Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[MIkew]

In my opinion, the bottom line is that if the Adversary can divert your attention from the miracle that the Book of Mormon exists at all, and can, instead, get you to lose yourself in the minutiae of how it came about (when all of us, whether to a greater or lesser extent, "see through a glass, darkly" on that score), then he's won.

http://www.lds.org/g...e-soul?lang=eng

Assuming the devil is real I would say that I can see what you are saying and that exact thought never strays too far from my mind.

Edited December 6, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

So here is where I am at. Not sure if there are very many still reading this or not.

• it is true that the church has officially taught stone in the hat 2 times in the last 40 years or so, I don't know how often it came up before that
  
• it is true that the church has taught at least once that what we know about the translation is sketchy, contradictory and recorded many years after the fact
  
• it is true that Joseph said the details of how it was translated were not to be brought out for the world to know
  
• it is true that the church teaches that the BOM was translated by the Urim and Thummim
  
• it is true that the church has taught Joseph could read from the plates
  
• it is true that the church teaches it was translated by the gift and power of God
  
• its my opinion that most members would look at you strangely if you shared the stone in the hat
  

I still don't see the church teaching it honestly for the following reasons:

• the only accurate teaching would be that it was translated by the gift and power of god
  
• no one knows for sure which methods he used, the church has said as much
  
• the church leaves out head in the hat in the manuals\materials that all members and non members are exposed to but includes the other more acceptable methods
  

if anyone is still reading, what are your thoughts about this post specifically?

[why me]

So here is where I am at. Not sure if there are very many still reading this or not.

• it is true that the church has officially taught stone in the hat 2 times in the last 40 years or so, I don't know how often it came up before that
  
• it is true that the church has taught at least once that what we know about the translation is sketchy, contradictory and recorded many years after the fact
  
• it is true that Joseph said the details of how it was translated were not to be brought out for the world to know
  
• it is true that the church teaches that the BOM was translated by the Urim and Thummim
  
• it is true that the church has taught Joseph could read from the plates
  
• it is true that the church teaches it was translated by the gift and power of God
  
• its my opinion that most members would look at you strangely if you shared the stone in the hat
  

it also teaches that a stone was used.

I still don't see the church teaching it honestly for the following reasons:

• the only accurate teaching would be that it was translated by the gift and power of god
  
• no one knows for sure which methods he used, the church has said as much
  
• the church leaves out head in the hat in the manuals\materials that all members and non members are exposed to but includes the other more acceptable methods
  

if anyone is still reading, what are your thoughts about this post specifically?

Not quite accurate. I think that the head in the hat would be quite faith promoting. Much more so than the RIchards account. Lets face it...it is not that easy to write a book with a head in a hat. Quite amazing, really. I think that since we have several accounts, the lds church uses the basics. The translation was done by the power of god, with the use of seer stones, and urim and thummin. I have also seen accounts of the breastplate in the lds magazines.

Now how this process would look in real life, I have no idea since we have no living eyewitnesses. It would have been nice if david or emma sketched the process. Even better if Joseph did. Finally all who were involved in the process testified that it was done by the power of god and as such they remained faithful to their testimony even on their deathbeds, which would also include those individuals who saw the plates, and those who turned the plates over to check them out.

And this is what is important. And this is what is stressed by the lds church. Now if you can get your head around that simple fact, about the people who were involved in the process whether it was in the translation or whether it was actually seeing and feeling the plates, and how they were convinced that it was all through the power of god and how they continued to testify as to that throughout their lives regardless if they left the church or became inactive and how they testified on their deathbeds about the experience and the book of mormon's truthfulness, well, that will go a long way. But if you wish to focus on the lack of drawings of a hat with JS's head in it, that is okay too.

Edited December 6, 2011 by why me

[altersteve]

it is true that the church has officially taught stone in the hat 2 times in the last 40 years or so, I don't know how often it came up before that

The Church has not taught this "2 times." The Church teaches and openly acknowledges this. It has been mentioned in official Church publications 2 times (actually, more than that). There's a difference.

it is true that the church has taught at least once that what we know about the translation is sketchy, contradictory and recorded many years after the fact

See above.

it is true that Joseph said the details of how it was translated were not to be brought out for the world to know

Correct.

it is true that the church teaches that the BOM was translated by the Urim and Thummim

Correct.

it is true that the church has taught Joseph could read from the plates

Correct.

it is true that the church teaches it was translated by the gift and power of God

This is the most important thing. As long as this is true, then nothing else matters.

its my opinion that most members would look at you strangely if you shared the stone in the hat

Your opinion is false. Nobody has ever looked at me strangely for mentioning the stone in the hat.

Edited December 6, 2011 by altersteve

[altersteve]

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.

Friend: http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

New Era: http://www.lds.org/new-era/1974/03/fyi-for-your-information?lang=eng

In both of these articles, a seer stone (clearly distinguished from the Urim and Thummim) is mentioned.

The Improvement Era article is titled "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," written by Francis W. Kirkham in 1939.

CFR that those who mention the stone in the hat are disobeying Church leaders.

[Robert F. Smith]

Did I say you were angry in a previous post? If you weren't I apologize.

I can't think of any dissapointments in my life due to others. When someone, that someone is the church in this case, you trust breaks that trust it hurts.

Speaking to what you said you feel the church's responsibility is, well I think we all know it goes a lot further than that.

You are personifying the Church again. This is known as a fallacy, since in fact the Church is not a person (someone). If you want to assign responsibility for something, name the actual person responsible, or describe some official doctrine of an organization which is indicative.

I realize that the U.S. Supreme Court has lately described corporations as persons for political reasons, but we should all know that a corporation is no more a person than is a computer or a robot. We need to assign responsibility to individual humans (by name) or to God. Otherwise we are playing fast and loose with the English language and destroying good logic.

[Robert F. Smith]

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".

The "church" doesn't prefer anything because it is not a person. The actual human or humans who prepared that video production may have done so as Church employees (or on contract), but in doing so they expressed a set of human notions about how the translation process occurred. In this case there are many other accounts published in Church magazines and books which provide a very different account of how the translation process took place. This is because the humans involved had differing opinions or concepts, some more accurate than others. If you or I were assigned to write the script, we might very well take a very different approach.

Once again you are personifying the Church and wrongly suggesting that "it" takes a particular view. That is simply illogical.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Excellent and valid points. However, in describing the culprits as "the powers that be," you have fallen into the same illogical fever swamp of blaming some unknown entity (such as the Church) for what some individual cooked up. Any film buff has his personal likes and dislikes. You and I might prefer brutal honesty, while others might want a lighter touch. Still others might want to make a figurative presentation.

For MikeW, indeed, some truths are not very useful.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

CFR. I have never heard that. In fact I have sent letters to selected general authorities on rare occasions and have always received a warm reply. However, I recommend only sending letters about important issues. Twelve million members sending letters to the Brethren and expecting them to read each one would make it impossible for them to function!!

Often the best way to have questions answered on the sorts of issues you raise is to first study the issue (as you are doing here on this board), and then to go to the Temple and pray about the matter there (in the Celestial Room). You might also want to place your name on the Prayer Roll. (James 5:16)

[Robert F. Smith]

The church is not clear on the translation process as I quoted above using their own words what they know is sketchy, contradictory and many years after the fact yet they do indeed try to give the impression of a biblical kind of translation as well as a less weird impression of Joseph reading from the plates. As far as I can tell not everyone on this board is on the same page either, if the church is so clear should I not be getting the same message from each of you? Everyone on this board could give me the same steps for repentance or the 4 parts to prayer or the same articles of faith. The church is clear on those things but not clear on a lot of other things that I won't bring up in this post, maybe another post once i am don delving into this small topic.

Bingo!!

It ought to be clear from your own words here what the problem really is: You are dismayed to find that there is a wide range and diversity of opinion on the translation process. Those of us who have studied the issue, have known that all along. Welcome to the club. If you find some aspects of that process weird or occult, that may merely reflect your own very sheltered and rigid upbringing. Or it may tell us that you actually approach this issue from outside the LDS faith and are acting as an agent provocateur.

[Brant Gardner]

So here is where I am at. Not sure if there are very many still reading this or not.

• it is true that the church has officially taught stone in the hat 2 times in the last 40 years or so, I don't know how often it came up before that
  
• it is true that the church has taught at least once that what we know about the translation is sketchy, contradictory and recorded many years after the fact

It is hardly surprising that the information about the translation process is sketchy. The "eyewitness" accounts weren't written down until very late, and well after other kinds of descriptions had become very popular (as early as 1836 in Kirtland).

• it is true that Joseph said the details of how it was translated were not to be brought out for the world to know
  
• it is true that the church teaches that the BOM was translated by the Urim and Thummim

The association of the Urim and Thummim (and interestingly in caps) is also a later addition to the stories. There is history here that simply making this statement doesn't recognize. It is that history that is important to understanding why the artistic representations occur as they do.

• it is true that the church has taught Joseph could read from the plates

No matter what the "method" the church teaches that the text we have of the Book of Mormon represents what was on the plates. Therefore, Joseph "read" the plates. From that point on you are dealing with method, not meaning.

• it is true that the church teaches it was translated by the gift and power of God
  
• its my opinion that most members would look at you strangely if you shared the stone in the hat

The actual answer to the translation really is that it was done by the gift and power of God. Past that, the method is arguable, but still returns to the absolute fact that Joseph shouldn't have been able to translate anything. Arguing method is academic, but the fact of the text is undeniable, and the content is where the real value lies.

I still don't see the church teaching it honestly for the following reasons:

• the only accurate teaching would be that it was translated by the gift and power of god
  
• no one knows for sure which methods he used, the church has said as much
  
• the church leaves out head in the hat in the manuals\materials that all members and non members are exposed to but includes the other more acceptable methods

I find it amusing that artists are being used to determine doctrine. I have yet to see any artistic depiction of the New World events of the Book of Mormon that are "accurate." We have buff stripling warriors (who were probably only about 14). We have generals riding horses (never mentioned in the text). We have Ammon guarding sheep (which contradicts the nature of the animals in the story). Even when artists attempt to use authentic elements, they get it wrong. There is a beautiful painting of Christ appearing in Bountiful where the buildings clearly borrow from Mesoamerica--but they combine artistic elements from very different cultures and times and have some elements inverted because the artist like them better that way (and didn't know what they mean).

I have a hard time believing that the "church" is not teaching me honestly when judged by the way artists represent things. What we can discuss is how artists get their ideas, but suggesting that the church is dishonest seems to be, in itself, a misplacement of blame. This is particularly true when the is equal evidence that texts from "the church" teach the things one complains that the artists do not.

Even photographs can be art and not "truth," so I have no problems with art that is less than 100% accurate, particularly when so little is known and where the history of the development of these ideas is so complex.

As with most issues that bother people about church history, the best solution is to keep reading and learning. Personally, I have found that a lot of these little annoyances vanish when I understand history better.

[MIkew]

CFR. I have never heard that. In fact I have sent letters to selected general authorities on rare occasions and have always received a warm reply. However, I recommend only sending letters about important issues. Twelve million members sending letters to the Brethren and expecting them to read each one would make it impossible for them to function!!

Hi Robert, thanks for the replies, I am still going through them. Here is the reference. CHI book1 17.1.29 titled "Members' Communications with Church Headquarters".

Members of the church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters.......The Lord has organized His Church so every member has access to a bishop or branch president and as stake, district, district, or mission president who serves as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors.......Members who ....have doctrianl questions should make a diligent effort.... to find solutions and answers themselves.....In most cases, correspondance from members to General Authorities will be referred back to their local leaders."

[MIkew]

The Church has not taught this "2 times." The Church teaches and openly acknowledges this. It has been mentioned in official Church publications 2 times (actually, more than that). There's a difference.

Could you explain the difference?

Your opinion is false. Nobody has ever looked at me strangely for mentioning the stone in the hat.

You haven't spoken to most members.

[Jaybear]

Excellent and valid points. However, in describing the culprits as "the powers that be," you have fallen into the same illogical fever swamp of blaming some unknown entity (such as the Church) for what some individual cooked up. Any film buff has his personal likes and dislikes. You and I might prefer brutal honesty, while others might want a lighter touch. Still others might want to make a figurative presentation.

For MikeW, indeed, some truths are not very useful.

Nope. The "powers that be" simply refers to those who control the message. A Church can only act through its agents. Here someone made the decision to include the art/description to portray the translation process. As your church is image and correlation conscious, I assume that decision is made at a high level.

If you find some aspects of that process weird or occult, that may merely reflect your own very sheltered and rigid upbringing. Or it may tell us that you actually approach this issue from outside the LDS faith and are acting as an agent provocateur.

That's an interesting thought. It has always my impression that, circa 1830s in upstate NY, those people who believed in seer stones, diving rods, and other superstitions would be among the less educated, less sophisticated, and most ignorant and most gullible part of society.

Sometimes its good to revisit our underlying assumptions. Can you elaborate on why you think his unease with the rock/hat method reflects upon a sheltered and rigid upbringing?

[MIkew]

Friend: http://www.lds.org/f...-heart?lang=eng

New Era: http://www.lds.org/n...mation?lang=eng

I haven't read these before, still no hat

The Improvement Era article is titled "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," written by Francis W. Kirkham in 1939.

Is this available somewhere?

CFR that those who mention the stone in the hat are disobeying Church leaders.

I am probably wrong on this one, I was probably thinking about elder packers talk "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"

[MIkew]

Not quite accurate.

Which parts specifically?

Finally all who were involved in the process testified that it was done by the power of god and as such they remained faithful to their testimony even on their deathbeds, which would also include those individuals who saw the plates, and those who turned the plates over to check them out.

And this is what is important. And this is what is stressed by the lds church. Now if you can get your head around that simple fact, about the people who were involved in the process whether it was in the translation or whether it was actually seeing and feeling the plates, and how they were convinced that it was all through the power of god and how they continued to testify as to that throughout their lives regardless if they left the church or became inactive and how they testified on their deathbeds about the experience and the book of mormon's truthfulness, well, that will go a long way.

I would venture to say that everyone who has ever lived died believing something that wasn't true. Were they dupes, I doubt it I am sure they had experiences that led them to believe what they believed. Edited December 6, 2011 by MIkew

[altersteve]

Could you explain the difference?

Sure. What you said is like saying, "The Church has taught # times that Jesus is the Christ," which is a stupid thing to say. The Church teaches that Jesus is the Christ. Does that makes sense?

You haven't spoken to most members.

Beautiful double standard you've got going here. You can claim that most members would look at you strangely for mentioning the stone in the hat, but I can't claim that they won't? Well, hey, guess what, you haven't spoken to most members either. So that doesn't work out for your claim very well, does it?

I haven't read these before, still no hat

Yes, as I said myself. But they do say that Joseph used a seer stone other than the Urim and Thummim. Isn't that what you have a problem with? Surely it doesn't matter that the hat isn't mentioned, does it? Does the fact that Joseph used a hat to block out the external light even matter that much at all? Is it the hat itself that you have a problem with? I thought your problem was that using a seer stone was an "occult" practice?

Is this available somewhere?

Not that I know of. I couldn't find it anywhere.

I am probably wrong on this one, I was probably thinking about elder packers talk "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"

Elder Packer's talk is not the official position of the Church here. It is Elder Packer's position. To equate mentioning the stone in the hat with "disobeying Church leaders" is ridiculous. Otherwise, Elders Maxwell and Nelson would both be guilty of "disobeying Church leaders." But wait, they are Church leaders, so that doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you really going to accuse Church leaders of "disobeying" another Church leader? Do you really want to pit the Church against itself like that?

[why me]

I would venture to say that everyone who has ever lived died believing something that wasn't true. Were they dupes, I doubt it I am sure they had experiences that led them to believe what they believed.

Except that we are dealing with a group of people who witnessed something extraordinary. To see an angel and feel and see the plates, plus observing the translation process had a life long affect on them. As you know because you are wavering at the moment to get so many people never to waver in their testimony regardless of their inactivity or fallout with Joseph is quite interesting. We just can't write it off as you have said in your post.

Human nature would dictate that one or two would begin to doubt what they had seen and express it accordingly. But....not one did. What are the odds of this happening?

Edited December 6, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Which parts specifically?

Did you read my post? The head in the hat in quite faith promoting and I am sure that the lds church could put a nice spin on it. And why not? Stick your head in a hat and write a book and see what happens. Have no manucript in front of you. See if you can do it and report back to us. And make sure that you have someone watching you taking down your words. And of course, this book needs to be more than *see spot run* etc.

I don't find the hat trick threatening at all to the church. In fact, it is more faith promoting than two guys facing each other as the translation is occuring. And like I said, there are more than one account about how it was done and the lds church has said, over and over again, that it consisted of stones, urim and thummin, breastplate etc. Nothing was hidden when it comes to the tools in church accounts. And when one reads this, one knows that it was not an ordinary process.

[why me]

Could you explain the difference?

You haven't spoken to most members.

Come to think of it, a member did give talk about the stone in the hat. It was a recent convert. No one seemed to have cared about it. Some even had a smile on their face as the speaker was talking about his internet searches and about what he read. It seems that more know about the hat than you think. Like I said, stick your head in a hat and write a book. Tell us how it went.

[Jaybear]

Except that we are dealing with a group of people who witnessed something extraordinary.

...

I think we can agree that they claimed to witness something extraordinary.

I

Human nature would dictate that one or two would begin to doubt what they had seen and express it accordingly. But....not one did. What are the odds of this happening?

You mean like using more ambiguous terms to describe the event ... ie spiritual eyes.

[Scott Lloyd]

[Responding to this:]

Think of the logical implications of what you are saying. Do you really think it is possible to include every single thing about a gospel topic in one 40-minute class period? Hardly. It is necessary to be selective in what material is covered, but that doesn't amount to dishonesty.

You began this thread by saying,

I'm guessing there's a whole lot of detail to your having concluded the Church isn't true, detail you have chosen not share with us because, in your judgment, it is not necessary for us to know. You are being selective. Are we to conclude from that that you are being dishonest? i would say no, but it illustrates that everyone is selective and that selectivity does not necessarily equate to dishonesty.

Hardly the same, not even close. I put that part in there so that no one wondered where my thoughts were on the subject, I was trying to do the opposite of being misleading.

See my sig line, the part in red.