The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[Scott Lloyd]

I have read them. And? Here they are:

Although there are a couple of inaccuracies mentioned, please show me where it states that Joseph actually used his seer stone in his hat and put his head in the hat when he translated?

I'm dumbfounded that you infer this was included in the captions.

And, why (with all the accurate artist's portrayals now available showing the truth) wasn't at least one illustration included that portrays how Joseph used the stone (which is the subject of this article)?

Still haven't read the text of the article, have you?

I give up. Bye.

[Danzo]

I have read them.  And?  Here they are:

 

 

 

 

 

Although there are a couple of inaccuracies mentioned, please show me where it states that Joseph actually used his seer stone in his hat and put his head in the hat when he translated?

 

I'm dumbfounded that you infer this was included in the captions.

 

And, why (with all the accurate artist's portrayals now available showing the truth) wasn't at least one illustration included that portrays how Joseph used the stone (which is the subject of this article)? 

Try reading the article.  

[jkwilliams]

So you're yanking our chains, then? And turning it back to the recurring theme about how put upon you are because of your "history"? Been down this road before. This is where I step away from the conversation.

 

I'm not yanking anyone's chain. And I'm certainly not saying I'm put upon because of my history. I was making a joke about Bob's earlier statement that I convince no one and can't be trusted because of my history with these boards. He's probably right, as I've done a lot of things I'm not proud of. Still, that doesn't invalidate my perspective, and I have no problem sharing what I think, even though I know it's not convincing anyone.

[ALarson]

it'd be weird now that the majority of members have the impression that Joseph looked at the plates while reading off the words to his scribes.

I know that's why they refuse to show a true portrayal (here and other places).  But IMO, bringing out this seer stone and making a big deal out of it (press conferences, etc.), and then continuing to show the old pictures (that don't portray Joseph actually using this stone) is dishonest and is also confusing for members.  Why not just have ONE picture that shows members how Joseph actually used this brown stone?

[pogi]

I don't think so. As I said, I give people the benefit of the doubt until there's a reason not to. The evidence in this case gives me a reason not to give Joseph or Oliver the benefit of the doubt. After that, I don't think I need to bother making a judgment about his character. 

 

What I am saying is that you are not weighing all of the evidence if you are leaving out OC's character and motivation.  Your conclusions are thus more susceptible to error. 

Edited August 5, 2015 by pogi

[ALarson]

Still haven't read the text of the article, have you?

 

And, you still won't answer my question as to why you think there is not even ONE picture included in this article portraying the truth regarding how Joseph used this stone.  So, I give up.  You must not have an answer or don't know the answer.  Thanks for your efforts, though.

 

(And, yes I've read the article, but you inferred above that the captions to the pictures explained the error of not showing Joseph using his head in his hat with the stone.  They do not address that.)

 

Edited to add:

 

Scott, as far as I see, this is the ONLY reference to Joseph using the stone in his hat (not mention of him putting his head in the hat also), but correct me if I'm wrong:

In fact, historical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as “interpreters,” Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. According to Joseph’s contemporaries, he did this in order to better view the words on the stone.¹⁶

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

What I am saying is that you are not weighing all of the evidence if you are leaving out OC character and motivation.  Your conclusions are thus more susceptible to error. 

 

Oh, I've considered his character and motivation, and I've explained to Scott what I think that was, but that's entirely a guess on my part. If someone comes to me with a pencil sharpener and tells me it's a laptop, that person's character doesn't carry much weight either way, does it?

[hope_for_things]

You'll never be satisfied, because you're making unreasonable demands based a jaundiced and hostile view toward the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

I'll never be satisfied unless we can learn from our past, correct our mistakes, own up to our faults and try to follow Jesus.  

[HappyJackWagon]

deleted threadjack

Edited August 5, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[pogi]

Oh, I've considered his character and motivation, and I've explained to Scott what I think that was, but that's entirely a guess on my part. If someone comes to me with a pencil sharpener and tells me it's a laptop, that person's character doesn't carry much weight either way, does it?

 

I can verify if a pencil sharpener is a laptop or not.  I cannot prove or disprove the BOM, neither can you.  Where there is room to question your conclusions, you should seriously consider other evidences such as character and motivation.  Don't make guesses based on your suspicions of the BOM, really look at the man and determine what is more likely based on all writings from him and about him. 

[jkwilliams]

So, what is this "history" you speak of?

 

Forget I said anything. Like I said, I was making a lame joke about something Crockett said earlier.

[jkwilliams]

I can verify if a pencil sharpener is a laptop or not.  I cannot prove or disprove the BOM, neither can you.  Where there is room to question your conclusions, you should seriously consider other evidences such as character and motivation.  Don't make guesses based on your suspicions of the BOM, really look at the man and determine what is more likely based on all writings from him and about him. 

 

I didn't say I had proof one way or another. To me, however, the evidence is overwhelming, so much so that Oliver Cowdery's character is pretty insignificant. I've questioned my conclusions more times than I can count, but I always end up in the same place. 

[hope_for_things]

Perhaps you could offer proof that 'The Church' did any of that. As far as Art work can you prove JS never used any other method (hint: there are first hand accounts stating he did use methods portrayed in the artwork at times)

 

Firstly, can you clarify which statement I made that you are disputing specifically?

 

Secondly, tell me which of the below four pictures referenced in the article have first hand accounts that correspond to the picture? I'd be interested in learning about it.  Remember first hand means it came from the person who observed it directly, not what they were told by someone else.  

 

[carbon dioxide]

I am really disturbed by the pictures that exist of Joseph Smith doing the translation.  My issue is not whether his face is in a hat or not but the clothes Joseph is wearing.  Does anyone really believe Joseph Smith had shirts exactly like that?  Why is the Church trying to hide the actual clothes he wore?

[hope_for_things]

I am really disturbed by the pictures that exist of Joseph Smith doing the translation.  My issue is not whether his face is in a hat or not but the clothes Joseph is wearing.  Does anyone really believe Joseph Smith had shirts exactly like that?  Why is the Church trying to hide the actual clothes he wore?

 

Nice strawman

[carbon dioxide]

Nice strawman

How is that a strawman? Ah perhaps I am just silly to think that artistic renderings are not perfect that they may be historically inaccurate.  Perhaps such paintings only reflect a moment in time and who knows what Joseph Smith was doing or where he was sitting 5 minutes before or after the event being reflected in the painting.  Perhaps I am blessed at not having the ability to nit pick some things.  Perhaps the paintings of Joseph Smith First Vision are not accurate as well.  Perhaps there are things in the picture the artists put in that were not there and perhaps they missed a tree or two.

Edited August 5, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[jkwilliams]

I am really disturbed by the pictures that exist of Joseph Smith doing the translation.  My issue is not whether his face is in a hat or not but the clothes Joseph is wearing.  Does anyone really believe Joseph Smith had shirts exactly like that?  Why is the Church trying to hide the actual clothes he wore?

 

Maybe they're embarrassed that he wore the same clothes when he translated that he wore when he was out treasure hunting. 

[hope_for_things]

How is that a strawman? Ah perhaps I am just silly to think that artistic renderings are not perfect that they may be historically inaccurate.  Perhaps such paintings only reflect a moment in time and who knows what Joseph Smith was doing or where he was sitting 5 minutes before or after the event being reflected in the painting.  Perhaps I am blessed at not having the ability to nit pick some things.  Perhaps the paintings of Joseph Smith First Vision are not accurate as well.  Perhaps there are things in the picture the artists put in that were not there and perhaps they missed a tree or two.

Strawman in that you setup a false argument about Joseph's clothing to then easily defeat that point.  The clothes he wore obviously isn't on the same level of importance of how he translated the plates.  The paint on the walls, the crumbs on the floor, the trees in the background, etc aren't important.  

 

I agree with the possibility that these artists didn't know the real history, and painted their portrayals based on what they believed.  The church as a whole is responsible for the misrepresentations though, because there were people who knew the honest history and they let these artists depictions get published and endorsed without correcting them.   

[pogi]

I didn't say I had proof one way or another. To me, however, the evidence is overwhelming, so much so that Oliver Cowdery's character is pretty insignificant. I've questioned my conclusions more times than I can count, but I always end up in the same place. 

 

You have to take it all into account OC and others or you are in greater danger of making false judgements.  How can you deny this? Let's be reasonable here and consider all reason.

 

Of course there is reason to doubt the BoM.  However, I have no reason that I have found to doubt OC and others.  I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt, as you say, in light of all evidences of their character and motivation and testimony from themselves and others.  I therefore have strong reason to believe that I may not have and understand all evidences for or against the BoM and have good reason to doubt my doubts.   Add to that my personal witness and I have really, really good reason to doubt my doubts. 

Edited August 5, 2015 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

You have to take it all into account or you are in greater danger of making false judgements.  How can you deny this? Let's be reasonable here and consider all reason. 

 

Of course there is reason to doubt the BoM.  However, I have no reason that I have found to doubt OC and others.  I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt, as you say, in light of all evidences of their character and motivation and testimony from themselves and others.  I therefore have strong reason to believe that I may not have and understand all evidences for or against the BoM and have good reason to doubt my doubts.  Add to that my personal witness and I have really, really good reason to doubt my doubts. 

 

On the other hand I have no reason to trust Oliver Cowdery. But even if he were the most trustworthy person on the planet, what he and Joseph produced is its own best or worst evidence. I have doubted my doubts many times. If I had a reason to doubt my doubts again, I would. Not seeing it at the moment.

[JulieM]

Any member learning about Joseph's seer stones for the first time here, would be able to tell how Joseph really used this stone (by putting it in his hat and burying his face in the hat). This is not explained in the article and there are no drawings or renditions included that show how he did use this seer stone. I agree that there should have been illustrations showing how witnesses described this rather than attaching the old, inaccurate illustrations that members are familiar with.

It just seems odd that they took the time to include the inaccurate illustrations (even with a few corrections) but did not include the known accurate depictions for members to see and learn from.

Edited August 5, 2015 by JulieM

[CA Steve]

Any member learning about Joseph's seer stones for the first time here, would not be able to tell how Joseph really used this stone (by putting it in his hat and burying his face in the hat). This is not explained in the article and there are no drawings or renditions included that show how he did use this seer stone. I agree that there should have been illustrations showing how witnesses described this rather than attaching the old, inaccurate illustrations that members are familiar with.

It just seems odd that they took the time to include the inaccurate illustrations (even with a few corrections) but did not include the known accurate depictions for members to see and learn from.

Well then they would have missed this paragraph in the article.

 

 

In fact, historical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as “interpreters,” Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. According to Joseph’s contemporaries, he did this in order to better view the words on the stone.¹⁶

[pogi]

Any member learning about Joseph's seer stones for the first time here, would not be able to tell how Joseph really used this stone (by putting it in his hat and burying his face in the hat). 

 

Even if they didn't address him using the hat, which they did, what difference does it make?  The point was to display the stone he used.  He dictated the BoM while looking into a stone!  Who cares wether it was buried in a hat, or a paper bag, or sitting on a table?  What is so significant about the hat to you guys?  Does it make it that much more unbelievable?  By blocking out all light, it makes it even more remarkable in my mind and proves that he was not reading a prepared script. 

[Ahab]

I solemnly affirm I did not see your post before i typed mine, but it does seem we are on the same wavelength (or frequency, if you will).

Ha!

I got it!

[SmileyMcGee]

well can you explain the placebo effect? We call it that because we cant explain it

Sorry, i thought you were responding to a different comment.