The Church Hides Its History....

[Gervin]

In my opinion, the church should occasionally recycle words like seer stone, hat, curtain, etc., into the current LDS lexicon. The Book of Mormon self-authenticates itself (as does the adherent) as only believed by faith, so the discussion about "translation" is, at best, second to the overarching importance of the the Book's claim. Vague and imprecise translation stories add an element of mystery to the vibe and don't divert attention as much as keep it focused on folklore. However, for folks who make it their business to study such things, I imagine the "how it got here" question naturally takes a backseat to the question, "What is the evidence for and against the self-claim that the text is ancient?"

[Thinking]

I find it interesting that the title of the topic is "The Church Hides Its History..." and then the OP has a narrow focus of perhaps the most trivial "fleck" of that history.

[Thinking]

So our crime is that we are human and do what every other faith does; how could we?

So on the one hand you proclaim that the LDS Church is God's true church on the earth, but then you use the practices of the false religions to defend your own actions.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ya Why Me isn't it obvious you don't know what your talking about. Otherwise you would be complaining and accusing the GA's of dishonesty. How silly of the Church leadership to want to teach the gospel instead of trivia and inanities. Without the head in the hat tid bit whole galaxies will collapse and who knows what the chain reaction from that would be.

If that topic were discussed 52 weeks a year for the next four...critics would say it is not enough. Odd that so many think that we should do what everyone thinks other than, Christ, the Prophet and the Apostles. Or maybe by popular vote, but then we would have to figure out who can vote. Joseph is not the message; The Father, Christ and his Atonement and his commands are the message. We spend far too much time on JS and his flaws and greatness...something I am sure was never his intent.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So on the one hand you proclaim that the LDS Church is God's true church on the earth, but then you use the practices of the false religions to defend your own actions.

No...I think you misunderstand me, the human thing to do and what others do is what they should do...teach a positive message and dwell on what matters. Not sure where I implied other faiths were false. If I may I will speak for myself...I said nothing about us being the one true Church, I said I love it and defended it, I apologize that what I said was misunderstood, but if you are going to quote me please do so properly. Apparently my writing is so bad, few have a clue as to my meaning or mind. I think I have simply wore out my welcome. Edited May 28, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Jude2]

I wouldn't go that far.

Not true.

I've read through what is documented at FAIR and most of them come from secondhand accounts. They are "Hostile news account" and "paraphrased" and I simply don't trust any of them.

Martin Harris was behind was behind “a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.…” / “a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket”

See, (Gold Bible, No. 6,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 2, no. 16 (19 March 1831): 126–27) and John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VI,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (5 September 1840): 94

So he didn’t know if Joseph put a stone in his hat or not???

He saw him use his seer stone to find his lost tooth pick, he probably saw him use the seer stone a number of times by putting it into his hat but he never actually saw the Gold Plates until the Moroni showed them to him.

On the other hand Oliver actual watched the process even gave it a try himself and he said;

“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould have said, “Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “The book of Mormon.” (Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, 7 September 1834 Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 1, no. 1 (October 1834): 13–16.)

Joseph Smith who did the actual translating said;

“Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon? Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon [42] was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon” Template: Periodical:Elders' Journal

52 years later David Whitmer who was not a hands on scribe or witness is quoted as saying in 1881 as saying;

“My statement was and now is that in translating he put the stone in his hat and putting his face in his hat so as to excluded the light and that then the light and characters appeared in the hat together with the interpretation which he uttered and was written by the scribe and which was tested at the time as stated”

But in 1884 he says;

“The understanding we have about it was that when the book was discovered an angel was present and pointed the place out. In translating from the plates, Joseph Smith looked through the Urim and Thummim, consisting of two transparent pebbles set in the rim of a bow, fastened to a breastplate. He dictated by looking through them to his scribes”

So which is it??

The phrase “The understanding we have” tells a lot, He never really saw it!

When I read Emma’s account, given in 1879 when she’s 75 years old, to her son it leaves me confused;

“Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.”

(see,http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/shaversbook/TALKS/Testimony_of_Emma_Smith_1879.htm)

The question was “What of the truth of Mormonism” and not what of the truth of the Book of Mormon. She sat close to him with nothing between them but never saw the plates? Yes I believe she did sit next to him when he put the seer stone in his hat and received revelations, she may have written some of them down. But, there are problems with the interview in general because she denies there was any revelation on polygamy and we all know there was.

I’m sorry it just does not make sense!

It also does not make sense that Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery a 14 year old girl would be aloud to watch the Oliver and Joseph translate and not Emma.

When I look at the other accounts given 40 years later the stories seemed to have been embellished to where they are all sitting around watching Joseph translate.

No, I think I’ll stick with Joseph and Oliver’s accounts they’re the one’s which actually did it.

[Calm]

I don't know of any critic who is expecting or even calling for the church to author a definitive book detailing every aspect of its controversial history

I have come across a not a few that have demanded it before someone gets baptized...but most members who are concerned want a more complete, accurate portrayal....though the problem is often that not all agree on what is accurate that we know for sure and therefore should have no difficulty teaching (if one agrees on the necessity) and what was speculation or atypical member behaviour and therefore shouldn't be taught as history or church culture.

[Calm]

Have a read of these links:

http://en.fairmormon...mon_translation

http://en.fairmormon...ith/Seer_stones

It's pretty conclusive that the published Book of Mormon was via the head in hat method.

I would say was "mostly described as and thus likely mostly done" via the head in the hat method to cover the possibility of variation existed that was not referred to due to lack of knowledge/exposure....since there are multiple ways that were described that could have taken place. Perhaps when there were others around, Joseph reverted to the head in the hat because it helped isolate him from the disturbance, perhaps at other more quiet times when it was just him and the scribe or at night if he sat in a part of the room the candlelight did not reach, he would not have needed it. IOW, I think allowing for other possibilities is historically more likely even during the part of the translation that covered just the published manuscript and not the lost pages just because it is know that he used multiple methods overtime.

[Calm]

So our crime is that we are human and do what every other faith does; how could we?

Recognition of reality does not mean accepting that such is a "crime". It just may be a simple statement of fact (as one believes it to be). Edited May 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

No...I think you misunderstand me, the human thing to do and what others do is what they should do...teach a positive message and dwell on what matters. Not sure where I implied other faiths were false. If I may I will speak for myself...I said nothing about us being the one true Church, I said I love it and defended it, I apologize that what I said was misunderstood, but if you are going to quote me please do so properly. Apparently my wring is so bad, few have a clue as to my meaning or mind. I think I have simply wore out my welcome.

Take account of the source, I got your meaning.

[Nevo]

No, I think I’ll stick with Joseph and Oliver’s accounts they’re the one’s which actually did it.

Well, I'll give you credit for at least looking up some of the accounts. But I don't buy your rather desperate assertion that Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer (and Isaac Hale and Michael Morse) were all lying when they claimed to have witnessed the translation firsthand just because you (mistakenly) believe their accounts contradict Joseph's and Oliver's.

[Calm]

It also does not make sense that Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery a 14 year old girl would be aloud to watch the Oliver and Joseph translate and not Emma.

Emma was a scribe as well, should she not be included just as Oliver was?

I am reading quickly, where does it say that Emma was not allowed to watch them during Joseph and Oliver's sessions?

[theplains]

The Church promotes a sanitized, faith-friendly version of its history to its members and tends to omit or downplay potentially controversial aspects of that history. But it also tolerates, and in some cases actively sponsors, serious historical work by professional historians (the latest example being the Joseph Smith Papers Project).

I wonder what led the church to sanitize (if that's the proper term) the 1997 version of

Gospel Principles into what we have today. I don't find it un-faith friendly to mention

that Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents (from chapter 2 I think) and that

Joseph Smith taught that 'this is how Heavenly Father became God' from the Exaltation

chapter.

To exemplify the importance of church history, I would suggest that it brings back in

print two of the classics - "Doctrines of Salvation" and "Articles of Faith". Maybe some

of you on this forum are old enough to remember these books and the great Mormon

theologians behind them.

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

I wonder what led the church to sanitize (if that's the proper term) the 1997 version of

Gospel Principles into what we have today. I don't find it un-faith friendly to mention

that Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents (from chapter 2 I think) and that

Joseph Smith taught that 'this is how Heavenly Father became God' from the Exaltation

chapter.

To exemplify the importance of church history, I would suggest that it brings back in

print two of the classics - "Doctrines of Salvation" and "Articles of Faith". Maybe some

of you on this forum are old enough to remember these books and the great Mormon

theologians behind them.

Regards,

Jim

Having gone through the book when it first came out, everything that was supposedly "sanitized" IIRC is found elsewhere in the book, only repetitions were removed. There is a thread back when it came out dealing with all complaints that were posted on this board including the ones you have stated.

[Stone holm]

Anyone who cares to look can get this information, its not a big secret. I do think the Church keeps secrets, but those I believe pertain mainly to internal political wranglings and the Church wants to maintain the image that the 12 are always in lock step unity. But as to important stuff about Joseph Smith, it is very forthcoming and the method of translation and peepstones often comes up in Sunday School classes. its just not something worth repeating over and over as it has no bearing on how we should behave, what are goals in life are, how the universe is governed, etc. Yes, the Church keeps secrets, but not about this kind of stuff.

[J Green]

Emma was a scribe as well, should she not be included just as Oliver was?

+1

[Wiki Wonka]

Martin Harris was behind was behind “a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.…” / “a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket”

See, (Gold Bible, No. 6,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 2, no. 16 (19 March 1831): 126–27) and John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VI,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (5 September 1840): 94

So he didn’t know if Joseph put a stone in his hat or not???

Martin was quite aware that Joseph was using a stone (the use of the hat is implicit). From the January 1988 Ensign:

"On occasion they took breaks from the arduous task, sometimes going to the river and throwing stones. Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them."

Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, January 1988.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[canard78]

On the other hand Oliver actual watched the process even gave it a try himself and he said;

“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould have said, “Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “The book of Mormon.” (Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, 7 September 1834 Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 1, no. 1 (October 1834): 13–16.)

Joseph Smith who did the actual translating said;

“Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon? Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon [42] was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon” Template: Periodical:Elders' Journal

There are several accounts of the 'peep stones' being referred to as a/the U&T which is where the confusion often springs from.

It's accurate to say that (some of) the plates were translated via the Nephite bow and glasses because that's what he started out with.

Given they were taken by Moroni and not returned (see my earlier post for the reference) then the actual published version (post-116 pages) was not. A seer stone was used. Oliver calls it the U&T (or what the Nephites would have called an Interpreter). Joseph's peep stone in other words is also called a U&T in later accounts (it was not called such at the time of translation but neither was the bow and glasses). Joseph's peep stone would have been called an interpreter by the Nephites. Different names for the same thing.

Why would every other witness of the process describe a head in the hat?

[J Green]

I think Nevo has it right about the nature of this discussion shifting between the extremes. This may sound odd, but I for one would like to see the discussion in the Church shift back more frequently to seer stones and the culture that produced them. Faith can be both shaped and bounded by culture, and just as Joseph's questions about which Church was true were shaped by the milieu of the burn-over district, I think his faith in the ability to restore that which was lost starts with the culture of the seers. What were they like? What did they think they could see? Some of these questions will also have a bearing on the translation process, I believe.

[Wiki Wonka]

On the other hand Oliver actual watched the process even gave it a try himself and he said;

“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould have said, “Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “The book of Mormon.” (Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, 7 September 1834 Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 1, no. 1 (October 1834): 13–16.)

Yes, we all know that Oliver attempted to translate, and this was before he was allowed to see the gold plates or the Nephite interpreters.

So what did Oliver use in his attempt to translate if he couldn't view the U&T or the plates? Probably his own divining rod. At least, that is what the Church history website seems to imply:

Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8 ). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as instruments for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.8

The Lord recognized Oliver’s ability to use a rod: “thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the rod.”9 Confirming the divinity of this gift, the revelation stated: “Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands for it is the work of God.” If Oliver desired, the revelation went on to say, the Lord would add the gift of translation to the revelatory gifts Oliver already possessed (D&C 8:8-11).

Though we know very few details about Oliver Cowdery’s attempt to translate, it apparently did not go well. His efforts quickly came to naught.

Jeffery G. Cannon, “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift,” Revelations in Context (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 15 December 2012). https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng

Ultimately, the method doesn't really matter. Neal A. Maxwell spoke about this:

We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma’s words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark.

Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Take account of the source, I got your meaning.

Thank you for that... I fear that I make my points so poorly with so many talented people here. I always feel like the "poor cousin". I know my spelling does not help the objective of my posts.

[Wiki Wonka]

There are several accounts of the 'peep stones' being referred to as a/the U&T which is where the confusion often springs from.

From the January 2013 Ensign:

Joseph found what Book of Mormon prophets referred to as “interpreters,” or a “stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light” (Alma 37:23–24). He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30).2

He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god?lang=eng

Both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone were referred to as "Urim and Thummim," and the term wasn't applied during the period of translation. The term "Urim and Thummim" appears to have first come into use around 1833, three years after the Book of Mormon was published.

[Calm]

Thank you for that... I fear that I make my points so poorly with so many talented people here. I always feel like the "poor cousin". I know my spelling does not help the objective of my posts.

I think you are very clear myself, it is rare that I go 'huh' with your posts and whenever you have to take the time to explain, I have found that I have interpreted you rightly. I just think that many who don't spend as much time on the board as I do don't have personalities identified as well and so can take the tone of one person's post and apply it to another that follows, thus confusing what the person is really saying, thinking it is positive when negative sarcasm or negative when it is actually positive. I am not sure I would recommend spending as much time as I do reading and rereading threads in order to become so familiar with posters that you retain a sense of their personality so you know that you've misread something if it comes out too negative or positive, but at least it is one side benefit to what is too often an obsession getting in the way of the rest of my life. Edited May 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Thinking]

No...I think you misunderstand me, the human thing to do and what others do is what they should do...teach a positive message and dwell on what matters. Not sure where I implied other faiths were false. If I may I will speak for myself...I said nothing about us being the one true Church, I said I love it and defended it, I apologize that what I said was misunderstood, but if you are going to quote me please do so properly. Apparently my writing is so bad, few have a clue as to my meaning or mind. I think I have simply wore out my welcome.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I was unaware that faithful LDS didn't necessarily believe that the LDS Church is the one true church. Things must have changed since I stopped attending. I made an assumption based on my past experiences. This sounds like a topic for another thread.

[Calm]

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I was unaware that faithful LDS didn't necessarily believe that the LDS Church is the one true church. Things must have changed since I stopped attending. I made an assumption based on my past experiences. This sounds like a topic for another thread.

Rather it is that there are those of us who don't necessarily define "one true church" in the same manner that you did as a member or see the implications of that label in the same way. Edited May 28, 2013 by calmoriah