Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I can see the allure of the oil analogy, but the analogy doesn't seem very good to me. Mosiah 8:13 tells us that if someone looks in the interpreters* that ought not, he should perish. Misuse of consecrated oil (say for cooking or even unauthorized attempted healing) doesn't carry the same warning (and I don't think anyone would argue that unauthorized use of consecrated oil would bring any bad earthly consequences). It seems to me that if unauthorized person looking into the seer stone results in death, then there must be some special quality in the stone itself. Otherwise, the unauthorized person's experience with the seer stone would be the same as with any ordinary stone. * Obviously I'm assuming that "the interpreters" referenced by Ammon carry the same properties as Joseph's seer stone. It is possible that there is a difference between "the interpreters" used by a seer (as described by Ammon) and Joseph's seer stone. It's up to God to choose what penalty, if any, He will inflict for misuse of sacred objects. It's nothing intrinsic within the object itself.
Buckeye Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 I can see the allure of the oil analogy, but the analogy doesn't seem very good to me. Mosiah 8:13 tells us that if someone looks in the interpreters* that ought not, he should perish. Misuse of consecrated oil (say for cooking or even unauthorized attempted healing) doesn't carry the same warning (and I don't think anyone would argue that unauthorized use of consecrated oil would bring any bad earthly consequences). It seems to me that if unauthorized person looking into the seer stone results in death, then there must be some special quality in the stone itself. Otherwise, the unauthorized person's experience with the seer stone would be the same as with any ordinary stone. * Obviously I'm assuming that "the interpreters" referenced by Ammon carry the same properties as Joseph's seer stone. It is possible that there is a difference between "the interpreters" used by a seer (as described by Ammon) and Joseph's seer stone. What is the difference between looking at and looking into? Obviously many people have looked at the stone and not died.
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 The October 2015 Ensign will include this: Awesome.We know that from accounts, the Angel Moroni took the plates...but we have accounts as late as 1844 that the U&T and other items were in Church possession at that time. Not sure of later years, except for this one...I think that the U&T and the Sword of Laban are still in the possession of the Church or CoC.
filovirus Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I can see the allure of the oil analogy, but the analogy doesn't seem very good to me. Mosiah 8:13 tells us that if someone looks in the interpreters* that ought not, he should perish. Misuse of consecrated oil (say for cooking or even unauthorized attempted healing) doesn't carry the same warning (and I don't think anyone would argue that unauthorized use of consecrated oil would bring any bad earthly consequenceI'm not 100% convinced "perish" means physical death in this verse.
Zakuska Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Oh SNAP! Didn't they get the memo that this information must be buried at all costs?
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I've always wondered if people believe Joseph could find lost items or hidden treasures with the seer stone.If by hidden treasure, you mean translation of the "word of God"; yes I do. If you speak of treasures that might translate into money...the Church's and his poverty would suggest; no!
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) We know that from accounts, the Angel Moroni took the plates...but we have accounts as late as 1844 that the U&T and other items were in Church possession at that time. Not sure of later years, except for this one...I think that the U&T and the Sword of Laban are still in the possession of the Church or CoC.The point was made today at the news conference that the term Urim and Thummim was used to refer both to the Nephite interpreters, or "spectacles," and to the seer stone. Thus, the account you refer to might have had reference to the seer stone, not the interpreters. And I don't know where you got the idea about the sword of Laban being in possession of either one of the churches. Edited August 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
phaedrus ut Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Years ago I had no doubts that the Urim & Thummim, the Nephite Interpreters, and seer stones were real things. Now I can't even make up a scenario where I would believe objects can have supernatural powers. All I get are questions. How does the rock read the text, does it have vision? Once the text is read how does it process the translation? Apparently the rock can choose variations of a language for the output results like KJV biblical sounding language, does it have other settings like pirate or Klingon? How does the rock communicate the completely translation to the user? Is it wifi or bluetooth or something similar/ Phaedrus 2
Buckeye Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 We know that from accounts, the Angel Moroni took the plates...but we have accounts as late as 1844 that the U&T and other items were in Church possession at that time. Not sure of later years, except for this one...I think that the U&T and the Sword of Laban are still in the possession of the Church or CoC. I've always been told that the U/T and sword were taken back by Moroni. If someone has them laying around, well, .... just let me know when the next press conference is scheduled. I'm coming out.
Zakuska Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) This subject always reminds me of the movie. Coraline. Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska
Stone holm Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Does anyone honestly believe that this stone had magical properties? Please, lets not discuss BoM historicity or origins, just focus on the stone itself and whether any actual metaphysical properties are inherently part of this stone or any other seer stones for that matter. I personally find it hard to believe being raised in these modern times, but I'm curious what others think. How does the song go, "I believe in magic..." My generation doesn't realize the amount of belief in the supernatural that our parents and grandparents held. I think during WWII they started to be ashamed to admit to it, so they didn't talk about it with people -- but they still believed in a whole host of things from talking off warts, rings that aided in finding bodies, dowsing rods, spiritualism. And you see it burst forth occasionally in the talks of various early Church leaders including the idea of Oliver Cowdery having a special staff. Personally, I think our modern concept of casting aspersions on all those beliefs is misguided. After all do we discredit the Ark of the Covenant, or the elevated bronze snakes, or Aaron's staff, or the Liahona? To deny that such things still exist, isn't that like the Protestants thinking the canon is closed. I tend to want to believe that objects can be invested with certain powers and that investment is not necessarily magic, but simply a form of science we do not understand as yet. Still I am surprised that the stone isn't more of a clear or at least translucent crystal.
CA Steve Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Nope. I am taking exception to the faultfinding against the Church for failing to include such an illustration. Thanks, -SmacIf you have no problems with these pictures then asking why such pictures cannot be used shouldn't be a problem either. There is some faultfinding going on here, that's for sure.
why me Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Sadly, no picture of the seerstone in the hat. Why wouldn't the church use this awesome opportunity? Once again the church history isn't complete. Wasn't an illustration done on Joseph translating using the hat recently? I will have to find the thread or reference but apparently the book is now on the shelves of the Deseret Bookstore but sealed in plastic. The author probably wants people to buy the book before seeing these pages, makes sense. But still the church should have had an illustration of this process, maybe commissioned someone to do the illustration for this significant article that was published in the Ensign. Well, of course there is a problem with the hat. Did it actually happen or was it just a joke told years later. And I don't think that we have Joseph's hat. Instead of seeing a negative, why not see a positive. You have now seen the seer stone. And if this stone has not been magnified, it is rather big to be put in a hat, especially if JSs head was in it. I would go blind. And if this is the actual size, I would think that the hat trick might not have happened. Unfortunately, we don't have Joseph's take on it. Edited August 4, 2015 by why me
Danzo Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Sadly, no picture of the seerstone in the hat. Why wouldn't the church use this awesome opportunity? Once again the church history isn't complete. Wasn't an illustration done on Joseph translating using the hat recently? I will have to find the thread or reference but apparently the book is now on the shelves of the Deseret Bookstore but sealed in plastic. The author probably wants people to buy the book before seeing these pages, makes sense. But still the church should have had an illustration of this process, maybe commissioned someone to do the illustration for this significant article that was published in the Ensign. Do you have a problem reading the article? or is it just pictures for you?
Buckeye Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 Do you have a problem reading the article? or is it just pictures for you? Just pictures for me. I stopped trying to learn to read year ago.
why me Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Nope. I am taking exception to the faultfinding against the Church for failing to include such an illustration. Thanks, Don't be so surprised. Those who wish to find a negative in order to shore up their current belief system will continue to find negatives in a positive. It also shows just where people are at in their own church life. This will be no different if the church would publish a 2 thousand page book. Someone would find an omission, something that should have been in the book etc. It is just the way it is.
Danzo Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Just pictures for me. I stopped trying to learn to read year ago. Maybe there will be a picture version of the story published in the friend later.
jkwilliams Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Don't be so surprised. Those who wish to find a negative in order to shore up their current belief system will continue to find negatives in a positive. It also shows just where people are at in their own church life. This will be no different if the church would publish a 2 thousand page book. Someone would find an omission, something that should have been in the book etc. It is just the way it is. It's kind of a vicious cycle. Someone finds fault with the church, and then someone else finds fault with their finding fault with the church, and so on.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 If you have no problems with these pictures then asking why such pictures cannot be used shouldn't be a problem either. There is some faultfinding going on here, that's for sure.Did Smac indicate he had a problem with "asking why such pictures cannot be used"? I must have missed that. Can you link to it? My understanding is that he was objecting to the finding of fault for not including the pictures. I see a distinction there.
Nevo Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Believe it or not, I'm completely happy with the article, including the photos and illustrations. I think it's great that they were able to actually photograph the brown seer stone. When Mark Ashurst-McGee was writing his master's thesis on Joseph Smith's scrying 20 years ago, he wasn't able to see the seer stone himself and had to rely on historical accounts and on Grant Palmer's memories of seeing the seer stone in the 1960s. Now it's in the Ensign. 2
Buckeye Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 Apparently NPR was also at the press meeting: http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/429385939/in-a-try-for-transparency-mormon-church-releases-historical-documents 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Believe it or not, I'm completely happy with the article, including the photos and illustrations. I think it's great that they were able to actually photograph the brown seer stone. When Mark Ashurst-McGee was writing his master's thesis on Joseph Smith's scrying 20 years ago, he wasn't able to see the seer stone himself and had to rely on historical accounts and on Grant Palmer's memories of seeing the seer stone in the 1960s. Now it's in the Ensign.As Mark is now on staff at the Church History Department as a volume editor in the Joseph Smith Papers project, I'm going to guess he has had ample opportunity since then to view the seer stone. Edited to add: And Mark did co-author the Ensign article you refer to that appeared online today and will be in the October print edition. Edited August 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Apparently NPR was also at the press meeting: http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/429385939/in-a-try-for-transparency-mormon-church-releases-historical-documentsThere were a bunch of folks there, bloggers as well as us drive-by media. Salt Lake City television news reporters, two of us plus a photographer from the Deseret News, Peggy Fletcher Stack from the Tribune, somebody from Associated Press. It was well covered. 1
why me Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) It seems that the stone is the size of an egg. Just doesn't seem likely to be placed in a hat with joseph's head in it. Too big. Most likely if a hat was used, he looked at it from a little distance and not exactly in it. http://nypost.com/2015/08/04/mormons-publish-photos-of-seer-stone-used-by-joseph-smith/ And if it is the size of an egg, this would explain why there was no illustration of his head in a hat. How to explain a head in a hat attempting to read words from stone the size of an egg? Maybe it was a hoss cartwright type of hat. Edited August 4, 2015 by why me
Buckeye Posted August 4, 2015 Author Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) It seems that the stone is the size of an egg. Just doesn't seem likely to be placed in a hat with joseph's head in it. Too big. Most likely if a hat was used, he looked at it from a little distance and not exactly in it. http://nypost.com/2015/08/04/mormons-publish-photos-of-seer-stone-used-by-joseph-smith/ And if it the size of an egg, this would explain why there was no illustration of his head in a hat. How to explain a head in a hat attempting to read words from stone the size of an egg? Maybe it was a hoss cartwright type of hat. With all due respect, the size of the stone is the least difficult thing to believe in the translation story. Edited August 4, 2015 by Buckeye 1
Recommended Posts