Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[Jaybear]

However, the "dishonesty" which you find so disturbing may be no more than a lack of awareness of the historical facts, an awareness which you yourself did not have until recently. I recommend patience and forbearance.

Perhaps. Though it seems to me that the seer stone/ UandT was as important to Smith in the BOM translation process as the sling was to David in his defeat of Goliath. I really can't imagine an artist depicting David squaring off against Goliath without his sling at hand.

More likely, the reason the powers that be selected art not depicting the rock/hat, is the very same reason the Southpark episode showed Smith using the rock/hat ... to a modern audience it just looks weird.

Its the same reason you wont see any time soon LDS Church sanctioned art depicting JS marriage to Fanny, despite the historical/religious significance of the event.

Some truths are not very useful.

[MIkew]

You still haven't acknowledged http://lds.org/ensig...22seer+stone%22 , which Mola called to your attention. You claim that this hasn't been discussed in LDS magazines and you claim to be shocked by what you see as "weird" or "dishonest." Yet you haven't come to grips with how uninformed you really are.

You are right I didn't look at that one. I also didn't know the church had the ensign online back to 1971. I am pretty sure I never said it hasn't been in the ensign. I have even quoted Elder Nelson's Ensign article, even linked to it I believe.

One would almost think that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing merely pretending to be a disaffected Mormon. All the signs point to that. C'mon, fess up.

As far as I know, most of the posts replying to me have said I am wrong the church is not dishonest. I put it clearly in my original post where I am coming from. I have also put it clearly that Elder Nelson spoke about the stone in the hat. I have also put it clearly that as per my original post Joseph did not read from the plates, he used a medium, you actually agree with this, don't you?

The church does not teach stone in a hat, I have looked through countless manuals, no mention, no links to the two talks. To counter that, Elder Nelson's talk included a picture with no medium, the church has produced many tracts, manual, websites, teaching aids, magazines and videos showing no medium. There are a few I admit that, but none of the stone in the hat. The church materials show and teach a biblical medium to the primary kids, not much to the youth and almost nothing to the adults. They never bring up the stone in the hat. Plus by the church's own words what they know is sketchy contradictory so why the one method over the other? They are purposely teaching a more biblically acceptable method of translation even though they know they don't know for sure.

Edited December 5, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

Perhaps. Though it seems to me that the seer stone/ UandT was as important to Smith in the BOM translation process as the sling was to David in his defeat of Goliath. I really can't imagine an artist depicting David squaring off against Goliath without his sling at hand.

More likely, the reason the powers that be selected art not depicting the rock/hat, is the very same reason the Southpark episode showed Smith using the rock/hat ... to a modern audience it just looks weird.

Its the same reason you wont see any time soon LDS Church sanctioned art depicting JS marriage to Fanny, despite the historical/religious significance of the event.

Some truths are not very useful.

The reason is that they are dishonestly portaying things to put Joseph in a better light. Read the gospel principles manual that we have been using for the last 2 years. By purposely leaving things out, the church is being dishonest. I will leave your reference to Fanny out of this discussion as that is whole other can of dishonest worms for me.

[MIkew]

The "church" does not exist as an independent entity and should not be personified. It consists of people: you, me, and all the others who make up the "body of Christ." If you have a complaint or recommendation, put it into a letter and send it to one of the Brethren. They need to hear your concerns.

I believe we have been counseled in GC not to send letters to general authorities. Which confuses me as they oftern read letters they get.

The discovery that Church leaders are human shouldn't be such a traumatic experience for anyone, except for those who were raised in a particularly rigid and unrealistic environment. None of us are perfect. Most of us just do the best we can.

However, the "dishonesty" which you find so disturbing may be no more than a lack of awareness of the historical facts, an awareness which you yourself did not have until recently. I recommend patience and forbearance.

Like I said before I haven't given up totally yet. My life as a believing mormon was very good, my life now is very good. Posting here is about as close to church participation as I can come. It is impossible to go to church and listen to the same old stuff when these are the kinds of things i need to discuss and study.

[zerinus]

Very interesting, but the stones fastened in a bow were not the stone in the hat.

That is right. The "stones fastened in a bow" were the Urim and Thummim. The stone in a hat was the so called "seer stone". That seer stone is still in the Church by the way, and is preserved in the archives of the First Presidency. I had a religion teacher at BYU many years ago who said he had seen it, and described for us what it looked like. After the death of Joseph Smith it was passed on to Hyrum Smith's family as I recall, and was kept by them for a several generations before being handed over to the First Presidency.

Show me where the church teaches that it was exclusively the possession of the urim and thummim that gave him the power to translate.

I gave you the references. Here they are again:

JS-History 1:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

What is the evidence that he could translate without a medium?

I explained that too. The JST was done without the use of a physical instrument. The process for translating the Book of Mormon was the same. In both cases the same gift was being used. Through the experience gained in the translation of the Book of Mormon Joseph't spiritual gift had become so enhanced that he no longer needed to physically use an instrument to translate or receive revelation. The Urim and Thummim is essentially the gift of receiving revelation. Joseph Smith initially received the first revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants by means of the Urim and Thummim. But as he gained experience, and his spiritual powers were increased, he no longer needed to physically use an instrument to receive revelation. The JST and Book of Mormon were translated in the same way. It was a revelatory process. It was all done by revelation.

You yourself said he needed the urim and thummim or he couldn't translate.

I said the possession of the Urim and Thummim entitled him to the gift, even though with sufficient experience he no longer needed to make physical use of the instruments to translate or receive revelation.

[MIkew]

I gave you the references. Here they are again:

JS-History 1:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

This does not say that he needed it exclusively to translate, just that they were made for the purpose of translating. I may not be reading it the way you want me to, if not explain it a bit more please.

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

Are you saying that this scripture is where we learn that he was given the gift to translate without a medium?

I explained that too. The JST was done without the use of a physical instrument. The process for translating the Book of Mormon was the same. In both cases the same gift was being used. Through the experience gained in the translation of the Book of Mormon Joseph't spiritual gift had become so enhanced that he no longer needed to physically use an instrument to translate or receive revelation. The Urim and Thummim is essentially the gift of receiving revelation. Joseph Smith initially received the first revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants by means of the Urim and Thummim. But as he gained experience, and his spiritual powers were increased, he no longer needed to physically use an instrument to receive revelation. The JST and Book of Mormon were translated in the same way. It was a revelatory process. It was all done by revelation.

I don't know that the church teaches this, the way you see it. Maybe off topic but why is the JST called a translation, what was he translating, wasn't looking at an English text?

I said the possession of the Urim and Thummim entitled him to the gift, even though with sufficient experience he no longer needed to make physical use of the instruments to translate or receive revelation.

I misread what you were saying there.

I still don't think the church teaches it the way you see it, even though you lay it out very nicely. Do you have a reference to a church manual or ensign article?

The church says it doesn't know and that what it does know is sketchy and contradictory but yet it still tries to teach the Urim and Thummim process and no stone in the hat, save for two ensign articles the last of which was almost 20 years ago.

[KevinG]

MikeW

You claim to be investigating things you want to learn but you fail to attend your church meetings (claiming its the same old thing) and claim to know the reasons the Brethren and the Curricula committees include the basics in our lessons and publications but don't highlight the more strange and esoteric details of things like the method of translation, etc.

I see a huge stumbling block for you. You assume to know the motivations of the Brethren but you aren't even willing to review the "same old things" basics of the gospel and renew your covenants with Christ.

If you really want to know the details and fine points of the gospel you must start with knowing God and obeying His counsel. D&C 93:28 He that ^akeepeth his [Gods] commandments receiveth ^btruth and ^clight, until he is glorified in truth and ^dknoweth all things.

Even if the assumption that the Church downplays things like Joseph's using a seer stone in a hat, how would a lesson on that subject enhance the mission of bringing people unto Christ?

I am a convert who knew about the head in hat early on from church published lessons and institute manuals. Being a father of many children when I learned that in a crowded house with two families and children Joseph used a hat to translate I immediately thought of my own use of ear plugs and a quiet place to do study. It did not shock me.

Go back to church and you will find more light and knowledge than in 1000 hours of discussion board.

Alma 26:22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God;

[MIkew]

MikeW

You claim to be investigating things you want to learn but you fail to attend your church meetings (claiming its the same old thing) and claim to know the reasons the Brethren and the Curricula committees include the basics in our lessons and publications but don't highlight the more strange and esoteric details of things like the method of translation, etc.

I see a huge stumbling block for you. You assume to know the motivations of the Brethren but you aren't even willing to review the "same old things" basics of the gospel and renew your covenants with Christ.

If you really want to know the details and fine points of the gospel you must start with knowing God and obeying His counsel. D&C 93:28 He that ^akeepeth his [Gods] commandments receiveth ^btruth and ^clight, until he is glorified in truth and ^dknoweth all things.

Even if the assumption that the Church downplays things like Joseph's using a seer stone in a hat, how would a lesson on that subject enhance the mission of bringing people unto Christ?

I am a convert who knew about the head in hat early on from church published lessons and institute manuals. Being a father of many children when I learned that in a crowded house with two families and children Joseph used a hat to translate I immediately thought of my own use of ear plugs and a quiet place to do study. It did not shock me.

Go back to church and you will find more light and knowledge than in 1000 hours of discussion board.

Alma 26:22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God;

Please show me the seminary or institute manual that teaches head in the hat.

[KevinG]

It was in the 1990s. It probably came from Elder Nelsons talk or a similar source. It was taught openly by my institute director (also a member of my Stake Presidency).

A poorly kept conspiracy if ever there was one.

Edited December 5, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Despite the claim that this is a significant detail made by a plethora of anti-mormon sources, why is the fact that Joseph used a hat to block out light at least once in the translation process really significant?

I don't see the big deal, especially when there are other witnesses who testified to other methods over time. Joseph obviously learned to translate with and without the seer stones.

[MIkew]

The attached images are from the chuch produced video "The Restoration", showing Joseph reading from the plates directly, his finger running over the plates as he reads. He is reading from Mosiah, I guess that sometime before this he had learned to read the characters and no longer needed a medium.

This is how the church prefers to show it, even though they don't know for sure. They are willing to talk about the urim and thummim as it is at least a bit biblical. They do not want to show a head in the hat as it is weird and occult and the same thing as when he was looking for treasue and lost things.

The restoration video is a marketing tool so I guess making it accurate isn't really important(not everthing that is true is usefull and all that talk), what is important is that people feel something when they watch it so that the missionaries can say "hey you felt the spirit you now know it is true we are having a baptism service on Saturday will you prepare yourself to be baptized".

Edited December 5, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

It was in the 1990s. It probably came from Elder Nelsons talk or a similar source. It was taught openly by my institute director (also a member of my Stake Presidency).

A poorly kept conspiracy if ever there was one.

Well if it wasn't in the manual he shouldn't have been teaching it. Elder Packer might not have like that he did that.

[MIkew]

Despite the claim that this is a significant detail made by a plethora of anti-mormon sources, why is the fact that Joseph used a hat to block out light at least once in the translation process really significant?

I have stated why I think it is important many times in this thread.

I don't see the big deal, especially when there are other witnesses who testified to other methods over time.

If you have read my posts in this thread I have stated many times why it is important to me. It doesn't have to be important to you.

Joseph obviously learned to translate with and without the seer stones.

Where is this obvious?

[KevinG]

Well if it wasn't in the manual he shouldn't have been teaching it. Elder Packer might not have like that he did that.

Elder Packer is entitled to his opinion as he gave it to the institute directors he was addressing. He was lecturing on a problem just like the one you are exhibiting here... Getting so caught up in minutiae that you are failing to grasp the essential basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You may want to see the entire talk and not just the "offending" phrase that critics like to use. Download it here- http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5472

Now you have had another opportunity to be snarky can you answer some questions directly:

Of what importance is the minutiae of the method of translation openly acknowledged by Church leaders compared to the main message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? In other words why feature a single observation by a single church pioneer over the reams of information on the subject of scriptures, translation and how Gods word is conveyed to us?

Why do you feel the basics of the Gospel or less important than tracking down historical details?

What evidence leads you to believe that the lack of volume of information you feel is weird an occult like is a conspiracy on the part of LDS church leaders?

[altersteve]

I don't know that the church teaches this, the way you see it. Maybe off topic but why is the JST called a translation, what was he translating, wasn't looking at an English text?

We know that Joseph had the ability to "translate" certain things even without the text sitting right in front of him (i.e., the Book of Moses and D&C 7).

I still don't think the church teaches it the way you see it, even though you lay it out very nicely. Do you have a reference to a church manual or ensign article?

The church says it doesn't know and that what it does know is sketchy and contradictory but yet it still tries to teach the Urim and Thummim process and no stone in the hat, save for two ensign articles the last of which was almost 20 years ago.

So the fact that the last one was 20 years ago means that the Church is being dishonest? Church leaders have always openly discussed the stone in the hat. Everyone has told you this. In addition to the Ensign, it has also been mentioned in the Improvement Era, BYU Studies, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the FARMS Review, and the Friend. Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, Neal A. Maxwell, and B. H. Roberts have also written and talked about it. Once again, your accusations that the Church is being "dishonest" by "hiding" Joseph's use of the seer stone is a dishonest statement itself.

[MIkew]

Elder Packer is entitled to his opinion as he gave it to the institute directors he was addressing. He was lecturing on a problem just like the one you are exhibiting here... Getting so caught up in minutiae that you are failing to grasp the essential basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You may want to see the entire talk and not just the "offending" phrase that critics like to use. Download it here- http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=5472

Why make that talk publicly accessible if it was only for those institute people he was talking to. I believe he was acting as an apostle of jesus christ, and a general authority in the church. Are you seriously downplaying what he said? For the record I have read the talk.

Now you have had another opportunity to be snarky can you answer some questions directly:

Of what importance is the minutiae of the method of translation openly acknowledged by Church leaders compared to the main message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? In other words why feature a single observation by a single church pioneer over the reams of information on the subject of scriptures, translation and how Gods word is conveyed to us?

Where and how the BOM came to be are probably the two most important questions in Mormonism. Where is the church without the BOM. Also, this is the topic of this thread. Well the topic originally was just the one gospel art picture kit quote but it is now the BOM translation.

Why do you feel the basics of the Gospel or less important than tracking down historical details?

The basics are of no use if the source of the BOM is a fruad, president Hinkley would agree with this.

What evidence leads you to believe that the lack of volume of information you feel is weird an occult like is a conspiracy on the part of LDS church leaders?

All of my previous posts state this. The church by it's own lesson manual states that the details surrounding the translation of the BOM are sketchy and contradictory. The church does not teach head in the hat in any manual, it has been mentioned twice in the last 40 years in the Ensign. It is my opinion that the church would rather give the impression that he translation process is more of a biblical feeling process, not a treasue seeking process. Treasure seeking is occult, and Joseph Smiths history takes away from the biblical angle the church would prefer. As in the images from the video I posted earlier, in that video they prefered to show Joseph reading directly from the plates and not even include a medium.

Plus if it was just this one thing that I think the church sidesteps in a dishonest way I probably would never have been bothered. Those topics are for another thread.

[zerinus]

This does not say that he needed it exclusively to translate, just that they were made for the purpose of translating. I may not be reading it the way you want me to, if not explain it a bit more please.

That is right, you are not trying very hard to understand what I am talking about either. It says, “the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times”. It means that the gift goes with the instrument. The implication of that is that the physical use of the instrument may not in all cases be necessary for the exercise of the gift. Do you understand that now? If not, try a bit harder, and you might.

Are you saying that this scripture is where we learn that he was given the gift to translate without a medium?

It is another scripture confirming that instrument goes with the gift; but the instrument may not always be physically needed for the exercise of the gift.

I don't know that the church teaches this, the way you see it. Maybe off topic but why is the JST called a translation, what was he translating, wasn't looking at an English text?

The JST is called a translation by the Lord, in the D&C 93:53. It is a translation, in the same way that the Book of Mormon is a translation. It is a translation by revelation.

I misread what you were saying there.

You missed a lot of things here.

I still don't think the church teaches it the way you see it, even though you lay it out very nicely. Do you have a reference to a church manual or ensign article?

I gave you references. The Church teaches the standard works. The standard works are a higher source of reference than any manuals or the Ensign.

The church says it doesn't know and that what it does know is sketchy and contradictory but yet it still tries to teach the Urim and Thummim process and no stone in the hat, save for two ensign articles the last of which was almost 20 years ago.

I have answered that for you more than once; and I am not going to answer it again.

[MIkew]

We know that Joseph had the ability to "translate" certain things even without the text sitting right in front of him (i.e., the Book of Moses and D&C 7).

Don't forget he also translated the BOM without looking at the plates.

So the fact that the last one was 20 years ago means that the Church is being dishonest? Church leaders have always openly discussed the stone in the hat. Everyone has told you this. In addition to the Ensign, it has also been mentioned in the Improvement Era, BYU Studies, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the FARMS Review, and the Friend. Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, Neal A. Maxwell, and B. H. Roberts have also written and talked about it. Once again, your accusations that the Church is being "dishonest" by "hiding" Joseph's use of the seer stone is a dishonest statement itself.

It is not in the manuals, I have not seen it in the New Era, Improvement Era or the Friend either. Yes people know about it, some people have talked about it but it is not taught in church, except by a few eccentrics who are adding their own material and disobeying the leaders of the church. The church admits that what they do know is sketchy and contradictory and they still teach urim and thummim but not stone in the hat.

[MIkew]

That is right, you are not trying very hard to understand what I am talking about either. It says, “the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times”. It means that the gift goes with the instrument. The implication of that is that the physical use of the instrument may not in all cases be necessary for the exercise of the gift. Do you understand that now? If not, try a bit harder, and you might. It is another scripture confirming that instrument goes with the gift; but the instrument may not always be physically needed for the exercise of the gift.

Thanks.

The JST is called a translation by the Lord, in the D&C 93:53. It is a translation, in the same way that the Book of Mormon is a translation. It is a translation by revelation.

Right, so he never could read the characters on the plates, it was revelation through a medium, and unsupported cases of him being inspired in his head as to what they said.

You missed a lot of things here.

I have never claimed to be the smart guy here. I have been called lot's of names and had my intelligence questioned by a bunch of you christlike folks. Thanks to every who hasn't been insulting.

I gave you references. The Church teaches the standard works. The standard works are a higher source of reference than any manuals or the Ensign. I have answered that for you more than once; and I am not going to answer it again.

The standard works are not very clear and open to lot's of interpretations. I really do appreciate you posting though, except for the insults you could have kept those to yourself. I have heard many times that the words of the living prophets are more important than the dead ones, I can't remember who said that, maybe it was Brigham Young.

[MIkew]

The Church teaches the standard works. The standard works are a higher source of reference than any manuals or the Ensign.

Brigham Young would disagree with you. From "The Teachings of the Presidents of the Chruch: Joseph Smith".

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the [living] oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’

[why me]

Here is part of my original post

Joseph did not read out loud from the plates, which is what the church would like people to think, in my opinion.

And this conforms to the Richards account. Nothing wrong in that. How should the church want people to think? Who is right and who is wrong? I believe that the richards account was unknown to you in your orginal OP. Since I showed you this account, you have changed your tune alittle.

I also don't think that there is anything wrong with the Harris account or with emma's and david's account. Unfortunately we have nothing from Joseph abou it. But the common denominator is: it was done by the power of god. Such is confirmed by all witnesses to how it was done.

[why me]

Brigham Young would disagree with you. From "The Teachings of the Presidents of the Chruch: Joseph Smith".

I think that Z. may be correct. The oracles may be a guide in the present day but the standard works are the foundation of the lds church. Take away the foundation and the lds church falls apart.

[why me]

I am just repeating what Elder Nelson said, who I do believe is supposed to be a living breathing prophet seer and revelator. He told us that joseph saw a parchment with words on it appear in the rock in his hat.

Which is one version but not the only version that exists. The fact is we know very little of the translation/transcription process. We can only speculate about it. I am sure that it was done in more than one way however. In fact if you read the various accounts in the ensign from past articles you will see at least three versions. But all are united by equating the process to the power of god. And in the end, this is what is important. And no matter how it was done, it was quite a feat to accomplish it.

[zerinus]

Right, so he never could read the characters on the plates, it was revelation through a medium, and unsupported cases of him being inspired in his head as to what they said.

Wrong. Joseph Smith never explained the precise details of how the translation was done. "Revelation" can include a lot of things. You don't have to act like a zombie to be receiving revelation.

I have never claimed to be the smart guy here. I have been called lot's of names and had my intelligence questioned by a bunch of you christlike folks. Thanks to every who hasn't been insulting.

That is right. When you persistently accuse the Church leadership of dishonesty, despite the obvious flaws in your reasoning, that raises serious questions about your intelligence, if not your integrity and honesty.

The standard works are not very clear and open to lot's of interpretations. I really do appreciate you posting though, except for the insults you could have kept those to yourself. I have heard many times that the words of the living prophets are more important than the dead ones, I can't remember who said that, maybe it was Brigham Young.

Living prophets being more important than dead ones does not mean dumping the standard works in the trash can.

[zerinus]

Brigham Young would disagree with you. From "The Teachings of the Presidents of the Chruch: Joseph Smith".

See my previous post.