So sick of the peeping stone story

[NeuroTypical]

My mistake - Cap'n  Moroni.

 

(If I get to heaven and find out it's pronounced Moh-roh-NEE, I'm gonna ask to go to the other place.)

[Traveler]

There has been a great deal of speculation.  My speculation is along the lines of @Vort.  But I will put forth as I understand.  First I would say that it is my understanding that the primary means of translating the Book of Mormon (and other ancient documents and contemporary scripture) was the person Joseph Smith Jr.  I find the volumes "Saints" that has been published by the church to be very informative.  I have always believe that if we could travel through time and see history unfold for ourselves that we would be most disappointed in the characters we meet that we have so idolized (including Jesus).   But lets focus on young Joseph Smith.

To begin with, Joseph was young, raw and uneducated.  He obtained the Gold Plates while still a teenager.  It is true that he was an exceptional person - but he was still a person.  Emma's parents were not impressed with him at all and thought their daughter could do better.  All one needs to know is that Joseph was young and inexperienced.  Martin Harris was old enough to be his dad - and had a strong influence on the inexperienced lad.  Joseph had the plates, the seer stone and the Urim and Thummim - all without a manual or any Google information.  There was no one to turn to for advice and counsel.  He had to "learn" to translate and use his spiritual gifts using the tools he had been given.

Sometimes I get the impression that many think he just sat down and started to translate.  In reality, he struggled to understand foreign characters with nothing in his "wheelhouse" that was useable.  So he tried many things - experiments if you will.  We often talk about the "lost" manuscripts.  I sometimes speculate that part of the reason for all that; was a learning exercise. that was full of errors and would need to be discarded for more than the one reason most of us assume.  Joseph was under intense pressure.  Both self inflicted and from criminal elements intent on defrauding as well as Satanic forces intent on his destruction.  I am impressed that he was willing to try a great variety of methods and focus on anything that worked.  Should we not learn from this?

Often, it seems to me I am given callings way outside my "wheelhouse" and comfort zone.  Maybe some of you have experienced this yourself.  And so we blunder through making mistakes.  I remember my first week of my mission.  I thought I was well prepared and had memorized a couple hundred scriptures and all the discussions.  But I was young and blundered - making many mistakes and saying a lot of stupid things.  I felt a great deal of pressure to represent G-d through the spirit but it seemed that 99% of the time I was on my own and doing badly of it.  I was about the age of Joseph when he translated the Book of Mormon - farr more educated and experienced in life - though my mission was of much less importance - I learned as Joseph and even Jesus.  I learned by the things I suffered.  I hope readers caught what I just said - Even Jesus learned from the things he suffered.  Sometimes I have the impression that many think "perfect" people do not learn by the things they suffer - in short that they never suffer.

I am so glad that young Joseph did not just sit down and by divine providence translate every word without flaw or sweat.  Thus this becomes a type and shadow for me to fulfill my callings and mission.  Not just the things in the church but my call as a husband, father, grandfather - even son, grandson.  It means that I can go on and finish my life with some dignity, despite all my flaws and mistakes. 

 

The Traveler

Edited August 30, 2019 by Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

It further dawns on me that the majority of mainstream Christianity just couldn't handle it if they were there with Christ, and everyone there would look at them funny when they talked about the trinity.  "Three in what now?  He's kneeling over right there praying to His Father for Pete's sake.  What the heck is a 'consubstantial essense'?  Are you mad?  Do you need leeches or an exorcism or something?"

See, historians know that's the case.  But mainstream Christians grew up believing something else.  Now they're mad at the historians.

Edited August 30, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

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

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.

I had to comment on your observation.  According to my calculations the stripling warriors were about 12 or 13 - the age that most young men in the church start passing the sacrament.  If anyone has had a son receive the priesthood when 12 (or so) think of sending them off to war the next day.  It would not be a pretty picture.

 

The Traveler

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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.

Yes that is also what they teach...  But Oliver Cowdery was not the only scribe.  If we pretend there were no other scribes we hide history.  If we acknowledge there were other scribes then we should also include their accounts of the events or again we are editing and hiding the facts (aka the historical records).  Now we can challenge the accuracy of these records (which is not the same as editing or hiding).  But since they all show Joseph Smith translating atypically to a more scholarly method of translation it all works to the larger truth of "By the Gift and Power of God".  Therefore there not a lot to be gained to tring to "disprove" these historical records and a lot to lose by ignoring it.

[Fether]

 

 

 

 

2

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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." 

I guess I am just immensely confused as to what the big deal is. Is there some comprehensive journal entry out there where JSjr explained all the process he used to translate the Book of Mormon? If so I would love to read it. To me, it is pretty clear he used many different tools and forms to translate. And as he got further along in the translation, he began to rely less and less on physically looking at the plates and more on just the revelation. 

Do you disagree that there were times that the plates were not visible during portions of translation?

Is the problem that antis make it sound like this was the ONLY fashion Joseph Smith used to translate?

[MrShorty]

48 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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

I had an interesting reaction the first time I read the gospel topics essay on the four extant accounts of the first vision. Why canonize only one of the four accounts? Why privilege the 1838 account over the other accounts? Several reasons suggested themselves, each interesting, but I am still left trying to fully understand why we privilege one account over all others.

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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? 

1) Yes!

2) Yes, but. Do I have to believe every single thing he said about it even where it appears that he contradicts himself? With ancient scripture (like Genesis), I am disinclined to believe that every event described literally occurred as historical fact. Can I believe that the Prophet brought forth the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God while accepting that maybe he and Oliver overstated the importance and role of the Urim and Thummim and understated the importance/role of the seer stone?

3) Yes!

4) Plead the 5th. Not going to testify against myself.

[Vort]

Here's an addendum I added to my first response on this thread:

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.

[Fether]

38 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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.

Yes that is also what they teach...  But Oliver Cowdery was not the only scribe.  If we pretend there were no other scribes we hide history.  If we acknowledge there were other scribes then we should also include their accounts of the events or again we are editing and hiding the facts (aka the historical records).  Now we can challenge the accuracy of these records (which is not the same as editing or hiding).  But since they all show Joseph Smith translating atypically to a more scholarly method of translation it all works to the larger truth of "By the Gift and Power of God".  Therefore there not a lot to be gained to tring to "disprove" these historical records and a lot to lose by ignoring it.

By this logic, I can go and read you the first half of Mosiah 27 and declare "Alma the Younger and all the sons of Mosiah are wicked, end of story." ... but it isn't the end of the story. More happened. Same with Joseph Smith and the translation. Oliver Cowdery was the FIRST scribe. It was later scribes that talked about alternate forms of translation.

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

 

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Yep. As to my current knowledge and memory I know of three accounts:

1) Urim and Thummim (scripture)

2) Emma with peep stone and hat

3) Records @Fether has pointed out that it has been said he came to a point where none of this was needed

All three still work.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Indeed...

I have no problem with someone that does not want to believe the 'peeping stone looking into the hat story'.

They know it exists they can look into it as much as they want and they can make up their own mind about it.

I do have a problem when those people who after having the privilege to make up their own mind try to take that privilege way from others.  That their choice is the only right and correct one and therefore it should be forced on to everyone else.  That is not how the gospel is suppose to work.

Plus someone who has heard the 'peeping stone looking into the hat story'  whither they believe it or not... is immune to that line of faith degrading attack by the antis

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

49 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I had an interesting reaction the first time I read the gospel topics essay on the four extant accounts of the first vision. Why canonize only one of the four accounts? Why privilege the 1838 account over the other accounts? Several reasons suggested themselves, each interesting, but I am still left trying to fully understand why we privilege one account over all others.

1) Yes!

2) Yes, but. Do I have to believe every single thing he said about it even where it appears that he contradicts himself? With ancient scripture (like Genesis), I am disinclined to believe that every event described literally occurred as historical fact. Can I believe that the Prophet brought forth the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God while accepting that maybe he and Oliver overstated the importance and role of the Urim and Thummim and understated the importance/role of the seer stone?

3) Yes!

4) Plead the 5th. Not going to testify against myself.

The questions were not meant to be publicly answered. Number 4 should be answered to yourself and god. It is none of my business.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

By this logic, I can go and read you the first half of Mosiah 27 and declare "Alma the Younger and all the sons of Mosiah are wicked, end of story." ... but it isn't the end of the story. More happened. Same with Joseph Smith and the translation. Oliver Cowdery was the FIRST scribe. It was later scribes that talked about alternate forms of translation.

I think Oliver was the last scribe, unless you meant the PRINCIPLE or MAIN scribe?

[Fether]

1 minute ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I think Oliver was the last scribe, unless you meant the PRINCIPLE or MAIN scribe?

Oh you are right, I had it backward. But either way, to me that scripture was not meant to be an all-encompassing description of the translation process. That becomes clear when I read the Gospel Topics Essay on the translation as well as sections from the SAINTS book. Both published by the church.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I do have a problem when those people who after having the privilege to make up their own mind try to take that privilege way from others. 

I never said that. But, it seems to me that the main focus latly in Church History circles is saying the second one was the only one. They seemed to have completely abandoned the Urim and Thummin and the use of the plates completely. All I ever hear now is the hat, the hat, the hat. And this bothers me a lot with regards to this story.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Just now, Fether said:

Oh you are right, I had it backward. But either way, to me that scripture was not meant to be an all-encompassing description of the translation process. That becomes clear when I read the Gospel Topics Essay on the translation as well as sections from the SAINTS book. Both published by the church.

I have a really difficult time with the Gospel Topics Essays and the Saints book because of the people who have written them. I have lost most of my trust of the so called experts. I trust the Prophet, the Apostles and the scriptures, and that is about it. Historians have agendas and leave stuff out intentionally to support their own little arguments. I have known too many of them personally and professionally to trust their judgement very far.

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I have a really difficult time with the Gospel Topics Essays and the Saints book because of the people who have written them. I have lost most of my trust of the so called experts. I trust the Prophet, the Apostles and the scriptures, and that is about it. Historians have agendas and leave stuff out intentionally to support their own little arguments. I have known too many of them personally and professionally to trust their judgement very far.

There is a great podcast on the Saints books, also called Saints.  It interviews many of the people who worked on the books and what the process was like.  The Presidency had quite a bit of input, according to them.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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.

The person that asked Emma the questions in the interview was her son, Joseph Smith III.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I never said that. But, it seems to me that the main focus latly in Church History circles is saying the second one was the only one. They seemed to have completely abandoned the Urim and Thummin and the use of the plates completely. All I ever hear now is the hat, the hat, the hat. And this bothers me a lot with regards to this story.

I can agree that to the degree that some suggest the Nephite interpreters were *never* used—that’s a misstatement of the available evidence.

That said, I think it’s also a misstatement to suggest that *only* the Nephite interpreters were used.  Joseph may not have taken the time to publicly explain the difference between the Nephite interpreters versus the Chase seer stone (indeed, at one point he flat-out said that the specifics were none of our business), and Emma and David Whitmer each have their prejudices and problems; but the weight of the evidence indicates strongly that the Chase stone was a significant part of the process.   David Whitmer basically left the Church because he didn’t think Joseph was using the seer stone enough, for goodness sake!

FWIW, Scott Hales (the main style editor on Saints) was in my MTC district.  I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s an honest guy with a solid testimony and he goes where he sincerely believes the evidence leads him. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

22 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I have a really difficult time with the Gospel Topics Essays and the Saints book because of the people who have written them. I have lost most of my trust of the so called experts. I trust the Prophet, the Apostles and the scriptures, and that is about it. Historians have agendas and leave stuff out intentionally to support their own little arguments. I have known too many of them personally and professionally to trust their judgement very far.

And to this, I naturally want to ask "Why would the President of the church and the apostles allow a document with inaccurate information be published under their organization's name?"

[person0]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we call him a liar...then why are we even accepting that the Book of Mormon is true.

Moses lied at least once; he was punished by never being permitted to set foot in the promised land, but he was still the prophet, and still received revelation from God.

On that note, Peter lied 3 times in the same day and yet he was still called and chosen as a prophet and still received revelation for the Church.

Edited August 30, 2019 by person0

[estradling75]

36 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I never said that. But, it seems to me that the main focus latly in Church History circles is saying the second one was the only one. They seemed to have completely abandoned the Urim and Thummin and the use of the plates completely. All I ever hear now is the hat, the hat, the hat. And this bothers me a lot with regards to this story.

Yet until now your case has not been about how we talk about it too much, but how it is wrong and not truthful.

Hearing about it to much is a complete and total opinion.  Even if you gathered the number of times your heard it in the last say six months as facts... it would be irrelevant to anyone else because they could get totally different numbers.

Saying that it is wrong and not truthful is an opinion that can be supported or called into question by various historical document.  Given that it is also taught by the church makes it also an implicit attack on the church and its leaders... something that always provokes a response here.

[person0]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've actually never seen this image in my life.  No joke.  

[NeuroTypical]

46 minutes ago, person0 said:

I've actually never seen this image in my life.  No joke.  

It's actually cropped from the original.  In the original you see an Aztec/Mayan macuahuitl (sort of a club/axe thing with obsidian spikes for a blade) lying in the grass.  

Another one - probably more familiar.  The same artist that worked on the classic Charleton Heston Ten Commandments - the banners of the tribes of Israel appear in this painting, and that movie: