Seer stones history getting a bad rap

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

If I had to guess, I think the church wanted to emphasize the historicity of the Book of Mormon by using the gold plates as the primary narrative. 

If the dominant  narrative was around the stone in the hat, with the gold plates being an "obscure" and not well known piece of history, that simply wouldn't work.  The Book of Mormon itself speaks of the labor that went into making the gold plates and their being prepared for the last days.  We know that Joseph Smith did indeed use them initially.  Perhaps handling the plates solidified for Joseph the reality of the mission that he was about to embark on.  Without evidence of the plates or angel Moroni, perhaps Joseph himself would have questioned if he was not just making this stuff up (others certainly would have, and still do - witnesses were needed to counter act that claim).  The plates gave Joseph confidence in his mission and his own prophetic abilities.  With the witnesses, the gold plates became of central importance to the work and narrative - even if the plates were only a catalyst for other means of translation, they were central to the narrative. 

The gold plates and trim and thummim have ancient biblical roots that perhaps the church thought people might identify with more.  The seer stones have more of a modern folk-magic feel.  I think it is easy to see why they chose to emphasize the narrative that they did.   I think the effort was to simplify the history and emphasize only the central and critical elements.  The seer stones were not critical to the narrative - critics could have more easily dismissed the Book of Mormon as a modern fiction of a practitioner of folk magic, if there was no emphasis on the gold plates and witnesses to those plates.  The seer stones may have been the primary means of translation, but they are only secondary to the narrative.  The primary and central story is the historicity and catalyst of the gold plates that began this great work.  

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I am not sure I understand it completely.  What is puzzling to me is why the stone then?  God could have just as easily made the words appear in English on the Gold Plates as a rock.  

Do you or does anyone else know if investigators are now taught about the Book of Mormon coming forth from a stone in a hat?  

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And you gave her the benefit of the doubt and stood up for her honesty.  I think it's good to do that for most posters here as well.  Have you know the narrator to be dishonest?

I think it disingenuous to make something appear as a direct quote that in fact is not. 

I was able to stand up for the reporter’s honesty because she was honest about how she rendered the quote. I could not have done that had she not been so honest. If anything, I would have had to do as you are doing here: rationalize lack of candor and accuracy. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What other kind could there be?

Just like the concept of being born again is a metaphorical theological construct with symbolic application, resurrection and all the key concepts of the Christian tradition have symbolic value, even if some earlier or modern individuals may interpret the narratives as literal.  I think the strongest utility of these narratives is found in metaphorical meaning making. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it disingenuous to make something appear as a direct quote that in fact is not. 

Ok.

I do know it's against board rules to put quotation marks around words as if it's a direct quote from another poster here (and put it in the quote box with their name attached for example).

I wouldn't use the word "disingenuous" for what the narrator did, but it's good to have clarification.  I doubt he was intentionally attempting to deceive, but was just putting his MP's words in quotes as he remembered them and was being honest.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But let's get back on topic here....maybe start a new thread if you want to discuss the proper usage of quotation marks?    

Edited July 7, 2019 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you or does anyone else know if investigators are now taught about the Book of Mormon coming forth from a stone in a hat?  

I would be interested in knowing this as well.  It seems to me that in spite of the gospel topics essays and some other scattered references, the primary correlated message is still the old one.  How long will the church peddle that version while also claiming more authentic and transparent history?  Seems a bit two faced to me.  

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you or does anyone else know if investigators are now taught about the Book of Mormon coming forth from a stone in a hat?  

Great question!

Does anyone have a copy of the current discussions?  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it <was> a paraphrase drawn from personal memory, then? It would not have killed you or your argument to indicate so rather than using quotation marks deceptively implying it was a direct quotation. 

I did not accuse you of lying. Whether you misremembered is a possibility, one that would have been obviated had there been a record made at the time the statement was uttered. If there was no such record made, it is inaccurate to imply by the use of quotation marks that there was one. 

How is this kind of policing even relevant.  Quit distracting from the content of the thread with this kind of garbage.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How is this kind of policing even relevant.  Quit distracting from the content of the thread with this kind of garbage.  

The credibility of an anecdote is germane to any discussion. When there is an (ostensibly) direct quote made, I will sometimes ask for a source so I can assess for myself the accuracy and context of the quote. If it turns out it is not actually a direct quote but a paraphrase from memory, well, I want to know that as well. 

Is it now the order of the day here to order people to “shut up” and shout them down when they ask about sources?

Edited July 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

You seem to think I have a problem with the stone in the hat.  I don't.  And I don't think it requires any more insight to understand than what was documented in the church magazines in the 70's.  I don't know how the narrative about the Golden Plates evolved since that was clearly not what eye witnesses were saying and were still alive for a number of years even after the Saints moved to Utah.  Perhaps this is where that PhD in history is important to sort that out.  But clearly there is solid proof that it had been sorted out since the 1970's. Yes I know what topsy means.  No I don't consider church leaders who definitely knew about the whole seer stone truth since at the very least 1970's incapable of declaring exactly how the Book of Mormon was received.  How could that possibly not be important to them?  Yet they still produced films, brochures flannel board stories, film strips, children's books, murals, paintings, illustrations all of which were totally inaccurate.  

I guess you think that there was some sort of streamlined approach to history when Leonard Arrington came in.  It took him and his staff a decade to get everything in the vast LDS archives organized and to begin publishing professional articles on a whole range of matters, not just on the BofM.  And it took time to percolate down to the ordinary masses (including the GAs).   There was no instant knowledge for anyone.  There was also a decade of "discovery" and publication of a whole raft of forgeries by Mark Hofmann, which further confused everyone (including me), until Hofmann committed murder and was unmasked.  We need to be charitable enough to allow for a certain amount of inertia in making the shift which finally took place.  That's how it works when dealing with non-professionals.

Quote

I am not the Tanners nor am I familiar with their "cottage industry.'  I am more interested in what the Church says about it's own history than someone who may have an agenda.  You seem to have some distain for the Tanners.  Are you blaming them for deciding it was time someone took control of the narrative since those whose stewardship it was to do that, never stepped up to the plate?  

I  thought I indicated that I like what the Tanners did in publishing old documents that most others (including the GAs) had forgotten about.  Heck, I even went to church with the Tanners and met the people who were present at their baptism into a Protestant Church.  So, not sure what you are saying here.  However, professional scholars are of the opinion that the Tanners did the LDS Church a favor.

Quote

Like I said, I am interested in the Church's own view on this issue.  I am trying to understand why the Church replaced the seer stone narrative by something that was so inaccurate about such a monumentally important historical and spiritual event as the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  And why, when the truth of how the Book of Mormon came forth after it was laid out by competent historians, it was not adopted.  Maybe we needed a Bruce R McConkie to be brave enough to stand up and say forget everything we have said in the past about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon?  ...............

You misstate what actually happened in forming the traditional story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  It really did come about by topsy.  Why?  Because there were already competing versions of what happened early on.  You give short -shrift to the fact of the confusion of terminology -- Urim & Thummim, seerstone, Nephite interpreters, spectacles.   I can't even get some people on this board to use correct terminology today, let alone 30-40 years ago.  And the confusion was paramount in the 19th century.  Some prime witnesses, such as Oliver Cowdery, were dead before Brigham left for the Rockies.  Do you really expect a smooth transition in the midst of such turmoil?

Edited July 7, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[SteveO]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Really? Go with a different narrative than what actually happened because it is exotic and cool?  Are you teasing me?  I can't tell.  Sorry if you are just being humorous.  For me it is a sincere question.

I actually think there’s something here worth unpacking.

I cannot for the life of me find his exact wording, but Daniel Peterson tells an interesting story of a back and forth he once had with Dan Vogel.  It was something about where Joseph hid the plates and whether it involved using a log. Vogel said there wasn’t one, and Peterson insisted there was one. Peterson even asked a colleague who backed him up.

Anyways, short version, Peterson turned out to be wrong, and the reason why is because the event was inaccurately depicted in...a church art piece.  And that’s the sole reason his version of the events was wrong, the stupid painting gave him an inaccurate depiction.

Art is hugely influential in how we perceive things.  One of the biggest obstacles the BoM has had to overcome, in my opinion, are the Arnold Friberg paintings, and the perceptions they influenced.  I like them, but they gave grossly wrong impressions about the people, society, and culture of the Book of Mormon.  There weren’t any Greco Roman armor or swords.  No massive walls that would’ve killed Samuel the Lamanite if he had jumped off of them...you get the idea.  When those wrong perceptions clash with scholarship, people get confused at the discrepancy.

I honestly think, that a good part of the problem with the way the translation process was presented, started with an art piece whose artist either assumed that Jospeh used the plates, or, as Calm mentioned, thought plates were more interesting to paint.  As someone who dabbles in painting myself, I can promise you, painting golden plates is a far more interesting subject matter than a guy with his face in a hat.  It’s an objectively true statement, it’s clearly more interesting.  And so, with an art piece, you can influence and shape a large portion of the perception of the church.  And I think it just takes off from there.  Maybe it’s not the sole reason, but I really thing a big portion of it could be as simple as a painting.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The credibility of an anecdote is germane to any discussion. When there is an (ostensibly) direct quote made, I will sometimes ask for a source so I can assess for myself the accuracy and context of the quote. If it turns out it is not actually a direct quote but a paraphrase from memory, well, I want to know that as well. 

Is it now the order of the day here to order people to “shut up” and shout ten down when they ask about sources?

How many missionaries do you know who record exact quotes from their mission presidents for future use 20 years later?  And then you ask him to provide proof that it was an exact quote?  It’s ridiculous.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I actually think there’s something here worth unpacking.

I cannot for the life of me find his exact wording, but Daniel Peterson tells an interesting story of a back and forth he once had with Dan Vogel.  It was something about where Joseph hid the plates and whether it involved using a log. Vogel said there wasn’t one, and Peterson insisted there was one. Peterson even asked a colleague who backed him up.

Anyways, short version, Peterson turned out to be wrong, and the reason why is because the event was inaccurately depicted in...a church art piece.  And that’s the sole reason his version of the events was wrong, the stupid painting gave him an inaccurate depiction.

Art is hugely influential in how we perceive things.  One of the biggest obstacles the BoM has had to overcome, in my opinion, are the Arnold Friberg paintings, and the perceptions they influenced.  I like them, but they gave grossly wrong impressions about the people, society, and culture of the Book of Mormon.  There weren’t any Greco Roman armor or swords.  No massive walls that would’ve killed Samuel the Lamanite if he had jumped off of them...you get the idea.  When those wrong perceptions clash with scholarship, people get confused at the discrepancy.

I honestly think, that a good part of the problem with the way the translation process was presented, started with an art piece whose artist either assumed that Jospeh used the plates, or, as Calm mentioned, thought plates were more interesting to paint.  As someone who dabbles in painting myself, I can promise you, painting golden plates is a far more interesting subject matter than a guy with his face in a hat.  It’s an objectively true statement, it’s clearly more interesting.  And so, with an art piece, you can influence and shape a large portion of the perception of the church.  And I think it just takes off from there.  Maybe it’s not the sole reason, but I really thing a big portion of it could be as simple as a painting.

I think we’re also missing the apologetic story that Joseph and others began to develop when the first major critical book Mormonism Unveiled was published in 1834.  A primary criticism in that work focused on money digging and the whole culture around using stones as a deceptive practice.  Add on top of this the two times Joseph was taken to court as well as antagonist responses by family and friends toward his folk magic practices and you have a recipe for Joseph and early church leaders distancing themselves from their early origin stories and rewriting them into versions that they felt were more palatable to their evolving culture.  

I don’t think just modern members are embarrassed by the folk magic story, but even early church members had degrees of embarrassment and attempted to control the charismatic elements of the early church including more out of the mainstream superstitious practices.  

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Now...that's funny  

But I knew what narrator meant when I read his post....it's not that difficult to see what he was relating.

ALarson,

Maybe I am just the crabby old man who doesn't like things the way they are, compared to the way they used to be (paraphrase from a character, Grumpy Old Man sketch featuring Dana Carvey, Saturday Night Live, late 80's or early 90's).

I didn't even read it closely enough to know what side The Narrarator is on. I saw something in quotes. It seemed fair to ask for clarification. I want to understand what people mean, and it is difficult, especially if the rules for communication are really changing as dramatically as has been suggested. I understand organic change. Witness the Catholic liturgy, which has always undergone developmental change, until Vatican II. I fear for our language what Cardinal Ratzinger observed in the Catholic New Mass, that sadly, the New Mass is an "on-the-spot product". It means that the new liturgy was inorganic, fabricated. I think any change in linguistic rules that fails to recognize the significant difference between a direct quote from an authority figure which can be verified by a call for references, and a mere paraphrase from memory, is likewise inorganic, fabricated. A corruption. I can't see why quotes would be appropriate for either kind of communication under the new rules. Why would the new rule makers want a paraphrase and a direct quote to be indistinguishable? I am just trying to explain to you ALarson, and others, why I care about this question. I wouldn't like rule changes that diminish the weight of an argument when I am directly quoting a figure of great authority about something that is important. I don't want confusion over whether that's just Rory's recollection or an actual, precise quote of something that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote or said.

I am not against change. I am against inorganic change. It seems to me that this generation wants to overthrow EVERYTHING under the guise of development. Modernists don't care about what they have received from their fathers. There is no respect for the reasons why language, and liturgy, and morality have developed up to this point. What is certain is that for modernists, they will not let old rules get in the way of whatever agenda they have. Modern "development" ("development" = rupture that is claimed to be development using old rules of linguistics. See how much harder it is to communicate without rules that are set and agreed upon? Explanation after explanation. Words, words, and more words.) appears to me to be simply corruption. A rule change that allows a person to use quotes for a mere paraphrase is rupture.

This is not in the least a personal attack on anyone. I do not want arguments to be unduly magnified or diminished by a rupture in the rules. It would be so helpful if we all played the same rules. I jumped in because I thought Scott had a valid question. I think he doubted that there was a direct quote. Presumably he DID have a good idea about what was meant. I think he wanted clarification without casting aspersion on The Narrarator.

I am so weary of rule changes in language and morals and baseball(!) and everything else in this age, which are not even close to what I learned, and was universally acknowledged as the norm when I was young. Vatican II modernism can't even leave baseball alone. I don't like Novus Ordo Baseball. If this offends the new rule makers, it is not my intent. I certainly don't have any concern about the subject of the plates or the stones anymore. My purpose is to try to make an argument that legitimate rule changes in any discipline cannot occur abruptly, and without an appreciation for the previous rules. A longer quote from Cardinal Ratzinger will follow. It should be noted that this is translated from a preface to the French edition of a book by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, called the Reform of the Roman Liturgy,  published by Una Voce/Una Voce Press, USA in 1993. From the back cover, using traditional rules for the use of quotes (" '):

"J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development'... (I don't know what you call this thing:' under the rules I learned as a young man, it indicates a quote within a quote, a quote of Ratzinger quoting Jungmann) What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process---with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."

Of course, almost everything is more important than baseball. The Catholic liturgy is most important to me. But I see the symptoms of what happened when the Church changed the liturgy in everything around me. That is what I oppose, not seer stones. Not gold plates. Certainly not The Narrarator.

Thanks so much to anyone who would try to see why some old guy cares about something so much, which most others find to be trivial, the use of quotation marks. It is because a new use of quotation marks would, in his opinion, be symptomatic of a new and virulent ideological disease not known in the immediate past. A past which many are convinced offers little of value, and which needs to be remembered only for the purpose that it be held up for derision in our times. One wonders where it can lead. 

Regards,

Rory

Edited July 7, 2019 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, that is true.  I didn’t say anything about claiming to be an expert on these subjects though.

That is why I said that the internet makes experts of everyone.  Everyone assumes that the internet has all the answers. It doesn't.  Most of the time it misleads.

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes you are completely misunderstanding my beliefs.  Losing belief in a supernatural deity doesn’t mean I don’t find value in religion and the gospel in particular.  Try reading some Marcus Borg.  Some people who believe differently and still engage in a community as a person on the margins may actually care more about their beliefs and the tribe than the mainstream members of that tribe do. 

I have read Marcus Borg, and we have had discussions on this board on reading the Book of Mormon as a non-historical religious document -- same as Borg recommended for the Bible.

However, since it is silly to believe in supernaturalism, you and Borg mistakenly threw the baby out with the bathwater.  He did it because he was raised Lutheran, a religion which accepted supernaturalism.  He realized that supernaturalism made no logical sense, but still liked the wisdom and beauty found in the Bible, so simply accepted it as ahistorical.  Quite a few people have done likewise in modern times.  I have no problem with that, except to say that the Judeo-Christian supernatural tradition is not biblical.

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Just like the concept of being born again is a metaphorical theological construct with symbolic application, resurrection and all the key concepts of the Christian tradition have symbolic value, even if some earlier or modern individuals may interpret the narratives as literal.  I think the strongest utility of these narratives is found in metaphorical meaning making. 

A symbolic resurrection doesn’t seem to be of much use. There’s no hope there. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Even if it wasn't the truth? 

It was the truth.  He did use the gold plates and urim and thummim.  

The narrative the church has used is a simplified version of history with an emphasis on some parts more than others.  I think we all do that in the retelling of our histories.  Again, I can understand why they focused on the parts that they did with less frequent mention of the seer stones.

 

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Although we now understand that you are paraphrasing, I have no reason to doubt that's what was stated since I've heard the same types of statements from my leaders over the years.  I also heard denials of Joseph Smith ever being involved in treasure seeking or living polygamy other than marrying a few older widows whose husbands were killed by the anti-Mormon mobs.  The truth about these were called anti-Mormon lies at one time by some.

Thankfully, even the leaders are doing more delving into true history right along with church members learning the importance of doing this.

I heard them as well in my youth. To be fair the anti-Mormon attacks of the era were so outrageously inane that it was easy to reject everything they said. I literally had people ask me if I was growing horns. We made jokes about it in seminary and would “check” each other by putting our hands on each other’s heads to see how they were coming in. And the questions about how many mothers I had. If they had told me the head in the hat seerstone story first I probably would have rejected it too until I read it somewhere else.

I learned about it in Seminary and Institute. Not a big deal. If you buy spectacles attached to a breastplate being an aid to revelation a rock in a hat would work too.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you find any superstitious beliefs of family or friends to be embarrassing?  How about the heartlanders who I repeatedly see maligned on this board, do you find them embarrassing?  

Yes. I have no beef with heartlander believers except with those who use incredibly inept, shoddy, and misleading methods to build their case because that is dishonest.

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you think that there was some sort of streamlined approach to history when Leonard Arrington came in.  It took him and his staff a decade to get everything in the vast LDS archives organized and to begin publishing professional articles on a whole range of matters, not just on the BofM.  And it took time to percolate down to the ordinary masses (including the GAs).   There was no instant knowledge for anyone.  There was also a decade of "discovery" and publication of a whole raft of forgeries by Mark Hofmann, which further confused everyone (including me), until Hofmann committed murder and was unmasked.  We need to be charitable enough to allow for a certain amount of inertia in making the shift which finally took place.  That's how it works when dealing with non-professionals.

I  thought I indicated that I like what the Tanners did in publishing old documents that most others (including the GAs) had forgotten about.  Heck, I even went to church with the Tanners and met the people who were present at their baptism into a Protestant Church.  So, not sure what you are saying here.  However, professional scholars are of the opinion that the Tanners did the LDS Church a favor.

You misstate what actually happened in forming the traditional story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  It really did come about by topsy.  Why?  Because there were already competing versions of what happened early on.  You give short -shrift to the fact of the confusion of terminology -- Urim & Thummim, seerstone, Nephite interpreters, spectacles.   I can't even get some people on this board to use correct terminology today, let alone 30-40 years ago.  And the confusion was paramount in the 19th century.  Some prime witnesses, such as Oliver Cowdery, were dead before Brigham left for the Rockies.  Do you really expect a smooth transition in the midst of such turmoil?

I think I need some clarification here.  Did the church historians know about the stone in the hat being used as the vehicle which brought forth the Book of Mormon rather than the Gold Plates in the 1970's or not?  

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How many missionaries do you know who record exact quotes from their mission presidents for future use 20 years later?  And then you ask him to provide proof that it was an exact quote?  It’s ridiculous.  

No, I didn’t ask for proof, only transparency in how the account is presented. I’m fine with it if it’s not presented as verbatim quotation when it isn’t. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I am not sure I understand it completely.  What is puzzling to me is why the stone then?  God could have just as easily made the words appear in English on the Gold Plates as a rock.  

Why Joseph used the stones is all speculative.  I don't think there is any evidence that God directed Joseph to use the stones.  You are right, God probably could have made the words appear in English on the gold plates.  In fact, he probably could have made the words appear on the printing press and bypassed the whole translation process all together if he wanted - but I think Joseph needed to go through the process for Joseph.  It seems clear that they were simply stepping stone (pardon the pun) or a learning tool/aid for Joseph in developing his prophetic ability which later required no stones at all.  I don't think there was anything special about them at all.  It is kind of like meditation - some people use different cultural tools and methods to enhance their personal experience.  Nothing special about them, but people have and use what is culturally familiar to them.  I think God allow us to use what is familiar to us as we develop our spiritual gifts and learn to work independent of any foreign aids. 

The same question could be asked about the spittle/mud and the blind man.  Why use that mud at all?  God could have simply said, "be thou healed".  Again, I think it is likely because that practice was familiar to the person being healed.  It helped him to believe. 

My guess is that the seer stones are Josephs cultural contribution - they are a side story to the main narrative of the Book of Mormon. 

Quote

Do you or does anyone else know if investigators are now taught about the Book of Mormon coming forth from a stone in a hat?  

I doubt it.  I imagine it is pretty simplified and generic - "Joseph translated the Book of Mormon through inspiration and the power of God."  Giving too much info too quickly is not helpful and not needed in developing a spiritual witness of the truth.  People are not culturally familiar with seer stones today, though they may have been less obscure in Josephs day and cultural upbringing.  The more info you give, the more historical explanation and context needs to be provided. It just muddies up the process.  What is most important initially is that people read the book and pray about it. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by pogi

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I actually think there’s something here worth unpacking.

I cannot for the life of me find his exact wording, but Daniel Peterson tells an interesting story of a back and forth he once had with Dan Vogel.  It was something about where Joseph hid the plates and whether it involved using a log. Vogel said there wasn’t one, and Peterson insisted there was one. Peterson even asked a colleague who backed him up.

Anyways, short version, Peterson turned out to be wrong, and the reason why is because the event was inaccurately depicted in...a church art piece.  And that’s the sole reason his version of the events was wrong, the stupid painting gave him an inaccurate depiction.

Art is hugely influential in how we perceive things.  One of the biggest obstacles the BoM has had to overcome, in my opinion, are the Arnold Friberg paintings, and the perceptions they influenced.  I like them, but they gave grossly wrong impressions about the people, society, and culture of the Book of Mormon.  There weren’t any Greco Roman armor or swords.  No massive walls that would’ve killed Samuel the Lamanite if he had jumped off of them...you get the idea.  When those wrong perceptions clash with scholarship, people get confused at the discrepancy.

I honestly think, that a good part of the problem with the way the translation process was presented, started with an art piece whose artist either assumed that Jospeh used the plates, or, as Calm mentioned, thought plates were more interesting to paint.  As someone who dabbles in painting myself, I can promise you, painting golden plates is a far more interesting subject matter than a guy with his face in a hat.  It’s an objectively true statement, it’s clearly more interesting.  And so, with an art piece, you can influence and shape a large portion of the perception of the church.  And I think it just takes off from there.  Maybe it’s not the sole reason, but I really thing a big portion of it could be as simple as a painting.

As a teenager, I slugged my way through 1st Nephi.  But the Firberg illustrations made it all worth while. Nephi was a hunk.  But hey, I might have been projecting a bit.

I actually know a little about how the church controls the artwork used in their publications.   I worked on the Ensign for a brief period of time.  I was given the copy for the article and expected to come up with some visual to go with it that would fit in the space allotted.  How those illustrations are done and what they are of are TIGHTLY controlled.  I remember suggesting one illustration be done in a stain glass style.  The idea was rejected.  Evidently the church doesn't do stain glass.  And yes, I know there are some chapels that do have stain glass.  That didn't matter to the people that carefully review all artwork produced by various artists for publication.  

Of course an artist can paint whatever they want and depict events any way they want.  BUT, official church publications are extremely tightly controlled.  Joseph Smith siting at a desk with the Gold Plates was exactly the narrative the church wanted to show.  I think that is pretty apparent.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is why I said that the internet makes experts of everyone.  Everyone assumes that the internet has all the answers. It doesn't.  Most of the time it misleads.

I partially agree, but wouldn’t generalize the internet in this way.  This is precisely why critical thinking and evaluating sources are such important skills to practice.  

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, since it is silly to believe in supernaturalism, you and Borg mistakenly threw the baby out with the bathwater.  He did it because he was raised Lutheran, a religion which accepted supernaturalism.  He realized that supernaturalism made no logical sense, but still liked the wisdom and beauty found in the Bible, so simply accepted it as ahistorical.  Quite a few people have done likewise in modern times.  I have no problem with that, except to say that the Judeo-Christian supernatural tradition is not biblical.

I’ve been perplexed by your comments along this line of thinking many times on this board.  While you frequently state that you don’t believe in the supernatural, you seem to make claims that I have a very hard time distinguishing the difference between.  

Your claim on this thread that God was using some kind of advanced tech to actually communicate something to Joseph using a stone is essentially the same thing as supernatural thinking.  Essentially what Arthur C. Clarke said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Perhaps you can explain how your view is different? 

Also, I’m not sure how Borg or myself are throwing the baby out with the bath water?  Are you saying that I’m missing an important component of religion by taking a naturalistic approach? 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think I need some clarification here.  Did the church historians know about the stone in the hat being used as the vehicle which brought forth the Book of Mormon rather than the Gold Plates in the 1970's or not?  

Professional historians knew that three things took place according to the earliest witnesses: 

1.  Joseph actually copied characters from the gold plates.  He says so.  Indeed, we know that such a copy was in fact sent East with Martin Harris, and several people testify that it was shown to them.  Several different copies of the Caractors have been left to us, one in the hand of John Whitmer, another passed on by Frederick G. Williams.  We do not have the Anthon Transcript., only descriptions of it by Anthon himself, which do not correspond to any document we have (except Hofmann's forgery).

2.  Emma sat with Joseph taking dictation while he used the spectacles (Nephite interpreters), with or without the plates.

3.  Joseph switched to his personal seerstone at some point, most likely with Martin Harris in 1828, and used it throughout 1829 with Oliver.  The plates were not opened, although they were on the table wrapped in cheesecloth or muslin.

So it is not true that only one method was used, or that the plates were never consulted.  Moreover, only with close examination of the Joseph Smith Papers has it become clear that Joseph, Phelps, Cowdery, and others, began redacting revelations and early accounts to include wrong terms such as Urim and Thummim.  It sounded more respectable and biblical (which it was), but led everyone astray later into major confusion on just which tool was being used to translate (seerstone or spectacles).  The D&C currently has wrong terminology substituted for the original accurate terms in the manuscript revelations.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A symbolic resurrection doesn’t seem to be of much use. There’s no hope there. 

Depends on your expectations for life in general.  Some religious traditions believe that they will receive lots of amazing things in the next life, and I’m sure many different theological constructs will look like they are lacking in hope from a different perspective.  

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

As a teenager, I slugged my way through 1st Nephi.  But the Firberg illustrations made it all worth while. Nephi was a hunk.  But hey, I might have been projecting a bit.

😘