The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

You knew about the seer stone since your youth but did you know it was the primary source of revelation for the translation of the BoM and did you know the original uses for the stone?

 

It's kind of like saying "I knew about polygamy since my youth." This is probably true. We all "knew" about it to some extent but the details are shocking so the overall effect is that it is new and shocking information.

[HappyJackWagon]

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

Did you know it was THE instrument of translation? Also, I'd wager you're a bit older than I am which could play a role in what was taught during your youth.

[jkwilliams]

Did you know it was THE instrument of translation? Also, I'd wager you're a bit older than I am which could play a role in what was taught during your youth.

 

I'm not Scott, obviously (he's better looking). I recently turned 50, and I knew that Joseph Smith had seer stones, but I wasn't aware that he had used them both for treasure seeking and translating the Book of Mormon until I was probably in my thirties.,

Edited August 6, 2015 by jkwilliams

[mapman]

I think that your age and origin have a lot to do with how well-known this knowledge is. I'd think that members born in the 80s or later probably are a lot less likely to have heard about it since the Ensign and manuals were a lot more correlated and simplified while they grew up. The only reason I've known about the brown seer stone for ages is because I'm interested in history and I actively searched out information like that. I certainly never heard about it in church. Members who are from countries that don't speak English are even less likely to have heard about stuff like this. I'm pretty sure that the majority of members were born during the 80s or after or in a non-English speaking country. This seems to be why experiences seem to differ so much.

Edited August 6, 2015 by mapman

[Tacenda]

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.

Definition of common knowledge is:  1.  Something widely or generally known 

 

I don't understand how you can reconcile that it was common knowledge.  I've been active for over 40 years and in all that time I read the Ensign up until I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago.  I guess I missed the article about the seer stone being used for nearly the entire BOM translation process. 

 

ETA:  https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

 

Here is an article in the Friend though, I'm sure there are more.  I just don't remember ever reading anything about it.  But I really enjoyed the personal stories the most in the Ensign. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sitting in the FairMormon Conference. iPod has run out of battery power. I have to disengage for the rest of the afternoon though there is much here to respond to.

[jkwilliams]

I think that your age and origin have a lot to do with how well-known this knowledge is. I'd think that members born in the 80s or later probably are a lot less likely to have heard about it since the Ensign and manuals were a lot more correlated and simplified while they grew up. The only reason I've known about the brown seer stone for ages is because I'm interested in history and I actively searched out information like that. I certainly never heard about it in church. Members who are from countries that don't speak English are even less likely to have heard about stuff like this. I'm pretty sure that the majority of members were born during the 80s or after or in a non-English speaking country. This seems to be why experiences seem to differ so much.

 

This is why worrying about who is to blame is irrelevant and quite counterproductive. The issue is that, however it happened, these people didn't know about a particular issue, and now they do, and they are troubled by that issue. I'd rather focus on helping people work through the issue than on assigning blame. Others apparently disagree with me.

[jkwilliams]

Definition of common knowledge is:  1.  Something widely or generally known 

 

I don't understand how you can reconcile that it was common knowledge.  I've been active for over 40 years and in all that time I read the Ensign up until I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago.  I guess I missed the article about the seer stone being used for nearly the entire BOM translation process. 

 

Usually, when people say "it was common knowledge," they mean that you should have known about it, but because you didn't, it's your fault. So, you shouldn't be upset about something that is your fault.

[why me]

Definition of common knowledge is:  1.  Something widely or generally known 

 

I don't understand how you can reconcile that it was common knowledge.  I've been active for over 40 years and in all that time I read the Ensign up until I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago.  I guess I missed the article about the seer stone being used for nearly the entire BOM translation process. 

In the past, the ensign was also a teaching tool. Maybe the NYC members were more informed then the average Utahan. I don't know. But it was common knowledge about the seer stone. And you did miss the article in the ensign and most likely missed Arrington's book about the latter day saints which had much information about church history. But whose fault is that? One cannot claim that the church hid its history when the ensign had history articles almost every month.

 

And what about the multiple vision accounts? That was also in the ensign years ago about the same time:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

 

So, when the critics claimed that the members are ignorant of the accounts I cannot say that I agree. We knew about long ago. The bigger question is: why did the church change the ensign to what it became. Boring. Did you read this article 30 years ago. I think that you read many such articles but forgot the information.

[Tacenda]

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. 

Yes, I left that part out.  I agree. 

[why me]

Usually, when people say "it was common knowledge," they mean that you should have known about it, but because you didn't, it's your fault. So, you shouldn't be upset about something that is your fault.

If people don't read the articles in the ensign, whose fault is it? My premise is simple: in the past we knew much. The essays are not new for us old timers who remember what was in the ensign back then. So, yes it was common knowledge back then. Since there was no internet, no social media, the ensign is what we had. And many church members read it. Not to mention desseret books and other magazines from the church.

[jkwilliams]

If people don't read the articles in the ensign, whose fault is it? My premise is simple: in the past we knew much. The essays are not new for us old timers who remember what was in the ensign back then. So, yes it was common knowledge back then. Since there was no internet, no social media, the ensign is what we had. And many church members read it. Not to mention desseret books and other magazines from the church.

 

So, am I to take it you're with those who think the blame is more important than the issue?

[why me]

You knew about the seer stone since your youth but did you know it was the primary source of revelation for the translation of the BoM and did you know the original uses for the stone?

 

It's kind of like saying "I knew about polygamy since my youth." This is probably true. We all "knew" about it to some extent but the details are shocking so the overall effect is that it is new and shocking information.

But we did. It is in one of my links. It was in the ensign as the main way of translation. And polygamy and the details were in Arrington's book which many members read in the late seventies.  Not to mention in his essays which people read too.

 

However, the church failed to mentioned these things beginning in the middle nineties. The ensign became rather boring and now with the internet, members are being informed by critics. The church is only continuing what they were doing in the past when Arrington was the church historian. The change came when he was dismissed as church historian.

[why me]

So, am I to take it you're with those who think the blame is more important than the issue?

No, I blame the church for dropping the ball and changing the nature of the ensign. It became boring. But in the past the articles were informative and very 'academic'. I am not even sure if members today would understand such articles. Generally, we are living in an age of stupidity, with reality TV and trash cable TV destroying minds.

 

I chose three historical articles from the ensign in the late 80s. They were very good and they were discussed in classes. There are many more such articles to be found in the past issues. Just skim the contents for such articles and enjoy the reading. You will become very informed. Here is another one:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/confirming-witnesses-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

 

What more can I say? I have no idea why the church began to dumb it down. I was angry about the change of direction and more or less stopped reading the ensign. But boy, back in the day, we had great discusssion in priesthood about such articles linked above.

 

Unfortunately, tacenda missed them in the ensign or she has forgotten them. And if you were around back then, maybe you did too. But I havent forgotten them. The essays are just going over much that we already knew back in the good ol days.

Edited August 6, 2015 by why me

[Jeanne]

I'm not Scott, obviously (he's better looking). I recently turned 50, and I knew that Joseph Smith had seer stones, but I wasn't aware that he had used them both for treasure seeking and translating the Book of Mormon until I was probably in my thirties.

WhenI found out that the seer stone was used for the translation in 2008..I mentioned it to active LDS friends and was laughed at...laughed at!! 

[JAHS]

I have known about the seer stone and how it was used practically my entire life (60 years). Read about it in the Ensign:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

 

And the Childrens' Friend:

 

https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

 

I knew that it was in posession of the church and wondered if we would ever get to see it. 

It' s exciting to finally get a look at it.

[filovirus]

So how would the church correct the lack of information that most members have in regards to church history? I wish we would get away from the "Teachings of (insert prophet name)" books and have a church history manual in Elders/High Priest/Relief Society that can also focus on spiritual matters. I'm coming to realize that most members only hear what is taught in church meetings because they don't seek answers for themselves, or maybe don't even know what questions to ask.

And I'm not sure that until recently some high authority members even knew much about church history beyond the basics.

[why me]

I have known about the seer stone and how it was used practically my entire life (60 years). Read about it in the Ensign:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

 

And the Childrens' Friend:

 

https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

 

I knew that it was in posession of the church and wondered if we would ever get to see it. 

It' s exciting to finally get a look at it.

Exactly. We old timers knew much back then. It was common in our discussion in the foyer and in sunday school when the book of mormon was discussed. The church did not hide it. However, from the middle nineties they stopped writing such articles. It was a bad decision since the internet and social media were soon on the horizon.

 

I  can't blame the younger crowd at all. But they should be discussing why the church decided to change direction. This is where the fault is. But being influenced by the critics, they tend to question it all rather differently.

Edited August 6, 2015 by why me

[JAHS]

Exactly. We old timers knew much back then. It was common in our discussion in the foyer and in sunday school when the book of mormon was discussed. The church did not hide it. However, from the middle nineties they stopped writing such articles. It was a bad decision since the internet and social media were soon on the horizon.

 

I  can't blame the younger crowd at all. But they should be discussing why the church decided to change direction. This is where the fault is. But being influenced by the critics, they tend to question it all rather differently.

 

I have seen it mentioned in a few church history student manuals used for various classes, after the mid ninties and 2000's. I think the church decided to stick with the basics of the gospel; emphasize the things that actually help bring salvation to our souls, rather than on historical trivia. 

[Tacenda]

I have known about the seer stone and how it was used practically my entire life (60 years). Read about it in the Ensign:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

 

And the Childrens' Friend:

 

https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

 

I knew that it was in posession of the church and wondered if we would ever get to see it. 

It' s exciting to finally get a look at it.

I posted the same link to the Friend article.  Did you see it?  Now if the church was very forthright why is there only that and the other one in the 1970's that we can link to?  It's extremely telling.  We hear all the time about other subjects in the church, over and over, but cannot get more than this?  Was listening to a great old (1980) Sunstone Symposium about this very thing, if anyone has the time to listen I'll link later.  It's amazing that they were speaking of the same problems in 1980.  And now it's hitting the fan.  I appreciate Why Me's honesty in expressing that the church needs to keep things real, my words.  I think perhaps the church is realizing this and will quit telling apologists to not touch different subjects (in the Sunstone podcast).

 

Also, a conversation on another board is ongoing about this and they quoted the below from the Gospel Principles Manual, not sure if it's current or a past one.  I tend to wonder how the church can do as they're instructing us not to do. 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

 

"Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” Nephi 28:8 Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage."

Edited August 6, 2015 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

But we did. It is in one of my links. It was in the ensign as the main way of translation. And polygamy and the details were in Arrington's book which many members read in the late seventies.  Not to mention in his essays which people read too.

 

However, the church failed to mentioned these things beginning in the middle nineties. The ensign became rather boring and now with the internet, members are being informed by critics. The church is only continuing what they were doing in the past when Arrington was the church historian. The change came when he was dismissed as church historian.

I'm glad you knew this stuff. Did you teach the hat and stone method of translation in your lessons or on your mission? Quoting 1-2 Ensign articles about the "real" translation method amidst multitudes of lessons, films, pictures, missionary discussions etc is insignificant.

 

As someone who trusts the church's narrative about polygamy and translation, why would I think I needed to look up an old book to learn the real story? I trusted the story I was told in Primary, Sunday School and Seminary. The same story I taught others on my mission and in every lesson as an adult. Shame on me for trusting the church curriculum. This is a big problem. It irritates me that I trusted the church curriculum when clearly I shouldn't have. So now I have to consider how much I should trust the church on other issues and teachings.

 

So as a grade schooler I admit I didn't read the Ensign article about the stone and hat. Again, shame on me.

 

Arrington was shut down as church historian and many of his projects shelved. So saying the church is "continuing" his work 35 years later is good but there is still a 35 year gap which is significant for someone my age.

 

People will continue to blame members like me for not knowing the "real story" but it doesn't change the fact that as an active member and leader my entire life I didn't know this stuff until I decided there were enough problems with the narrative that I'd better study from outside materials on my own. There are many others like me. The only thing we're guilty of is trusting the church's narrative. A lesson we are learning well.

[Brian 2.0]

Exactly. We old timers knew much back then. It was common in our discussion in the foyer and in sunday school when the book of mormon was discussed. The church did not hide it. However, from the middle nineties they stopped writing such articles. It was a bad decision since the internet and social media were soon on the horizon.

 

I  can't blame the younger crowd at all. But they should be discussing why the church decided to change direction. This is where the fault is. But being influenced by the critics, they tend to question it all rather differently.

 

I think there definitely is a generation gap on this stuff.  As one of the younger-ish generation (turning 40 this year), I came of age in the post-Arrington and correlation era and assumed that's the way it has been for much longer.  Correlation had/has its merits but I think the negative effects have surfaced when the correlation generation entered the internet age.

[Stone holm]

No, I blame the church for dropping the ball and changing the nature of the ensign. It became boring. But in the past the articles were informative and very 'academic'. I am not even sure if members today would understand such articles. Generally, we are living in an age of stupidity, with reality TV and trash cable TV destroying minds.

 

I chose three historical articles from the ensign in the late 80s. They were very good and they were discussed in classes. There are many more such articles to be found in the past issues. Just skim the contents for such articles and enjoy the reading. You will become very informed. Here is another one:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/confirming-witnesses-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

 

What more can I say? I have no idea why the church began to dumb it down. I was angry about the change of direction and more or less stopped reading the ensign. But boy, back in the day, we had great discusssion in priesthood about such articles linked above.

 

Unfortunately, tacenda missed them in the ensign or she has forgotten them. And if you were around back then, maybe you did too. But I havent forgotten them. The essays are just going over much that we already knew back in the good ol days.

 

I agree we created a generation that was unaware of Church history and also early Church beliefs and teachings.  We seemed to want to be normalized and part of mainstream America.  I certainly didn't join the Church because it was like mainstream American culture and Christianity, but because it was peculiar and its doctrines were peculiar and even its members a bit peculiar.  We are supposed to be a peculiar people, not plain wrapper -- apple pie -- American Christians.

[why me]

I'm glad you knew this stuff. Did you teach the hat and stone method of translation in your lessons or on your mission? Quoting 1-2 Ensign articles about the "real" translation method amidst multitudes of lessons, films, pictures, missionary discussions etc is insignificant.

 

As someone who trusts the church's narrative about polygamy and translation, why would I think I needed to look up an old book to learn the real story? I trusted the story I was told in Primary, Sunday School and Seminary. The same story I taught others on my mission and in every lesson as an adult. Shame on me for trusting the church curriculum. This is a big problem. It irritates me that I trusted the church curriculum when clearly I shouldn't have. So now I have to consider how much I should trust the church on other issues and teachings.

 

So as a grade schooler I admit I didn't read the Ensign article about the stone and hat. Again, shame on me.

 

Arrington was shut down as church historian and many of his projects shelved. So saying the church is "continuing" his work 35 years later is good but there is still a 35 year gap which is significant for someone my age.

 

People will continue to blame members like me for not knowing the "real story" but it doesn't change the fact that as an active member and leader my entire life I didn't know this stuff until I decided there were enough problems with the narrative that I'd better study from outside materials on my own. There are many others like me. The only thing we're guilty of is trusting the church's narrative. A lesson we are learning well.

The head in the hat was also in the ensign. And we did know about it. I do remember it being talked about by members. The thing is we shouldn't let what the critics say affect us too much. There is the other side. The conversation should be simple: why did the church stop educating people through the ensign and other publications. This is the conversation that we should be having. It was certainly a mistake by the church but it is not devastating.

 

Also people have poor memories. I know that Arrington's book was very popular in the late 70s. But who remembers the details in that book even after reading it 30 so years ago? And as can be seen in some posts, there is a generational gap in knowledge. In terms of the church narrative, well, I don't know. The church narrative is quite simple: we have a book. It was more or less translated, 11 witnesses confirmed that they saw the book and testified of it, Basically that is the narrative. What happened in the process is just window dressing. But yea, I feel sorry for your generation. The thing is I never knew anyone who left the church over multiple vision accounts, seer stones, JSs polygamy, etc. back in the day. We had no critics tell us how to think about the material. We just thought about the information and came to our own conclusions, which were usually faith based.

 

Here is an interesting article from 1979 about joseph's reputation. It also mentions that Joseph was a polygamist because it has a statement of one of his polygamous wives who was living with him:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

 

From the link:

 

The distance between the Joseph Smith portrayed in his holograph writings and the Joseph of the Hurlbut affidavits is the point of responsible history. The availability and use of the vast archival collections pertaining to Mormon history has done much to place studies of the Prophet on a less emotional plane. And a vigorous interest in Mormon history in recent years has provided significant headway in presenting a more accurate view of him. Numerous articles in professional history journals and the U.S. publication of at least two important volumes on a national level indicate this trend. Donna Hill’s Joseph Smith, the First Mormon (Doubleday, 1977) and The Mormon Experience by Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton (Knopf, 1979) reveal Joseph Smith in a much more substantial light than the writings of the past have heretofore portrayed him. And one can anticipate that with continued interest in Mormon history, much will yet be written to counter the distorted image of the Prophet that has rested so heavily upon the bookshelves of the world.

Dean C. Jessee, a research historian in the Church

 

The article is great and very informative. But could people basically understand such articles today? I also think that tesimonies were stronger back when this article was written. Today, it seems that testimonies are built on sand. Both books mentioned in this part of the ensign article were widely read by church members.

Edited August 6, 2015 by why me

[HappyJackWagon]

The head in the hat was also in the ensign. And we did know about it. I do remember it being talked about by members. The thing is we shouldn't let what the critics say affect us too much. There is the other side. The conversation should be simple: why did the church stop educating people through the ensign and other publications. This is the conversation that we should be having. It was certainly a mistake by the church but it is not devastating.

 

Also people have poor memories. I know that Arrington's book was very popular in the late 70s. But who remembers the details in that book even after reading it 30 so years ago? And as can be seen in some posts, there is a generational gap in knowledge. In terms of the church narrative, well, I don't know. The church narrative is quite simple: we have a book. It was more or less translated, 11 witnesses confirmed that they saw the book and testified of it, Basically that is the narrative. What happened in the process is just window dressing. But yea, I feel sorry for your generation. The thing is I never knew anyone who left the church over multiple vision accounts, seer stones, JSs polygamy, etc. back in the day. We had no critics tell us how to think about the material. We just thought about the information and came to our own conclusions, which were usually faith based.

 

Here is an interesting article from 1979 about joseph's reputation. It also mentions that Joseph was a polygamist because it has a statement of one of his polygamous wives who was living with him:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

The devastation comes not from details of church history (though details can be very important) but from the broken trust members like me feel when we discover the stories are intentionally inaccurate.

 

I'm still curious about those who always knew about the rock/hat translation method. Did you teach that in classes or on your mission? If so, what was the reaction? If not, why not? If you knew the true translation method why would you ever teach anything else?

 

And despite a few references in the Ensign that blew past my generation because we were too busy playing Atari, why would the church continue teaching something they clearly knew was incorrect? That's the important question.

Edited August 6, 2015 by HappyJackWagon