The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not suggesting any concealment, just wondering why we can't just accept that some people are upset and shock by new information and need compassionate help in absorbing that information? Like I said, if church members want to go after people for being upset, they're sure to find a listening ear elsewhere.

What I can't accept is the propensity to find fault or place blame.

[jkwilliams]

This acceptance & acknowledgement is important.  We still have church members who struggle with a lot of the new information coming to light through the gospel topics essays.

 

I hear from people all the time who tell me they appreciate that they will get honest answers and no condemnation from me, after they've faced accusations from church members and leaders for acknowledging that they are struggling with these issues. I have no interest in pulling people out of the church, but I don't understand the hostility they get when they seek help for their doubts and concerns. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Call me crazy but locking something away in a mountainside vault and only telling a select few about it sure seems like "concealing it". Meanwhile you're telling a narrative that pretends the item doesn't exist.

Who did that?

Doctrines of salvation is mass produced and has been available for a long time. I have a paperback copy yellowed with age.

And what mountain vault? And what pretending narrative?

Edited August 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

What I can't accept is the propensity to find fault or place blame.

 

The problem, I think, is that fault-finding and blame are secondary issues, but too many people make them the main issues. If someone is upset with me and blames me for something, I could get all defensive and say I refuse to accept the propensity to find fault or place blame, or I can find out what the real issues are. Arguing over blame helps no one. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem, I think, is that fault-finding and blame are secondary issues, but too many people make them the main issues. If someone is upset with me and blames me for something, I could get all defensive and say I refuse to accept the propensity to find fault or place blame, or I can find out what the real issues are. Arguing over blame helps no one.

Keeping the record straight is always necessary. If I've misapprehended a thing, don't patronize me by letting me think I have the facts straight.

[jkwilliams]

Keeping the record straight is always necessary. If I've misapprehended a thing, don't patronize me by letting me think I have the facts straight.

 

No one is patronizing anyone. I am saying that it's foolish to get hung up on issues of who is to blame, as that is almost never the real issue. If you believe that you can't get to the real issues until you've set the record straight as to the blame, I don't know what to say. IMO, it's more important to do right than to be right. 

[rockpond]

Who did that?

Doctrines of salvation is mass produced and has been available for a long time. I have a paperback copy yellowed with age.

And what mountain vault? And what pretending narrative?

 

Who?  Church leadership.

 

Doctrines of Salvation is not part of the church curriculum nor is it a church publication.

 

The mountain vault where the stone has reportedly been kept.  The narrative is the one that we all grew up on wherein Joseph used the U & T to translate the Book of Mormon from the plates.

[Tacenda]

Who?  Church leadership.

 

Doctrines of Salvation is not part of the church curriculum nor is it a church publication.

 

The mountain vault where the stone has reportedly been kept.  The narrative is the one that we all grew up on wherein Joseph used the U & T to translate the Book of Mormon from the plates.

Scott is right that the seer stones weren't hidden, it just wasn't common knowledge. 

[why me]

I'm not suggesting any concealment, just wondering why we can't just accept that some people are upset and shock by new information and need compassionate help in absorbing that information? Like I said, if church members want to go after people for being upset, they're sure to find a listening ear elsewhere.

I think that some people need to just understand that it is impossible to know everything. Also, they should stay away from critic interpretations that may cause them to doubt their testimony. Such critics write their interpretation so that a member's testimony will be influenced. But I do find it strange that people do not know about the seerstone. I do believe that it was mentioned in the past. I know about it in the 70s. Many read Arrington's book about the lds.

 

Here is an example from 1988:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

 

The angel also informed Joseph Smith of two stones fastened to a breastplate, which God had prepared to help translate the book. (See JS—H 1:27–47.)¹

In his 1835 account of the experience, the Prophet writes that these stones, known as Urim and Thummim, would assist him in translating the plates because God would give him the power to use the stones. Joseph Smith learned that if he kept the commandments of God, he would be an instrument in God’s hand in bringing forth the book.²

 

Sadly, such articles began to appear less and less as time went on. But obviously, the church was not hiding it if it were in the ensign years ago. So, such members that are a little confused, instead of going to the critics should just read past ensigns.

[jkwilliams]

I think that some people need to just understand that it is impossible to know everything. Also, they should stay away from critic interpretations that may cause them to doubt their testimony. Such critics write their interpretation so that a member's testimony will be influenced. But I do find it strange that people do not know about the seerstone. I do believe that it was mentioned in the past. I know about it in the 70s. Many read Arrington's book about the lds.

 

Here is an example from 1988:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

 

The angel also informed Joseph Smith of two stones fastened to a breastplate, which God had prepared to help translate the book. (See JS—H 1:27–47.)¹

In his 1835 account of the experience, the Prophet writes that these stones, known as Urim and Thummim, would assist him in translating the plates because God would give him the power to use the stones. Joseph Smith learned that if he kept the commandments of God, he would be an instrument in God’s hand in bringing forth the book.²

 

Sadly, such articles began to appear less and less as time went on. But obviously, the church was not hiding it if it were in the ensign years ago. So, such members that are a little confused, instead of going to the critics should just read past ensigns.

 

I have no idea why you quoted that, as it's the standard narrative about the Urim and Thummim. That's not what has some people in a lather.

[why me]

Scott is right that the seer stones weren't hidden, it just wasn't common knowledge. 

 

Not true. It was common knowledge and openly discussed. It was in the ensign long ago. Maybe the church dropped the ball with the ensign discarding such articles such as I linked above. For example here is another great historical article from the late 80s.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/the-alvin-smith-story-fact-and-fiction?lang=eng

 

We were much informed thoughout the 70s and 80s about many interesting things in church history. But for some reason, the church switched gears in the middle 90s, leaving many members a little ignorant of the facts.

[Scott Lloyd]

No one is patronizing anyone. I am saying that it's foolish to get hung up on issues of who is to blame, as that is almost never the real issue. If you believe that you can't get to the real issues until you've set the record straight as to the blame, I don't know what to say. IMO, it's more important to do right than to be right.

Being right is part of doing right.

[why me]

I have no idea why you quoted that, as it's the standard narrative about the Urim and Thummim. That's not what has some people in a lather.

 

Also about stones. One must read the whole article. For example:

 

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer. David Whitmer and Martin Harris testify that if the Prophet made the proper preparation, sentences would appear, which he dictated to his scribe. If the scribe wrote them correctly, the words would disappear, and others would take their place. ²⁴

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

 

It is quite an article with much historical information, information that members may not know today.

[SmileyMcGee]

They didn't think of them as ordinary rocks, though. To them they were something special that helped them to focus on God. And that's where the "magic" came from.

I don't know about you but I went out and about hunting for special rocks when I was a kid. Or a rock that I thought was special, I should say. And I found several. And they worked for me too.

Wait...what do you mean they worked for you? What did you use them for?

[HappyJackWagon]

Scott is right that the seer stones weren't hidden, it just wasn't common knowledge. 

This is partly right.

 

The fact that Joseph and others had seer stones seemed to be pretty common knowledge. It was kind of a folksy, cute, "look how simple he was" kind of thing. But the fact that using the seer stone in a hat was the primary method of translation was not common knowledge. If it was, the church wouldn't be making a big deal of announcing it now in the press conference or the previous essay. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Who? Church leadership.

Doctrines of Salvation is not part of the church curriculum nor is it a church publication.

The mountain vault where the stone has reportedly been kept. The narrative is the one that we all grew up on wherein Joseph used the U & T to translate the Book of Mormon from the plates.

Doctrines of Salvation, if I recall correctly, was originally a Melchizedek Priesthood lesson manual. I'll have to check on that. I do know it was a standard reference work for many years. I used to consult it before giving each priesthood lesson back when I was in college.

The First Presidency vault is in their office, not a mountain.

I've known about the seer stone since my youth.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott is right that the seer stones weren't hidden, it just wasn't common knowledge.

Thank you.

[rockpond]

Scott is right that the seer stones weren't hidden, it just wasn't common knowledge. 

 

If they weren't hidden, where were they and where is a published statement to that effect?

 

I'm not saying that hiding them has to be "sinister or nefarious" as Scott implied from my post yesterday.  Hidden means "kept out of sight, concealed". 

[jkwilliams]

Also about stones. One must read the whole article. For example:

 

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer. David Whitmer and Martin Harris testify that if the Prophet made the proper preparation, sentences would appear, which he dictated to his scribe. If the scribe wrote them correctly, the words would disappear, and others would take their place. ²⁴

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

 

It is quite an article with much historical information, information that members may not know today.

 

Usually, when someone cites an article, they quote the part that supports their assertion. 

[Scott Lloyd]

This is partly right.

 

The fact that Joseph and others had seer stones seemed to be pretty common knowledge. It was kind of a folksy, cute, "look how simple he was" kind of thing. But the fact that using the seer stone in a hat was the primary method of translation was not common knowledge. If it was, the church wouldn't be making a big deal of announcing it now in the press conference or the previous essay.

I've known about the seer stone as an instrument of translation for a long, long time.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Posted Today, 02:19 PM

Ahab, on 05 Aug 2015 - 3:46 PM, said:

They didn't think of them as ordinary rocks, though. To them they were something special that helped them to focus on God. And that's where the "magic" came from.

I don't know about you but I went out and about hunting for special rocks when I was a kid. Or a rock that I thought was special, I should say. And I found several. And they worked for me too.

SmileyMcGee- Wait...what do you mean they worked for you? What did you use them for?

It sounds like a fun, silly game of youth. You let your imagination run wild and it's fun. Make believe is a standard part of childhood play. In grade school my friends and I found pickle slices in a puddle during recess and we pretended they were mysterious but valuable items alien's would come back to recover. It was all very serious business.

[rockpond]

Doctrines of Salvation, if I recall correctly, was originally a Melchizedek Priesthood lesson manual. I'll have to check on that.

The First Presidency vault is in their office, not a mountain.

I've known about the seer stone since my youth.

 

You seem to be in the minority.

 

So you are claiming that the seer stone was kept in a vault in the FP's office.  Others here have said it was in the granite vaults up the canyon.  Is there a published statement somewhere from the church saying that they had the seer stone and where it was?  (If Doctrines of Salvation was originally a MP manual it hasn't been for a very long time.)

[jkwilliams]

Being right is part of doing right.

 

It's a matter of priorities. If making sure blame is not wrongly assigned is more important than resolving an issue, the issue will likely never be resolved. As I said, that is exactly what I've seen with people who contact me. They want answers, and all they get is insistence that the church isn't to blame (usually coupled with "you are") and never any answers. So, as long as you want folks to keep coming to me, go ahead and make "blame" the issue. I think it's kind of pointless.

[why me]

Usually, when someone cites an article, they quote the part that supports their assertion. 

My assertion is in my quotations. The members were informed about the seer stone and the translation process. It was common knowledge and we knew much. No need for us to be disappointed about such information coming now forth by the church since we knew it 40 years ago. We old timers were well educated in church history through articles in the magazines and books that were published. Here is what you wrote:

 

I'm not suggesting any concealment, just wondering why we can't just accept that some people are upset and shock by new information and need compassionate help in absorbing that information? Like I said, if church members want to go after people for being upset, they're sure to find a listening ear elsewhere.

 

Because of my long history with the church I am not surprised about information that was taught years ago. And members should be aware that the church has taught much of the information that they are now disappointed about.

[jkwilliams]

My assertion is in my quotations. The members were informed about the seer stone and the translation process. It was common knowledge and we knew much. No need for us to be disappointed about such information coming now forth by the church since we knew it 40 years ago. We old timers were well educated in church history through articles in the magazines and books that were published. Here is what you wrote:

 

I'm not suggesting any concealment, just wondering why we can't just accept that some people are upset and shock by new information and need compassionate help in absorbing that information? Like I said, if church members want to go after people for being upset, they're sure to find a listening ear elsewhere.

 

Because of my long history with the church I am not surprised about information that was taught years ago. And members should be aware that the church has taught much of the information that they are now disappointed about.

 

I haven't been arguing that the church conceals or hides anything (in fact, I agree with Tacenda and apparently Scott). What I am saying is that focusing on the blame helps no one. You can think someone should have known but still understand how they feel, can't you? Wouldn't it be better to just say, "Can we set aside the blame and talk about what's bothering you?" To me, this is obvious.