Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[MIkew]

MIke, where did Joseph lie? Where do any of the prophets lie? BY took many positions, which I argue with him about today and others have said he was wrong.

Is your issue that the Church does not describe every method of translating every time the process is discussed? Or is it something else? When I talk about the game score, I just state the score and may give the very best highlights, but not too much else. What is the real problem you have?

My problem is that the church stresses honesty, it is dishonest to leave parts of a story out. There are other weird things the church does or did that I think it dishonest this is just what is bugging me today

[Scott Lloyd]

I would have to spend some time looking up those quotes, but I believe the majority of eye witness accounts are the stone in the hat.

What do you think? How was the BOM translated? Excluding the power of god part. What happened in the room, where were the plates, where was joseph where was the scribe.

I think he did it through a variety of means. One means would be the Urim and Thummim, which were, in effect, seer stones in rims set into a breastplate. Another means would be through the seer stone placed in the hat. As he gained more experience with translation through the revelatory process, I think he was able eventually to do it without the aid of any physical instrument at all, but rather, with having the thoughts come into his mind. At no point do I exclude the possibility that Joseph physically examined the plates, either for the purpose of translation or simply to familiarize himself with the Nephite characters, as, for example when he copied them onto the manuscript pages that Martin Harris eventally lost.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My problem is that the church stresses honesty, it is dishonest to leave parts of a story out. There are other weird things the church does or did that I think it dishonest this is just what is bugging me today

Everyone is selective in what they choose to include in a narrative, and I disagree that such selectivity is necessarily dishonest.

[MIkew]

Not a single, not one, person was in the room every time. In fact, Joseph was the only person that knows every process he used to translate and he did not tell us. BTW, a parchment never appeared; just words in the stone according to a few accounts. Be careful that you are not using a few examples and then saying the entire process was like that. No one knows.

I was quoting elder neson's ensign article, "A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing."

You are right I should be careful, from my experience\reading\discussing there are more accounts of the stone in the hat.

[kolipoki09]

I would have to spend some time looking up those quotes, but I believe the majority of eye witness accounts are the stone in the hat.

What do you think? How was the BOM translated? Excluding the power of god part. What happened in the room, where were the plates, where was joseph where was the scribe.

What does my opinion matter when history is fairly clear on how it happened. I'm not disputing the stone in the hat by any means. I think there were times when the plates may have been in the room, and times when they weren't. But Joseph believed the stone conveyed the message on the plates. Does the use of the seer stone somehow exclude the power of God being manifest in the process?

[MIkew]

Mikew, I just scanned the article you linked here. I am curious about what it is in the article that led you to the conclusion that "likely none of the BOM we have today was translated in that manner." I don't get that from my reading of the article.

Also, I'm wondering what makes you think the seer stone was the only means of translation, which is what you seem to imply here. And why you think you can definitively conclude that there was never a time in the translation process when Joseph physically examined the plates. As Storm Rider indicated in a post above, the "eyewitness accounts" on which you are relying so heavily are at best snapshots of a process that took place over many months.

I get that from other reading not just that article. The dishonest part was the gospel art picture kit. I do think he looked at them, if he indeed have them, but I don't think he could ever read from them in any manner. None of the quotes in the fair wiki say that he could either. The quotes also tell of a weird translation process.

[MIkew]

What does my opinion matter when history is fairly clear on how it happened. I'm not disputing the stone in the hat by any means. I think there were times when the plates may have been in the room, and times when they weren't. But Joseph believed the stone conveyed the message on the plates. Does the use of the seer stone somehow exclude the power of God being manifest in the process?

Would it be ok if it were a ouji board or a crystal ball, the stone is no different to me. I have been taught to stay away from those types of things.

[MIkew]

Everyone is selective in what they choose to include in a narrative, and I disagree that such selectivity is necessarily dishonest.

Being selective with the facts is not honest. A quote from lds.org

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are a few of reasons:

1. no church leader today would ever admit to using a stone in a hat.
   

This is false. I am quite certain this was mentioned in a recent GC talk.

[altersteve]

Would it be ok if it were a ouji board or a crystal ball, the stone is no different to me. I have been taught to stay away from those types of things.

What about Moses using a staff to perform miracles, or Joseph using a divining cup? How are those examples (and many others) any different from Joseph Smith using seer stones? We are taught to stay away from Oujia boards and crystal balls because they involve practices that are not conductive to the Spirit. But if similar items are used by the power of God, not only with God's approval but also often by His commandment, then there is nothing "occult" about them.

[kolipoki09]

Would it be ok if it were a ouji board or a crystal ball, the stone is no different to me. I have been taught to stay away from those types of things.

Latter-day Saints have been taught that seer stones are evil? That's news to me.

So what, I pray tell, were the Urim and Thummim? How is using the stones fixed in a bow like spectacles and fastened on a breastplate (the most common explanation I've seen from fellow Latter-day Saints unfamiliar with the seer stone and the hat) different from using a chocolate covered stone that glowed forth words of fire?

[Saints Alive]

This is false. I am quite certain this was mentioned in a recent GC talk.

would you mind providing a link? I would be very interested in seeing that.

[kolipoki09]

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

By this logic, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were dishonest for leaving out portions of the history of the life of Christ.

Together they create a clearer picture.

If the Church was deliberately hiding the accounts of Joseph using a seer stone in a hat, you'd have a point. But they're not. The Ensign isn't meant to be an exhaustive treatment of Mormon history by any means. It's the equivalent of a second grader complaining to his/her math teacher that they're not learning algebra. The Church will teach you the basics and steer you in the right direction when it comes to identifying scholarship to further your understanding. Sunday School classes aren't intended to be exhaustive. I think honest thinkers owe it to themselves to study more and gain insights outside of church that can in turn, help their understanding within it.

[MIkew]

What about Moses using a staff to perform miracles, or Joseph using a divining cup? How are those examples (and many others) any different from Joseph Smith using seer stones? We are taught to stay away from Oujia boards and crystal balls because they involve practices that are not conductive to the Spirit. But if similar items are used by the power of God, not only with God's approval but also often by His commandment, then there is nothing "occult" about them.

I don't feel any better about moses staff or a divining cup, I think it is the same.

[MIkew]

Latter-day Saints have been taught that seer stones are evil? That's news to me.

So what, I pray tell, were the Urim and Thummim? How is using the stones fixed in a bow like spectacles and fastened on a breastplate (the most common explanation I've seen from fellow Latter-day Saints unfamiliar with the seer stone and the hat) different from using a chocolate covered stone that glowed forth words of fire?

If a teenager came up to you and said he was getting inspiraton when he put a rock in his basball cap you would think he is nuts and getting his inspiraton from the devil. No?

Edited December 2, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

By this logic, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were dishonest for leaving out portions of the history of the life of Christ.

Together they create a clearer picture.

If the Church was deliberately hiding the accounts of Joseph using a seer stone in a hat, you'd have a point. But they're not. The Ensign isn't meant to be an exhaustive treatment of Mormon history by any means. It's the equivalent of a second grader complaining to his/her math teacher that they're not learning algebra. The Church will teach you the basics and steer you in the right direction when it comes to identifying scholarship to further your understanding. Sunday School classes aren't intended to be exhaustive. I think honest thinkers owe it to themselves to study more and gain insights outside of church that can in turn, help their understanding within it.

I thought we were taught to stay away from stuff not produced by the church. Am I wrong about that?

[Brant Gardner]

I thought we were taught to stay away from stuff not produced by the church. Am I wrong about that?

Yes. I seem to remember President Hinckley quoting the Anchor Bible in conference. Seems a reasonable repudiation of the idea that we only consult LDS authors.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[Jaybear]

If the Church was deliberately hiding the accounts of Joseph using a seer stone in a hat, you'd have a point. But they're not. The Ensign isn't meant to be an exhaustive treatment of Mormon history by any means. It's the equivalent of a second grader complaining to his/her math teacher that they're not learning algebra. The Church will teach you the basics and steer you in the right direction when it comes to identifying scholarship to further your understanding. Sunday School classes aren't intended to be exhaustive. I think honest thinkers owe it to themselves to study more and gain insights outside of church that can in turn, help their understanding within it.

It seems fairly obvious to me that, generally, people will be more inclined to question Smith's claim to have translated the BOM, if the methodolgy presented is the rock/hat method, rather than studying out the words on the plate.

While personally, I think they are both equally implausible, the rock/hat method is more likely to spark critical inquiry in most people. Even if that is how it happened, It just doesn't ring true.

As I consider the LDS Church to be a well run, well organized, and sophisticated organization, I presume that the selection of this picture rather than one that depict the rock/hat was deliberate.

[Brant Gardner]

My problem is that the church stresses honesty, it is dishonest to leave parts of a story out.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of all historical writing. No one describes everything, and everyone tells the story that makes sense to them. You are looking at the end of a long process and complaining that it developed differently than you think it should have.

Your argument really has nothing to do with honesty, even it that is the way you couch it. I have gone through the history of the development of those particular ideas, and the reality has nothing to do with dishonesty. It is a rather predictable and natural result of the way peoples organize their communal histories. It is a process that can also be argued for the New Testament, and I don't find it dishonest their either.

[kolipoki09]

I thought we were taught to stay away from stuff not produced by the church. Am I wrong about that?

Yes much so. Any LDS Institute Manual has a plethora of references from scholars outside the Church. If you're teaching Sunday School, it's fine to stick with Church-produced materials (most of the time), but that doesn't mean you can't look to outside sources at all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

would you mind providing a link? I would be very interested in seeing that.

http://lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng&query=%22seer+stone%22

“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.

This appears in the ensign. Which makes it official.

http://lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&query=%22seer+stone%22

Here is one from Elder Russel M Nelson in 1993 Ensign. He is a church leader and it appears in official church publication.

So here are 2 examples and one is fairly recent. I only hope you do not rationalize this away and say "Well this was from 1993". That really does no matter as it is some what recent and it is from church leaders.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I thought we were taught to stay away from stuff not produced by the church. Am I wrong about that?

You thought wrong. I am aware of nothing coming from the church that tells us to "stay away from stuff not produced by the Church".

What is the 13th article of faith state?

[MIkew]

Yes. I seem to remember President Hinckley quoting the Anchor Bible in conference. Seems a reasonable repudiation of the idea that we only consult LDS authors.

I have always had the impression that we were to not use non church published materials for lessons, I may have over done that and included that for my own personal reading of church orienting books\websites. Seemed reasonable at the time.

[MIkew]

Unfortunately, that is the nature of all historical writing. No one describes everything, and everyone tells the story that makes sense to them. You are looking at the end of a long process and complaining that it developed differently than you think it should have.

Your argument really has nothing to do with honesty, even it that is the way you couch it. I have gone through the history of the development of those particular ideas, and the reality has nothing to do with dishonesty. It is a rather predictable and natural result of the way peoples organize their communal histories. It is a process that can also be argued for the New Testament, and I don't find it dishonest their either.

I don't think this is a historical writing issue, I could be wrong. It is that the church claims to be the source of all truth, so it should be in all things, without question, especially so when it comes to it's own foundational story.

[MIkew]

Yes much so. Any LDS Institute Manual has a plethora of references from scholars outside the Church. If you're teaching Sunday School, it's fine to stick with Church-produced materials (most of the time), but that doesn't mean you can't look to outside sources at all.

That is right, it is fine for the manual, it is produced by the church so the info is supposed to correct. As a member I am supposed to be able to trust the manuals as they are produced by the church.