Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[TAO]

Is that because you don't really trust someone elses inspiration? It doesn't fit with what you believe?

Just like no one here would actually trust a revelation that came from a rock today.

You don't base whether something is revelation or not based on whether or not it came from a rock.

You base it off whether the spirit tells you it is correct or incorrect. And you defy the tempting feelings that come along =P.

You may also know by personal witnesses you have already received from the spirit if the new 'thing' contradicts, some of the time, as well. Just make sure it is the Holy Spirit that guides you.

Edited December 3, 2011 by TAO

[MIkew]

http://lds.org/ensig...22seer+stone%22

This appears in the ensign. Which makes it official.

http://lds.org/ensig...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.

I didn't see this post, sorry. I meant a current leader using a stone in a hat, not a leader talking about Joseph using a stone in a hat.

[TAO]

I didn't see this post, sorry. I meant a current leader using a stone in a hat, not a leader talking about Joseph using a stone in a hat.

Mikew, not all revelation is revealed in the same way. Just because the current leaders do not use a stone in a hat according to my knowledge doesn't mean that one is revelatory and the other is not. It is my believe that they are both revelatory.

Edited December 3, 2011 by TAO

[kolipoki09]

I didn't see this post, sorry. I meant a current leader using a stone in a hat, not a leader talking about Joseph using a stone in a hat.

Who is to say they don't? One was used (or at least present) when the Manti Temple was dedicated. What's stopping them now?

Before leaving I consecrated upon the Altar the sears stone that Joseph Smith found by Revelation some 30 feet under the earth carried by him through life. - Wilford Woodruff Diaries vol. 8 pg. 499 (17, 18 May 1888). Thomas Alexander notes in Things in Heaven and Earth that he had previously consecrated it at home. Ibid, vol. 8 pg. 489 (18 Mar. 1888).

[MIkew]

Mike... there are some things you need to consider.

Number 1: Remember, the church's job is to preach repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Not history. Not criticisms. But repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is the history of the church. And there are criticisms of the church. But to the church, those are not essential. The church's job is to lead people to Christ, through repentance and faith. That is why it is here upon the Earth. When we try giving people the meat before they have had milk, they choke, and possibly die. This is why it is important for things to be taught in the Lord's due time. In many ways, I am grateful to the church for not going into to much detail about history. Not only would it distract the spirit, but also, many are not ready to deal with all the criticisms that come from many sides. I finally came to the point where I was able to confront the criticisms, and beat them. Those who are not able to, it is best to not have them confront. Instead, the focus should be on building the spirit and faith inside them, so when the trial of their faith comes, they are ready. That is the job of the church... and they do it quite well... repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am happy with it =).

Number 2: Moroni says "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5). This is how, through the church, you may come to know the truth of all things. It is not that the church teaches the truth of all things (there are so many truths that would be exhausting). What the church does teach though is to trust the spirit, which does teach the truth of all things. In this way, by following the guidance of the church, you may receive the truth God wishes for you to receive at this moment in time. Learning, doesn't stop on Earth. Learning continues in the afterlife, and we will have many things to learn after we are dead before we are even ready for the things the Lord would like us to do. Our job doesn't stop here. And some truth is hidden, with good riddance, and it will be revealed when the Lord wills it, if he wills it, in due time. Be patient, and trust the church. The church is not perfect. But the church does do the best job it can. The leaders of the church are by far the most impressive living spiritual leaders today, and they do a great job, imho. They truly do help us to become like Christ.

Number 3: You need to try and exert some more faith. You seem to have already given up, part of the way, in any case. Why do so? Don't you remember the time when the spirit whispered to you the right thing to do? Grab a hold of that, and speak to him again. The spirit will tell you the truth of all things. But what the spirit will also do is help you build a foundation of faith. Who cares about the doubters, because I know what I have experienced. That is what you must become, that is what you must remember. You must remember the things, the feelings, the attitudes, the experiences, that led you to faith in Christ and hold to it. Hold to it like you are holding onto the Iron Rod. Because it will lead you to Christ... those fond feelings will blossom into faith, if you just let them, and shelter them from the criticism that is inundating your mind. Kick out the criticism; don't think on it anymore; remember your old faith, and things will become right. Hehe, there's a really good line from "Kite Runner" that fits here... it is "There is a way to be good again." Because truly there is. If you choose it, despite your odds. Because if you choose it, the way is open, and clear, and obvious... you just can't back down.

Meh, I don't know if all of this applies to you, but dude, seriously, don't give heed to the criticisms, without remembering your faith first. And give your faith first choice, because that is the prudent thing to do. Good Luck.

Best of Wishes,

TAO

Speaking to point number 1, what are the purposes of a church court? Save the soul of the trangressor, protect the innocent and safeguard the integrity of the church. I think the church takes these 3 topics very seriously and I believe it is part of their mission of the church. I don't know why it doesn't apply to people like me who have lost their faith, shouldn't they be protecting me? Shouldn't they go after the 1? I do very much think it is the church's responsibility to respond to these types of criticisms. They are letting people like me go as I think they feel it is easier to lose a few people over this than lose a lot more by being totally open and transparent about all things.

speaking to point number 2, I think people can make themselves believe all kinds of things.

Speaking to point number 3, I have been trying for a years to make sense of these kinds of things and I can't.

[MIkew]

It's because history is very hazy, and the church is not easily dismissed away as untrue. Because it becomes a part of you. And there is a ton of opinions out there that like to crush down. You've got to forget them for a moment, if you want to believe the church is true, so you can gather your strength, and fight them.

Or at least, so you can choose, if you would like. It is your choice alone. That it is, my friend, your choice, and yours alone. So is the way of life. And yet, would we have it be any different? I wouldn't... I guess it may be hard, but, I like it. =P.

TAO is a very weird person XD.

Or maybe I am brainwashed.

[MIkew]

You don't base whether something is revelation or not based on whether or not it came from a rock.

You base it off whether the spirit tells you it is correct or incorrect. And you defy the tempting feelings that come along =P.

You may also know by personal witnesses you have already received from the spirit if the new 'thing' contradicts, some of the time, as well. Just make sure it is the Holy Spirit that guides you.

At some point if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well it's a duck.

[MIkew]

Mikew, not all revelation is revealed in the same way. Just because the current leaders do not use a stone in a hat according to my knowledge doesn't mean that one is revelatory and the other is not. It is my believe that they are both revelatory.

I think it is not received in the same way because revelation is different to everyone as they are most likely making it up, subconsciously maybe.

[MIkew]

Who is to say they don't? One was used (or at least present) when the Manti Temple was dedicated. What's stopping them now?

What is stopping them now? Well, I guess becuase most people would think it is crazy, and the church cares what people think.

[kolipoki09]

What is stopping them now? Well, I guess becuase most people would think it is crazy, and the church cares what people think.

But maybe they are, and it's just not very well known. I'm completely open to the idea that seer stones are used to divine the will of God. How did you think Joseph translated the plates? Did you think he simply read directly from them without the use of a seer stone or the Urim and Thummim?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can see your misunderstanding. The part you bolded isn't describing what happened 180 years ago, it's describing what is happening in the picture on the other side of the card.

That would be really confusing (and a really bad job of captioning) if they described something different.

Bingo.

Incidentally, Brant Gardner's new book talks about this very issue, and discusses why the stone-in-hat method was relatively underemphasized very early on.

Joseph himself doesn't openly describe it:

http://www.lifeongol...of-book-of.html

Here's an extended discussion:

http://www.lifeongol...hod-in-art.html

And the intro to a paper I wrote about it, but never posted the rest of since it didn't generate any interest:

http://www.lifeongol...church-art.html

I don't see it as an issue of lying at all, I see it an instance of certain iterations of the translation being passed on in the oral and written culture largely because the stone in hat method is odd to us. The Church art was probably done by someone who wasn't even aware of the SIH method, and the quote you reference is a caption. I look forward to the time when the SIH method is more widely known. It's gotten plenty of attention in the Joseph Smith papers project, and other venues where members can read about it.

Edited December 3, 2011 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

If you are genuinely interested in these questions, the best one-stop-shop is Gardner's new book.

I reviewed it here:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/09/14/review-gardner-the-gift-and-the-power-translating-the-book-of-mormon/

Again, if you're seriously interested you'll pick it up. You can get it on Kindle for about 20 bucks.

[Nathair/|\]

Please tell me more.

I understand:

1. that he used the same rock as a medium for looking for treasure that he did to translate the bom
   
2. that burried treasure also had treasure guardians(moroni)
   
3. that if you didn't do what the treasure guardian said you could not get the treasure(lots of instructions from moroni to get the treasure)
   
4. No sane mormon today would claim using a stone as a medium
   

I don't see why 1-3 are a problem. I don't believe 4 is true, though I think it's rare. I know good, faithful and respectable Saints who are involved in folk magic.

[Calm]

It is interesting how different people can see the same story. It never occurred to me either when I was taught or was teaching of the surgery incident that JS was a teetotaler based on his refusal of alcohol for the surgery. After all, the Word of Wisdom included the limitation of wine, etc . as something new and that came much later in his life. I just read the story as either Joseph believing that children shouldn't partake or even more likely that he didn't want the loss of control that drunkenness would cause....which would have to be the level of intoxication required for painkilling. It was a big thing for him for his mother not to see him in pain, he asked her to leave the room, etc. I always saw it as him wanting to live a certain standard out of respect for his mother, but not a complete rejection of alcohol in all cases because, again, why would that part of the WoW be needed if it was already how he understood it?

This made even more sense to me when I learned more of the family history.

[altersteve]

Please tell me more.

I understand:

1. that he used the same rock as a medium for looking for treasure that he did to translate the bom
   
2. that burried treasure also had treasure guardians(moroni)
   
3. that if you didn't do what the treasure guardian said you could not get the treasure(lots of instructions from moroni to get the treasure)
   
4. No sane mormon today would claim using a stone as a medium
   

The Book of Mormon translation was done by the gift and power of God. They were not the same method at all. Furthermore, the stone in the hat was not the only way he translated. We have several reports from eyewitnesses, and they don't all agree with each other. Here is a chronology of statements made from eyewitnesses about the translation process that I think would be beneficial for you to study:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method

The following articles are also useful:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Location_of_the_plates

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Censorship_and_revision/Hiding_the_facts

[cdowis]

I would agree with you. We have Sons of Helaman on steroids and Christ visiting the Nephites within days if not hours of the destruction at the time of his crucifixion. We have a blond Eve and a host of other problems. Of course, it is just art and not doctrine but it does lead the uninformed to misconceptions.

If you read the BOM text carefully, it makes it clear that the destruction occurred at the beginning of the year and the visit of Christ was at the end of the year, almost one year apart.

[MIkew]

But maybe they are, and it's just not very well known. I'm completely open to the idea that seer stones are used to divine the will of God. How did you think Joseph translated the plates? Did you think he simply read directly from them without the use of a seer stone or the Urim and Thummim?

In my believing mind, he started out with the urmin and thummim, and then through using that and the spirit he learned to read it, thus the pictures/videos that the church produced.

[MIkew]

Bingo.

Incidentally, Brant Gardner's new book talks about this very issue, and discusses why the stone-in-hat method was relatively underemphasized very early on.

Joseph himself doesn't openly describe it:

http://www.lifeongol...of-book-of.html

Here's an extended discussion:

http://www.lifeongol...hod-in-art.html

And the intro to a paper I wrote about it, but never posted the rest of since it didn't generate any interest:

http://www.lifeongol...church-art.html

I don't see it as an issue of lying at all, I see it an instance of certain iterations of the translation being passed on in the oral and written culture largely because the stone in hat method is odd to us. The Church art was probably done by someone who wasn't even aware of the SIH method, and the quote you reference is a caption. I look forward to the time when the SIH method is more widely known. It's gotten plenty of attention in the Joseph Smith papers project, and other venues where members can read about it.

I appreciate your responce, thanks.

[cdowis]

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.

The "words appearing on the stone" or scroll was not witnessed by anybod. As you say, only JS knew and he was not talking.

[cdowis]

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

I guess Talmadge did not get the memo. He refers other authors in "Jesus the Christ".

[Stargazer]

So you are saying I am wrong to think it is dishonest?

Yes. At worst, it is incomplete. Joseph Smith translated the plates by divine gift. This is a truth. It is not a complete explanation. It is, therefore, incomplete. Why every single sniggling detail wasn't explained exhaustively might have various reasons. No doubt some felt that the full "head in hat" explanation would be off-putting.

I remember when my father explained the birds and the bees to me. It was a very sketchy, and left a lot of details out. Much later I learned many more details, and it all became quite delightful, but in my view if my father had attempted to get into those details at that age / maturity level, well, I think it would have been entirely too off-putting. It would have struck me as incredibly bizarre and may even have caused me harm in some fashion. My father was not being dishonest. He was merely being incomplete.

Possibly those who did not put the full details of the translation process into the course of study at church were being as careful about being incomplete as my father was in a very delicate matter. Much later, when the translation process including face-in-hat, and the seer stone became known to me, I found it merely enlightening and interesting. But that might have been because by then I had received a sufficiently strong testimony of the book that it didn't really matter to me.

If the missionaries teach an investigator about the Book of Mormon, and the investigator prays about it and receives a testimony of the book's truthfulness, does it matter, truly, if they left out the part of the hat and the seer stone? It is the testimony that matters.

Crappy art? I really like most LDS art, always have always will.

I agree that the Church's art is beautiful. I think that the art that conveys (again) the incompleteness is doing so for a purpose. Was Eve a blond? Who knows? Yet that is how she is portrayed in at least one painting that the Church distributes (interestingly, in one of the endowment films she is portrayed by a dark-haired actress). Did Nephi and Laman, and Moroni and Mormon really have those body-builder muscles, like Freiberg (sp?) portrays? I'd say most certainly not. But there are reasons why artistic portrayals do not hew to literal truths. If you survey the field of art, especially art that was executed before the advent of the photograph, you will find that the greatest paintings portray not literal scenes but idealistic representations, and very frequently convey hidden or not-so-hidden messages. Paintings portraying important historical events conflate events and people into juxtapositions that did not occur together or even in the same geographic settings. But they are portrayed that way in order to capture the essentials about the event that is being portrayed.

Art very often sacrifices literal truth in favor of symbology. Although I am certain nobody, not even artists, believe Jesus was a black man, nevertheless some artists have portrayed him as if he were. A good non-LDS Christian friend of mine who happens to be African-American, is perfectly aware that Jesus was a Jew, and was Middle Eastern in appearance, yet on his wall is a painting of Jesus with typical African features. Why? To be dishonest? No, the whole point is to make a statement and perhaps incidentally make it easier for a black man to relate with love towards the Savior. Most Western representations of Jesus do not portray him as a Middle Easterner, but as a Northern European. To a man who might have experienced very little but prejudice and mistreatment from "honkies" it might feel more comfortable with Jesus on his wall portrayed as a "brother" -- which He most certainly is! To us all.

The part of me who no longer trusts the church thinks the art was there to distract from the real story. A picture is worth a thousand words. The Ensign still included a classic picture of joseph and oliver sitting at a table while he read from the plates.

Ever hear of artistic license?

Besides, way back when some artists depicted events in the Bible, or in antiquity, with the human characters dressed in clothing contemporary to the artist, not the period (and while sometimes those artists weren't aware, possibly, that they dressed differently back then, some of the knew differently, and still portrayed them in anachronistic clothing). This was not necessarily dishonesty, but something else entirely. And it did not mean that the events depicted did not happen. There was a message to be expressed. It was expressed.

[Sevenbak]

Hi all, before I post my question I will let you know that I haven't been to church in while and I am pretty certain it isn't "true" but I think about it all the time so I am obviously not done with it. If that makes sense.

One of the issues that bothers me is how the church teaches the BOM translation. I grew up believing that the scribe sat on one side of the table and Joseph sat on the other side of the table with a sheet between them so that the scribe could not see the plates.

I have come to understand that likely none of the BOM we have today was translated in that manner but actually received through a medium(the rock) with his face in a hat. (http://lds.org/ensig...tament?lang=eng). There are many eye witness accounts to this face in the hat process.

Here is the quote from the gospel art picture kit found on lds.org.

"When the Prophet Joseph Smith received the gold plates from the angel Moroni, he studied the strange language written on them. With Heavenly Father's help, Joseph translated the writing on the gold plates into words he could understand. Oliver Cowdery helped Joseph by being his scribe. As Joseph read out loud from the plates, Oliver wrote down the words. When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It is called the Book of Mormon." (http://lds.org/hf/ar...1-4-128,00.html)

In my current state of thought I feel that teaching it this way is dishonest. For the record the dishonest part is in bold above, but to summarize, making it seem like he could read the characters and then express them in english.

Am I wrong, if so how am i wrong?

Thanks.

Mikew, I don't think the Church is trying to hide anything. It's making it understandable to the masses, as much as we do understand the process, which is precious little, but it's not being deceitful.

Elder Nelson included the Whitmer account in his Ensign article that was published to the Church way back in '93. (among other accounts) Here's a snip:

"The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“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.”

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

[MIkew]

I don't see why 1-3 are a problem. I don't believe 4 is true, though I think it's rare. I know good, faithful and respectable Saints who are involved in folk magic.

I don't believe folk magic is compatible with mormon doctrine.

[MIkew]

It is interesting how different people can see the same story. It never occurred to me either when I was taught or was teaching of the surgery incident that JS was a teetotaler based on his refusal of alcohol for the surgery. After all, the Word of Wisdom included the limitation of wine, etc . as something new and that came much later in his life. I just read the story as either Joseph believing that children shouldn't partake or even more likely that he didn't want the loss of control that drunkenness would cause....which would have to be the level of intoxication required for painkilling. It was a big thing for him for his mother not to see him in pain, he asked her to leave the room, etc. I always saw it as him wanting to live a certain standard out of respect for his mother, but not a complete rejection of alcohol in all cases because, again, why would that part of the WoW be needed if it was already how he understood it? This made even more sense to me when I learned more of the family history.

Interesting, I don't think I ever heard your take before.

[MIkew]

I guess Talmadge did not get the memo. He refers other authors in "Jesus the Christ".

But he was an apostle when he wrote that.