own throats.  Therefore any interview with an elderly Emma by the RLDS church had every reason to get the best possible spin on the character of Joseph Smith and the translation process.  Because they also believed in it.  It is not until the subject of later church events (like polygamy) do the RLDS have any reason to spin truth in a way that is hostile the 'Utah Mormons'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fether said:

So just so I got this clear.

You do NOT believe he used a seer stone in the hat to translate? But he did use a seer stone... and that this was taught by previous prophets?

This is not what he said at all. The translation was begun with the Urim and Thummin primarily. There is a source that states that at some point Joseph disassembled the 'spectacles' and used them without the breastplate, he may have used them in a had as well. He also found a stone that allowed him to focus his seer abilities as well and to see things before they occurred. It is possible that he used a hat to hold it as well. The main problem I have with 'the stone in a hat' theory is it discounts the use of the plates and the breastplate at all. It goes against what Joseph himself wrote about how he translated. I don't recall any source, the he wrote, that says "I put a rock in a hat and read the book from a distance." 

On a funny note, I had a conversation with a person once, on my mission, about this where he claimed that Joseph just read a manuscript in the hat so no one would know he did not have the plates. After a moment I asked, "What was the light source that he read by, because they did not have flashlights or any form of light that did not require a flame in 1829?" After looking confused for a second the guy slammed the door in our face. 

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

While true... You are forgetting the fact that the RLDS where not and are not hostile to Joseph Smith.  While they might be more then happy to call out Brigham Young as wrong and apostate.  To do so at the expense of the character of Joseph Smith or truthfulness of the Book of Mormon would be to slit their own throats.  Therefore any interview with an elderly Emma by the RLDS church had every reason to get the best possible spin on the character of Joseph Smith and the translation process.  Because they also believed in it.  It is not until the subject of later church events (like polygamy) do the RLDS have any reason to spin truth in a way that is hostile the 'Utah Mormons'

Yes and in the article I believe it said that the children of Emma were not happy with the interviewer and how he treated their mother. Her statement about the hat was not specifically about the translation. I think it is possible that Joseph used the had for other revelations, but we just don't know.

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, personally, think the Church is taking the opportunity to look at "sources" that are available, and to follow those sources. As a Church we are technically receiving the consequence of not having good record keeping. The Church is taking the opportunity to follow what sources we have and to teach those sources.

Personally, I would say translations occurred through multiple avenues. If the statement of Emma is accurate and has not be meddled with, then we know that is one source. @JohnsonJones does provide a valid point regarding the authenticity of this source, but others say this is authentic and so the Church must keep with what witnesses (although from a different source than the Restored Church). I am OK with this.

I mean, in correlation with all the ex-members, anti-Mormons, and the simple fact our first leaders didn't keep the best records have caused our modern day leaders to figure out what really happened according to what is known (what is written). I mean, we don't even have the revelation written down regarding a priesthood ban, right.

None of this changes the witness from the Spirit of Truth. None of this changes that we are lead by apostles and prophets with the same authority who are called/chosen by God -- not by themselves.

So, I am good with the peep stone translation, because the Church is doing its best with what sources we have to authenticate this. Honestly, if the Church doesn't follow what has been written I think it would give more ammo to ex-members, anti-Mormons, and atheists in general, "You see, we have the source, and the Church is unwilling to accept it"!

With the struggles of our Millennials (not all of course -- just thinking of articles on Thirdhour), it would appear to someone who is not strong/firm in their testimony as if the Church is truly misleading its people.

It would be nice if the Father and the Son appeared to President Nelson and laid everything out before him. But, the Lord doesn't always work that way and many in our day would even call that a convenient truth, "Oh, the Church just received another visit from heavenly angels disregarding actual written history"!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This and so many other aspects of our history are interesting little problems. Since I am not an expert in such historical research, ultimately I have to take it on faith that the historians/scholars hired by the Church to synthesize all of this down into our "best" understanding have done their due diligence in judging which sources are good primary sources, good secondary sources, and not so good sources (but I do not have the time, expertise, or inclination to try to adequately verify that for myself). If the new narrative represents a change from the narrative I grew up with, what then??

As a scholarly endeavor, this should not be above criticism, if we feel those criticisms are justified. I don't know who follows Jeff Lindsay's Mormanity blog, but one of the recent bees in his bonnet is how he feels that the JSPP has been severely negligent in their choice of sources for the recent volume dealing with the Book of Abraham. Again, I can't possible judge what is truth and error in this debate, but the existence of the debate is interesting to me. Again, I ultimately have to rely on the final consensus of these historians/scholars to know what our best guess at the true history looks like.

The study of our history is interesting. It also seems to be difficult in many ways. If your criticism has merit -- enough merit to override the consensus of the Church's historians/scholars, then I hope someone will take it up and publish those criticisms where they can do some good (thirdhour is an amazing forum with some amazing people, but I'm not sure a simple forum post even on this forum is going to gain much traction) in the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I, personally, think the Church is taking the opportunity to look at "sources" that are available, and to follow those sources. As a Church we are technically receiving the consequence of not having good record keeping. The Church is taking the opportunity to follow what sources we have and to teach those sources.

Indeed..  The facts are those records exists.  If the church pretends they do not... then the church gets accused of hiding the "truth"

Wereas the church teaches that the translation was done 'By the gift and power of God.'  (per the testimony of Joseph Smith himself).  And here are some reports and records were people who were close during that process and what they have to say about it.  There is no hiding and people can decide for themselves what they think rather then having someone force there opinion upon them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This and so many other aspects of our history are interesting little problems. Since I am not an expert in such historical research, ultimately I have to take it on faith that the historians/scholars hired by the Church to synthesize all of this down into our "best" understanding have done their due diligence in judging which sources are good primary sources, good secondary sources, and not so good sources (but I do not have the time, expertise, or inclination to try to adequately verify that for myself). If the new narrative represents a change from the narrative I grew up with, what then??

As a scholarly endeavor, this should not be above criticism, if we feel those criticisms are justified. I don't know who follows Jeff Lindsay's Mormanity blog, but one of the recent bees in his bonnet is how he feels that the JSPP has been severely negligent in their choice of sources for the recent volume dealing with the Book of Abraham. Again, I can't possible judge what is truth and error in this debate, but the existence of the debate is interesting to me. Again, I ultimately have to rely on the final consensus of these historians/scholars to know what our best guess at the true history looks like.

The study of our history is interesting. It also seems to be difficult in many ways. If your criticism has merit -- enough merit to override the consensus of the Church's historians/scholars, then I hope someone will take it up and publish those criticisms where they can do some good (thirdhour is an amazing forum with some amazing people, but I'm not sure a simple forum post even on this forum is going to gain much traction) in the debate.

When it really comes down to it:

1. Do you believe and have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a Seer and a Prophet?

2. Do you believe what he said regarding the bring forth of the Book of Mormon?

3. Do you have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?

4. Do you live it?

I say yes to all of these, but I do not have a testimony of the 'historians' in the Church History Department or at BYU, because they are mortals, who make mistakes, even when they don't realize it. Also, when called out on a mistake they tend to obfuscate and deflect. That hints at pride and we know how the prophets have felt about pride. I think i will stick to the Scriptures and Prophets and leave the historians to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a short sci-fi story once.  A guy had invented a time machine where people could observe the past without interfering.  He was going into business as a tour guide, but there was a huge problem.  None of the historical events people wanted to see, actually looked the way the history books and artwork had preserved them.  The thing that killed his company, was Washington crossing the Deleware.  Everyone was expecting this:

image.png.f41a0e90cecb6084bd0857fccb2b45a5.png

 

When they got there, and realized it was a nighttime crossing, and Washington was this miserable huddled being in the back of the boat, shivering under a blanket against the cold, well, the tourists would get mad and demand their money back.

 

Hopefully folks don't do the same thing when we encounter stuff, oh say, like accounts on how the BoM was translated that differ with how they've been popularly portrayed in Primary and whatnot.  

 

I'm also fairly reasonable that this is nothing like it looked when Nephi addressed the stripling warriors:

0076363_its-true-sir-all-present-and-accounted-for-bookmark-7-x-2.jpeg

The BoM is sort of light on it's "white Roman astride a noble steed", yet probably a ton of us grew up in churches with this art on the walls.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed..  The facts are those records exists.  If the church pretends they do not... then the church gets accused of hiding the "truth"

Wereas the church teaches that the translation was done 'By the gift and power of God.'  (per the testimony of Joseph Smith himself).  And here are some reports and records were people who were close during that process and what they have to say about it.  There is no hiding and people can decide for themselves what they think rather then having someone force there opinion upon them.

Joseph Smith History states, and I remind everyone that this is scripture:

*  Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’
Joseph Smith—History 1

I will stick with this and leave the rest to the world. Joseph used the Urim an Thummin and there is nothing in the scripture that states otherwise. Unless I am wrong and have forgotten something, I do not know of any scripture that says he used a peep stone in a hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I read a short sci-fi story once.  A guy had invented a time machine where people could observe the past without interfering.  He was going into business as a tour guide, but there was a huge problem.  None of the historical events people wanted to see, actually looked the way the history books and artwork had preserved them.  The thing that killed his company, was Washington crossing the Deleware.  Everyone was expecting this:

image.png.f41a0e90cecb6084bd0857fccb2b45a5.png

 

When they got there, and realized it was a nighttime crossing, and Washington was this miserable huddled being in the back of the boat, shivering under a blanket against the cold, well, the tourists would get mad and demand their money back.

 

Hopefully folks don't do the same thing when we encounter stuff, oh say, like accounts on how the BoM was translated that differ with how they've been popularly portrayed in Primary and whatnot.  

 

I'm also fairly reasonable that this is nothing like it looked when Nephi addressed the stripling warriors:

0076363_its-true-sir-all-present-and-accounted-for-bookmark-7-x-2.jpeg

The BoM is sort of light on it's "white Roman astride a noble steed", yet probably a ton of us grew up in churches with this art on the walls.

Speaking of Time Travel, when did Nephi talk to the stripling warriors? 😂

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
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