Teaching how BOM was REALLY translated . . .

[Traela]

For those worried that Consiglieri wasn't covering personal revelation: he was obviously still on lesson #4, which is the same one my ward just had. We're a week behind because of stake conference. Plus the manual itself suggested spending 2 weeks on that lesson.

Oh, and isn't the Ensign is on the list of approved lesson sources? Richard Lloyd Anderson's article, "By the Gift and Power of God" (which I believe someone already posted a link to) can be found in the September 1977 Ensign. It covers everything Consiglieri mentioned, and more. Check it out, it's very interesting.

[ERayR]

For those worried that Consiglieri wasn't covering personal revelation: he was obviously still on lesson #4, which is the same one my ward just had. We're a week behind because of stake conference. Plus the manual itself suggested spending 2 weeks on that lesson.

Oh, and isn't the Ensign is on the list of approved lesson sources? Richard Lloyd Anderson's article, "By the Gift and Power of God" (which I believe someone already posted a link to) can be found in the September 1977 Ensign. It covers everything Consiglieri mentioned, and more. Check it out, it's very interesting.

It would help if he would let us know which lesson he is talking about. His presentation would make sense for lesson #4 but to me not much for lesson#5.

ERay(just assumed it was #5 prsonal revelation)R OOPS.

[emeliza]

ERay(just assumed it was #5 prsonal revelation)R OOPS.

Actually I did as well.

[consiglieri]

Ya, that evil church, wanting us to think the right thoughts. How rude.

Scott26.2

To be clear, I do not think the LDS Church is evil.

I just think it is a tad paternalistic, in addition to being patriarchal.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

For those worried that Consiglieri wasn't covering personal revelation: he was obviously still on lesson #4, which is the same one my ward just had. We're a week behind because of stake conference. Plus the manual itself suggested spending 2 weeks on that lesson.

Thanks for trying to cover for me, Traela, but actually it was the fifth lesson. (No stake conference here during the month of January, thank goodness.)

But I made the executive decision that only one lesson covering the production of the Book of Mormon and related issues was insufficient, and have summarily extended it to three lessons, and possibly a fourth should the necessity arise.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Ipso Facto]

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.

Another victim of Quinn's propaganda. Too bad.

I suppose it would be superfluous to note that a large proportion of the "details" to which you make reference above are not at all established by credible evidence.

Was the stone found while digging the Chase well? Yes. Was the stone used by Joseph Smith to locate buried treasure? Perhaps. But we have no credible reports to substantiate that allegation, only innuendo and hearsay. Is there any credible evidence that Joseph Smith was "leveraging" his reputation as a seer in order to deceive his friends and neighbors into believing he could locate treasure? Not that I have seen.

Perhaps you should be a little more discriminating in terms of the "historical" facts you incorporate into your world view.

[consiglieri]

Oh, yes, something I forgot to mention . . .

After class, a visiting middle-aged brother came up to me, shook my hand, and thanked me for teaching a lesson where he actually learned something new.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[searchinguy]

Was the stone found while digging the Chase well? Yes. Was the stone used by Joseph Smith to locate buried treasure? Perhaps. But we have no credible reports to substantiate that allegation, only innuendo and hearsay.

I realize that there are reports that I find to be credible that you may not. That's cool. I find that looking at all sources is the best way to get closest to the truth. In any event, I have a much bigger problem with Joseph's use of the same process (for both treasure digging and translation) than I do with him using the same stone.

Is there any credible evidence that Joseph Smith was "leveraging" his reputation as a seer in order to deceive his friends and neighbors into believing he could locate treasure? Not that I have seen.

Obviously you ignore Issac Hale's and Peter Ingersoll's accounts regarding the glass-looking. Regardless, it's clear that Joseph was not successful in his treasure digging. Why? Joseph said he could see buried treasures by looking in the stone. For me it's becomes a question of the reliability of the stone-in-hat processâ?? or it becomes one of Joseph's honesty. Unless, of course it really was evil spirits guarding the treasuresâ?? which I don't buy.

Perhaps you should be a little more discriminating in terms of the "historical" facts you incorporate into your world view.

What "facts" specifically do you find unworthy of incorporation? I mean, I used to rely entirely on current Church publications to learn about things such as the BoM translation. The results there weren't necessarily that great. So, please tell me which of my "facts" come from less-than-credible sourcesâ??