No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He said the Church is trying to "disassociate" Joseph from his milieu and to "sugar coat" its history. That's what I mean by nefarious. 

My point is that if this is what the Church is trying to do, then holding a news conference, publishing an Ensign article, highlighting the seer stone and translation process at its flagship museum and historic sites, and publishing a Gospel Topics essay is a funny way to go about it. 

No one has called what the church has done in the past evil or criminal here (unless I missed it?).  But, the church has tried to disassociate from Joseph's usage of the seer stone and has sugar coated its history. Anyone who doesn't admit this is in complete denial or is simply not familiar with how historical details have been handled by past leaders.

But yes, there is progress now and more honesty.  Again, Keq's point is that there are still no pictures in manuals or in church buildings.  Although I'm not sure about pictures in the manual, I do believe there is at least mention of Joseph's usage of seer stones for seminary students and institute students now.  Again...that's progress and good (and so are the pictures in the Ensign and at the history museum).  I really don't hold out much hope that there will ever be pictures of Joseph with his head in his hat hanging in church buildings, though.  But how about on lds.org or in lesson manuals discussing the translation process or in Ensign articles?

.

Edited March 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

When was the last time you heard a talk about the Great Apostasy in General Conference . . . ?

I wasn't aware that the frequency of something being mentioned in General Conference correlated to how strongly we believed in something.  

And I guess that now that we don't believe in an apostasy anymore we can safely jettison the need for a restoration and modern prophets as well.  

[mapman]

15 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Why was the 10th President of the Church making statements like this in 1956?  

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes."

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:225-26

Was he just not speaking as a "prophet" about a prophet using a seer stone?  Is what he wrote in Doctrines of Salvation no loger valid/doctrine?  Is it some how presentism, due to the fact that those in 1956 did not understand the underlying meaning of seer stones today?  Because "Joseph Fielding Smith did not think it was not reasonable to use a stone to translate the Book of Mormom" (according to FAIR).  People can believe what they want, but this clearly shows to me that some in the church (at the highest levels) were not comfortable with the seer stone narrative.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/Joseph_Fielding_Smith_did_not_believe_that_Joseph_used_the_seer_stone_to_translate_the_Book_of_Mormon#cite_note-1

 

Our church promotes much more objective and professional history than in Joseph Fielding Smith's day. It has gotten a lot better. JFS was more of a polemicist than a historian. You can see that in the quote you provided. He believed that the scriptures and historical sources have to agree with each other 100%. Historians know that you have to deal with disagreements and ambiguities. It seems to me that church leaders only recently are coming to understand this. I feel like it is better to celebrate achievements like the Joseph Smith Papers than feel sore about things that happened in the 50s.

[mapman]

Because people keep talking about manuals it's worth pointing out that the institute manuals incorporate all of the Gospel Topics essays which talk about seer stones in translation and treasure digging. If I remember correctly the new seminary manuals talk about it as well. Of course there is more that can still be improved, and it's frustrating that it took so long to get where we are now, but things have been getting better.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Diversion alert!

Keq82 was not saying he had a problem with Joseph using a stone to translate.

He was showing President Joseph Fielding Smith had a problem with Joseph using a stone to translate.

Your comments are better directed to him.

But I would love to hear you actually ask the above questions to Joseph Fielding Smith. 

Especially the part where you question his knowledge about the Bible!

 

I would not want to change President Smith's view but I would discuss the reasons the reasons he believes as he does.  I would give him all the respect he deserves.

I will have that conversation with him someday, I am sure.

I would tell him that I disagree with his interpretation, and precisely why, and we would take it from there.  No biggie.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

No one has called what the church has done in the past evil or criminal here (unless I missed it?).  But, the church has tried to disassociate from Joseph's usage of the seer stone and has sugar coated its history. Anyone who doesn't admit this is in complete denial or is simply not familiar with how historical details have been handled by past leaders.

But yes, there is progress now and more honesty.  Again, Keq's point is that there are still no pictures in manuals or in church buildings.  Although I'm not sure about pictures in the manual, I do believe there is at least mention of Joseph's usage of seer stones for seminary students and institute students now.  Again...that's progress and good (and so are the pictures in the Ensign and at the history museum).  I really don't hold out much hope that there will ever be pictures of Joseph with his head in his hat hanging in church buildings, though.  But how about on lds.org or in lesson manuals discussing the translation process or in Ensign articles?

.

You're still steadfastly and invincibly missing my point. 

But I'm tired of this conversation. 

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, mapman said:

Our church promotes much more objective and professional history than in Joseph Fielding Smith's day. It has gotten a lot better. 

True.  But as you can see, some won't admit that we haven't had in the past what we're starting to have today.  It's a great and exciting time to be a member and to see more transparency.

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, mapman said:

Because people keep talking about manuals it's worth pointing out that the institute manuals incorporate all of the Gospel Topics essays which talk about seer stones in translation and treasure digging. If I remember correctly the new seminary manuals talk about it as well. Of course there is more that can still be improved, and it's frustrating that it took so long to get where we are now, but things have been getting better.

Don't have the title, but awhile back saw a church video where it shows Joseph Smith bragging to his associates that he would soon be getting the plates, and that is why they were lying in wait for him to steal them.  A amazing admission by the church on his career digging for treasure and gave a likely response to the question on how they knew about the plates and when he would be going out to retrieve them.  I don't suppose anyone is familiar with this video.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I wasn't aware that the frequency of something being mentioned in General Conference correlated to how strongly we believed in something.  

And I guess that now that we don't believe in an apostasy anymore we can safely jettison the need for a restoration and modern prophets as well.  

Antagonists used to claim that Joseph Smith was mentioned in general conference more frequently than Christ. I don't hear that attack much anymore, maybe because it has become clear it is buncomb. I did a word count and found that Joseph doesn't even come close to the frequency with which Christ is mentioned. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's cool.  When was this (your youth days)?  I was a youth in the 90's and I can't remember anyone talking about any seer stone that Joseph owned or used.

Did you know about his treasure hunting with the stone or that he put the stone in his hat to use it? What did you know about it?

I do wish I'd learned all of this earlier, but I'm glad I'm being exposed to it now!

I'm much older than you, by decades.  And yes, I knew about the seer stone in my youth. I probably learned the detail about the hat later, but it didn't bother me then and doesn't now, nor do I see any reason why it should. 

And yes, I have always clearly understood the difference between the Nephite interpreters deposited with the plates and the seer stone found by the Prophet Joseph Smith. And I have always understood that both were used as instruments of translation and revelation. 

I have also always understood that there came a point in Joseph's spiritual understanding and maturity that he didn't need to use either. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On March 26, 2016 at 6:05 PM, consiglieri said:

I know, I know.

It's the members fault for not finding out about the stuff the Church was hiding from them.

Geez, this argument gets old.

Do you know what really gets old? The constant false accusations that the Church was "hiding" stuff from people. 

My favorite illustration of this is the complaint that the church covers up the fact that Joseph had a pistol in Carthage Jail when that very pistol has been on display in the Church's museum for more than 30 years and, with the recent renovation, is there today, more prominently displayed than ever. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cdowis]

more prominently be displayed than ever.  

Yeah, it used to be displayed in the janitor's closet, on the same shelf as the toilet paper.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

more prominently be displayed than ever.  

Yeah, it used to be displayed in the janitor's closet, on the same shelf as the toilet paper.

You're talking gibberish!

It was a  prominent part of the longstanding Church history exhibit on the main level of the museum. 

Why would you say such crap? Was it merely a lame attempt at humor?  

 

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still steadfastly and invincibly missing my point. 

I completely understand the point you're attempting to make, I just disagree with it because you're wrong.  

 

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I'm tired of this conversation. 

I'll bet you are!   I doubt it's over though, but at least there's some great progress with the essays and other publications now.

. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you know what really gets old? The constant false accusations that the Church was "hiding" stuff from people. 

My favorite illustration of this is the complaint that the church covers up the fact that Joseph had a pistol in Carthage Jail when that very pistol has been on display in the Church's museum for more than 30 years and, with the recent renovation, is there today, more prominently displayed than ever. 

And n the manual Church History in the Fulness of Times for the past 25+ years iirc (ipad crashing before I can double-check online)

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you know what really gets old? The constant false accusations that the Church was "hiding" stuff from people. 

My favorite illustration of this is the complaint that the church covers up the fact that Joseph had a pistol in Carthage Jail when that very pistol has been on display in the Church's museum for more than 30 years and, with the recent renovation, is there today, more prominently displayed than ever. 

I've never heard that accusation (although I've never heard it mentioned in a lesson about Joseph and Hyrum's murder).  I actually did know about the gun but I can't remember where I heard about it (maybe seminary).  

It's great the gun is on display too. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I completely understand the point you're attempting to make, I just disagree with it because you're wrong.  

 

I'll bet you are!   I doubt it's over though, but at least there's some great progress with the essays and other publications now.

.

That is if leaders in the ward will actually read them.  I have a good friend that is going to be having a church court about something about the essays she posted on her facebook page.  She was just stating her opinion.  To her surprise she was called in by the Bishop/SP/and an area authority.  She asked if they had read the essays.  The bishop and SP had said "no".  They refused to read them before they met again. I understand that the youth will get a better understanding of the essays in Seminary etc.  But IMO, older folks aren't going to change and if it is not the standard works..they just won't care.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And n the manual Church History in the Fulness of Times for the past 25+ years iirc (ipad crashing before I can double-check online)

Yes. Both the one Joseph had and the one Hyrum had are in there. And both are displayed in the new museum exhibit. 

[Keq82]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That is if leaders in the ward will actually read them.  I have a good friend that is going to be having a church court about something about the essays she posted on her facebook page.  She was just stating her opinion.  To her surprise she was called in by the Bishop/SP/and an area authority.  She asked if they had read the essays.  The bishop and SP had said "no".  They refused to read them before they met again. I understand that the youth will get a better understanding of the essays in Seminary etc.  But IMO, older folks aren't going to change and if it is not the standard works..they just won't care.

I agree.  If you express an opinion that doesn't fall in line with the correlated narrative the church wants (about various topics), then you are automatically labeled and could possibly be disciplined.  I recently listened to a fascinating podcast below about an LDS anthropologists, Thomas Murphy, who was almost excommunicated  for his research on Laminate DNA, due to the fact that it didn't match the church's narrative.  

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/feminist-mormon-housewives/id544752521?mt=2

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. Both the one Joseph had and the one Hyrum had are in there. And both are displayed in the new museum exhibit. 

What???  They BOTH had guns???

(Just kidding).

I actually did only know about Joseph's gun, but have no problem with both of them having one.  Who could be upset that they defended themselves?

But, I do understand members being troubled when they learn the details surrounding Joseph using the seer stones and also how he practiced polygamy.

Especially details about his polygamy that involved hiding so much from Emma and marrying other member's wives and marrying a 14 year old.

But the guns?  Not so much.

Edited March 27, 2016 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

I agree.  If you express an opinion that doesn't fall in line with the correlated narrative the church wants (about various topics), then you are automatically labeled and could possibly be disciplined.  I recently listened to a fascinating podcast below about an LDS anthropologists, Thomas Murphy, who was almost excommunicated  for his research on Laminate DNA, due to the fact that it didn't match the church's narrative.  

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/feminist-mormon-housewives/id544752521?mt=2

Grant Palmer was disfellowshipped and most of what he's been saying, such as the stone in the hat, is now a Gospel Topic Essay.  

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

That is if leaders in the ward will actually read them.  I have a good friend that is going to be having a church court about something about the essays she posted on her facebook page.  She was just stating her opinion.  To her surprise she was called in by the Bishop/SP/and an area authority.  She asked if they had read the essays.  The bishop and SP had said "no".  They refused to read them before they met again. I understand that the youth will get a better understanding of the essays in Seminary etc.  But IMO, older folks aren't going to change and if it is not the standard works..they just won't care.

This may be true.  I happen to live in a ward where my Bishop is more progressive and interested in learning the truth (and also feels it is important for our ward members to read the essays).

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be teaching a more honest history to the youth without teaching the parents the same.  The kids will come home to talk to their parents and they won't know what their kids are talking about (or will think it's anti).

What did your friend post on facebook regarding the essays?  She should come to her court with a copy of all the essays and where they can be found on lds.org.

[rodheadlee]

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

What???  They BOTH had guns???

(Just kidding).

I actually did only know about Joseph's gun, but have no problem with both of them having one.  Who could be upset that they defended themselves?

But, I do understand members being troubled when they learn the details surrounding Joseph using the seer stones and also how he practiced polygamy.

Especially details about his polygamy that involved hiding so much from Emma and marrying other member's wives and marrying a 14 year old.

But the guns?  Not so much.

I agree.  I doubt that anyone (or at least many) have left the church when learning Joseph had a gun and defended himself.  It may be a surprise since it's not usually part of the narrative regarding Joseph's murder, but it's not faith altering (IMO).  I just accepted it and thought, "good for Joseph!!".

But when members learn details regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon or the details of Joseph's polygamy (and then the possible polyandry) and these were not details taught all their years in the church, it's something entirely different for many members.

.

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by ALarson

[mapman]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

This may be true.  I happen to live in a ward where my Bishop is more progressive and interested in learning the truth (and also feels it is important for our ward members to read the essays).

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be teaching a more honest history to the youth without teaching the parents the same.  The kids will come home to talk to their parents and they won't know what their kids are talking about (or will think it's anti).

What did your friend post on facebook regarding the essays?  She should come to her court with a copy of all the essays and where they can be found on lds.org.

If they have to choose where to focus efforts, it makes sense to overhaul the education for the youth first. I guess we'll see whether the church decides that it is worth it to update the adult Sunday School curriculum as well. I think you make a good point that it would be good for parents and children to be on the same page with these things.