New Piece On Interpreter Web Site: "The Spectacles, The Stone, The Hat, And The Book"

[Scott Lloyd]

"Clearly" as in the instance of bcuzbcuz's post, but there are other scriptures in the bible that tend to contradict like God being everlasting to everlasting, and God is spirit not flesh and bones, no marriage in heaven, no God before and no God after, in the bible it says God is not a man, Lucifer being a brother to Jesus verses Jesus as the creator of all things including Lucifer, if we are to have physical bodies before we are to become a God how did Jesus become a God without a body. These aren't contradictions?

Properly understood, certainly not.

They may contradict certain erroneous beliefs about and interpretations of the Bible, but that is quite a different matter.

Feel free to cite (specific wording and references, please) any of the above individually and we can discuss them one at a time.

Probably best to do it on another thread, though.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Properly understood, certainly not.

They may contradict certain erroneous beliefs about and interpretations of the Bible, but that is quite a different matter.

Feel free to cite (specific wording and references, please) any of the above individually and we can discuss them one at a time.

Probably best to do it on another thread, though.

Maybe I can fish out an old thread.

ETA: I ran out of posts again. Thanks Cal, for the offer!

Edited June 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Maybe I can fish out an old thread.

PM me if you want to start a new one...though I may be occupied a great deal of this evening...

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe I can fish out an old thread.

ETA: I ran out of posts again. Thanks Cal, for the offer!

No need to "fish out an old thread." Just find the references for passages you say contradict the Bible and, using your best reasoning, demonstrate how they do that.

I don't want recycled anti-Mormon arguments; I want to see your reasoning.

[Tacenda]

No need to "fish out an old thread." Just find the references for passages you say contradict the Bible and, using your best reasoning, demonstrate how they do that.

I don't want recycled anti-Mormon arguments; I want to see your reasoning.

Scott, I'm going to answer you in a PM since it might derail the thread. And Cal, if Scott or you wants to start a thread on the subject, be my guest. But I don't want anything to do with it as far as starting it, I might contribute though.

ETA: You don't receive messages Scott. So go ahead and start the thread and we'll discuss then, thank you.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I'm going to answer you in a PM since it might derail the thread. And Cal, if Scott or you wants to start a thread on the subject, be my guest. But I don't want anything to do with it as far as starting it, I might contribute though.

So I presume you are saying that you are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to start a new thread, but I am free to do so using the content of the PM you send me. Is that a correct understanding?

Incidentally, I don't automatically grant confidentiality to PMs sent to me, though I will do so if I think there is good reason.

[bcuzbcuz]

So I presume you are saying that you are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to start a new thread, but I am free to do so using the content of the PM you send me. Is that a correct understanding?

Incidentally, I don't automatically grant confidentiality to PMs sent to me, though I will do so if I think there is good reason.

I would suggest a reference to the Urim and Thummin as defined on Wikipedia. Not that I'm suggesting Wikipedia as a resource but because people can revise information and the reader decides whether it is reliable, the information is, at leadt, current. A study of the Urim and Thummin, not in plural form, sees it as a simple "yes and no" tool. The responsibilty falls on the user to ask the right question.

[Calm]

So I presume you are saying that you are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to start a new thread, but I am free to do so using the content of the PM you send me. Is that a correct understanding?

Incidentally, I don't automatically grant confidentiality to PMs sent to me, though I will do so if I think there is good reason.

Limited posters can't start new threads, Tacenda falls into this group.

And you may have missed her add-on where she states you don't receive messages. Perhaps you are maxed out or have the same glitch volgadon has (you can send and thus start a conversation, but others can't start one with you...at least I think that is how it works with volgadon...it may be the reverse, he may not be able to send them).

[volgadon]

Perhaps you are maxed out or have the same glitch volgadon has (you can send and thus start a conversation, but others can't start one with you...at least I think that is how it works with volgadon...it may be the reverse, he may not be able to send them).

It is better to give than to recieve... =)

[Bernard Gui]

The Bible, which I read often and studied intently, from my youth and during and after my mission, is clear about turning to astrology or fortune tellers...

You're undoubtedly correct that the "who" has great relevance, but I have trouble with any who use divination or magic stones

Do you have trouble with this?

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

The "Urim V'Tummim"

"And you shall place the Urim V'tummim in the breastplate of judgment, and they shall be over Aaron's heart when he comes before G-d." (ibid. v. 30)

The "Urim V'Tummim" is the Name of G-d

The Urim V'Tummim was the famed, oracle-like aspect of the breastplate by which a Heavenly answer was received for important questions. According to most authoritative opinions, the expression urim v'tummim actually refers not to the breastplate itself, but to the mystical Divine name of G-d which was written on a piece of parchment and inserted into a flap of the garment. The presence of the name facilitated the reception of Divine guidance through the shining of specific letters on the stones.

The Identity of G-d is the Source of Creation

What does this mean? What are the implications of this fact, the knowledge that it is the name of G-d itself which brought about the illumination of the urim v'tummim? This is indeed a lofty concept, but one whose lesson can be readily appreciated, at least on a simple level of understanding.

G-d is the Creator of all existence; His power is unlimited. He has no form whatsoever, neither has He beginning or end... He is the Supreme Being. He is perfect and absolute unity. And He is also totally unknowable.

Yet in numerous passages throughout the Bible, we are commanded to"know" G-d. "In all of your ways, know Him"(Proverbs 3:6); "And I shall betroth you in faith, and you shall know the L-rd" (Hosea 2:22) are but two examples of many such instances.

Truly, how can we come to know G-d, who is omnipotent and infinite? Yet we are commanded - and therefore expected-to do just that. And there is a general rule with regard to the Torah's commandments: the Holy One never makes unfair demands on a person (BT Avodah Zara 3:A).

Knowledge of G-d Through His Names

The sages of Israel teach that one way to know G-d is through awareness of His relationship to the universe which He created. Although it is taught that "no thought can grasp Him at all" (Tikkunei Zohar 17:A), and ultimately G-d's essence is not only unknowable, but unnamable as well-still, G-d's names describe His relationship with creation (Shemot Rabbah 3:6). Through these attributes of Divine interaction, we can at least attempt some glimpse of His greatness, according to our limited intellect. There are a number of names used throughout the Bible; one denotes the attribute of Divine mercy; another the aspect of strict judgment, and so on.

These Divine names of G-d are merely appellations which He has entitled us to use; they are not His true identity, which is beyond the reach of human knowledge. But it was through these names that G-d created heaven and earth, and it is by way of His names that He continues to direct every minute aspect of existence. Thus it is obvious that G-d's names, through which He summoned forth all creation from nothing at all, have great power. This power is the secret behind the prophetic revelation of the urim v'tummim.

From the Time of Moses

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

Only Questions of Congregational Importance

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

What is the meaning of the words "urim v'tummim?"

According to the commentary of the famed Rashi, these words are derived from their Hebrew roots for "lights" and "perfections," since through the urim v'tummim, the question is illuminated through the letters and its subject matter is then perfected by the High Priest. The Talmud (BT Yoma 73:B)also indicates that the message which was received was called tummim, "perfect," because it was immutable

[bcuzbcuz]

Do you have trouble with this?

http://www.templeins..._garments-8.htm

The "Urim V'Tummim"

Do I have trouble with it? In one word, Yes.

When I was a TBM, No.

When I was active and recommend carrying member I accepted, both Biblical and Mormon scripture, with few reservations. I always had trouble with speaking snakes and speaking donkeys but for the most part took the stories at face value.

Now, I inspect with care before I accept. I can find no evidence that Moses ever lived in Egypt, and he definitely didn't lead 600,000 young men and their families out of Egypt and across the desert for 40 years. The Jewish people were held captive in Babylonia. There are ample records, both contemporary from Babylonian sources and written materials that show up every once in awhile. There may be A urim and thumim in a breastplate that exists somewhere in present day Israel, or in some private collection. But not two of them, and the second one doesn't look like an oversized pair of spectacles.

[cdowis]

• During much of the twentieth century, reports that the stone and the hat had been employed during the translation were dismissed with skepticism.
  

For some a change in that view occurred when an apologist pointed out that the "stone in the hat" was actually compelling evidence for the translation of the BOM, and posed some embarrasing questions for the antis.

What was in that hat? Did he have a candle to read the manuscript, was there a window in the hat? What is the explanation for JS translating for hours with his face in a hat.

[cdowis]

• During much of the twentieth century, reports that the stone and the hat had been employed during the translation were dismissed with skepticism.
  

Then an apologist pointed out the "stone in the hat" posed embarrasing questions for the critics.

What was actually in that hat -- a manuscript from which he was reading? Did he have a candle to read the manuscript, was there a window in the hat? What is the explanation for JS translating for hours with his face in a hat.

[ERayR]

Just want to make clear it is Nicholson's summary, not mine. I did a direct copy-and-paste from his article.

The impression I got (and I have yet to read the article thoroughly) is that the burying occurred in the earlier part of the century.

I don't fault the Church for publishing "more gospel-oriented manuals" since that fits the Church's primary role of teaching people about the gospel of Christ.

Perhaps the problem arises when people look to such sources for their academic or historical instruction when they really need to look elsewhere for that.

In short, I expect my gospel doctrine teacher, who only has 40 minutes a week, to facilitate my spiritual edification and resolve. That's the purpose for which I attend Sabbath meetings.

I'll see to my academic enlightenment on my own time, from the abundant sources that are available.

I grew up in the middle of the last century in a semi-active home. Like special occasion attendance - baby blessings, baptisms and Christmas. I did attend primary every Wednesday and somewhere in that I picked up the seer stone and head in the hat. My brother and I were always looking for a seer stone and even tried various stones in our hats. I don't have a vivid memory of where I got the information but I did know it.

[Wiki Wonka]

• During much of the twentieth century, reports that the stone and the hat had been employed during the translation were dismissed with skepticism.
  

Then an apologist pointed out the "stone in the hat" posed embarrasing questions for the critics.

What was actually in that hat -- a manuscript from which he was reading? Did he have a candle to read the manuscript, was there a window in the hat? What is the explanation for JS translating for hours with his face in a hat.

Here's what the article says about that:

The image of Joseph translating using the stone and the hat does not match the picture that we typically have in our mind of Joseph looking at the plates through a pair of “spectacles,” while sitting behind a curtain. However, the use of the stone and the hat provides a distinct advantage in bolstering the claim that Joseph received the Book of Mormon text through revelation. The absence of a curtain during the latter part of the translation, during which the entire text of the Book of Mormon that we now have was produced, substantially weakens the critical argument that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing a number of other works. Instead of having Joseph obscured by a curtain or blanket, which could have hidden any number of reference materials, Joseph sat in the open, dictating the text of the Book of Mormon to Oliver while looking at the interpreter placed in his hat. Now, instead of “Joseph the plagiarist,” those wishing to provide an alternate explanation of the translation must assert “Joseph the plagiarist who has a photographic memory.” This is of particular value with respect the biblical passages contained within the Book of Mormon, which duplicate the textual structure of the King James Version. Joseph was never seen consulting a Bible as he dictated the text of the Book of Mormon. One must either assume that he consulted a Bible out of view of others and memorized the text, or accept the claim that the text was revealed to him as he dictated it.

WW

[cdowis]

I would suggest a reference to the Urim and Thummin as defined on Wikipedia. Not that I'm suggesting Wikipedia as a resource but because people can revise information and the reader decides whether it is reliable, the information is, at leadt, current. A study of the Urim and Thummin, not in plural form, sees it as a simple "yes and no" tool. The responsibilty falls on the user to ask the right question.

I see. You first look at the answer, and then ask the appropriate question.......

(off topic) Anyway, some have suggested that the liahona had two pointers -- the instruction pointer, and the "I'm not working, please try later" pointer.

[tagriffy]

The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat and the Book said:

The image of Joseph translating using the stone and the hat does not match the picture that we typically have in our mind of Joseph looking at the plates through a pair of “spectacles,” while sitting behind a curtain. However, the use of the stone and the hat provides a distinct advantage in bolstering the claim that Joseph received the Book of Mormon text through revelation. The absence of a curtain during the latter part of the translation, during which the entire text of the Book of Mormon that we now have was produced, substantially weakens the critical argument that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing a number of other works. Instead of having Joseph obscured by a curtain or blanket, which could have hidden any number of reference materials, Joseph sat in the open, dictating the text of the Book of Mormon to Oliver while looking at the interpreter placed in his hat. Now, instead of “Joseph the plagiarist,” those wishing to provide an alternate explanation of the translation must assert “Joseph the plagiarist who has a photographic memory.” This is of particular value with respect the biblical passages contained within the Book of Mormon, which duplicate the textual structure of the King James Version. Joseph was never seen consulting a Bible as he dictated the text of the Book of Mormon. One must either assume that he consulted a Bible out of view of others and memorized the text, or accept the claim that the text was revealed to him as he dictated it.

I would probably question the whole "sitting behind a curtain" thing entirely. IIRC, the only source for this is Martin Harris. Emma, however, casually talked about taking dictation from Joseph while his face was in the hat. As far as I know, the only time Emma served as Joseph's scribe was during the dictation of the 116 pages. If there was a curtain involved at all, it seems to me that it indicates Joseph's distrust of Harris (which is in line with other historical records) than a key part of the original process.

[Wiki Wonka]

I would probably question the whole "sitting behind a curtain" thing entirely. IIRC, the only source for this is Martin Harris. Emma, however, casually talked about taking dictation from Joseph while his face was in the hat. As far as I know, the only time Emma served as Joseph's scribe was during the dictation of the 116 pages. If there was a curtain involved at all, it seems to me that it indicates Joseph's distrust of Harris (which is in line with other historical records) than a key part of the original process.

The next paragraph discusses the curtain

That having been said, there is ample evidence that a curtain or sheet of some kind was used during the early period of translation. Martin Harris is quoted as saying as much in an 1831 issue of the Palmyra Reflector. According to the Reflector, “Harris declares, that when he acted as amanuenses, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure, that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.”79 This would correspond to the early period of the translation during which Harris acted as scribe, prior to the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript.

The article then quotes a number of accounts that mention the curtain.

WW

[tagriffy]

The next paragraph discusses the curtain

The article then quotes a number of accounts that mention the curtain.

WW

I have to go back to the article and take a closer look.

[tagriffy]

After reading the article more closely, it still seems to me that Nicholson hasn't grasped the full import of Emma's statement coupled with the fact (if I am remembering this correctly) she only took dictation during for the lost 116 pages. A natural conclusion is that the curtain was for Martin's benefit, not an essential part of the process. That's a preliminary observation, though. I'd want to get back more deeply into the primary sources before making any harder statements.

[Calm]

The next paragraph discusses the curtain

Harris declares, that when he acted as amanuenses, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure, that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.”

So as you (and anyone else) read it, does it appear as if the curtain for the comfort of Martin or is that just the phrasing being confusing (the "his fear" appears to refer to Harris to me).

add-on: I see that tagriffy likely got the same impression.

Edited June 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

So as you (and anyone else) read it, does it appear as if the curtain for the comfort of Martin or is that just the phrasing being confusing (the "his fear" appears to refer to Harris to me).

add-on: I see that tagriffy likely got the same impression.

The same basic impression. But that impression is directly dependent on Emma only working on the 116 pages. If I haven't remembered my history correctly, that changes things.

[Scott Lloyd]

Limited posters can't start new threads, Tacenda falls into this group.

And you may have missed her add-on where she states you don't receive messages. Perhaps you are maxed out or have the same glitch volgadon has (you can send and thus start a conversation, but others can't start one with you...at least I think that is how it works with volgadon...it may be the reverse, he may not be able to send them).

Most likely that I'm maxed out. I don't tend my in box here very well if at all.

[Wiki Wonka]

After reading the article more closely, it still seems to me that Nicholson hasn't grasped the full import of Emma's statement coupled with the fact (if I am remembering this correctly) she only took dictation during for the lost 116 pages. A natural conclusion is that the curtain was for Martin's benefit, not an essential part of the process. That's a preliminary observation, though. I'd want to get back more deeply into the primary sources before making any harder statements.

Yes, since Emma observed the stone in the hat translation method, and this was prior to the loss of the 116 pages, it does raise the possibility that the curtain was exclusively for Martin's benefit. It seems that Martin is the source of all of the "you will die if you view the plates" statements that made their way into various newspaper accounts.

WW

[Nevo]

Yes, since Emma observed the stone in the hat translation method, and this was prior to the loss of the 116 pages . . .

On what do you base your statement that Emma observed the stone in the hat translation method prior to the loss of the 116 pages? I'm not saying she didn't, but does any source actually say this?