Dishonesty

[strappinglad]

There is a much bigger problem with church manuals and presentations. Every 4 years the entire canon is covered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is precious little taught from Proverbs and Psalms or heaven forbid, the Song of Solomon. Even Ecclesiastes gets short shrift. Only the wave tops get any mention. The New Testament instruction is also quite thin. Many of the letters of Peter and John/John are given only a light touch. During the BoM year Second Nephi is not done in depth even though we are told that the prophecies of Isaiah are some of the most profound in scripture. What are we not being told? Why are some scriptures not covered? What is being hidden?

As a secondary note, I was involved in education curriculum ,and changing institutional instruction programs is a long involved ,often frustrating process. Would that the Church moved in smoother ways. Hope springs eternal !

Edited August 11, 2015 by strappinglad

[sjdawg]

I doubt that was on the mind of the artists that were drawing the lying, deceitful pictures.

 

Were these artists just drawing random pictures they hoped to sell or were they drawing pictures as commissioned by the church?   If they were commissioned by the church I would think they Church had some influence in what was being depicted.

[sjdawg]

I have known for years JS had a seer stone. I have also known that he may have used it for part of the translation. I did not know it seems likely he used it for almost all the translation with his head buried in a hat.

 

I also, perhaps due to my own ineptness, did not connect the fact that this same stone was used by Smith to try unsuccessfully to find hidden treasure.  The fact that it was used in such a way and later used to allegedly receive revelation and translate a book that the record of was not even present for it for me a bit disconcerting.

 

But so what if I knew, you knew or others knew.   Many did not know.  And the Church in its official narrative and presentation portrayed it much differently.  And a one or two articles in its official publication is hardly fill disclosure.

 

And with all due respect to those who state that in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s this was all just accessible to those willing to work at it and thus it is the lazy members fault, well your argument is nonsensical.  Most members did not have access to the material you think was so accessible.  And to expect say a 16 to 19 year old getting ready for a mission to be well versed in the nuances of Church history when it was not readily available is really rather ludicrous.  And I will tell you that for me personally I knew of many of the controversial issues before my mission, during my mission and after and I served from 1979-1981.   And I defended them for a long long time, maybe to preserve my own testimony.

 

I stopped doing that when at least for me I realized the apologetics for so many things were just so bad that I could not argue them with integrity any longer.

 

 

Serious question.   What is the difference between a peep stone and a seer stone?   this seems to be an important distinction for some.

[sjdawg]

This is the most troublesome part of it Imho. I don't think the exact vehicle of translation is important, as far as I'm concerned he could have read tea leaves, God can speak through any vehicle. The problem is that the stone was used on these treasure hunting excursions, some of which were unsuccessful due to the treasure slipping through the ground, similar to Mormon ch. 1 and also described in Helaman and Ether. This looks suspiciously like they didn't want the connection made between the BoM and the stone because of the treasure operations.

I think the church could still salvage this by showing the treasure hunts as God preparing Joseph to be a prophet, and explaining the slipping of the treasure as an example of the curse on the land mentioned in the BoM. I think ignoring these things is the last thing they should do. I'm not sure if apologizing for the past depictions would be a good idea, but they should definitely say only the correct version of the story should be taught from now on.

My issues is not the U&T or the seer stone.  My bigger concern is that we continue to call it a "translation" when there is no evidence any translating was actually done.    the process was actually much more like reading tea leaves than any literal translation.

[Avatar4321]

You don't think a church the demands total honesty and integrity from its members has a duty to full disclosure about its history?

The Church isn't asking for total honesty and integrity. God is. And he asks that of us no matter what our faith is.

The covenants we make are with God not the church. The idea that it has to disclose everything that's happened in two hundred years of history by millions of people who ever joined the church is absurd. We aren't instructed to teach obscure and trivial historical issues. We are instructed to teach the plain and precious truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ with power from on High.

As has been demonstrated multiple times on this thread, the church has not his anything from people. This so called controversial information has been found in church publications from almost the beginning.

I don't care if Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with a magic eight ball so long as He did so by the power of God and the Book is true. And the Holy Spirit repeatedly and powerfully affirms that the Book of Mormon is true. The doctrine and could sell continue to be relevant and prophetic to our day and ages. Presumably that is why those who disbelieve don't attempt to disprove the doctrine and instead try to create doubt in other areas.

I invite you to prayerfully study the Book of Mormon again. Apply it to your life. Ask the Lord and others questions about it. Think it through again and again. Choose faith instead of skepticism. And be open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

[Avatar4321]

But, it seems, we've let the Ed Deckers and "Concerned Christians" control a lot of the narrative on these issues until now.

How does talking about what they want us to instead of the doctrine of Christ help us control the narrative?

We are supposed to preach the gospel with power. Maybe we should be focusing on that instead of worrying about why people think the church hid peripheral things that we all k ow about because the church published them!

[Avatar4321]

Duplicate

Edited August 12, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

That's a ridiculous request. I would have to catalog every lesson manual and every gospel art kit for the past 100 years.

 

I've already explained the institutional dishonesty and you haven't refuted it. I don't blame you because I don't feel it's possible to do, but I you are wrong in pretending like it didn't happen.

That's just it. You haven't proved Jack squat. You've made assertions. People have disagreed and shown you evidence contrary to your assertions. You ignore it, refuse to discuss it, and then pretend as though you've already proven your case when you haven't done a darn thing.

How do you deceive people by hiding facts that you published?

The whole idea makes no sense whatsoever.

You are upset that we aren't accepting your assertions as facts and pretend we aren't dealing with them. It's frustrating as heck.

[Avatar4321]

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.

Except there was nothing incorrect that's been taught. That's the frustrating part. You keep asking us when we stopped beating our wives and can't figure out why we aren't playing into your false narrative

[Avatar4321]

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.’"

Are you suggesting that Oliver Cowdery might know something about the translation process? Edited August 12, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

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.

Well apparently that's dishonest for some unquantified reason

[Avatar4321]

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."

You noticed the irony too

[thatjimguy]

I think this entire subject would be a lot easier for people to cope with if they deeply accept the idea (not just in words), that leaders are not perfect and make mistakes.

 

Even with the leaders coming out and saying they make mistakes, people are unwilling to accept the idea they could have made more than one.

[HappyJackWagon]

I think this entire subject would be a lot easier for people to cope with if they deeply accept the idea (not just in words), that leaders are not perfect and make mistakes.

 

Even with the leaders coming out and saying they make mistakes, people are unwilling to accept the idea they could have made more than one.

Actually, I think it would be a lot easier if they came out and said "We made a mistake in the way we taught about the Book of Mormon translation."

 

Instead of some nebulous "we've made mistakes" or "we're not perfect", let them identify and apologize for the mistake. As this thread illustrates, even though people are willing to "accept" that mistakes have been made they are unwilling to ever identify a mistake and fight to the death to prove a mistake was not made.

 

If they idenitify a mistake, such as the institutionalized dishonesty regarding polygamy and teaching of some historical narratives, then we could stop fighting about whether a mistake was made. We could simply move on.

[CV75]

Okay, but did he not say that the Church is moving from one era that didn't include as much disclosure to one that does?

Because you characterized his remarks as a confession of whitewashing and you dismissed my previous interpretation of the bigger picture / context as “over-nuancing,” the best reply I think I can give you at this juncture is “No.”

[CV75]

I do believe that Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon through the gift and power of God.

 

The Church is teaching that he used a seer stone and the historical record seems to indicate that he used it (and not the U&T after the 116 pages were lost).

 

So, yeah, it seems incorrect to teach otherwise.

You might want to rephrase your second sentence (???)

 

To me, what the Church taught and teaches about the translation of the Book of Mormon is no more incorrect than any individual First Vision account and the narrative the accounts create as a whole. History may seem vague for some but the testimony is sharp[er than a two-edged sword]. Over time the bigger picture comes into focus with contexts of what was taught, how, when, why, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with what both of you are saying.  But from what I've read, that isn't how the seer stone was used.  Consider this statement from the gospel topics essay on the subject:  "According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

 

That's different than what D&C 9 describes and different from my personal experiences with revelation (as in giving a blessing).

 

If it was as simple as reading the words off a piece of paper(stone) Oliver Cowdery could have done it.

[ALarson]

You noticed the irony too

I agree since the information on lds.org and FairMormon confirmed the information and statements.

 

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Russell regarding the actual subject of my post (which you both ignored):

 

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?  If not then my post stands as being correct.

 

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

Quote

Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and also lost your gift at the same time: nevertheless, it has been restored to you again: therefore, see that you are faithful and go unto finishing the remainder of the work as you have begun.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-spring-1829-dc-10?p=1&highlight=because%20you%20delivered%20up%20so%20many%20writings

 

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

Quote

Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

 

https://www.lds.org/...c/10.4?lang=eng

Edited August 12, 2015 by ALarson

[Calm]

I think the most likely answer is internal politics. Politics among the members of the leading quorums as well as the committees over the various materials. Not everybody is on the same page in regards to the "issues" with the narrative. If you can't agree on changes you stick with the status quo. Just my opinion

Politics seems too loaded of a connotation (for me there is personal advancement/power issues attached). I prefer using the term "internal dynamics".

[Danzo]

Actually, I think it would be a lot easier if they came out and said "We made a mistake in the way we taught about the Book of Mormon translation."

 

Instead of some nebulous "we've made mistakes" or "we're not perfect", let them identify and apologize for the mistake. As this thread illustrates, even though people are willing to "accept" that mistakes have been made they are unwilling to ever identify a mistake and fight to the death to prove a mistake was not made.

 

If they idenitify a mistake, such as the institutionalized dishonesty regarding polygamy and teaching of some historical narratives, then we could stop fighting about whether a mistake was made. We could simply move on.

 

I am glad you are conceding that it may have been a mistake instead of accusing the brethren of dishonesty.

 

(now if only you could change the title of the thread)

[rockpond]

You might want to rephrase your second sentence (???)

 

To me, what the Church taught and teaches about the translation of the Book of Mormon is no more incorrect than any individual First Vision account and the narrative the accounts create as a whole. History may seem vague for some but the testimony is sharp[er than a two-edged sword]. Over time the bigger picture comes into focus with contexts of what was taught, how, when, why, etc.

 

I'm curious... would you agree or disagree with the following statement:

 

After losing the first 116 pages of the manuscript, when Joseph Smith resumed translation of the Book of Mormon, he did so by using the seer stone rather than the "Urim & Thummim" he found with the gold plates.

[rockpond]

If it was as simple as reading the words off a piece of paper(stone) Oliver Cowdery could have done it.

 

Obviously, it was a spiritual gift that Cowdery was not given.

 

But this is from BH Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church:

 

By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used” (CHC 1:29).

 

I still think that inaccuracies and anachronisms in the Book of Mormon could still be explained with the thought that the seer stone could still only communicate in language familiar to Joseph.  I just think it makes it more of a stretch under this model of dictation rather than what I previously understood as a method of translating the actual plates via the U&T.

[Danzo]

I'm curious... would you agree or disagree with the following statement:

 

After losing the first 116 pages of the manuscript, when Joseph Smith resumed translation of the Book of Mormon, he did so by using the seer stone rather than the "Urim & Thummim" he found with the gold plates.

 

I would say

 

I don't have any idea what happened, I wasn't there.  Oliver Cowdery seems to indicate that the "Nephite Interpreters"  were used (from the pearl of great price).  Other people thought that moroni took the "Nephite Intrepreters" away after Joseph Smith lost the 116 pages. It was also reported that at times, a rock was used, in a hat to exclude light.  I would tend to believe Oliver Cowdery had the best knowlege understanding (he being most constantly with the prophet during translation).

 

However, it is possible that Oliver Cowdery meant something else.

 

It is also possible that Joseph smith used different methods, at different times as an aid to revelation.

 

In the end, while I am not aware of the mechanics of the process, I have received revelation that it was through the gift and power of god that the plates were translated.  

 

For me, whether the prophet used one rock or two rocks and which rocks he used doesn't affect the story one way or other.

 

Apparently, for some people it is extremely important which rocks and how many rocks Joseph Smith used. 

[Danzo]

Were these artists just drawing random pictures they hoped to sell or were they drawing pictures as commissioned by the church?   If they were commissioned by the church I would think they Church had some influence in what was being depicted.

 

Maybe someone with more time on their hands than I do can interview the artists and find out how much influence the brethren had over their illustrations.

 

If someone says that they tried to sell the leadership a painting with Joseph's face in a hat and it was refused, then there might be something to this dishonestly claim.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Danzo

[thesometimesaint]

Obviously, it was a spiritual gift that Cowdery was not given.

 

But this is from BH Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church:

 

By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used” (CHC 1:29).

 

I still think that inaccuracies and anachronisms in the Book of Mormon could still be explained with the thought that the seer stone could still only communicate in language familiar to Joseph.  I just think it makes it more of a stretch under this model of dictation rather than what I previously understood as a method of translating the actual plates via the U&T.

 

As much as I admire and respect BH Roberts and the CHC. I go by what our Scriptures say. There would be no need for the Lord to chasten Oliver with D&C 9 if was as simple as reading words off of a paper(stone).

SEE D&C 9:6-9.

6 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.

 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.