Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[MIkew]

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. 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. 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.

I think I can expect a full explanation from the church, I think investigators deserve a full explanation. If you think it is ok to leave stuff out because it will only make sense once you already believe, I think you are manipulative and dishonest. If something is true the spirit could testify of it, right, so why worry if something is off putting. Why not allow people to have a choice wether or not it matters to them?

[Sevenbak]

No sane mormon today would claim using a stone as a medium

I'm struggling to understand with why this is a problem? Aren't we supposed to be trying to become like God, to be with Him, aren't we promised a stone in the scriptures to help us be like him?

Revelations 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that ^aovercometh will I give to eat of the hidden ^bmanna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new ^ename written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

D&C 130:10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

Also, the ancient Joseph in Egypt divined though a shiny cup, and the Book of Mormon calls him one of the greatest seers.

There is opposition in all things... Priesthoods and powers. That doesn't mean all priesthoods and powers are bad, some are just counterfeit. Opposition in ALL things.

I hope that makes sense, from my perspective.

[MIkew]

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

Yes it was in one Ensign article. How many church materials(pictures/video/books/manuals) give the impression that he read direclty from the plates? Even that article included a picture that did not depict what he was saying.

[Stargazer]

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

No, it isn't. But if you want it to be dishonest to not include every niggling detail, then there you are.

If one of your children threw a rock and accidentally broke your window, would you consider it dishonest if he left out the part about the rock being granite? Yet, if he didn't mention that the rock was granite, he would have left part of the story out. I doubt you would consider it so, however, because even if the rock were granite, it would not be important to the story.

By the same token, Joseph translated the plates by the gift and power of God, using tools that God supplied. This is the heart of the matter. It doesn't matter if Joseph used the tools by excluding the light using his hat in order to see what the stone projected to him, or if he used another tool, the lens of the Urim-and-Thummim to see what was written thereon, or if he (in apparently more advanced mode, when he was possibly more familiar with the process) received the translation directly from God without reference to the plates as a physical object.

If you want honesty, don't see most war movies. They fail utterly to convey the horror and excitement of battle, and the movies that actually do manage to get close are invariably rated R because of the intensity of the violence portrayed. Yet the movie that portrays the violence in a less intense representation is not being dishonest. Do you really need to see men blown into fragments, limbs torn off and bleeding, trying to gather their own intestines back into their body cavities, a la Saving Private Ryan, or is the relatively tame battle portrayed in The Longest Day sufficient for the purpose? Spielberg is not being more honest than Zanuck. They are telling the same story, it really happened, and there is no deceit. Perhaps it was considered too intense in 1962 to portray battle as closely as Spielberg did in 1998. Or perhaps special effects technology permitted a more accurate depiction. I don't know.

I think you're looking beyond the mark, quite frankly.

[MIkew]

I'm struggling to understand with why this is a problem? Aren't we supposed to be trying to become like God, to be with Him, aren't we promised a stone in the scriptures to help us be like him? Revelations 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that ^aovercometh will I give to eat of the hidden ^bmanna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new ^ename written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. D&C 130:10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known; Also, the ancient Joseph in Egypt divined though a shiny cup, and the Book of Mormon calls him one of the greatest seers. There is opposition in all things... Priesthoods and powers. That doesn't mean all priesthoods and powers are bad, some are just counterfeit. Opposition in ALL things. I hope that makes sense, from my perspective.

If it isn't such a big deal why is not spoken about in church lessons or conference talks? Would you bring it up in church during a sacrament meeting talk, a YM or YW talk, a primary sharing time? I doubt it. I most certainly have never heard it referred to at church.

[MIkew]

No, it isn't. But if you want it to be dishonest to not include every niggling detail, then there you are. If one of your children threw a rock and accidentally broke your window, would you consider it dishonest if he left out the part about the rock being granite? Yet, if he didn't mention that the rock was granite, he would have left part of the story out. I doubt you would consider it so, however, because even if the rock were granite, it would not be important to the story. By the same token, Joseph translated the plates by the gift and power of God, using tools that God supplied. This is the heart of the matter. It doesn't matter if Joseph used the tools by excluding the light using his hat in order to see what the stone projected to him, or if he used another tool, the lens of the Urim-and-Thummim to see what was written thereon, or if he (in apparently more advanced mode, when he was possibly more familiar with the process) received the translation directly from God without reference to the plates as a physical object. If you want honesty, don't see most war movies. They fail utterly to convey the horror and excitement of battle, and the movies that actually do manage to get close are invariably rated R because of the intensity of the violence portrayed. Yet the movie that portrays the violence in a less intense representation is not being dishonest. Do you really need to see men blown into fragments, limbs torn off and bleeding, trying to gather their own intestines back into their body cavities, a la Saving Private Ryan, or is the relatively tame battle portrayed in The Longest Day sufficient for the purpose? Spielberg is not being more honest than Zanuck. They are telling the same story, it really happened, and there is no deceit. Perhaps it was considered too intense in 1962 to portray battle as closely as Spielberg did in 1998. Or perhaps special effects technology permitted a more accurate depiction. I don't know. I think you're looking beyond the mark, quite frankly.

I think it is dishonest because they leave the details out on purpose. Those details lead to the other things he did with the stone. Like using it as a medium to look for treasure. Which all mormons I know would think is wrong and akin to using a ouija board, crystal ball or magic 8 ball. I didn't think it was a big deal until I learned about the treasure seaking.

[Sevenbak]

Yes it was in one Ensign article. How many church materials(pictures/video/books/manuals) give the impression that he read direclty from the plates? Even that article included a picture that did not depict what he was saying.

The article gave several accounts, including Whitmers. There was no single method that he used, and various accounts telling different methods, so no, it's not deceptive.

As I understand it, most of the normal translation done with the "interpreters" included with the plates, were done on the first 116 pages that were lost by Martin Harris. After that, and his long break from it, Joseph had learned enough about the process that the stone/hat likely was just easier and more efficient.

[Stargazer]

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.

From time to time when we were raising our kids, my wife tried to get us to not watch TV on Sundays. I did not subscribe to this. I could see trying to avoid non-uplifting material on Sunday, but not a complete prohibition. I thought I eventually won, yet the kids got the wrong idea and later I found out that they thought it was a church teaching to not watch TV on Sunday. All of them eventually became inactive in the Church, and some part of their conception of their own unrighteousness was that they watched TV on Sunday, so they were not worthy members of the Church (even if they said they still believed in the Church). The Church didn't teach it, yet they got the wrong idea from some theory that an individual member managed to convince them of.

Why should an incomplete representation of a process or an event convince someone that the event did not happen? I suspect it might be because someone might not wish to believe any longer, and this provides an easy way out.

[Sevenbak]

If it isn't such a big deal why is not spoken about in church lessons or conference talks? Would you bring it up in church during a sacrament meeting talk, a YM or YW talk, a primary sharing time? I doubt it. I most certainly have never heard it referred to at church.

Seriously, how often are the mysteries in Revelations brought up in primary sharing time? The white stone given to the righteous in the next life is something we don't understand, it's only referenced a couple times in scripture.

Milk for the babes. Primary isn't the place. And frankly, I don't think that it is the place for those who dwell on it instead of the more important and down to earth aspects of the gospel. Everything in its time and season.

[Stargazer]

My patriachal blessing says different.

Your patriarchal blessing says that the Church is the source of all truth, like, for instance, the atomic number of Hydrogen is 1? Or that water is a compound of hydrogen and water? I think if your patriarchal blessing says what you say it says, that it is being picturesque. Because it is a fact that the Church is the only true and living Church on the face of the earth, and "all things" have been restored through it. But the source of all truth is God. Not the Church.

[MIkew]

The article gave several accounts, including Whitmers. There was no single method that he used, and various accounts telling different methods, so no, it's not deceptive.

As I understand it, most of the normal translation done with the "interpreters" included with the plates, were done on the first 116 pages that were lost by Martin Harris. After that, and his long break from it, Joseph had learned enough about the process that the stone/hat likely was just easier and more efficient.

So the BOM we have today was mostly done with his face in a hat? But you don't see that detail as being important? You don't see the church not wanting that to be part of the foundational story of the church?

[Sevenbak]

So it's the hat that is troubling you? Does it matter if it's a Urim and Thummim hid away for centuries by Moroni, a stone found in a well by Joseph, or a silver goblet used in ancient egypt... all done by prophets and seers

Do you turn off the lights in a theater so you can see the projection better? Joseph was focusing on the light, not dwelling in darkness. The hat was just a tool. He could have easily thrown a blanket over his head.

[Log]

So the BOM we have today was mostly done with his face in a hat? But you don't see that detail as being important?

Why should it be?

You don't see the church not wanting that to be part of the foundational story of the church?

No. Do you? Why?

[MIkew]

From time to time when we were raising our kids, my wife tried to get us to not watch TV on Sundays. I did not subscribe to this. I could see trying to avoid non-uplifting material on Sunday, but not a complete prohibition. I thought I eventually won, yet the kids got the wrong idea and later I found out that they thought it was a church teaching to not watch TV on Sunday. All of them eventually became inactive in the Church, and some part of their conception of their own unrighteousness was that they watched TV on Sunday, so they were not worthy members of the Church (even if they said they still believed in the Church). The Church didn't teach it, yet they got the wrong idea from some theory that an individual member managed to convince them of.

Why should an incomplete representation of a process or an event convince someone that the event did not happen? I suspect it might be because someone might not wish to believe any longer, and this provides an easy way out.

There is no easy way out of the church. It has been gut wrenching\heart breaking\depressing\sad\frustrating\embarassing\tiring, etc...

Why would someone not want to believe anymore? Being a believing Mormon is a good life. I had\have a good life. Can you not undestand that these type of things really bother people?

[Stargazer]

I may be crossing over with God and church as I have always seen them as the same thing. God is the source of all truth but we get access to God through the prophet. Other thoughts like God leads the church, etc.

Plus my patriarchal blessing says that in the church/gospel all truth can be found.

So are the convoluted thoughts going through my head.

First you say or imply that the Church is the source of all truth and now you say that in the Church all truth can be found. These statements or implications are not the same. Which is it?

[MIkew]

So it's the hat that is troubling you? Does it matter if it's a Urim and Thummim hid away for centuries by Moroni, a stone found in a well by Joseph, or a silver goblet used in ancient egypt... all done by prophets and seers

Do you turn off the lights in a theater so you can see the projection better? Joseph was focusing on the light, not dwelling in darkness. The hat was just a tool. He could have easily thrown a blanket over his head.

No not really, the stone in the hat didn't bother me until I learned all the baggage that goes along with it. Just like joseph being a treasure seaker didn't bother me until i learned about the stone he used to look for treasure\lost things. Plus everything else that goes along with treasure seeking(treasure guardians).

[MIkew]

Why should it be?

For a bunch of reasons. It is occult in nature. It isn't talked about openly at church. Everyone at church would be embarassed for you if you got up a F&T meeting and shared an amazing experience you had with a stone in a hat.

No. Do you? Why?

Yes, because it is weird and leads to other questions, which I have stated in other posts.

[MIkew]

First you say or imply that the Church is the source of all truth and now you say that in the Church all truth can be found. These statements or implications are not the same. Which is it?

All truth can be found at the source. How's that?

Edited December 3, 2011 by MIkew

[Sevenbak]

No not really, the stone in the hat didn't bother me until I learned all the baggage that goes along with it. Just like joseph being a treasure seaker didn't bother me until i learned about the stone he used to look for treasure\lost things. Plus everything else that goes along with treasure seeking(treasure guardians).

You know, Joseph in Egypt had brothers that hated him too because he had the gift of seership. He was a foolish boy who used his gift to cause turmoil in his family, to the point that they almost killed him, but sold him into slavery instead.

Joseph Smith was a poor boy, and did foolish things with his gift to help his family. Youth are foolish, it's human nature... yes, even if those humans have divine gifts from God. Sorry, I'm not empathizing with you, I just don't see what the big deal is.

[Sevenbak]

It is occult in nature.

Like I said, it's only occultic if it's the counterfeit way. Satan has powers too, but he's not originator, just the duplicator. The principle of opposition is a literal law.

Aaron had a dead almost branch that sprouted. Moses turn his stick into a snake. Christ put spittle and dirt in someone's eyes to change how they worked.

They are all just tools, nothing more. It's the power of God working through man.

A crystal ball verses a Urim and Thummim... they work through the same principle, just with different bosses.

[Log]

For a bunch of reasons. It is occult in nature.

It is? What is your proof for that - that at the time it occurred, it was in fact occult in nature, or that Joseph would have understood it in that way? To be frank, it sounds to me like you are quoting Evangelical anti-Mormon tripe.

It isn't talked about openly at church.

It isn't? I have talked about it openly at church.

Everyone at church would be embarassed for you if you got up a F&T meeting and shared an amazing experience you had with a stone in a hat.

That is nothing more than your personal bias.

Yes, because it is weird and leads to other questions, which I have stated in other posts.

That, too, is nothing more than your personal bias.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Log

[MIkew]

You know, Joseph in Egypt had brothers that hated him too because he had the gift of seership. He was a foolish boy who used his gift to cause turmoil in his family, to the point that they almost killed him, but sold him into slavery instead.

Joseph Smith was a poor boy, and did foolish things with his gift to help his family. Youth are foolish, it's human nature... yes, even if those humans have divine gifts from God. Sorry, I'm not empathizing with you, I just don't see what the big deal is.

As I understand it, part of the treasure seaking culture was that the treasure was guarded by a treasure guardian, the treasure could not be had unless you followed the treasure guardian's instructions. I see a parallel to Joseph(treasure seaker) the golden plates(the buried treasure) and Moroni(the treasure guardian). Throw in Joseph using a seerstone/peep stone it isn't a very mormon story.

God speaks to us in our hearts and minds, I was never taught by any teacher\leader\bishop\stake president\GA\Apostle\Prophet\scripture that revelation\inspiration came any other way. Has the prophet ever taught that you can get revelation through a medium? On the contray the handbook of instruction tells us to stay away from those things.

Once you wonder about the origin of the BOM you wonder about all of it. Once you take God out of Joseph's life and work it makes a bunch more sense. He was a master at taking things from his environment and using them together to put together the church.

Edited December 3, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

Like I said, it's only occultic if it's the counterfeit way. Satan has powers too, but he's not originator, just the duplicator. The principle of opposition is a literal law.

Aaron had a dead almost branch that sprouted. Moses turn his stick into a snake. Christ put spittle and dirt in someone's eyes to change how they worked.

They are all just tools, nothing more. It's the power of God working through man.

A crystal ball verses a Urim and Thummim... they work through the same principle, just with different bosses.

The only boss I see there are peoples imaginations.

[MIkew]

It is? What is your proof for that - that at the time it occurred, it was in fact occult in nature, or that Joseph would have understood it in that way? To be frank, it sounds to me like you are quoting Evangelical anti-Mormon tripe.

What is your proof that it isn't occult?

It isn't? I have talked about it openly at church.

but you were the only one right?

That is nothing more than your personal bias.

And this is yours. But I overstated it, I should have stated many members would be embarassed for you.

That, too, is nothing more than your personal bias.

More than just my bias it is my personal experience. Once you start thinking about the weird stuff it leads to more weird stuff.

[Sevenbak]

As I understand it, part of the treasure seaking culture was that the treasure was guarded by a treasure guardian, the treasure could not be had unless you followed the treasure guardian's instructions. I see a parallel to Joseph(treasure seaker) the golden plates(the buried treasure) and Moroni(the treasure guardian). Throw in Joseph using a seerstone/peep stone it isn't a very mormon story.

God speaks to us in our hearts and minds, I was never taught by any teacher\leader\bishop\stake president\GA\Apostle\Prophet\scripture that revelation\inspiration came any other way. Has the prophet ever taught that you can get revelation through a medium? On the contray the handbook of instruction tells us to stay away from those things.

Once you wonder about the origin of the BOM you wonder about all of it. Once you take God out of Joseph's life and work it makes a bunch more sense. He was a master at taking things from his environment and using them together to put together the church.

Are you a seer, did you see God and an angel telling you that you were chosen and had gifts to that end? Did you experience them in your youth and so knew that they were telling you the truth? If not, I highly recommend you listen to Church council and refrain from mediums.

There is no other way, so listen to the "teacher\leader\bishop\stake president\GA\Apostle\Prophet\scripture"... It's good council.