Dishonesty

[HappyJackWagon]

The only "dishonesty" is from people like you.  See my post above.

How the Church shows the translation IS one of the known methods, from all known accounts, the translation occured.

Thus, that makes the anti-mormon claim that it was ONLY by "rock in hat" a total falsehood.

 

Further, the Church did what it did for Artistic reasons to best show "translating" of the plates with Joseph and the Plates.

That's not "deception", that's being practical.  You need to demonstrate the intention of being deceptive, rather than something else actually reasonable like I've explained.

What is dishonest? Portraying the BoM as being translated in ways other than the rock in hat. The urim and thummim was taken at the same time the plates were after the lost 116 pages and was not returned. Thus, all future mentions of the U&T during translation of the manuscript which became the Book of Mormon was always referring to a seer stone, NOT the U&T clear stones/breastplate etc.

 

Even so, IF a different translation method was used 10% of the time and the stone/hat was used 90% of the time, would you consider it honest to depict the 10% method as the only method?

 

Actually I am asking the question about WHY the church would be dishonest about this. I don't know their motives. That's why I asked the question to start this thread.

 

We know the method of translation is not what the traditional narrative taught us. And we know the church knew the actual method but didn't teach us that method. So the question is WHY?

 

Now- please tell me how I've been dishonest.

[ALarson]

The treasure hunting episode is well hidden, in Joseph Smith history where they knew no one would read it.

Can you post a link to this (or the quote from the history)?  Thanks!

[HappyJackWagon]

Those making accusations of dishonesty usually have the burden of proof.

Your question has been answered multiple times in this thread. Maybe you should reread it.

 

Did you teach the hat/stone method in your church lessons? I notice you are avoiding this question.

[Danzo]

Can you post a link to this (or the quote from the history)?  Thanks!

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

 

Verse 56

[ALarson]

The only "dishonesty" is from people like you.  See my post above.

How the Church shows the translation IS one of the known methods, from all known accounts, the translation occured.

Thus, that makes the anti-mormon claim that it was ONLY by "rock in hat" a total falsehood.

Emma stated that Joseph using his seer stone in his hat is the only method of translation used for the entire Book of Mormon.  So did David Whitmer.

 

Can you post some statements from any eye witnesses who state that he used another method after the loss of the 116 pages?

[Danzo]

Your question has been answered multiple times in this thread. Maybe you should reread it.

 

Did you teach the hat/stone method in your church lessons? I notice you are avoiding this question.

No I didn't, I didn't teach the Urim and Thumin method either.  It didn't come up.

[bjw]

The treasure hunting episode is well hidden, in Joseph Smith history where they knew no one would read it.

It mentions one, but not the ones I am thinking of where treasure slipped through the ground. I believe there were others besides the Stowell case, such as the work for Lyman Walters. Someone more familiar with church history may be able to help me out on this one.

[Danzo]

Your question has been answered multiple times in this thread. Maybe you should reread it.

 

Did you teach the hat/stone method in your church lessons? I notice you are avoiding this question.

Can't find any can you.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Emma stated that Joseph using his seer stone in his hat is the only method of translation used for the entire Book of Mormon.  So did David Whitmer.

 

Can you post some statements from any eye witnesses who state that he used another method after the loss of the 116 pages?

 

Joseph smith history has oliver cowdreys account.

 

"Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’"

[ALarson]

No I didn't, I didn't teach the Urim and Thumin method either.  It didn't come up.

Did you teach it on your mission (if you served one) or didn't the translation of the Book of Mormon not come up there either?

Edited August 11, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

No I didn't, I didn't teach the Urim and Thumin method either.  It didn't come up.

Not very thorough. As the teacher, wouldn't you bring it up as a discussion item when talking about the coming forth of the most correct book on the earth?

 

As for your CFR about every time the church taught the incorrect translation method, you're wasting our time. asked and answered multiple times.

[ALarson]

Didn't teach the translation method in my mission, did you?  would it have mattered if it was one rock or two?

Just saw this (answer to my question above).  Wow.

[Danzo]

It mentions one, but not the ones I am thinking of where treasure slipped through the ground. I believe there were others besides the Stowell case, such as the work for Lyman Walters. Someone more familiar with church history may be able to help me out on this one.

 

You claim it was hidden, then I showed you in our cannon where it is not, then your complaint is that it doesn't show every alleged incident.

 

Since it is next to impossible to always tell everything, everyone is obviously hiding something and being dishonest.

[Danzo]

Did you teach it on your mission (if you served one) or didn't the translation of the Book of Mormon not come up there either?

 

On my mission, I don't remember the exact nature of the translation coming up. I tried to avoid speculation and referred people to Joseph smiths account.  I wasn't afraid to tell people that I didn't know something when I didn't.

[Danzo]

 

As for your CFR about every time the church taught the incorrect translation method, you're wasting our time. asked and answered multiple times.

Not really.

 

Nothing rises above artistic interpretation, nothing arising to dishonesty.

 

All you have shown is that there are accounts that differ from what as been rendered in art.

 

Much of the differences are easily accounted by supposing an artist used a different account than your account (one in the standard works)

 

Other can just be accounted that drawing someone with his face in hat  doesn't make good art.

 

There are no differences that I see that are important to me.

 

I'll concede  the number of rocks in the picture makes a difference to you, though.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Danzo

[Zakuska]

Not very thorough. As the teacher, wouldn't you bring it up as a discussion item when talking about the coming forth of the most correct book on the earth?

 

As for your CFR about every time the church taught the incorrect translation method, you're wasting our time. asked and answered multiple times.

 

I simply taught what the discussions said... "he translated it by the gift and power of God" No one ever inquired further. We were lucky to get them to read the assigned scriptures.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Zakuska

[williamsmith]

Emma stated that Joseph using his seer stone in his hat is the only method of translation used for the entire Book of Mormon.  So did David Whitmer.

 

Can you post some statements from any eye witnesses who state that he used another method after the loss of the 116 pages?

 

Theres an article at FAIR that lists all known statements concerning the translation of the BOM by others. (there might be others, but it is one large list)

 

It's true that the "head in hat" seems likely the most used method, but it wasn't the only one, especially toward the end of the translating which is well known that nothing at all was used.

 

-----

 

As to the question of percentage, it's exactly like I said.  Simple artistic reasons, nothing at all to do with deception.

Again, since the translation occured many different ways, what is really the most logical, clean, clear manner to show Joseph translating the Plates?

Again, just as the Church has done.

 

I've never batted an eye on this, so it's facinating to me that some people do.

I understand the "intent" by the Church, don't know why others consider only an "evil" intent by the Church, aka "Deception".

Edited August 11, 2015 by williamsmith

[Danzo]

Just saw this (answer to my question above).  Wow.

 

Different people have different experiences, I guess.

[bjw]

You claim it was hidden, then I showed you in our cannon where it is not, then your complaint is that it doesn't show every alleged incident.

 

Since it is next to impossible to always tell everything, everyone is obviously hiding something and being dishonest.

No, this was not my claim, since afterall I knew about it. These specific incidents are not in the official history because they are details that do not need to be given in the brief summary giving Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's testimony. I am not complaining about the testimony in the PoGP because I think it is sufficient for its purpose.

Saying they need to tell everything is hyperbolic, since nobody can always tell everything, but when it comes to the subject of the stone and its relationship to translation, treasure hunting, and the verse in Mormon 1, that is what I was talking about here, and while it isn't first lesson material, it should be in the curriculum and church history. On the ward level I have investigators I am teaching right now, some from my family I have invited, and I would rather they hear this from me rather than an anti site or some other source.

[Danzo]

No, this was not my claim, since afterall I knew about it. These specific incidents are not in the official history because they are details that do not need to be given in the brief summary giving Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's testimony. I am not complaining about the testimony in the PoGP because I think it is sufficient for its purpose.

Saying they need to tell everything is hyperbolic, since nobody can always tell everything, but when it comes to the subject of the stone and its relationship to translation, treasure hunting, and the verse in Mormon 1, that is what I was talking about here, and while it isn't first lesson material, it should be in the curriculum and church history. On the ward level I have investigators I am teaching right now, some from my family I have invited, and I would rather they hear this from me rather than an anti site or some other source.

I would suggest bushman, if it becomes an issue.  He seems to be pretty thorough. 

 

The true answer, is that the book of mormon was translated through the power of god (the mechanics are unknown, although there are a few, very brief eyewitness reports).

 

Joseph Smith was a sinner (refer to D&C 3, the very first revelation to be written down which is harsh and heavily critical of Joseph Smith)

[Russell C McGregor]

I had that quote in my files and have read it several places.  Here are a couple sites:

http://mit.irr.org/translation-or-divination

http://mormonbookshelf.com/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_Translation_Method

 

Here's what FairMormon states about W.W. Phelps and the Urim & Thummim:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Source:Phelps:The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star_1:58:through_the_aid_of_a_pair_of_Interpreters,_or_spectacles%E2%80%94(known,_perhaps,_in_ancient_days_as_Teraphim,_or_Urim_and_Thummim)

 

The terms Urim and Thummim were not used by Joseph Smith or others until after 1833 (from W.W. Phelps speculation).  Here is how the Book of Commandments was altered after that:

 

Original prior to 1833 (with no mention of the Urim and Thummim)l:

http://mit.irr.org/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/BoC1833p22_0.gif

 

And the same verse in the 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments (Urim and Thummim have been added): 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10.4?lang=eng

 

Ah, well that explains a good deal.

 

Interesting that you would rely upon an anti-Mormon propaganda mill such as the so-called "Institute for Religious Research" in a thread entitled "Dishonesty."

[Russell C McGregor]

For those who attempted to answer my question...Thank you.

For those who avoided answering, it's disappointing you couldn't answer or even try. Instead you attack, saying I'm whining about unimportant details yet you couldn't address the issue. It's telling.

 

I'm quite disheartened by many of the responses that refused to even accept the obvious. 1- The church knew about the seer stone translation for many decades (at least) 2- The church chose to teach a different story. My question was WHY would they know, yet teach something different and many couldn't even agree that the church knew or agree that the church taught a different story. This is pretty basic. I honestly can't understand how those two issues can be disputed, yet many try. Your awful excuses and refusals to accept reality do more harm than good.

 

For those who simply can't see why it bothers me and others that the church would knowingly teach something they knew wasn't true, I don't know what to say to you. It is unlikely you would accept that kind of behavior in any other aspect of your life. I know I wouldn't. But it is definitely true that different people react differently to dishonesty. Some choose to minimize the impact while others don't.

 

For those who insist you've always known that hat/stone method of translation my question for you is this... If you knew the true method, did you teach that on your missions and in your classes, or did you teach the traditional narrative you "knew" wasn't accurate? If you didn't teach it the way you knew was correct, WHY?

 

ETA- one last question for everyone. Did you learn about the Hat/stone method of BoM translation at church or did you discover it through your own personal study?

 

So  you're "disheartened" by those who didn't get sucked in by the loaded question?

 

How unsurprising.

 

[bjw]

I would suggest bushman, if it becomes an issue.  He seems to be pretty thorough. 

 

The true answer, is that the book of mormon was translated through the power of god (the mechanics are unknown, although there are a few, very brief eyewitness reports).

 

Joseph Smith was a sinner (refer to D&C 3, the very first revelation to be written down which is harsh and heavily critical of Joseph Smith)

Thanks for the advice, I'll have to check out the Bushman book since so many have mentioned it. I agree, the Gospel is perfect but the church is ran by regular imperfect people. I guess that's why we need the D&C as a manual to guide the church.

[ALarson]

Ah, well that explains a good deal.

 

Interesting that you would rely upon an anti-Mormon propaganda mill such as the so-called "Institute for Religious Research" in a thread entitled "Dishonesty."

FairMormon and lds.org?  

 

Are you saying that the terms Urim and Thummim were in the earlier editions of the Book of Commandments (prior to 1835)?  Can you post a quote or reference where Joseph Smith or anyone called the interpreters the Urim and Thummim prior to 1833?

[filovirus]

Of course I did when talking about the larger story of the restoration and the miraculous visions and translation of the BoM. I also showed the approved artwork. What did you do? Hand them the BoM and say "this is important" with no background or narrative about where it came from?

 

So you knew about it on your mission but didn't teach it. Did you teach the rock/hat during other church lessons you've taught over the years? I'm not talking about a lesson centered on the seer stone, but one talking about the coming forth of the book of mormon. I find it hard to believe that someone who knows that information wouldn't share it during those types of lessons UNLESS they felt there was something wrong with that story.

We had a lesson two years ago in gospel doctrine and talked specifically about Joseph Smith using the seer stone in a hat. The discussion lasted about 60 seconds, then we moved on. I don't know if people felt uncomfortable to ask more questions about it, but I thought the discussion was breeched in a very thoughtful and reverent way.

 

So who missed out on the discussion? The hall wanderers, primary workers, others who have a second hour calling, those members who don't attend church or who were absent that day, and those members who were focusing on other things during the lesson.

 

In the last week, I have brought up to members that a photo has been released of a seer stone, and only a few of the members of my ward didn't know what it was or how it was used. Those who didn't know included our ward's full time missionaries, so we discussed it with them for 20 or so minutes instead of doing an extra visit that night.