Teaching how BOM was REALLY translated . . .

[Christian Mormon]

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.

could you help me find that on lds.org?thx

has any one read the article about the seer stones here...

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_seer_stones

[Jason]

Again, why would it bother you if Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon in this fashion?

I don't know, why should the manner of translation bother me? What does bother me is teaching as truth what we don't really know is truth, in a setting where we should be teaching useful eternal principles.

[emeliza]

could you help me find that on lds.org?thx

A Treasured Testament

[Grace de Maya]

could you help me find that on lds.org?thx

has any one read the article about the seer stones here...

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_seer_stones

Hello Christian Mormon. I found Elder Nelson's talk on the Church website here:

A Treasured Testament

He was speaking to mission presidents.

It also looks like an article in the 1970's by Richard Lloyd Anderson mentions the subject:

By The Gift and Power of God

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is now becoming a widely held belief within the LDS church on how Joseph Smith did the work of translation.. I personally have a problem with it.. Maybe you can help.. Why did Joseph need the Plates or the Urim and Thulium? According to this "Hat" theory they were needed.. IHS jim

Why did Jesus need clay to heal a blind man?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

thats it. good work

[LifeOnaPlate]

From considering all of the pertinent quotes together it appears that Joseph Smith translated in a number of different ways during the 63-or-so-day process, not all with the hat nor a blanket.

Exactly where I stand on it as well. There is only so much we can surmise. I hold the descriptions of what JS actually saw in the hat or stones to be the most questionable aspect of the witnesses testimonies.

[PrettyNewMommy]

Reading through the thread it almost seems like there are two types of TBM's arguing back and forth. People that can acccept history and don't see the wrong in discussing it at church and people that can not-and do not even want it brought up in church. I wonder if the church will start to choose a different path with it's teaching methods .. But then I remember it is about keeping people uplifted and comfortable .. Not so much in the known.

[emeliza]

I don't know, why should the manner of translation bother me? What does bother me is teaching as truth what we don't really know is truth, in a setting where we should be teaching useful eternal principles.

But what has been brought up here or taught here that isn't known? Every single one of the people who were quoted as saying these things about the hat and the stone were directly involved at the time.

[alter idem]

I don't know, why should the manner of translation bother me? What does bother me is teaching as truth what we don't really know is truth, in a setting where we should be teaching useful eternal principles.

If you are uncomfortable with teachers suggesting eyewitness accounts of certain events in church history as "truth", you aren't going to enjoy the Doctrine and Covenants lessons very much. Many events in Church history were recorded in just the same manner as these descriptions of Joseph's translation process--and I agree, we should be careful not to just accept them at face value.

However, the problem is, sometimes we pick and choose what we want to scritinize and what we will accept without question. An example that comes to mind is the "mantle of Joseph" being transferred to Brigham Young after the Prophet's death. Some people get very uncomfortable if we try to revisit some of these eyewitness accounts; probably because they are "faith-promoting", so they are considered off-limits--whereas the critics have ridiculed the BofM translation accounts, so they are questioned.

[alter idem]

Exactly where I stand on it as well. There is only so much we can surmise. I hold the descriptions of what JS actually saw in the hat or stones to be the most questionable aspect of the witnesses testimonies.

And I agree. Without knowing if Joseph actually explained what he saw in the hat, I'm skeptical of the claims he saw words or sentences. But I won't discount the claim that he used a hat to concentrate while translating--they saw him do it and a number of people agreed on this. I see no reason to disbelieve it.

[alter idem]

Reading through the thread it almost seems like there are two types of TBM's arguing back and forth. People that can acccept history and don't see the wrong in discussing it at church and people that can not-and do not even want it brought up in church. I wonder if the church will start to choose a different path with it's teaching methods .. But then I remember it is about keeping people uplifted and comfortable .. Not so much in the known.

Well, there is another reason. As a teacher, you only have a small amount of time to teach and you have to decide through inspiration, what things to cover and what not to. You don't want to waste your time on tangents or things that will put your class in a catatonic state. Even though I love the history of the church and think it's great to cover it in class, some class members already know the history and they come to church to discuss the spiritual aspects. Then there are others whose eyes roll up in their head if you start talking history--they react like they are back in early morning seminary!

Personally, I did not have the problems Consig. has had with his class on these same topics. I never had anyone challenge me on the controversial things--I'd get challenged for other things like "what are the Clementine Recognitions?" I had to be careful of anything I cited that might not be well known.

[Jaybear]

And I agree. Without knowing if Joseph actually explained what he saw in the hat, I'm skeptical of the claims he saw words or sentences. But I won't discount the claim that he used a hat to concentrate while translating--they saw him do it and a number of people agreed on this. I see no reason to disbelieve it.

When they say they were present, and words appeared to Smith on the stone, when he buried his head in his hat, I think one can reasonably infer that they are just repeating what Smith told them he saw in his hat. Unless you think these witnesses are comfortable stating personal speculation as facts.

Of course, for skeptics, the relevant question is not how did the translation process work, but how did JS purport to translate the BOM. Their statements are first hand accounts which answer the later question.

[consiglieri]

I guess the church has done a cost benefit analysis and decided that teaching the details of its history is too damaging. I hope this is not true, but I don't know any other explanation.

My view of this is somewhat cynical.

I think that the Church Correlation Committee decides what lessons are to be taught in Primary, in Sunday School, and Priesthood; pretty much everywhere.

The Church Correlation Committee then dictates that no outside sources should be used, unless of course they have also passed through the hands of the Church Correlation Committee.

The result is that Mormons never really graduate from Primary, and are expected to endure the same recycled pablum for the duration of their mortal probation.

Then (and this is the kicker), when Mormons grow tired of the repetition and complain about how boring it is, the Church Correlation Committee blames the poor bored Mormon for not paying enough attention in class.

This is a classic case of victimizing the victim.

I have been a member of the Church for 30-years now.

That means I have attended over 4,500 hours of Church meetings on the 3-hour block alone.

I should have a freaking doctorate by now.

But the only time during that 4,500 hours I have ever heard about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon is when I have brought it up in Gospel Doctrine class.

Similarly, the only time during that 4,500 hours I have ever heard anything about the Mountain Meadows Massacre was when I have brought it up in Gospel Doctrine class.

I think this speaks to an inherent system of avoidance in the Mormon Church; the Church Correlation Committee would rather have members hear for the millionth time that tithing is one-tenth of our increase; or that the priesthood is the power given to men to act in the name of God; in short, anything other than some of the facts that lay at the foundation of our belief system.

In short, the CCC has apparently done a cost-benefit analysis and decided they would rather have members go inactive because they aren't getting anything out of their church attendance rather than just tell the truth.

I am afraid this bespeaks a substantial lack of faith by the Mormon Church in its own members, if not its own history.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[searchinguy]

You're correct in saying that no one, except the Prophet himself, knows precisely what were the mechanics of the translation. But, as I noted above:

I don't know why you (apparently) find this to be so unsettling. Do you? And if so, why?

You weren't asking me, I realize, but here's my .02.

I believe the evidence we have points to the fact that Joseph Smith mostly used the seer stone in a hat for the translation process. The reasons the seer stone in the hat bothers me more than the idea of the Urim and Thummim are:

1) The stone was found by Joseph and/or Willard Chase while digging for a well and was not not supplied by God. I know nothing about the stone specifically other than the claims these Joseph and others made about it.

2) The process of the stone in the hat eventually used in translation, was used by Joseph repeatedly in money digging ventures. Although these ventures were probably mostly harmless I have issues with the whole concept of these 19th century quests. They involved involved folk magic and superstitions that I do not accept. I don't believe in making animal sacrifice to appease evil spirits. I doubt that buried treasure chests sank into the earth if the process was botchedâ?? in fact I doubt they were there to begin with. I have to doubt Joseph's ability to see anything in the stone because of his lack of success. The treasure digging the process proved unsuccessful at best. It seems unwise then to leverage this unreliable method (stone in hat) for translating the Book of Mormon, given it's track record.

Then there is the bad reputation surrounding the treasure digging/glass looking practice. It was often viewed with suspicion because of it's use in con schemes. I believe that's why scrying for money was against the law in NY in 1826. Why use a process that already is questioned by many?

I do not doubt that 'supernatural' experiences occur but I am skeptical of certain kinds. 19th century treasure digging/glass looking is one of them.

[PrettyNewMommy]

My view of this is somewhat cynical.

I think that the Church Correlation Committee decides what lessons are to be taught in Primary, in Sunday School, and Priesthood; pretty much everywhere.

The Church Correlation Committee then dictates that no outside sources should be used, unless of course they have also passed through the hands of the Church Correlation Committee.

The result is that Mormons never really graduate from Primary, and are expected to endure the same recycled pablum for the duration of their mortal probation.

Then (and this is the kicker), when Mormons grow tired of the repetition and complain about how boring it is, the Church Correlation Committee blames the poor bored Mormon for not paying enough attention in class.

This is a classic case of victimizing the victim.

I have been a member of the Church for 30-years now.

That means I have attended over 4,500 hours of Church meetings on the 3-hour block alone.

I should have a freaking doctorate by now.

But the only time during that 4,500 hours I have ever heard about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon is when I have brought it up in Gospel Doctrine class.

Similarly, the only time during that 4,500 hours I have ever heard anything about the Mountain Meadows Massacre was when I have brought it up in Gospel Doctrine class.

I think this speaks to an inherent system of avoidance in the Mormon Church; the Church Correlation Committee would rather have members hear for the millionth time that tithing is one-tenth of our increase; or that the priesthood is the power given to men to act in the name of God; in short, anything other than some of the facts that lay at the foundation of our belief system.

In short, the CCC has apparently done a cost-benefit analysis and decided they would rather have members go inactive because they aren't getting anything out of their church attendance rather than just tell the truth.

I am afraid this bespeaks a substantial lack of faith by the Mormon Church in its own members.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ding, Ding, Ding. Oh you mean people like me? .. Hey I still like SM ..Sometimes. That kind of fits that explanation as well though. Key Word Sometimes.

[consiglieri]

And I agree. Without knowing if Joseph actually explained what he saw in the hat, I'm skeptical of the claims he saw words or sentences. But I won't discount the claim that he used a hat to concentrate while translating--they saw him do it and a number of people agreed on this. I see no reason to disbelieve it.

During the class yesterday, somebody misunderstood the David Whitmer statement and thought the plates were used; that Joseph Smith would look at one of the characters on the plates, and then Joseph put his face back in the hat to get the interpretation.

I corrected the misunderstanding, but took the opportunity to enjoin caution on what Joseph did or did not see, due to the fact that there is only one person who actually knows what Joseph Smith saw in the hat, and that was Joseph Smith himself; and that Joseph Smith was famously recalcitrant about going into any details, saying it was never meant for the world to know all the particulars about how the Book of Mormon was translated.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey I still like SM ..Sometimes.

I can only guess what SM you may be talking about, but I am glad to hear you still like it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[flashmax67]

Consig, I applaud you for a different teaching style. I used to live in Fountain Valley, CA and we had a GD teacher who was absolutely terrific in teaching and he was totally involved, explaining historic things as well.

I do have to say that the GD is a hard calling and needs tons of preparation each week to fulfill the calling each and every sunday.

Looks like Consig. is putting in tons of time to teach his class some valuable information about the church, that is normally not available within a manual. I rather see people be educated and prepared, then unprepared.

keep it up Consig,

cheers,

[hagoth7]

...I am afraid this bespeaks a substantial lack of faith by the Mormon Church in its own members.

Perhaps. That's one way of interpreting things. However, I'm of the opinion that church leaders/CCC are more likely focusing on what they honestly believe the majority of the church wants and/or needs. (I suspect that those of us who want and/or need more are in the minority, something along the lines of the 80/20 rule.)

If that's accurate, I don't have much cause to complain if the needs/wants of the many get more air time than the needs/wants of the few.

I can get what I need/want through personal study.

[Jason]

The Church needs to start doing what it is being taught currently before it can receive new doctrines. Teaching history instead of doctrine doesn't fix the problem.

Hagoth7 said it better than I did.

[consiglieri]

I don't have much cause to complain if the needs/wants of the many get more air time than the needs/wants of the few.

Too much Star Trek II and not enough Star Trek III.

[Scott26.2]

My view of this is somewhat cynical.

I think that the Church Correlation Committee decides what lessons are to be taught in Primary, in Sunday School, and Priesthood; pretty much everywhere.

The Church Correlation Committee then dictates that no outside sources should be used, unless of course they have also passed through the hands of the Church Correlation Committee.

The result is that Mormons never really graduate from Primary, and are expected to endure the same recycled pablum for the duration of their mortal probation.

Then (and this is the kicker), when Mormons grow tired of the repetition and complain about how boring it is, the Church Correlation Committee blames the poor bored Mormon for not paying enough attention in class.

This is a classic case of victimizing the victim.

I have been a member of the Church for 30-years now.

That means I have attended over 4,500 hours of Church meetings on the 3-hour block alone.

I should have a freaking doctorate by now.

But the only time during that 4,500 hours I have ever heard about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon is when I have brought it up in Gospel Doctrine class.

Similarly, the only time during that 4,500 hours I have ever heard anything about the Mountain Meadows Massacre was when I have brought it up in Gospel Doctrine class.

I think this speaks to an inherent system of avoidance in the Mormon Church; the Church Correlation Committee would rather have members hear for the millionth time that tithing is one-tenth of our increase; or that the priesthood is the power given to men to act in the name of God; in short, anything other than some of the facts that lay at the foundation of our belief system.

In short, the CCC has apparently done a cost-benefit analysis and decided they would rather have members go inactive because they aren't getting anything out of their church attendance rather than just tell the truth.

I am afraid this bespeaks a substantial lack of faith by the Mormon Church in its own members, if not its own history.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri....respectfully, I completely and categorically disagree with this post. I work for CES and have a bit of experience with the CCC, and I can say that there is no spirit of avoidance as you suggest. The only avoidance might be the sheer amount of curriculum and literature and the inherint choice of what to leave out and what to include due to time constraints in classes. In my mind, the whole point of this thread isn't the material that you used in your lesson, it's that you didn't get to the curriculum or the scriptures in the process. I for one am ok with a discussion of the process of translation, as a nice garnish to a lesson that is scripture based. In your original post, you said you shared only one scripture in Alma 37 the entire class. Don't misunderstand, our history is rich and fascinating and should not be avoided, but not at the expense of our core doctines and scriptures. I don't care if I have heard a lesson on revelation 4,500 times...give it to me again and if my heart is right and my attitude is right, the lesson will be just what I need in that moment.

Scott26.2

[BCSpace]

I'm all for changing that somewhat. However, Consig did resort to nondoctrinal works. Hopefully not to establish doctrine.......

To what "nondoctrinal works" are you referring?

The Ensign?

Elder Russel M. Nelson?

My view is that I resorted to "doctrinal works" to establish history.

I have a hard time seeing the problem with that.

All the Best!

I was just referring to your use of.....

"I then whipped out my copy of Nibley's "The Egyptian Endowment" and read two paragraphs..."

"I read from the Deseret Times article on Daniel C. Peterson's address regarding this,...."

"I read from Emma Smith..."

...in the OP

At first glance, it doesn't quite yet appear that you were attempting to establish doctrine out of these.....

[consiglieri]

I work for CES and have a bit of experience with the CCC, and I can say that there is no spirit of avoidance as you suggest.

Then perhaps you are just the person to explain to me why in over 4,500 hours of church attendance I have never heard of the process by which Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon.

I mean, since there's no spirit of avoidance and all.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[stn9]

This is, quite obviously, an inferior piece of evidence in comparison to the first-hand and second-hand accounts given by others. This comes perilously close to being rejected out of hand as hearsay.Just saying.

The quote I posted reporting Cowdery's version is a second hand account. And your claim that it comes "perilously close to being rejected out of hand as hearsay" is itself hearsay (unless you can find some sources to back that view up). Just saying.

And certainly the blanket accounts are pertinent when people say there was no blanket or that the Church is lying is its art because there was no blanket because there was a blanket between Joseph and scribe at one point (early on).

That the plates are in the room during part of the translation process can be established by Martin Harris (second hand accounts of the blanket to block his view), Emma Smith (second hand account--the interview with JS III--in which the plates are in the room and she moves them as necessary when cleaning), and Oliver Cowdery (second hand account of Jospeh actually "looking" in the "translators" held over the plates, though it does not say whether they were uncovered--it can be reasonably deduced that they were indeed covered as Emma indicated becasue Oliver never saw the plates though he sat right next to Joseph with no blanket).

It should be noted that approximately 1/3 of the text of the 1830 Book of Mormon (which excludes the 116 pages) was translated by 1 June 1829 when they moved to the Whitmer farm. Whitmer and others who could have only witnessed the translation process after that time mention only the seer stone in the hat method because they were not around to witness any other method. (There were many interested callers at the Whitmer home and so perhaps this method--stone in hat, plates in woods or elswhere secreted--was required to keep translation going and the plates out of view.) However, others who witnessed translation work that occurred prior to 1 June 1829 sometimes give the stone-in-hat version and sometimes U&T over plates method. It doesn't take an historial genius to piece it all together: all of their versions of translation method could be based in reality because multiple methods were used from start to finish. Harris says blanket and U&T (or seer stone as occasion called for!) in hat. Why in the world would occassion call for different instruments or yet different methods? You may not have the ability to synthesize any coherent theory, but Harris surely could.

Neither of these accounts have anything to do with the process reported for the translation of the Book of Mormon. These are both from the Urim and Thummim/Lost 116 pages translation sessions.

The two have nothing to do with each other? lol