Stone Box

[ERayR]

It doesn’t give them the right to distort the truth of history and misrepresent what others actually believe with what is in the Bible. Also not dependent upon Joseph Smith to know the truth as it was already established to be the truth before Joseph Smith and others which make the same type claims as to restoring lost truth.

The church goes out of its way to provide historical artifacts to back up their story where it can. It goes against the claims when the stone box cannot be put forth as an evidence for the story in light of the testimony of others which are a critical part of the telling of that story.

The claimed translation of the BofM was not the norm (reading letters of light is not translating) in the usual understanding of the term. One would normally understand that one translates from a known language (or tongue) into another (the Biblical New Testament of Koine Greek into English such as the KJV for example):

The distortion of truth claim is in your head. In some cases it is because of your choice of whose narrative you choose to believe. In some cases it is your own interpretation of parts of the Bible and in some cases it just seems to come out of thin air or your wild imagination.

The Church does provide artifacts when available but artifacts of any kind prove only that somebody produced them. To reiterate the lack of artifacts prove nothing.

Just because the Book of Mormon translation was not the norm does not mean it didn't happen. It only means it was different than you would expect. I know it is aggravating that God didn't ask you how he was supposed to do it.

[Stone holm]

It doesn’t give them the right to distort the truth of history and misrepresent what others actually believe with what is in the Bible. Also not dependent upon Joseph Smith to know the truth as it was already established to be the truth before Joseph Smith and others which make the same type claims as to restoring lost truth:

The church goes out of its way to provide historical artifacts to back up their story where it can. It goes against the claims when the stone box cannot be put forth as an evidence for the story in light of the testimony of others which are a critical part of the telling of that story.

The claimed translation of the BofM was not the norm (reading letters of light is not translating) in the usual understanding of the term. One would normally understand that one translates from a known language (or tongue) into another (the Biblical New Testament of Koine Greek into English such as the KJV for example):

Testimonies are not based on artifacts. And certainly not one of such small relevance as a stone box.

[coolrok7]

I've listened to the missionaries sent by their “prophet” (and their denials of things they teach that are prejudiced concerning/against others) over the years since being invited to take the discussions after having been invited to in 1979. I’ve seen how the story is presented, the stone box being just an element of the story.

Translating by reading letters of light already put in a form to be read by Joseph is not him translating which doesn’t fit what most would understand by using the term (the words being written down are coming from his mouth):

Critics of the church enjoy making fun of the image of Joseph Smith translating while staring at stones in a hat. Yet they also like to point out all the sources Joseph could have used to write the BOM. All though it is a funny image, doesn't tranlating while staring into a hat kind of prove he did it by revelaton? Its hard to believe that Joseph dictated everything out of his head while scribes wrote. The accounts from the scribes of Joseph are contrary to the view of Joseph surrounded by a collection of source material. Does anyone think its possible that anyone could simply dictate a book like the BOM out of thin air? (a statement made by someone named Michael in a past thread)

The church presents its story to investigators with the normal understanding of translating not as part of the way the story is told in picture form (Joseph sitting at the table with pen in hand and the plates in front of him instead of Joseph with his face in a hat is to me very disingenuous).

The statement made concerning the translation of the BofM by James Talmage (with no mentioning of his face in a hat as it is a critical part of the various testimonies), in my perspective of this issue, I’m not “making fun” but pointing out the inconsistencies in the presentation of the “translation” story to investigators which goes to its credibility as part of the story.

Joseph was already telling the BofM story (not a part of “fanciful theories” before it was “translated”. His mother says:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent hid whole life among them. (HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH BY HIS MOTHER, LUCY SMITH, p.88)

[MormonMason]

...

The church goes out of its way to provide historical artifacts to back up their story where it can. It goes against the claims when the stone box cannot be put forth as an evidence for the story in light of the testimony of others which are a critical part of the telling of that story.

You mean like the missing Decalogue tablets, the pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Ark of the Covenant, and the very cross of Christ, cannot be put forth as evidence of the truthfulness of the Bible? In the case of the stone box, there are witnesses, at least one of who remained an enemy to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout life while still testifying of having seen the box.

The claimed translation of the BofM was not the norm (reading letters of light is not translating) in the usual understanding of the term....

You mean like interpreting the meaning of writing on a wall written by a floating finger isn't the usual understanding of the term?

[MormonMason]

...

Translating by reading letters of light already put in a form to be read by Joseph is not him translating which doesn’t fit what most would understand by using the term (the words being written down are coming from his mouth):

Again, you mean like interpreting the meaning of a sentence written on a wall by a floating hand "doesn't fit what most would understand by using the term"?

The church presents its story to investigators with the normal understanding of translating not as part of the way the story is told in picture form (Joseph sitting at the table with pen in hand and the plates in front of him instead of Joseph with his face in a hat is to me very disingenuous).

Actually, you are quite mistaken. At first, it actually did happen this way before Martin Harris became Joseph's scribe. He copied a considerable number of characters directly from the plates and translated some. (See Joseph Smith--History 1:62). This document was later taken to Anthon by Harris (JS--H 1:63-65) and confirmed for Harris that Joseph Smith was telling it straight. Had it gone down like Anthon later told the story I highly doubt that Harris would have mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing.

The statement made concerning the translation of the BofM by James Talmage (with no mentioning of his face in a hat as it is a critical part of the various testimonies), in my perspective of this issue, I’m not “making fun” but pointing out the inconsistencies in the presentation of the “translation” story to investigators which goes to its credibility as part of the story.

Please be specific. A quote would be nice.

I see you added the Talmadge quote while I was writing this. Neither Harris nor Whitmer actually participated in the translation process so what they say regarding the sentences of light is speculation. But, it is speculation based upon something else that happened. It is important to recall that the word parchment was used in connection with this. In point of fact, there was a time when Joseph saw parchment and translated characters thereon. It was the text of what would later become Section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants. So, Harris and Whitmer seemingly automatically assumed that was how it worked with the Book of Mormon. But, it was assumption and speculation, so there is no deception on the part of Talmadge, contra your claims.

Joseph was already telling the BofM story (not a part of “fanciful theories” before it was “translated”. His mother says:

No, you are misreading this anecdote a bit. He was repeating for his family what the Lord had told him during the time before he was allowed to take the plates. You have misquoted by leaving out crucial context--like the Tanners do a lot!

Here, have some context:

Sitting up late that evening, in order to converse upon these things, together with over-exertion of mind, had much fatigued Joseph; and when Alvin observed it, he said, "Now, brother, let us go to bed, and rise early in the morning, in order to finish our day's work at an hour before sunset, then, if mother will get our suppers early, we will have a fine long evening, and we will all sit down for the purpose of listening to you while you tell us the great things which God has revealed to you.

Accordingly, by sunset the next day, we were all seated, and Joseph commenced telling us the great and glorious things which God had manifested to him; but, before proceeding, he charged us not to mention out of the family that which he was about to say to us, as the world was so wicked that when they came to a knowledge of these things they would try to take our lives; and that when we should obtain the plates, our names would be cast out as evil by all people. Hence the necessity of suppressing these things as much as possible, until the time should come for them to go forth to the world.

After giving us this charge, he proceeded to relate further particulars concerning the work which he was appointed to do, and we received them joyfully, never mentioning them except among ourselves, agreeable to the instructions which we had received from him.

From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.

We were now confirmed in the opinion that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds, or that would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family. This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our house, and tranquility reigned in our midst.

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, p.81-82; as cited from LDS Library 2006; bold emphasis mine)

So, from the context, Joseph was receiving from the Lord (and likely from Moroni as well once a year) lessons in the culture of the peoples of the Book of Mormon. So what?

Edited May 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[inquiringmind]

...

On the other hand, there were other witnesses of the existence of the stone box besides Joseph Smith, and one of them was opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all of his remaining life.

Who was he?

[MormonMason]

Who was he?

David Whitmer.

[inquiringmind]

David Whitmer.

Thank you.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

Don't sweat the "pompous" thing. You can't hold a candle to someone who used to post here, but I haven't (and hope not to) seen him lately.

Now there was "pompous" and "arrogance" honed to perfection. You seem to be a very sincere and well intentioned person by comparison.

Why thank you! I do try, and sometimes I even succeed.

I don't know who you mean, and perhaps that is good.

Sorry about responding so late, but I was on vacation all last week and couldn't get to a computer (to my wife's great relief).

[MormonMason]

I hate having to be forced to use an electronic version of books I want to cite. LDS Library 2006 is rife with textual and pagination errors. I wish I had found the following before quoting from the electronic resource. To see the full text and context with accurate pagination, click here.

[Stargazer]

A members standing is not my call to make. However, I have trouble understanding how one could base life's decisions on something they considered a fairy tale.

Oh, I don't know. As you are probably aware, I have a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon, but....

Just as someone might consider Kahlil Gibran's work, The Prophet, to be inspirational and worthy of being used as a personal guide, despite knowing that it is a fictional work, or the same for Rabindrinath Tagore's many literary works, why cannot someone hold the Book of Mormon in similar regard? As a believer, I can certainly testify that even taken as a pious fiction, it contains much that is worthy of our consideration.

[canard78]

Interpretation is the bottom line of it all. The individual is responsible for their choices of course.

It goes to the credibility of the story. You as an individual have the right to believe as you see fit of course but when the church sends it’s missionaries out to proselytize the story than it does go to the credibility based on what it presents to those outside its proclaimed faith as the truth of God:

(You quoted):

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH.

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

It's ok, it's ok...

In the same book he also says that New York is the setting for the Book of Mormon and every apologist will say that he was clearly wrong on that count and only expressing a personal opinion. As such, the entire paragraph you just cited (in fact pretty much any statement not canonised) can be dismissed if needed as 'personal opinion' 'fallible prophets' or 'speaking as a man at the time, not a prophet.'

As such... I only have to pay tithing on my surplus, can drink mild barley drinks (beer) etc if I want to. I just choose not to

FWIW, I am constrained by neither definition in President Smith's statement and fall somewhere in the middle.

[Stargazer]

Calmoriah, you're right, some people need that reward but I'm not one to give rewards much and I don't need them either. MM, I'll have to try that out using the scriptures. Thanks you two.

I need to pinpoint what exactly I don't like about it. Last week my neighbor was helping her husband landscape their backyard. Apparently a boulder rolled on her foot and she sprained it. She had to wear a large boot and struggled to walk, even had to crawl up her stairs. When I heard what had happened I called to tell her I wanted to take dinner over. She said I didn't need to but maybe if I need the blessings then I should do it. Well I told her I don't care about the blessings, just wanted to help out. Is this a mormon thing? I always hear this said on different occasions. This is basically all I was meaning, I want to do something because it's the nice thing to do, not to get anything out of it.

There are people who refuse to let others help. These people are well-meaning (they like their independence, perhaps), but they deprive others of opportunities to be of service, which is a blessing to both the giver and the receiver.

Jesus did not go through Gethsemane and the Cross in order to get blessings. He was already the Son of God. He did what he did specifically to give US blessings. We reject his offer of grace at our eternal peril, do we not? I was once startled to read someone's comment on this board that he/she could not bring him/herself to accept Jesus's suffering on his/her behalf, because he/she didn't want someone suffering for them. What Jesus was trying to teach us (among other things), is that He expects us to be of service to our brothers and sisters -- following His example, you see? And denying others the chance to serve by refusing the service is UNChristlike. Your neighbor should awake to this, but it is probably NOT your call to awake her. Self-realization is best, especially in a matter like this. IMHO.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is most important to realize that both the giver and receiver rejoice in the service!

Too many people regard "quid pro quo" as somehow evil or suspect. And perhaps sometimes it is. But when I am of service, I find I CANNOT avoid feeling better because of it.

[MormonMason]

It goes to the credibility of the story. You as an individual have the right to believe as you see fit of course but when the church sends it’s missionaries out to proselytize the story than it does go to the credibility based on what it presents to those outside its proclaimed faith as the truth of God:

Quote

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH.

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

You are aware that by "accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures" Joseph Fielding Smith means the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price together, aren't you?

You are aware that in the same volumes are direct statements that if he said anything that did not line up with the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) we are under no obligation to accept it, aren't you?

Edited May 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[Calm]

The church goes out of its way to provide historical artifacts to back up their story where it can. It goes against the claims when the stone box cannot be put forth as an evidence for the story in light of the testimony of others which are a critical part of the telling of that story.

What would you suggest they do? Considering the difficulty of carting around a cemented stone box after it was removed from the ground...it would probably fall to pieces eventually...just as it did when left in the ground and how JS had other things on his mind and was not apparently directed to save the box by the Lord, why do you think he would have taken the effort? The commandment to preserve our history came much later and by that time if David Whitmer is accurate the box had been washed down the hill and at best was a pile of stones. Do you expect historians to go to a pile of stones and guess whether or not they were once part of the stone box? If they represented some as such, I can just see the criticism for doing so because of the impossibility to find the specific stones without revelation...and somehow I doubt that God cares that much about having the stone box around as evidence instead of relying on the text itself.

Rather than just complaining that we lack it, please explain why and how the early members should have gone about the process of obtaining, caring and transporting it and please demonstrate that the quality of their work in this matter would have been better than their attempts to preserve the manuscripts and the papyri.

[MormonMason]

Several witnesses saw the box as late as 1870, and the hole afterward left behind when the box washed down the hill. The stone box, therefore, existed whether or not we ever can find all the individual stones again. Case closed.

[Stone holm]

Several witnesses saw the box as late as 1870, and the hole afterward left behind when the box washed down the hill. The stone box, therefore, existed whether or not we ever can find all the individual stones again. Case closed.

If the stones were merely stones flat on one side and set in cement, the cement was already probably weakened and would have begun to decay rapidly one exposed to the elements. After that they would have just looked like rocks. I think what leads us astray here is the assumption that I made that they were worked stones, at least the sides and bottom as I believe is suggested by some of the modern paintings we have. Once you alter that to mere field stones, albeit flat on one side set in cement, well the whole scene changes.

[ERayR]

Oh, I don't know. As you are probably aware, I have a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon, but....

Just as someone might consider Kahlil Gibran's work, The Prophet, to be inspirational and worthy of being used as a personal guide, despite knowing that it is a fictional work, or the same for Rabindrinath Tagore's many literary works, why cannot someone hold the Book of Mormon in similar regard? As a believer, I can certainly testify that even taken as a pious fiction, it contains much that is worthy of our consideration.

Do you also take the Bible to be fiction? Just checking to see if you are consistent.

[Stone holm]

Do you also take the Bible to be fiction? Just checking to see if you are consistent.

Yeah I agree we are too fundamentalist to travel far down that road,

[Stargazer]

Anyone who thinks that progression comes within the church through getting callings that are higher in authority doesn't understand the gospel and true spiritual progression.

Yes, and no.

I think that callings of greater responsibility help train us up to be of greater service in the Kingdom. But those who look at it as "advancement" have missed the point. We might use that word from time to time, loosely, but that is NOT the point. Better a useful and faithful Deacon than a useless and slothful High Priest.

[Stargazer]

Do you also take the Bible to be fiction? Just checking to see if you are consistent.

Consistent with what? You didn't read what I wrote.

Either that or I didn't make it clear.

You make me tired.

I can get inspiration from some forms of fiction, sure. I've even felt inspired by political works that I didn't particularly agree wholeheartedly with. I remember feeling lifted up by a short book Lyndon LaRouche wrote, when he wrote as the last line: "And for this reason we shall build cities and plant forests on Mars." LaRouche is/was a loon, but sometimes he made perfect sense. I guess a stopped clock is right twice a day. As long as it's analog.

And the Bible is mostly non-fiction. Some of it is even inspiring. Thanks for asking.

[ERayR]

Consistent with what? You didn't read what I wrote.

Either that or I didn't make it clear.

You make me tired.

I can get inspiration from some forms of fiction, sure. I've even felt inspired by political works that I didn't particularly agree wholeheartedly with. I remember feeling lifted up by a short book Lyndon LaRouche wrote, when he wrote as the last line: "And for this reason we shall build cities and plant forests on Mars." LaRouche is/was a loon, but sometimes he made perfect sense. I guess a stopped clock is right twice a day. As long as it's analog.

And the Bible is mostly non-fiction. Some of it is even inspiring. Thanks for asking.

That is clearer and I can and do agree that inspiration can come from most anywhere. It is therefore incumbent to pay attention and learn the source.

[Calm]

Yes, and no.

I think that callings of greater responsibility help train us up to be of greater service in the Kingdom.

I am not sure about that. There are more administrative responsibilities with 'higher up' jobs, but spiritually speaking a home teacher or visiting teaching assignment can be just as spiritually advancing depending on how serious a person takes it as well as the needs of the individuals they are responsible for. Same thing with just being a member of a family, we learn how to connect with others, how to trust, how to love, how to communicate, how to be one more in intimate, personal relationships than in administrative ones imo.

[Stargazer]

I am not sure about that. There are more administrative responsibilities with 'higher up' jobs, but spiritually speaking a home teacher or visiting teaching assignment can be just as spiritually advancing depending on how serious a person takes it as well as the needs of the individuals they are responsible for. Same thing with just being a member of a family, we learn how to connect with others, how to trust, how to love, how to communicate, how to be one more in intimate, personal relationships than in administrative ones imo.

Define "higher up". If a man or woman takes his or her HT or VT job as seriously as they are supposed to, they are magnifying their calling and learn to serve more effectively by so doing. I have seen RS Presidents who took their responsibilities seriously and seemed like they were everywhere, and when they were released it seemed as if they could have then be called to be bishop and done a good job. Same for "lesser" positions, such as Gospel Doctrine teacher in Sunday School. It is NOT the position, but the response to the calling that makes for a great servant of the Lord.

I am not disagreeing with you. But a diverse church calling "career" prepares individuals for even greater responsibilities, and for even greater service. And yes that includes family responsibilities as well!

We don't call slugs to be bishops and RS presidents. We call those who have demonstrated a committment and a desire to serve. I guess sometimes we expect people to fill bigger shoes than they themselves were expecting to fill, but that is all part of growth,

[MormonMason]

If the stones were merely stones flat on one side and set in cement, the cement was already probably weakened and would have begun to decay rapidly one exposed to the elements. After that they would have just looked like rocks. I think what leads us astray here is the assumption that I made that they were worked stones, at least the sides and bottom as I believe is suggested by some of the modern paintings we have. Once you alter that to mere field stones, albeit flat on one side set in cement, well the whole scene changes.

That is one way of looking at it. Is anyone else here aware of a quote that states that the individual stones were worked stones? I have little way of checking at the moment.