The Church Hides Its History....

[Tacenda]

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.

To your last sentence, you're not alone Cal, it seems alot of us are in the same boat. I think it's a wonderful thing to connect with people all over the world. What a blessing, to me anyway. Edited May 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[why me]

This is saying that you agree no church is forthcoming with their history including our own.

Doesn't that therefore mean that ours (like others) is NOT forthcoming with their history.

I think that most people who belong to a faith don't care about its history. They attend church and believe. History is not so important. Most know that people make mistakes because they are human beings and so history will be full of people's imperfections in that church. And so, they mainly naturally overlook history. Also, most churches do not spend much time teaching history at all. They stress doctrine and belief. But for some strange reason, it is the lds church that must have history lessons every sunday which needs to be needed studying for all members. (At least according to the critics and exmos)

Members must know all critic interpretations and facts. Members need to experts in lds history. I just think that it is rather strange that critics demand this. .

Back in the day, I often heard that the church is perfect but the people are not. Such a saying seems to be forgotten. And all history would fall under the imperfect people part.

[why me]

If it's so trivial why do they continue to misrepresent it?

Do they? I have seen it in the ensign and on the church website. Seerstones were common knowledge among the members years ago. No one that I knew had a problem with it. And it was not that important. We all knew that the translation process was special and occurred in various of ways according to sources. But we also knew that Joseph was rather silent about it all. So, we had our discussions based in faith about the process. However, in the january edition of the ensign much was covered.

[why me]

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.

This could have been one way. But we also have other ways too. And this is what makes it so difficult to discuss. However, agreement can found that as Oliver said, something amazing was occurring at that time.

[why me]

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

I think that you are right. Unfortunately, the critics will not be satisfied with this idea. What we are dealing with are people who are relating an event years after it took place. Not very easy to affirm or even believe as age creeps in. And thus, we have the problem for the church. How to depict the process through art or in their material. The best way to do it is to stress Oliver's statement about it being a wonderful time and then give the various statements of those who claim to have experienced the process with a footnote.

[canard78]

From the January 2013 Ensign:

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.

Thanks. I was worried I might get a CFR on my statement and wasn't sure where I'd read it (but knew I had).

[DBMormon]

I am willing to concede that historical truth is available, that the problem may be unintentional and perhaps even unimportant. Yet, if we are completely honest, we would very much agree that if one only reads the material used in the three hour block, one would ( never/almost never) hear of seer stones and would very easily make the connection between the "Urim and Thummim" and the "Nephite interpreters" being the same and that it was used exclusively for the translation. Yet the best available info says they were not used for the portion of the BOM we have and that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat. One who only attends church and for one reason or another (in large part their fault) never reads extra material or studies beyond the three hour block - will never grasp the idea of treasure digging/scrying/seer stones.

History is by nature selective and on some level, intentional or not, we have left out historical facts and have chosen many times to tell the story different then it actually occurred.

For me this isn't debateable and I absolutely can see why Critics feel we have been dishonest. One should not reach the age of 12 in the church, and believe the wrong story of how it was translated. If the book of mormon is our keystone and as one poster already stated, we are going to speak of the translation anyway, we might as well get it right.

[Stroopwafel]

In my opinion, I'd say members are taken aback when they hear about the "other" stories (be they translation process, first vision accounts, etc.) because they hold the Church to a high standard, and because those other stories seem to directly mine the credibility of the Church. In the mind of members, the Church is not supposed to be like the other churches which are not forthcoming with the harder parts of their history. So comparing ourselves to others isn't helping at all. Also, the not-so-faith-promoting aspects of history of most other churches (for instance, the different stories of the attrocities commited in the past by the Catholics or its different groups), though they may point to human weakness and fallibility, are nevertheless not touching upon or undermining the foundational narrative of their faith.

Now, I don't believe anyone can reasonably ask the Church to be forthcoming with full fledged details and make these a big deal. However, there surely must be a balanced approach to the issue. Perhaps it could make the effort at least to mention certain aspects in its curriculum so that members are at least aware they exist and that these do not come as a surprise.

"Well Stroopwafel, I hear you say, haven't you read the previous posts of this thread? If you did, you would have seen it was mentionned that members in the past totally knew about all these stories. The information is out there somewhere, all you have to do is follow what the scripture teaches: 'seek and ye shall find'. It's easy, you see."

Well first, to even begin with seeking, one needs to know what he/she wants to seek, or at least have a vague idea. However, if member Z wishes to learn about the history of the Church, what sources is he/she going to use? The ones most available and the ones which we are most encouraged to use, i.e., officially published material by the Church. And as it was pointed out, this material doesn't seem to like "controversial" aspects of history and prefers not mentioning these at all, or barely. So it is highly unlikely that the average member seeking to learn about Church history will ever encounter this kind of information.

Second, it is easy for English speaking members to say that there are books published with these information and yadi, yadi, yada, lada. But how much is available in other languages? What are members with no knowledge of English supposed to do once they encounter more difficult aspects of their faith history? What sources do they have to help them make sense of the new information? Where will they turn to? Would they be told not to dwell on this, that it is all anti-mormon propaganda and that it is totally false? This is why I believe the Church should include at least a bit of information about these in its curriculum, so that members of different nations and tongues may be informed through a source they trust, and not be shaken by, really what should be trivial aspects of their faith history.

[Stroopwafel]

Duplicate

Edited May 28, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[Jude2]

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.

I don’t think they were lying, I think what they perceived as happening and what really happened were two different things.

Take 14 year old Elizabeth Whitmer as an example. She walks into her cabin and see Joseph looking into his hat, the Book of Mormon plates are laying on the table covered with a cloth next to him, she assumes Joseph is working on them but in reality he was receiving the 14th section of the D&C. Years later when she relates her story she is not lying at all but she is still wrong.

[ERayR]

I think that most people who belong to a faith don't care about its history.

History issues are important to critics as a means to be critical

[MormonMason]

...

Second, the 2013 article you cite to doesn't say anything about looking at a stone in a hat (unless I missed it?), which would mean the church mentioned it in an article in the 70's and an article in the 90's. Any idea how many times in the history of church magazines it was written that Joseph translated by looking at the plates? I would venture to guess probably hundreds of times. That's where the critics would say there is a misrepresentation of church history.

Third, when the translation process is depicted in non-written media by the church (artwork, films) it nearly always shows Jospeh at a table with the plates, even though we know that he was usually not looking at the plates and instead looking into a hat. The critics argue that this is misleading.

...

This is the common way of depicting it with Joseph looking at the plates, transcribing characters and translating them, because that is exactly how it happened at first, before Martin Harris came into the picture and became scribe. Members often blur the time lines because of this. Critics often forget that this is the way it was done at first.

[Stone holm]

This is the common way of depicting it with Joseph looking at the plates, transcribing characters and translating them, because that is exactly how it happened at first, before Martin Harris came into the picture and became scribe. Members often blur the time lines because of this. Critics often forget that this is the way it was done at first.

Paintings always involve a certain poetic license, people would expect to see the plates and JS's face in the painting, so it would make sense to have the plates clearly visible and not have JS's face in a hat....come on people get a grip.

[ERayR]

..come on people get a grip.

Amen !!

[MormonMason]

Why Me, why, why would you even question this? It's so easy to see that the church has not been forthcoming with information. If we're being honest. It's not faith promoting, and the church isn't trying to discourage members, are they? Makes perfect sense, and this has been said often by apologists. I'm sorry this is so, but it is. When it's portrayed in a Gospel Doctrine class when discussing the BoM and it's origins, then I'll believe you. In fact, can you come up with one lesson in the Gospel Doctine manual at any time in the history of the church, where the GD teacher is to discuss the Head in the Hat theory? If you can, then I'll eat my words, and beg for forgiveness for questioning you.

It was in the Church magazines. The Brethren regularly encourage the membership of the Church to read the Church magazines, which members either could purchase and/or read in the Ward Library, where back issues were kept. How is that hiding anything? The problem is that people weren't doing what they were asked to do and then turn around and blame the Church for their own errors in judgment and failure to do as asked when they didn't hear certain things in Sunday School. Not everything goes into the manuals of the Church, especially these days. But, the older manuals often were quite detailed and contained much deeper discussions of certain things.

Another thing that the Brethren have asked members of the Church to do is to attend Institute wherever and whenever possible. How many have done so or are doing so? Anyone else seen the manual entitled Church History in the Fullness of Times? That manual discusses the events in the Carthage Jail and even has a photo of the guns had by Joseph and Hyrum in the Carthage Jail. The Church has made many efforts to get these kinds of information out to the general membership, but how many actually avail themselves of the information?

[MormonMason]

Paintings always involve a certain poetic license, people would expect to see the plates and JS's face in the painting, so it would make sense to have the plates clearly visible and not have JS's face in a hat....come on people get a grip.

It is true that paintings often take "license" but it is also true that the method depicted in some of these paintings actually was as it happened. A simple look at Joseph Smith--History 1:62-63 will show you what he was doing early in the process. He did not follow that process after losing the 116 pages but it originally was how things were done before Harris became scribe. He looked at the plates, transcribed a number of characters, and translated them.

But, I agree that people need to get a grip.

[DBMormon]

It was in the Church magazines. The Brethren regularly encourage the membership of the Church to read the Church magazines, which members either could purchase and/or read in the Ward Library, where back issues were kept. How is that hiding anything? The problem is that people weren't doing what they were asked to do and then turn around and blame the Church for their own errors in judgment and failure to do as asked when they didn't hear certain things in Sunday School. Not everything goes into the manuals of the Church, especially these days. But, the older manuals often were quite detailed and contained much deeper discussions of certain things.

Another thing that the Brethren have asked members of the Church to do is to attend Institute wherever and whenever possible. How many have done so or are doing so? Anyone else seen the manual entitled Church History in the Fullness of Times? That manual discusses the events in the Carthage Jail and even has a photo of the guns had by Joseph and Hyrum in the Carthage Jail. The Church has made many efforts to get these kinds of information out to the general membership, but how many actually avail themselves of the information?

Does the manual "church history in the fullness of times" mention the translation method?

scrying?

seer stone in translation?

how joseph got the stone digging wells with willard chase?

[ERayR]

It was in the Church magazines. The Brethren regularly encourage the membership of the Church to read the Church magazines, which members either could purchase and/or read in the Ward Library, where back issues were kept. How is that hiding anything? The problem is that people weren't doing what they were asked to do and then turn around and blame the Church for their own errors in judgment and failure to do as asked when they didn't hear certain things in Sunday School. Not everything goes into the manuals of the Church, especially these days. But, the older manuals often were quite detailed and contained much deeper discussions of certain things.

Another thing that the Brethren have asked members of the Church to do is to attend Institute wherever and whenever possible. How many have done so or are doing so? Anyone else seen the manual entitled Church History in the Fullness of Times? That manual discusses the events in the Carthage Jail and even has a photo of the guns had by Joseph and Hyrum in the Carthage Jail. The Church has made many efforts to get these kinds of information out to the general membership, but how many actually avail themselves of the information?

You know ant the GA's should know the best place to hide this kind of information is in the Church magazines and lesson material. Nobody reads them.

[Nevo]

You know ant the GA's should know the best place to hide this kind of information is in the Church magazines and lesson material. Nobody reads them.

Actually, if you think about it, a thick $10 institute manual that most members of the Church have never seen or heard of isn't a bad place to hide things.

[Wiki Wonka]

Does the manual "church history in the fullness of times" mention the translation method?

scrying?

seer stone in translation?

how joseph got the stone digging wells with willard chase?

Yes and no. Mostly no.

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 58.

Those "contradictory accounts" all mention the stone and the hat. And, they weren't "sketchy." They were actually quite detailed and consistent with one another - just not with the story we learn in Sunday School. Therefore they are "contradictory."

WW

Edited May 28, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[MormonMason]

Does the manual "church history in the fullness of times" mention the translation method?

scrying?

seer stone in translation?

how joseph got the stone digging wells with willard chase?

No one other than Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery knew the translation method. David Whitmer and Martin Harris did not because Joseph Smith did not tell them. The manual only states the truth that the translation methodology was unknown, and that there are no contemporary records describing the process, only later accounts that are contradictory in nature. But, both the student's and teacher's manuals do tell the reader where further information regarding actual statements of various individuals regarding the translation process can be found and read--including Comprehensive History of the Church and the Church magazines, of all places!

Yes, the manual discusses some of Joseph's activities in "money digging" working for Josiah Stowell. I do not seem to see use of the stones in that endeavor mentioned.

There is no discussion on the stone in the hat but sources that do discuss this are listed in the teacher's manual as additional sources for teaching the lesson.

I have only glanced through the PDF versions on the Church website, though. I don't have further time to look in detail and am out of time to do so at the moment. I may revisit the manuals tonight, when I have more time. However, the August 1987 Ensign does mention the seer stone being found while digging and so forth, in an article discussing the Salamander Letter, including statements regarding the relative lateness of several of the accounts that mention the stone found while digging a well. For now I have to sign off.

[Calm]

Actually, if you think about it, a thick $10 institute manual that most members of the Church have never seen or heard of isn't a bad place to hide things.

Don't you think having it on the internet though now makes a difference? It was one of the first things up beyond the basic stuff. Edited May 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It was in the Church magazines. The Brethren regularly encourage the membership of the Church to read the Church magazines, which members either could purchase and/or read in the Ward Library, where back issues were kept.

For only 5 years though (at least in the 90s)...and now not even that except for conference reports. Of course now they are online no one ever asks for a magazine except as a last minute talk for Primary.

I remembering members borrowing the current magazine, but don't remember anyone borrowing old ones just to read...to use as a reference (with the old index that used to be published) from time to time though for a lesson.

But, the older manuals often were quite detailed and contained much deeper discussions of certain things.

Why do you think this was changed? Institute manuals for example have gotten less detailed though with more pictures. The previous Church History manual was two fat volumes that contained much that isn't in the new one.

Another thing that the Brethren have asked members of the Church to do is to attend Institute wherever and whenever possible.

Only if you are a certain age, nonYoung Adults were not allowed in many cases to attend (I know since I tried) Edited May 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In the mind of members, the Church is not supposed to be like the other churches which are not forthcoming with the harder parts of their history. So comparing ourselves to others isn't helping at all. Also, the not-so-faith-promoting aspects of history of most other churches (for instance, the different stories of the attrocities commited in the past by the Catholics or its different groups), though they may point to human weakness and fallibility, are nevertheless not touching upon or undermining the foundational narrative of their faith.

Do other faiths even tell their religious narrative through stories of their own church's history?