Teaching how BOM was REALLY translated . . .

[dblagent007]

The inclusion of the KJV of Issiah, is evidence that the BOM is not what it purports to be....an original translation of ancient plates dictated by Smith to a transcriber.

Yes, but I didn't say there wasn't any evidence that the BOM was not a translation of ancient plates. What I said is that there isn't serious evidence that Oliver and Joseph were part of a fraudulent enterprise (unless you consider Oliver not receiving wages as evidence). In fact, the evidence surrounding the translation process is that either JS accomplished it through divine means as he claimed or he was able to dictate 5000 words a day, day after day after day. There is no evidence to support the hidden manuscript theory, Oliver collusion in a fraud, aliens downloading it into his mind on a nightly basis, etc. I believe this is why Dan Vogel has concluded that JS just dictated it out of his own mind.

I don't have any evidence myself. If I had some, I'd tell you. I'd really like to know. I'm not satisfied with any of the explanations I've heard yet.

The BOM translation has always been a problem to critics because there really aren't any good naturalistic explanations.

[emeliza]

Another explanation is that Oliver was an active participant in a scam, and on those occasions when visitors were allowed to witness the translation process, the rock and the hat were produced for show.

While you may scoff at this explanation, isn't that why you introduced the other two explanations, so that you and your class can scoff at the desperation of the critics of the Church.

If Oliver were an active participant,then you would think that Emma was too, correct?

[consiglieri]

If Oliver were an active participant,then you would think that Emma was too, correct?

I think you will have to throw in Martin Harris, as well as David Whitmer and the lion's share of his family, in whose home the Book of Mormon translation was concluded.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

I think you will have to throw in Martin Harris, as well as David Whitmer and the lion's share of his family, in whose home the Book of Mormon translation was concluded.

Yeah, I was just starting with it.

[Areabird]

This is the exact reason why GD teachers should just stick to the manuals and the scriptures. "Same boring stories"...like the scriptures and words of the prophets. Just when a teacher thinks they have to get into the sensational, notwhithstanding its truth, is the time when they need to just stick to the scriptures. This is what builds true faith and testimony. Class members zoning out is not the fault of the material, it is the fault of the class members!!! To suggest that activity rates around the U.S. might be related to GD only being taught from the manual is absurd.

Scott 26.2

I wouldn't say it is absurd. If you are bored sitting in class every week, and this would include Priesthood Meeting, not to mention Sacrament meeting, why would you continue to go?

It's the fault of the class members for zoning out because of boring material? Okay. You're right.

[Jason]

I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that the manual would rather draw focus away from the remarkable foundational events of the restoration in favor of quotidian banalities.

But such seems to be the case.

Perhaps the manual is more concerned with teaching a principle the class members can actively use to improve their lives than it is with teaching the history of a process that was never fully described by its primary participant.

[sleepyhead]

In our gospel doctrine class our teacher also taught lesson #5. He taught it somewhat differently. While I applaud you in teaching the divine origin of the BoM it was my understanding that the lesson was on receiving personal revelation. Did you in any way teach anything hat would help someone to learn how to receive their own personal revelation? Our teacher managed to bring our that things like the seer stone and Urim and Thumim were tools to help JS focus. I would have enjoyed being in your class as much as the one I attended and would have gone home better for having been there. I am just wondering if it helped anyone in their quest for personal revelation. However, it is your class and if this was the way you were inspired to teach it then you follow your inspiration.

Hello erayr,

This is in response to the bolded part. There is alot of excellent literature out there with regards to dream study. There are also forums dedicated to sharing dreams. If you want personal revelation recording and studying your dreams would be a good place to start.

[Scott26.2]

I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that the manual would rather draw focus away from the remarkable foundational events of the restoration in favor of quotidian banalities.

But such seems to be the case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

...quotidian banalities...

Consig...come on!!! Boyd K. Packer...Gordon B. Hinckley...Dallin H. Oaks all quoted in lesson #5....Banalities!? Along with some of the most key and crucial scriptures in the standard works on personal revelation. You must think your entire class has personal revelation taken care of to not even bring it up for stones in a hat!!

[Areabird]

Perhaps the manual is more concerned with teaching a principle the class members can actively use to improve their lives than it is with teaching the history of a process that was never fully described by its primary participant.

It sounds like you don't believe the 'stone in the hat' description. Is that the case?

[alter idem]

Okay, I am coming back to return and report on my Sunday school class yesterday.

I took my hat to church with me, and did pretty much what I said I was going to do. My only dilemma was whether I should bring up the Martin Harris quote first. I decided that would not be as effective.

So, after announcing that we would be discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon, I presented my hat and asked for a watch with a luminous face from a member of the audience.

I told everybody that, when I was a kid, I was fascinated by things that glow in the dark.

(Lots of smiles and nods of agreement.)

I then cupped my hands and held the watch up to my eye and said that this is what I would do to see the glowing watch face.

(Again lots of nods, as this appears to have been a common experience.)

I then said that, although I could see the glow this way, I couldn't read the face or tell the time, because it was too close to my eye.

So I brought out the hat, dropped the watch inside of it, and held the hat to my face, using my hands to exclude the light, explaining that this way I could put a little distance between the watch and my face, and I could use both eyes, and still exclude the light, so that I could read the face of the watch.

At this point, something completely unexpected happened.

A middle-aged single sister was laughing so hard, she was making noise although she was obviously trying to suppress her laughter. I brought my head out of the hat and looked around to see what the problem was, and I looked over and saw her sitting there, her face beet-red, gasping for air, waving at me to continue.

I thought at this moment that this sister was in for an unpleasant surprise. Here she was laughing her guts out at a scene that she considered hysterical, and she was only moments away from finding out this is how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

As fate would have it, this is a sister I have locked horns with in the past over my teaching methods, so I will have to confess a grim satisfaction over the predicament headed her way unbeknownst to her as she laughed and gasped and turned red.

When I was done with my demonstration, I held the hat in one hand and the watch in the other and asked the class if anybody knew why on earth I was taking up class time doing something like this.

Nothing. Nobody raised their hand.

I asked again if there wasn't anybody who knew. I looked at a couple of people whom I felt probably would know, but they weren't willing to say anything.

So into this void, I finally said, "Because that's how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon!"

At this point, it was as quiet as if everybody had stopped breathing.

I thought I had killed my class.

Then a class member with hands folded over chest asked what the source was for my information.

I said I was glad they asked that, and whipped out my Ensign article from 1993 by Elder Russel M. Nelson and read the quote from David Whitmer, nice and slow so everybody could get the full impact.

______________________

After reading the Martin Harris quote about how in the dark (of the hat) the spiritual light would shine, I said that this gives us insight into some Book of Mormon scriptures, and had the class turn to Alma 37, where Alma is giving the plates and the interpreters and the Liahona to his son Helaman, and had a class member read the scripture where the Lord says, "And I will give unto my servant Gazelem a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light . . ."

I said that this is in the context of speaking about the interpreters; that this is what these stones "do," they shine.

I mentioned the 16-stones that the brother of Jared had the Lord touch with his finger so that they would shine in the dark and give them light in their vessels as they crossed the great waters.

At this point, I was on the verge of going into the Book of Raziel, and the Jewish legend that sounds so remarkably like the translation process of the Book of Mormon.

But right then, another class member's hand shot up, and the question was raised, "If Joseph Smith didn't look use the plates in the translation, why did he even need them? Why all the trouble and fuss to get them and preserve them?"

I observed that that is a question that frequently gets brought up at this point, and it is a bit of a mystery. We simply don't know, although others have speculated in response.

I then whipped out my copy of Nibley's "The Egyptian Endowment" and read two paragraphs I had previously marked, dealing with why it was that Nibley thought this was the case. This ended up taking the rest of my class period, as the sacrament meeting had gone long, and we had only 30-minutes for Sunday school.

But I had also mentioned at the outset that the idea that Joseph Smith had a blanket between him and the scribe was an incorrect idea; but one that had gained acceptance in the Church through repeated usage.

I read from the Deseret Times article on Daniel C. Peterson's address regarding this, where he states that this is not correct, but that a blanket may have been used in the latter stages of the translation at the Whitmer home; but it was not placed between Joseph and the scribe, but over the door or the window in order to keep curious passers-by from looking in.

I read from Emma Smith that Joseph sat in the middle of the room with his face buried in the hat while the plates lay nearby on a table wrapped in a napkin. I also read the part about where Emma said that Joseph did not have any manuscript or anything else that he could have been reading from, and emphasized that the reason Emma could know this is because she was present working in the very room while the translation was occurring, and because Joseph Smith was not behind a curtain, but was right out there in the middle of the room with his face in the hat.

I then asked the class if I were the only one who would find it somewhat suspicious if Joseph Smith had concealed what he was doing by sitting behind a blanket. The class seemed to be astonished that I would find that at all suspect. One asked why that would be suspicious. I said, "Because who knows what he would have been doing behind the curtain, or what he had with him?"

Somebody identified that as a lack of faith on my part. Another member (who is a friend that I home teach), said that was because I was a lawyer.

"And a magician," I added.

I said that I was much more comfortable with Joseph Smith translating with his face in a hat in plain view than I was with the idea of Joseph Smith hidden behind a curtain and dictating from who knows what.

I mentioned that almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon was translated between April 7, 1829 (when Oliver Cowdery showed up in Harmony, Pennsylvania) and June 30, 1829 (when the translation was completed); and how what with other things that were being done during the time, the total time for translation has been estimated at 63-days.

That means that Joseph Smith dictated about 5,000 words per day.

I then said that there are only three explanations that take this into account.

The first is that Joseph Smith was translating by supernatural means.

There are only two other possibilities for what happened, in order to explain this by naturalistic methods.

The first naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Mormon on the fly, but that anybody who has seriously studied the Book of Mormon recognizes this to be an impossibility.

The second naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith had a manuscript somewhere that he kept hidden on which was written the Book of Mormon, and that he memorized and regurgitated 5,000 words a day; and that he did this day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day.

One young lady audibly exclaimed "Wow!" at this point.

I said this second naturalistic explanation is just about as impossible as the first.

That God had arranged for the production of the Book of Mormon to take place in such a manner as to be utterly inexplicable by any method other than supernatural intervention.

I closed by saying the Book of Mormon is a miracle, and it is a miracle that forms the foundation of our religion; that it is the "keystone of our religion," as Joseph Smith said; and that through understanding the manner in which it was brought forth, we are better able to understand the miracle that it really is.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks for sharing. From this anectdote It's clear your calling came by inspiration. You are definitely the teacher this class needs, Consig.

[emeliza]

Consig...come on!!! Boyd K. Packer...Gordon B. Hinckley...Dallin H. Oaks all quoted in lesson #5....Banalities!? Along with some of the most key and crucial scriptures in the standard works on personal revelation. You must think your entire class has personal revelation taken care of to not even bring it up for stones in a hat!!

Are you telling me that your class wasn't just a bunch of people sharing their own spiritual stories of how they had a revelation and what it was that they got as their answer?

I personally think that the lesson should have included information on how to get your own revelation, but I so hate when it turns into a bunch of people sharing their own experiences. I think those types of experiences (whether to buy a new car, getting a sense that their child is choking, knowing that they were to marry) are all personal and not to be discussed in class.

I also hate when it then turns to how men have the priesthood and have the ability to get something from God that women can't. Then it turns into women have a mother's intutiation and that is better than or equal to the priesthood. This started a tiny debate in my class that thankfully was controlled quickly.

That is how my class went.

[Ipso Facto]

Perhaps the manual is more concerned with teaching a principle the class members can actively use to improve their lives than it is with teaching the history of a process that was never fully described by its primary participant.

I suspect the manual is (expectedly) a reflection of the fact that most LDS are simply ignorant of the details surrounding the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I think a prudent and conservative effort to get some of this information out there is a worthwhile, perhaps even a very important, objective these days. I don't think the folks who prepare the teaching manuals are sufficiently informed as to the status of anti-Mormon attacks available these days. There probably should be more material that addresses some of the things that are "out there" and, at least occasionally. damaging to faith.

Jaybear:

The inclusion of the KJV of Issiah, is evidence that the BOM is not what it purports to be....an original translation of ancient plates dictated by Smith to a transcriber.

Are you sure? I know I don't consider KJV language in the Book of Mormon as evidence that the book is not what purports to be.

I think your certainty on this point only betrays your ignorance of many things, and your apparent inability to consider all the possibilities.

[Lamanite]

It's possible JS initially had a curtain between himself and Martin Harris. I don't recall where I read that, thought.

You prob read it in Opening the Heavens. It's one of the several account Martin gave.

[Jason]

It sounds like you don't believe the 'stone in the hat' description. Is that the case?

No, I don't really.

[Ipso Facto]

No, I don't really.

Yeah, why believe the accounts of the people who were actually there at the time? It's a lot easier to make up a customized personal version of history and call it fact.

[Jason]

I suspect the manual is (expectedly) a reflection of the fact that most LDS are simply ignorant of the details surrounding the translation of the Book of Mormon.I think a prudent and conservative effort to get some of this information out there is a worthwhile, perhaps even a very important, objective these days. I don't think the folks who prepare the teaching manuals are sufficiently informed as to the status of anti-Mormon attacks available these days. There probably should be more material that addresses some of the things that are "out there" and, at least occasionally. damaging to faith.

I think those who prepare the manuals understand exactly how unimportant even the most formidable anti-Mormon attacks really are when compared to the wittness of the spirit which should be the foundation of any lasting testimony, and understand that their time is best spent preaching eternal principles that can improve their audiences lives rather than attempting to refute the wisdom of men.

Yeah, why believe the accounts of the people who were actually there at the time?

And didn't participate in the actual process involved.

[PrettyNewMommy]

I hope you do not get in any sort of trouble for this. I have a feeling that in my ward-Which is about 90% of retirees/ or at least 60+(It is a very old town ) you would probably get the smack down. Honestly-There are two babies and about 4-5 in primary.

Here is a good example the RSP said a joke about new block hours-and that the bishop Still wasn't sure of our new times..With the new time needing to be known the following week. A woman in her 80's got up and said we need to stop disrepecting the priesthood and walked out.

The GD teacher mentioned money digging(for a second)two weeks ago I believe and about three people got offended and said we could not prove it. Give me a break.

I almost left-The ignorance makes me want to burst out laughing at one moment or cry the next(What did I get myself into? :'( )

I assume the other posters mentioning personal revelation would only find it appropriate to speak about uplifting revelation. Not weird or possibly a tiny bit questionably.

I wish you were my GD teacher. I would not skip the class as often(if ever!). AH the wonderful thing about having a newborn .. Eating and changing diapers aka getting to leave the "Boring" classes.

There is nothing to crazy that can slide by in a GD class or SM .. THAT I couldnt find online(OR words of prophets, or ...) that is not testimony breaking.

[PrettyNewMommy]

It bothers me that SOTHPARK watchers around the world might know more about the "little-unimportant" details of the history(possible) of the Church than some of the members.

Just my opinion.

[PrettyNewMommy]

Are you telling me that your class wasn't just a bunch of people sharing their own spiritual stories of how they had a revelation and what it was that they got as their answer?

I personally think that the lesson should have included information on how to get your own revelation, but I so hate when it turns into a bunch of people sharing their own experiences. I think those types of experiences (whether to buy a new car, getting a sense that their child is choking, knowing that they were to marry) are all personal and not to be discussed in class.

I also hate when it then turns to how men have the priesthood and have the ability to get something from God that women can't. Then it turns into women have a mother's intutiation and that is better than or equal to the priesthood. This started a tiny debate in my class that thankfully was controlled quickly.

That is how my class went.

I second you.

[alter idem]

QUOTE(Ipso Facto @ Feb 2 2009, 10:48 AM) *

Yeah, why believe the accounts of the people who were actually there at the time?

And didn't participate in the actual process involved.

I don't think you can discount all these accounts then. Though Oliver Cowdery was the principle scribe, there were others who acted as scribes. I know Emma Smith and Martin Harris were scribes--so their accounts of the translation process should not be dismissed.

Edited to add that David Whitmer also served as a scribe

[hagoth7]

Perhaps the manual is more concerned with teaching a principle the class members can actively use to improve their lives...

I'm of the opinion that Consig did teach things that can improve lives...

Can't speak for others, but what I basically got out of his message is that we believe in a God of miracles.

[Mudcat]

Consig,

Nice post, you should video those classes of yours. If you ever start, I'd like to get a boxed set for my in-laws.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Jeff K.]

He should teach it in the gospel essentials class no?

[Jason]

I don't think you can discount all these accounts then. Though Oliver Cowdery was the principle scribe, there were others who acted as scribes. I know Emma Smith and Martin Harris were scribes--so their accounts of the translation process should not be dismissed.

Edited to add that David Whitmer also served as a scribe

Scribes, not the actual translator. They can't answer whether Joseph saw words that he dictated, or understood the meanings of characters and had to chose the words to voice them, for instance. They can't answer why parts of the Book of Mormon match the King James Bible so closely. They can't say exactly how he used the plates, the urim and thumim, and the seer stone because he generally kept a curtain up between translator and scribe.

The accounts about the hat are second-hand accounts of someone who didn't actually do it, usually from long after the fact.

[stn9]

Just for the record....

Report of an Interview with Martin Harris in John Clark, Gleanings (1842), p.231:

The way that Smith made his transcripts and translations for Harris was the following. Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket.

From Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 29:1:52 (footnote 25):

Charles Anton, in two different letters (written in 1834 and 1841), discussed Martin Harris's visit to him in February 1828. He claims that Harris said Joseph Smith translated from behind a curtain. In 1842 the Reverend John Clark claimed that Martin Harris told him in the fall of 1827 that while translating Joseph Smith used a thick curtain or blanket to separate himself from Martin Harris, who was acting as scribe (see Milton V. Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration [Orem , Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1983], 209, 213, 215, 218). Early on in the translation, Joseph Smith quite probably used a curtain while translating, especially if he was translating directly from the gold plates, since at that time no one was permitted to see the plates.