Unanswered Questions

[Jenamarie]

MDS: As someone who just recently came out the other side of questioning the church, I'd give YellowLight a little more time to show himself to us before I accuse him of anything. This is only his first thread here, and we don't know much about him yet, just his questions. Let's not judge him too quickly.

(coming from someone who joined a different LDS message board and immediately started asking these very same questions, and got accused of being the very same thing. I can understand how I came across that way, but it wasn't what I was. :) )

[Guest User-Removed]

To me the term 'seer stone' sounds quite respectful whereas 'peep stone' sounds like it is mocking. Perhaps that's only a personal thing. Were not the Urim and Thummim themselves seer stones?

Willow...to a large extent, the who question is semantical. "Seer Stones" and "Peep Stones" were readily available for purchase back then...as they are today.

While one could consider the U&T to be a seer stone, they we're much more.

The point I was trying to make in my post, is that the whole concept of Seer Stones and Peep Stones has been pushed by D. Michael Quinn to somewhat sully the memory of the Prophet Joseph.

[lostnfound]

To me the term 'seer stone' sounds quite respectful whereas 'peep stone' sounds like it is mocking. Perhaps that's only a personal thing. Were not the Urim and Thummim themselves seer stones?

so it is true that seer stones were used? What?

[WillowTheWhisp]

This must be an American thing then because I don't know of any seer stones or peep stones which can be purchased. The only time I've ever heard the term has been within the church.

[YellowLight]

I am heading out of work and will be online later once I get home. Unfortunately, I live 35 miles away...I hate traffic. Anyway, thanks thus far with the questions. I will post a few other questions I have later tongiht, hopefully not using the work "peepstone" or anything.

[Guest User-Removed]

- and as for talking to a bush, even if it is a burning one well that sounds like someone totally out of his tree. (If you'll pardon the pun)

Careful there...you're close to Treason...I'm told the Prince of Wales holds deep conversations with his geraniums up there at Highgrove??????

bwahahahahahahahaha....

As Ricky Gervais would quip..."Are you having a laugh...":roflmbo:

[Guest User-Removed]

This must be an American thing then because I don't know of any seer stones or peep stones which can be purchased. The only time I've ever heard the term has been within the church.

Willow...you're in luck...and it's only 9 quid....

LARGE ROSE QUARTZ DRAGON'S EGG or Seer Stone 107g 65mm - eBay (item 150243945343 end time May-15-08 07:18:45 PDT)

[Hemidakota]

For others to understand what Skip is talking about: Gospel Link

[VisionOfLehi]

I have a question along these lines, regarding a claim I have heard.

I have heard that we all have seer stones, but we're just not worthy enough to see and use them.

Is that right?

Are these the same white stones that the celestial will be given?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Willow...you're in luck...and it's only 9 quid....

LARGE ROSE QUARTZ DRAGON'S EGG or Seer Stone 107g 65mm - eBay (item 150243945343 end time May-15-08 07:18:45 PDT)

Well I've seen them referred to as dragon's eggs but not as seer stones before. I have quite a collection of natural and tumbled minerals and semi-precious stones as I am interested in them.

[HiJolly]

I don't want to post 2,000 questions here but my first one is this:

Why is the taught translation of the book of mormon different than that of how it was really done, with Joesph's peep stone and head in his hat?

If I can get an answer from someone, that would be a start.

Because that's how Joseph wanted it.

That's really the bottom line, seriously. After Joseph and Oliver completed the 'translation', they jointly decided that from that time forward, they would always explain the 'translation' in that manner, i.e., "by the gift and power of God". Oliver was true to that until after leaving the Church, as I understand it, and of course, so was Joseph.

It is the fault of others (eg, artists, sunday school teachers) if they do not honor that explanation, and thereby get some detail incorrect, IMO.

The fact is that we were not there, and we simply don't know anything but what happened to be written about it by others. And even then we know none of them wrote about it using 21st century historical disciplines. 99% of those people who wrote about it didn't see it, didn't experience it, either. So why believe them? Stick to the original witnesses like Oliver, Emma, David W., Martin, etc. And yes, they spoke of Joseph using seer stones, U&T, and even nothing.

When Oliver wanted to translate, he was told he failed because he didn't "study it out in his mind". Sounds good to me, and in accordance with both the scriptures and the journal entries of the day. Seems like some folks get confused about what "it" means. Is that your question, or a significant part of it?

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I have a question along these lines, regarding a claim I have heard.

I have heard that we all have seer stones, but we're just not worthy enough to see and use them.

Is that right?

Are these the same white stones that the celestial will be given?

Well, not exactly, though its fairly close (depending on your standard of what is "close"). The color need not be white, here in mortality, IIRC Joseph had a brown one and a green one. In fact, a 'seer stone' can be made and then used, by any one who knows how and has the faith to put that knowledge into play. Whether they should make one is entirely a different question.

A 'Urim & Thummim' (tanned goat scrotum carrying pouch optional) is another matter altogether, and as I understand it, can only be made under the direction of a Higher Power.

HiJolly

[Jenamarie]

A 'Urim & Thummim' (tanned goat scrotum carrying pouch optional) is another matter altogether, and as I understand it, can only be made under the direction of a Higher Power.

HiJolly

Okay, I'm glad I'm not drinking anything right now, because I totally just snorted.

[MaidservantX]

A variety of perspectives including Daniel C. Peterson's from his own mouth:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=33896&hl=Daniel+C.+Peterson

I haven't done an in-depth study of exactly what history the church has taught, and when, and why -- can anyone say VAST!! So I don't have resources to point to you.

But in simply letting float through my mind -- and admittingly have a bias (thankfully) of giving the benefit of the doubt -- a couple of thoughts have come to me over time.

One, sharing some information with the world could have been dangerous for members of the church. In other words, the negative emotion involved originally wasn't about internal 'shame' or similar about our own history -- it was fear of the outside world's reaction. So if it wasn't spoken of often for safety reasons, then it just simply dropped out of the conversation, and it is about now that we are all interested in reviving such information. I say, yay!

Two, along the same lines, the church started out with a small amount of people. They had information. As you go out and share the gospel of Jesus Christ worldwide with a variety of people and it becomes a worldwide church again, so busy teaching Christ, it isn't part of every conversation and doesn't need to be. It becomes the domain of (church) historians and interested persons. I have no problem with this; I also have no problem with every member being an "interested person" and the (seeming) increase at present. I personally am pleased with what the church is doing now with history, public affairs, etc. etc. It rather excites me.

Three, I don't understand the emotional charge attached to the use of seer stones/urim and thummim/technology for translation, especially in this day and age. To me it's like saying the church didn't disclose what color suitcoat Joseph Smith was wearing at the April 6, 1830 official organization of the church. Okay, it's a little more important -- but the emotional charge, no. It's just not that freaky in a Bluetooth world.

My opinion only, of course.

[MaidservantX]

I have a question along these lines, regarding a claim I have heard.

I have heard that we all have seer stones, but we're just not worthy enough to see and use them.

Is that right?

Are these the same white stones that the celestial will be given?

I have not heard of anything like this except similar ideas such as in D & C 130. (What Holly chose to answer you with is news to me. :) )

By the way:

Bible Dictionary: Urim and Thummim

Also found some cool stuff just by typing in "seer stone" in the lds.org search, including this:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - A Treasured Testament

[YellowLight]

I have another question. This is not a doctrinal question. If there are certain things in the temple endowment video that contradict the scriptures, is there anyone I can talk to about those? They are simple questions, like why is it presented this way, when it is this way type of thing. I would be willing to PM someone the questions if they are willing to take a stab at it. Just let me know if this is allowed as no one has come forward with answers.

[MorningStar]

Do you currently have a recommend? I think the temple president would probably be happy to answer. :)

[YellowLight]

LOL...it expired a few months ago, and with the current chaotic state that I am in, I don't think it would be appropriate to enter the temple. Unfortunately, I know that if I were to write the leadership of the church, it will get forwarded to my local leaders who will undoubtedly tell me not to question. And we go round and round.

[Jenamarie]

Are you sure about that? I went to my Bishop when I first started questioning, and he was infact very encouraging, and gave me some great advice and answers. He didn't snub my questions at all. :)

ETA: I've found that it's kind of hit-and-miss in the church, as to who is going to tell you "not to question" and who is going to tell you "ask away!". Those who tell you to "ask away" are usually the ones who have had the same questions you have, and have come out the other side with a stronger Testimony than ever. Those who say "don't question!' I think, IMO, don't have as sure a Testimony (although I don't think they'd see it that way), or think it's somehow "wrong" to question. Kind of like how it's popular right now to call someone "unpatriotic" for questioning the actions of our government, or the war we're currently in. You can love something (a church, a country) with all your heart, and still look it's flaws in the face and take them for what they're worth.

[tubaloth]

For give me I have only skimmed some of the answers been given. I’m sure I’m out of the loop on a lot of this.

First the whole idea of studying Church history. It is a tough topic to study mostly in light of how we take peoples words. When things contradict each other who’s words are “more correct.” For example if Joseph Smith taught that he translated by use of the U & T, but others, that never saw Joseph Smith translate, or who have fallen away from the church said he didn’t. Who are we to believe? I think for a deep understanding I think we well have to end up sighting sources. Then the argument not what is the true teaching, but WHO is teachings the truth?

why was it shown to me since primary the two pictures of the translation. Both show Smith translating them

First because it was for Primary. Trying to even teaching the idea of translating a book to Primary age kids isn’t going to come across in ANY picture very well.

but in reality he used hte peep stone interchangably with the urim and thummim in a hat

This is where we are going to have to get into which source is more correct then another.

First lets figure out what we do know!

Joseph Smith was given Gold Plates, with it was some bow and rim type glasses and a breast plate that was with the Gold Plates, and were used to translate (even in the bible the same type of thing was used) called the Urimm and Thummim

That these stones were often called Seer stones.

That a (singular) Stone was found when Joseph Smith was digging a well. This was also called a Seer stone.

The rest of the history starts to get blurry. We do have account (mostly through Martin Harris) that Joseph Smith used the seer stone in a hat. The strange thing with this is Martin Harris was never a part of the Translation process. Also the account of using the seer stone was made some years after he had fallen away if I remember correctly. We can try to get deeper into this if we need to.

Joseph Smith’s accounts have always pointed to the U & T Which he often called Seer stones. There are a chance sometimes when people were thinking one and said the other (or wrote the other) for us it is hard to understand which one was used.

Then the idea was that after Joseph Smith lost the 116 pages he started to use a seer stone. This also doesn’t agree with what we have mostly from the D&C. Even though Joseph Smith wasn’t able to translate at the time, he was still given the U & T to receive revelations. The revelation that he wasn’t going to get his Translating power back was through the U & T. So we know Joseph Smith had the U & T for some time.

Last (for now). Why would God go to so much trouble in including the U & T, when Joseph smith could just dig a well and find the seer stone. Also why would God put Joseph Smith through all the trouble of keeping the plates hidden if Joseph Smith could of just put his head in a hat and still translated them.

The point being the cases for why or how the Seer Stone was used don’t add up! The problem is people want to keep adding it up when it doesn’t fit. Does that explain what the seer stone was used for. No! Is there an explanation for the use of the seer stone! No! As far as I know to this day the Church still has the Seer stone!

Most of these ideas aren’t mine, they came from a D&C student manual. There was more reasons given that I can go through. Even more quotes from Martin Harris that date later in time.

The key that others I think were trying to make has to do with where your foundation is on!

Do you believe the Book of Mormon was Translated by the power of God (does it matter by which stone it was done by?)

Even more do you believe Joseph Smith had the first Vision, was called to be a prophet, and restored the church in the latter days?

These are the important questions. Not say that others aren’t important, but they have to be taking in perspective with the rest of Church history (and what really count). Trying to find every answer can lead us down the wrong path! There are things about the Gospel (not the church) that I haven’t found an answer for. That just tells me it hasn’t been reveled yet (because we know not everything has been).

[YellowLight]

Are you sure about that? I went to my Bishop when I first started questioning, and he was infact very encouraging, and gave me some great advice and answers. He didn't snub my questions at all. :)

ETA: I've found that it's kind of hit-and-miss in the church, as to who is going to tell you "not to question" and who is going to tell you "ask away!". Those who tell you to "ask away" are usually the ones who have had the same questions you have, and have come out the other side with a stronger Testimony than ever. Those who say "don't question!' I think, IMO, don't have as sure a Testimony (although I don't think they'd see it that way), or think it's somehow "wrong" to question. Kind of like how it's popular right now to call someone "unpatriotic" for questioning the actions of our government, or the war we're currently in. You can love something (a church, a country) with all your heart, and still look it's flaws in the face and take them for what they're worth.

That's the thing. I am willing to accept flaws in people and such, but I don't think many people know how difficult it is when you are told that you are allowed to have your own opinions as long as you don't discuss them. I don't want my own opinions, I want to talk about questions that seem to bother some people in the church. It seems to me that you have had almost the exact same questions. How were you able to get over the questions you had?

[tubaloth]

If there are certain things in the temple endowment video that contradict the scriptures, is there anyone I can talk to about those?

You can talk about the scriptures all you want, you can't talk about the temple. Now if you quoted a scripture and said its not that way in the temple, then maybe we could talk about it.

But I think you might be walking a fine line. Even more, to maybe address the question at hand, the Temple is newer revelation. So unless the temple and the scripture completly disagree I don't really see the point. The Temple adds more light to what the scriptures already taught. There are some things that don't go completly hand in hand. There is still more about what happens in the temple (and the creation processes) that we don't know.

You do have to realize that Moses's account of the Creation was given to a people that had already rejected the higher law (and higher way of living) so that version is going to be tone down (or is more of a pirmary version) Abraham, and what we have a in the temple is a little more detailed, and adds more light. More well come.

I do suggest that if the question is big enough to start a new thread. After a while you are going to get people talking about two different things!

[Guest User-Removed]

I have another question. This is not a doctrinal question. If there are certain things in the temple endowment video that contradict the scriptures, is there anyone I can talk to about those? They are simple questions, like why is it presented this way, when it is this way type of thing. I would be willing to PM someone the questions if they are willing to take a stab at it. Just let me know if this is allowed as no one has come forward with answers.

Every Stake has a Temple Prep class...usually taught by the Patriarch. I taught ours for a year, when our Patriarch was declining.

Ask your Stake President, or Patriarch.

feel free to email me...I promise I won't bite....

[Guest User-Removed]

That's the thing. I am willing to accept flaws in people and such, but I don't think many people know how difficult it is when you are told that you are allowed to have your own opinions as long as you don't discuss them. I don't want my own opinions, I want to talk about questions that seem to bother some people in the church. It seems to me that you have had almost the exact same questions. How were you able to get over the questions you had?

Lemme tell ya something...I went through a really rebellous period in my life...I mean, my family writes it off as a mid life crisis, but it was more than that.

During this "dark time"...I was fond of saying to friends and family...."There's a place for everyone in the Church...as long as everyone stays in their place"

BOY O BOY...I couldn't have been more wrong!!!!!

Go talk to your Bishop, develop a rapport.

[Jenamarie]

That's the thing. I am willing to accept flaws in people and such, but I don't think many people know how difficult it is when you are told that you are allowed to have your own opinions as long as you don't discuss them. I don't want my own opinions, I want to talk about questions that seem to bother some people in the church. It seems to me that you have had almost the exact same questions. How were you able to get over the questions you had?

Studying the Book of Mormon and Bible, reading Rough Stone Rolling (which is an excellent biography of Joseph Smith, and the times he was living in), going to the Temple (which I'm sorry isn't an option for you right now), learning about the doctrines of other Christian denominations (and comparing them to the Scriptures, and praying about them), keeping a "scripture journal" where I wrote down my thoughts on various scriptures (I followed the Topical Guide first, reading on subjects that intrested me, and then sometimes found scriptures on a particular topic that weren't included in the Topical guide that gave additional insight to the doctrine, so I wrote them down too, and wrote journal entries about my thoughts and tentative conclusions) and then a whole heck of a lot of prayer.

I'm surprised you were told to keep things to yourself. All I've ever been cautioned against is presenting my opinions as doctrine, such as including them in a Sacrament talk, or trying to convince others that my opinion was THE correct opinion. I asked one of my questions in Gospel Doctrine class (when it was appropriate to the lesson) and got a bit of an answer, and then the teacher gave me more of an answer afterwards ( she didn't want to go off-topic in the middle of her lesson, understandably, which is why she gave me the answer in two parts ) I wasn't told I was wrong for asking it. :)

(but you'll have to forgive me that, because this happened 6 months ago, I can't recall now what the question was I asked. I really wish I could!!)