The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[ALarson]

If I understand correctly, the curtain was used before the angel or Joseph showed the plates to the three witnesses or the 11 witnesses. It was a commandment prior to that that was not needed after, at least that is my understanding.

That could be and I hadn't thought about the timing before.  That makes sense, though.

 

However, if I remember correctly, the plates were not ever in plain sight so maybe a curtain was no longer necessary?

[Scott Lloyd]

The pictures you refer were not done by iPhones or regular cameras.  They are just artist renderings.  I guess if one is going to focus on those images, why not assert that Joseph did not comb is hair that way or he really did not have that shirt in his collection.

 

If one is going to rely on the scribes in their descriptions of what happened during the translation process, they also must accept what they said in regards to having a Bible or anything else.  They said he did not have a Bible. 

I notice those who hyperventilate about alleged inconsistencies in art work depicting the translation process never seem to have a problem with Biblical paintings that are replete with inaccuracies, anachronisms and artist's suppositions.

 

And the latest wrinkle: fussing about the absence of a face-in-the-hat illustration to accompany an article, when that the face-in-the-hat observation from witnesses is clearly explained in the text of the article.

 

I feel compelled to shake my head and mutter, "Good grief!"

[Scott Lloyd]

" Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them."

 

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

 

If true, this suggests that there was something special about the seer stone.

It just as easily suggests an alternative theory: that the Lord required exactness in carrying out instructions and was not going to tolerate Martin's tomfoolery.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

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

You  mentioned the placebo effect.  Some people like to insert God and say that anything we can't explain can be attributed to God.  Are you saying that because Joseph believed he could get divine communications through a stone and that because the dictation of the BoM was the result of Joseph's belief, that therefore this is evidence of God.  We can't explain it, so we attribute it to God? 

[Scott Lloyd]

There is a human tendency to associate spiritual or supernatural properties with physical objects (rabbit's foot, religious medallions, e-meters). Does God use such things in His dealings with humans? If we believe the Bible, with stories of Moses' bronze serpent and a woman being healed by touching Jesus' garment, it would appear so. 

At last, a post from you I can wholeheartedly agree with. You get a rep point in celebration.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That's why I don't rely on the scribes.

He makes a solid point, though. Critics have a slavish reliance on the observation of witnesses when it suits their purposes but insinuate dishonesty when it doesn't.

[jkwilliams]

At last, a post from you I can wholeheartedly agree with. You get a rep point in celebration.

 

The horror! The horror!

[jkwilliams]

He makes a solid point, though. Critics have a slavish reliance on the observation of witnesses when it suits their purposes but insinuate dishonesty when it doesn't.

 

Depends on the critic. I think the stone and hat were classic misdirection, and the KJV passages suggest a Bible was used, so no, I don't rely on the witnesses. 

[hope_for_things]

I notice those who hyperventilate about alleged inconsistencies in art work depicting the translation process never seem to have a problem with Biblical paintings that are replete with inaccuracies, anachronisms and artist's suppositions.

 

And the latest wrinkle: fussing about the absence of a face-in-the-hat illustration to accompany an article, when that the face-in-the-hat observation from witnesses is clearly explained in the text of the article.

 

I feel compelled to shake my head and mutter, "Good grief!"

I’ve noticed that those who hyperventilate about any critique of church created materials sure do love to use pejorative terms like hyperventilate and create a fuss about how absurd it is to question or critique something that the church produces.  I too shake my head and mutter…..

 

BTW, I think they should have included pictures of the head in the hat, it was a miss by the church PR team.  But I also have a problem with biblical inaccuracies as well, so I guess I don’t fit into your stereotype.  

[Sevenbak]

That could be and I hadn't thought about the timing before. That makes sense, though.

However, if I remember correctly, the plates were not ever in plain sight so maybe a curtain was no longer necessary?

I don't think anywhere it says the plates were NEVER in plain sight when Joseph was using the stone.

[Scott Lloyd]

I’ve noticed that those who hyperventilate about any critique of church created materials sure do love to use pejorative terms like hyperventilate and create a fuss about how absurd it is to question or critique something that the church produces.  I too shake my head and mutter…..

 

BTW, I think they should have included pictures of the head in the hat, it was a miss by the church PR team.  But I also have a problem with biblical inaccuracies as well, so I guess I don’t fit into your stereotype.  

You fit better than you think.

[hope_for_things]

You fit better than you think.

 

Give me an example of a biblical inaccuracy and I'll tell you if I have a problem with it or not.  BTW, I don't believe in the historicity of much of the bible, so keep that in mind.  

[ALarson]

I don't think anywhere it says the plates were NEVER in plain sight when Joseph was using the stone.

Is there a witness statement by someone who saw them out?  I think Emma saw them covered (but I need to revisit the statements by witnesses, maybe Lucy too?).  If someone did see the gold plates while Joseph was translating, I'd be very interested to read their description of them.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Give me an example of a biblical inaccuracy and I'll tell you if I have a problem with it or not.  BTW, I don't believe in the historicity of much of the bible, so keep that in mind.  

I don't suppose you spend much time viewing folk-art creche exhibits. I'm thinking they would send you into apoplexy.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there a witness statement by someone who saw them out?  I think Emma saw them covered (but I need to revisit the statements by witnesses, maybe Lucy too?).  If someone did see the gold plates while Joseph was translating, I'd be very interested to read their description of them.  

So absence of evidence is always evidence of absence?

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps we should altogether discard artistic representations, since they unavoidably require conceptions that cannot be verified with known facts and are just as likely as not to be false suppositions.

 

Let's just stick with photographs.

 

But then photographs can lie too, especially in the age of Photoshop. Even if not electronically manipulated, they can easily be staged or cropped to convey a false impression.

 

Let's ban pictures outright and just have solid text. That's the ticket.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

So absence of evidence is always evidence of absence?

You didn't answer the question.  Are their any witness statements who saw Joseph using the gold plates to translate where the plates were in plain sight?

 

I was just addressing Sevenbak's comment.

[Scott Lloyd]

You didn't answer the question.  Are their any witness statements who saw Joseph using the gold plates to translate where the plates were in plain sight?

 

I was just addressing Sevenbak's comment.

You put the question to him; he can answer if he likes. I'm asking: What difference does it make?

 

I'm suggesting you can't conclude the plates were never in plain sight, just because there is no ready example of someone happening to mention it.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Perhaps we should altogether discard artistic representations, since they unavoidably require conceptions that cannot be verified with known facts and are just as likely as not to be false suppositions.

 

Let's just stick with photographs.

 

But then photographs can lie too, especially in the age of Photoshop.

 

Let's ban pictures outright and just have solid text. That's the ticket.

How about we depict events as closely as possible by believing the statements of the actual witnesses?  Nearly every eye witness to Joseph's translating the Book of Mormon states that he had his head in his hat and used the seer stone in the hat.  But how many pictures of paintings represent this in lesson material, visitor centers, and so on?

Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

You put the question to him; he can answer if he likes. I'm asking: What difference does it make?

 

I'm suggesting you can't conclude the plates were never in plain sight, just because there is no ready example of someone happening to mention it.

In other words, no, there are no eye witness statements who saw the gold plates out in plain sight.  Thanks.

[Sanpitch]

Perhaps we should altogether discard artistic representations, since they unavoidably require conceptions that cannot be verified with known facts and are just as likely as not to be false suppositions.

 

Let's just stick with photographs.

 

But then photographs can lie too, especially in the age of Photoshop. Even if not electronically manipulated, they can be staged or cropped to convey a false impression.

 

Let's ban pictures outright and just have solid text. That's the ticket.

What a wonderful idea.  Let it known to God that never mind the history of the Nephis - Lamanites just give us a reliable book of what you expect of us and maybe a little of what happened before and what is going to happen after this life.  A book for all people in their own language would really be helpful.  Never mind the middle man who we have to depend on whether he or she is a fake or not, just tell directly.

[Scott Lloyd]

In other words, no, there are no eye witness statements who saw the gold plates out in plain sight.  Thanks.

I don't know whether there are or not; I haven't looked into the matter.

 

But I'm not going to conclude definitively that the plates were never out in the open just because no one happened to mention that they were.

[Scott Lloyd]

How about we depict events as closely as possible by believing the statements of the actual witnesses?  Nearly every eye witness to Joseph's translating the Book of Mormon states that he had his head in his hat and used the seer stone in the hat.  But how many pictures of paintings represent this in lesson material, visitor centers, and so on?

If you want to structure your understanding totally on fragmentary reports, that's up to you.

 

As for me, I'm surmising that there is a great deal of information we don't have about the details, and I will thus be wary about drawing hard-and-fast conclusions.

[Nevo]

I'm suggesting you can't conclude the plates were never in plain sight, just because there is no ready example of someone happening to mention it.

 

You should pass this insight along to Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, because in their forthcoming article they state the following regarding Del Parson's illustration, Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon:

 

"Unlike what is depicted here, Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished. Witnesses of the process reported that during the translation, the plates were shielded from view, such as by being covered with a linen cloth."

[jkwilliams]

You should pass this insight along to Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, because in their forthcoming article they state the following regarding Del Parson's illustration, Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon:

 

"Unlike what is depicted here, Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished. Witnesses of the process reported that during the translation, the plates were shielded from view, such as by being covered with a linen cloth."

 

Yeah, I remember reading something like that before. Of course, having the 11 witnesses doesn't make a lot of sense if people had seen the plates previously.