Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[Alla]

What? Ah Deborah...the stone in the hat is not an unsubstanciated event. There were multiple eye witnesses, it happened.

So? Those witnesses are not enough for me. They talked about what they saw, but that doesn't help me to understand how it works. That is why I don't care if JS was using stones and a hat. Jesus was making wierd things too. He spit on the clay and put it on blind man'e eyes.

The church can continue to ignore it or they can deal with it.

Ignore what? Deal with what?

The reason that church critics point this event out is #1 It's Bizaar and connects Joseph to his folk magic days and #2 They know that the church is not as forthcomming in sharing this event with church membership as they purhaps should be.

I am a convert (7 years in Church). I found this info that JS used hat and stones. SO???!!! Why do I need this info any way? And like you say if it is not faith promoting, why do I need to know about that?

Most people who leave the church do not do so over historical difficulties...they simply go inactive and fade away.

Most people? How do you know that it is most people? Proof would be great!!!

I've heard that as many as 80% church wide are inactive.

You heard? From whom? Proof?

But there is a growing number of formerly active, tithe paying ,members who struggle and leave once they discover that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by placing a rock he had found while digging a well for Willard Chase, a rock that he had also use to defraud individuals with his claim of be able to find buried treasure by the very same means that he used to translate the Book of Mormon, namely placing his well rock in his hat and burying his face in it....among other things.

HEARSAY! Proof would be just great. That is ALL I need.

But even if it is true, then I will tell you another thing. May be I should stop believing in Jesus because He put His saliva in the clay to heal a man?

If you find this as faith promoting...I applaud you...but many life long active members of the church who discover this reality struggle to make sense of it.

This is not faith promoting. The same as fact that Jesus put His saliva. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. Could Jesus heal without using His saliva?

Should the church apologize for this?

You are so funny.

...should they be more forthcoming with it than a single mention 18 years ago in an Ensign article...I think so.

You are even funnier than I thought.

[SilverKnight]

I have never understood this. So, JS is said, in simple terms, that JS translated the BoM by the gift and power of God. I remember learning in primary that JS used teh U&T to translate the BoM. Later in life I learned about the stone in the hat.

I knew from primary age that Joseph Smith had a Seer Stone and used it to translate the Book of Mormon, and I came from a less-active family and I rarely paid attention in church.

Later, as a teenager, I assumed it was just another magical device like the Urim & Thummim that aided translation. It wasn't until after my mission I learned about the hat. Using he hat to shut out light as he put his face in it seemed strange, but no weirder than some ancient breastplate with crystal lenses. It was hardly testimony-rattling, since I had known for years a Seer Stone was used in part of the translation.

That Joseph possessed and used Seer Stone is well known among most LDS.

[Deborah]

What? Ah Deborah...the stone in the hat is not an unsubstanciated event. There were multiple eye witnesses, it happened.

CFR the "multiple eye witnesses". In the article I referred to above we read regarding the David Whitmer account:

It is tempting to accept the above statement at face value. However, since David Whitmer had not personally translated, his accuracy on details depends on whether he correctly understood what Joseph Smith told him in the first place, and whether he correctly remembered such details after that.

[cinepro]

I knew from primary age that Joseph Smith had a Seer Stone and used it to translate the Book of Mormon, and I came from a less-active family and I rarely paid attention in church.

Later, as a teenager, I assumed it was just another magical device like the Urim & Thummim that aided translation. It wasn't until after my mission I learned about the hat. Using he hat to shut out light as he put his face in it seemed strange, but no weirder than some ancient breastplate with crystal lenses. It was hardly testimony-rattling, since I had known for years a Seer Stone was used in part of the translation.

That Joseph possessed and used Seer Stone is well known among most LDS.

I wonder why the Church doesn't use this picture any more in "The Book of Mormon Reader" (the illustrated book of BoM stories for children):

They replaced it with this one (and now the book is called "Book of Mormon Stories"):

So here we have an example of the illustration actually regressing in accuracy!

[SilverKnight]

I wonder why the Church doesn't use this picture any more in "The Book of Mormon Reader" (the illustrated book of BoM stories for children):

Because when primary kids see that picture they are going to be quite puzzled, and ask mom, "what the crap is Joseph wearing?"

Chances are mom wont even know what the heck it is.

Also, why would an ancient translation artifact need a breastplate anyway?

To protect against enemy arrows while you are busy translating?

So here we have an example of the illustration actually regressing in accuracy!

How do you know Joseph doesn't have the stone in his pocket?

In any case, the U&T is weirder than the Seer Stone by a mile.

I say the church should just stick with the stone since it was the primary translation device and has the most historical evidence for its use.

[cinepro]

How do you know Joseph doesn't have the stone in his pocket?

The biggest problem with the picture is having the plates sitting out on the table where anyone (especially Oliver) could see them.

That's a pretty big rewriting of history.

[citizen28]

It wasn't until after my mission I learned about the hat.

I learned about the stone in the hat on South Park, no kidding.

[bookofmormontruth]

What? Ah Deborah...the stone in the hat is not an unsubstanciated event. There were multiple eye witnesses, it happened. The church can continue to ignore it or they can deal with it. The reason that church critics point this event out is #1 It's Bizaar and connects Joseph to his folk magic days and #2 They know that the church is not as forthcomming in sharing this event with church membership as they purhaps should be.

Most people who leave the church do not do so over historical difficulties...they simply go inactive and fade away. I've heard that as many as 80% church wide are inactive. But there is a growing number of formerly active, tithe paying ,members who struggle and leave once they discover that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by placing a rock he had found while digging a well for Willard Chase, a rock that he had also use to defraud individuals with his claim of be able to find buried treasure by the very same means that he used to translate the Book of Mormon, namely placing his well rock in his hat and burying his face in it....among other things.

If you find this as faith promoting...I applaud you...but many life long active members of the church who discover this reality struggle to make sense of it.

Should the church apologize for this? No...should they be more forthcoming with it than a single mention 18 years ago in an Ensign article...I think so.

Oops, you conveniently left out the Improvement Era and numerous other books that was published to the entire LDS membership. What a conspiracy!

If I was a betting man, I would bet that not one single member left because of the seer stones. Sure, they might proclaim to the world that the Lord's Church never had coloring books of the seer stones for them, but when the truth is brought out, struggling with the word of wisdom or skipping out on Church attendance and etc... would probably be a better indicator on why they really left.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wonder why the Church doesn't use this picture any more in "The Book of Mormon Reader" (the illustrated book of BoM stories for children):

They replaced it with this one (and now the book is called "Book of Mormon Stories"):

So here we have an example of the illustration actually regressing in accuracy!

These are problems only if you assume art to be doctrinal. It would help, though, if the church or at the very least a teacher explain that this is the artists interpration of what happend and is not necessarily accurate.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR the "multiple eye witnesses". In the article I referred to above we read regarding the David Whitmer account:

Well, there goes that idea that there were "many witnesses".

[TNBu]

These are problems only if you assume art to be doctrinal. It would help, though, if the church or at the very least a teacher explain that this is the artists interpration of what happend and is not necessarily accurate.

In such settings, it seems an unprincipled choice to display images that give a clearly false impression (especially to children and investigators), whether accompanied by a disclaimer about historical accuracy, or not. I don't think it's realistic to expect children to look at artists' renderings in church publications and remind themselves that they are not doctrinal. Images are powerful, often more powerful than words, and the truth should be respected. Is showing a misleading image less dishonest than verbally communicating the same information?

[cinepro]

CFR the "multiple eye witnesses". In the article I referred to above we read regarding the David Whitmer account:

It helps to be clear on what is meant by "eye witnesses". In this case, an "eye witness" was someone who was actually in the room at the time of translation and could see Joseph Smith translating. Obviously, they couldn't see exactly what Joseph was seeing, but they could describe where Joseph was sitting, how he was sitting, and other things like that. In that way, they were "eye witnesses".

So, with that in mind, here are some of the accounts from people who actually claimed to have been in the room during some part of the translation process. There may be others, but I've never seen any that contradict these or describe the process in a way depicted by the Church in their artwork (except possibly for Martin Harris).

Obviously, it is possible that another method was used at a time when they weren't in the room:

Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. Herald House, 1951, Volume 3, page 356, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma.")

David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 12)

Martin Harris, one of the witnesses and scribes to the Book of Mormon

"Martin Harris related an incident that occured during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." (Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," originally Deseret News, Nov. 30, 1881, later in the Millennial Star, Feb. 6, 1882, pp. 86-87. Stevenson would later become a member of the First Council of Seventy).

Oliver Cowdery, principal scribe for the Book of Mormon

"These were days never to be forgotten — to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called 'The book of Mormon." (Messenger and Advocate, 1834, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 14; Note that at that time among the members of the Church, the term "Urim and Thummim" was synonymous with the seer stone that Joseph worked with).

Joseph Knight, Sr., early Church member, and close friend to Joseph

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would appear in Brite Roman Letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it[.] then that would go away the next sentence would Come and so on But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite[,] so we see it was marvelous. thus was the hol [whole] translated." (Joseph Knight, Sr., "Joseph Knight, Sr., Reminiscence, circa 1835-1847"; see Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, Volume 4, pp. 17-18.)

Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down." (Saints' Herald, June 15, 1879, pp. 190-191).

Isaac Hale, father of Emma Smith

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." (Affidavit of Isaac Hale, March 20, 1834, see Rodger I. Anderson's book Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, Signature Books, pp. 126-128)

[SilverKnight]

For maximum candor and full disclosure, the church should depict the Book of Mormon translation in an officially commissioned painting depicting Joseph Smith in a nephite breastplate, with crystal spectacles, holding a chocolate seer stone in one hand, an empty tophat in the other, with a curtain separating him from Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Emma Smith and Fanny Alger.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In such settings, it seems an unprincipled choice to display images that give a clearly false impression (especially to children and investigators), whether accompanied by a disclaimer about historical accuracy, or not. I don't think it's realistic to expect children to look at artists' renderings in church publications and remind themselves that they are not doctrinal. Images are powerful, often more powerful than words, and the truth should be respected. Is showing a misleading image less dishonest than verbally communicating the same information?

I think it would be good if the church either showed a more accurate picture or had a disclaimer. I am willing to bet that there might be a smidge of ignorance on the part of whom ever published those pictures and put them in the book. Mybe Cinepro could write the church? Or you?

[Calm]

I think it's likely that the Church now favours illustrations that lack anything besides Joseph and the plates so that the emphasis is on the action of the Holy Ghost and not anything else. Having had the discussions over the UandT with the breastplate and the seer stones, it is hard to get the kids to focus on the action of the Spirit rather, some of them make the jump to the idea that the stones were magical, functioned on their own, wouldn't it be cool for me to have that so I could...etc. etc. without any reference to the Spirit when talking about JS's ability to translate. I am glad that the current manual emphasizes that JS had to work to put himself in the right frame of mind to receive the Spirit in order to translate, this is always the point I try to emphasize when I teach the concept even when I bring in the topic of the instruments he used at times to aid him in his focus and building up of faith.

I think the emphasis is in part because the lessons are in part to help teach the idea that we have access to the same kind of power that Joseph did and the only instrument we need to be concerned about is our own spirit, body and heart.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's likely that the Church now favours illustrations that lack anything besides Joseph and the plates so that the emphasis is on the action of the Holy Ghost and not anything else. Having had the discussions over the UandT with the breastplate and the seer stones, it is hard to get the kids to focus on the action of the Spirit rather, some of them make the jump to the idea that the stones were magical, functioned on their own, wouldn't it be cool for me to have that so I could...etc. etc. without any reference to the Spirit when talking about JS's ability to translate. I am glad that the current manual emphasizes that JS had to work to put himself in the right frame of mind to receive the Spirit in order to translate, this is always the point I try to emphasize when I teach the concept even when I bring in the topic of the instruments he used at times to aid him in his focus and building up of faith.

I think the emphasis is in part because the lessons are in part to help teach the idea that we have access to the same kind of power that Joseph did and the only instrument we need to be concerned about is our own spirit, body and heart.

The over-emphasis on the seer stone and and insistence on its inclusion in artwork perhaps demonstrates that even adults have a hard time getting over their fixation on objects and focusing instead on the power of the Spirit, which is the essence of divine revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it would be good if the church either showed a more accurate picture or had a disclaimer. I am willing to bet that there might be a smidge of ignorance on the part of whom ever published those pictures and put them in the book. Mybe Cinepro could write the church? Or you?

I've said I will continue to feel free to use the picture on occasion in teaching. And I don't do it out of ignorance.

[Scott Lloyd]

The opening paragraph too...

I dispute the lead paragraph as well as the headline. I'm focusing on what President Eyring actually said. I don't think he ever used the word "apologize."

[Scott Lloyd]

These are problems only if you assume art to be doctrinal. It would help, though, if the church or at the very least a teacher explain that this is the artists interpration of what happend and is not necessarily accurate.

It's not necessarily inaccurate either.

[Storm Rider]

Maybe their agenda is to become the opposite of a mainstream church.

I'm defining "mainstream church" as a main or major Christian group. The opposite are lessor known groups, sometimes referred to as cults or sects.

I was thinking of all my Mormon friends/family and people in my Mormon community who sort of make up what is Mormon to me. I see websites like www.mormon.org and even the main site www.lds.org and I get the feeling the major themes of all the big "mainstream churches" are the focus of Mormonism today (i.e. focus on Christ and family).

I could be wrong, but I sure don't think the church wants me to be wrong. I truly believe they want to be a mainstream church.

Cion, I would disagree. I do think the Church has decided to rebut the claim that it is non-Christian. It can stomach all the other insults and criticisms, but that cliam goes too far. The Church is adamant that it is Christian and wants the world to know it. Does it have any desire for ecumencial work? Absolutely not. It remains firm that all other churches lack any saving authority to perform any Sacraments/ordinances and there is no need for any ecumenical work. The Church has no problems working jointly with other churches to perform welfare services for crises around the world, respecting others and their beliefs, but no intent to cozy up to another church because their doctrines are the doctrines of men.

[Craig Paxton]

CFR the "multiple eye witnesses". In the article I referred to above we read regarding the David Whitmer account:

CFR? Ummmm...ok

Witness #1: Martin Harris;…”the prophet processed a seer stone…by aid of the seer stone sentences would appear…” Deseret News, 30 November 1881

Witness #2: Emma Smith;” …he sitting with his face in his hat, with the stone in it…” ‘Original Manuscript’ pp, 276-277

Witness #3: Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdrey; “…he would place the director [rock] in a hat and then place his face in the hat…” February 1870, RLDS Archives

Witness #4: David Witmer; …” Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat…” David Witmer, An address to all believers in Christ. p 13

Witness #5: Joseph Knight; …he put the urim and thummim into a hat and darkened his eyes…” Joseph Knight account, LDS Archive

Witness #6: Isaac Hale; “…the manner in which he [Joseph Smith] pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for money-diggers, with a stone in his hat and his hat over his face…” The Susquehanna Register, 1 May 1834

I could go on and on…but I belabor the point. The reality of Joseph placing the rock he dug up from Willard Chase’s well into his hat to translate is NOT in dispute, nor is the fact that he used that same stone in his treasure digging activity.

Nor is it in dispute that the term seer stone, urim and thummim, translators, interpreters, stone, rock…were all interchangeable. The rock dug up from Willard Chase’s well was referred to by all of these names and more. Could there have been an actual urim and thummim, perhaps, but none of the eye witnesses give an account of the translation process describing their use save Martin Harris.

Deborah, Again I refer to my earlier post #241, these things are not in disput. The reality still remains, the church can either deal with it or continue to ignore it.

[Craig Paxton]

It helps to be clear on what is meant by "eye witnesses". In this case, an "eye witness" was someone who was actually in the room at the time of translation and could see Joseph Smith translating. Obviously, they couldn't see exactly what Joseph was seeing, but they could describe where Joseph was sitting, how he was sitting, and other things like that. In that way, they were "eye witnesses".

So, with that in mind, here are some of the accounts from people who actually claimed to have been in the room during some part of the translation process. There may be others, but I've never seen any that contradict these or describe the process in a way depicted by the Church in their artwork (except possibly for Martin Harris).

Obviously, it is possible that another method was used at a time when they weren't in the room:

Oh Great I just spent an hour doing this research....and you had it posted there all the time....ARGGGGGGGG.....

Thanks for having my back....

[Craig Paxton]

edited

[Deborah]

Again I refer to my earlier post #241, these things are not in disput. The reality still remains, the church can either deal with it or continue to ignore it.

What is in dispute is the claim the church has ignored it. These are mostly accounts from people who were not present when Joseph was translating. The church has discussed these various accounts as previously indicated. The fact is that several methods were used not just the one the critics get hyper about. So I suppose the church in order to not ignore it must commission an artist just to show what the critics are griping about. But then they'd just find some other nit to pick.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not necessarily inaccurate either.

Hence the language of my post to include "necessarily".