pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) On the other hand I have no reason to trust Oliver Cowdery. Then I have no reason to trust that you have studied the man. His private letters of correspondence with other "schemers" is vindication enough for me. There was no scheming as would be required for such an elaborate plot to work, no revelation of darkness, secrets, or misdirection...only testimony, conviction and brotherhood in the Lord. All of their secret and private correspondence vindicates them from any misdirection. Edited August 5, 2015 by pogi
CA Steve Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 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. So if someone were to publish an article about 19th century methods to find water, which specifically included both a picture of a divining rod (rods) and written descriptions of how those rods worked, but only included drawings of 19th century people digging wells to find water, you wouldn't find that strange?
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Then I have no reason to trust that you have studied the man. His private letters (which have now been revealed) of correspondence with other "schemers" is vindication enough for me. There was no scheming as would be required for such an elaborate plot to work, no revelation of darkness, secrets, or misdirection...only testimony, conviction and brotherhood in the Lord. All of their secret and private correspondence vindicates them from any misdirection. The problem, of course, is what they produced, You seem to believe that a good man couldn't come up with false scripture. I respectfully disagree.
ALarson Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Well then they would have missed this paragraph in the article....."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."Where does it state that Joseph put his head in the hat after placing the stone into it? This is the detail that was left out of the entire article and no accurate portrayals were included showing how Joseph actually used the stone either (but they did make sure to include all the very familiar, old portrayals that are not accurate). I think that's the argument here. However, this is a step towards more transparency from the leaders and I hope this continues until they publish all the facts they have surrounding Joseph's use of the seer stone (to translate and to treasure seek). Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson
hope_for_things Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Then I have no reason to trust that you have studied the man. His private letters of correspondence with other "schemers" is vindication enough for me. There was no scheming as would be required for such an elaborate plot to work, no revelation of darkness, secrets, or misdirection...only testimony, conviction and brotherhood in the Lord. All of their secret and private correspondence vindicates them from any misdirection. Did you also notice how in Oliver’s letters to David Whitmer that they both believed that Brigham Young didn’t have the keys of authority to run the church and how they believed that they still held the keys of leadership?
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 The problem, of course, is what they produced, You seem to believe that a good man couldn't come up with false scripture. I respectfully disagree. A good man would not plot, scheme and intentionally deceive thousands of people through "classic misdirection". Even if he did, their private correspondence would reveal the plot.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 A good man would not plot, scheme and intentionally deceive thousands of people through "classic misdirection". Even if he did, their private correspondence would reveal the plot. I think you underestimate the human capacity for self-deception.
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Did you also notice how in Oliver’s letters to David Whitmer that they both believed that Brigham Young didn’t have the keys of authority to run the church and how they believed that they still held the keys of leadership? All this proves is that they indeed believed that the keys ACTUALLY existed - a strong witness to his story of how they came to be through Peter, James, and John.
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I think you underestimate the human capacity for self-deception. There is an obvious difference between fraudulent misdirection of others and self-deception.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 There is an obvious difference between fraudulent misdirection of others and self-deception. It's not always obvious to the people doing it.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 We all know why they are so insistent that the "official" painting of the translation be with Joseph's face buried in a hat...They believe that image will prove just how foolish and silly the Book of Mormon story is.Whereas, I couldn't give two... a hoot... about the method used to translate- the Book is true.
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 So if someone were to publish an article about 19th century methods to find water, which specifically included both a picture of a divining rod (rods) and written descriptions of how those rods worked, but only included drawings of 19th century people digging wells to find water, you wouldn't find that strange? Honestly...no.
Ahab Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 The problem, of course, is what they produced, You seem to believe that a good man couldn't come up with false scripture. I respectfully disagree.What they produced is truly scripture, including what is true as well as what is false. What part of it do you disagree with?And please try to understand that what is scripture is still scripture even if you disagree that it is scripture.
hope_for_things Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 All this proves is that they indeed believed that the keys ACTUALLY existed - a strong witness to his story of how they came to be through Peter, James, and John. So Oliver was right to believe that keys existed, but he was wrong to believe that he held the keys. I guess we can pick and choose which elements the early witnesses were right and wrong about because obviously we know who had the keys today.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 What they produced is truly scripture, including what is true as well as what is false. What part of it do you disagree with?And please try to understand that what is scripture is still scripture even if you disagree that it is scripture. I'm sure you and I disagree about what is scripture and what is not. I think, however, you would agree that Oliver Cowdery's character is irrelevant to whether the Book of Mormon is scripture or not.
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 It's not always obvious to the people doing it. It would not be obvious to both Joseph and Oliver that they were deceiving others by pretending to use a rock in a hat when they were really reading from and copying large portions of the bible? Are you trying to convince me that their self-deception was so severe that they actually believed that they didn't really copy the Bible?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 So Oliver was right to believe that keys existed, but he was wrong to believe that he held the keys. I guess we can pick and choose which elements the early witnesses were right and wrong about because obviously we know who had the keys today. Or they were right and wrong at the same time... they had the Priesthood and so did others. That at the death of Hyrum & Joseph, the church was scattered to the four winds until we can get our act together and seek the welfare of Zion, instead of our organizations.Just sayin'
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 It would not be obvious to both Joseph and Oliver that they were deceiving others by pretending to use a rock in a hat when they were really reading from and copying large portions of the bible? Are you trying to convince me that their self-deception was so severe that they actually believed that they didn't really copy the Bible? Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying human beings have a limitless capacity for convincing themselves that they are doing the right thing. 1
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 So Oliver was right to believe that keys existed, but he was wrong to believe that he held the keys. I guess we can pick and choose which elements the early witnesses were right and wrong about because obviously we know who had the keys today. I am not making judgement of right or wrong. I am only judging wether he believed his story or if he was a fraud.
ALarson Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Try reading the article. CFR that the article states that Joseph put his head in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 CFR that the article states that Joseph put his head in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon."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"
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 "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" Does "it" refer to his head or to the stone?
Calm Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Yes, but there are statements that there was a curtain between them. (I'll try to find the statements, but I believe at least Martin Harris stated this)The curtain could have been for the same purpose as the hat. The scribe would need light to write by, a curtain would help block the light.
Ahab Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I'm sure you and I disagree about what is scripture and what is not. I think, however, you would agree that Oliver Cowdery's character is irrelevant to whether the Book of Mormon is scripture or not.No, his character played a part in the translation that produced scripture from scripture. If he had rephrased what Joseph said instead of writing it down verbatim it's likely that what he wrote would not have been scripture. Scripture is what holy men write as they are moved/inspired by the Holy Spirit, so if Oliver had not been holy, well, then you and I might agree that what was produced was not scripture.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 No, his character played a part in the translation that produced scripture from scripture. If he had rephrased what Joseph said instead of writing it down verbatim it's likely that what he wrote would not have been scripture. Scripture is what holy men write as they are moved/inspired by the Holy Spirit, so if Oliver had not been holy, well, then you and I might agree that what was produced was not scripture. The Bible is pretty clear that God often works through people who are not holy. I have no problem with true scripture coming through imperfect men, as it always does.
Recommended Posts