Storm Rider Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Yeah, not so much. Tell me, what is the priority to teach to members and everyone else - 1) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, crucified and resurrected, or 2) the process of the translation of scripture? How many things to you think have a bigger priority than this process? This is almost the significance of .....a rock. 1
theplains Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I think that has been remedied. This information used to be much harder to find, now it is found on church sites. https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=seer+stone https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng Where did the breast plate come from? Thanks, Jim
cinepro Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 15 minutes ago, cdowis said: Keq82 Let me ask you a really relevant question -->> we know that JS put his face into a hat while he was translating. He would translat for hours without any corrections. Now the question What did he have in that hat of his? Was there a manuscript from which he was dictating? Well, that must mean there was a table in that hat with a candle. Or it had a window so that he could see the writing on the manuscript. The next time an antiMormon falls on the floor laughing over that bloody stone in the hat, ask him what was REALLY in that hat, and how Joseph Smith was able to dictate the Book of Mormon. How big was that hat. If he accepts the story of the stone in a hat, explain how Joseph Smith did it. It should be noted that people do impossible things all the time, and even if we can't explain how they did it doesn't mean we have to accept an explanation they (or anyone else) presents. It's okay to say "I don't know". https://archive.org/details/sorrytaleastory01currgoog 2
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I always knew it involved putting his head in a hat from the South Park episode so this new stuff isn't shocking to me. Or on Big Love...Imfear there are so many who think that what is needed to ease their conscience, that the Church should spend a year in Church and missionary work bearing ourselves naked to the world to show all real or precieved warts instead of our doctrines.
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Oh, come on. Let's at least be fair to our friend Keq82 on this one. Can you find any pictures or teachings about the seer stone in any official Church publication, magazine or manual between 1940 & 1990? It's great that the Church isn't shying away from it anymore, but if we are being fair and honest, it was really rarely mentioned for decades. The information has always been out there for anyone to read, but it hasn't always been provided by the Church. Wait, he mentioned a timeframe? So it not important that it is now acknowledged, the timetable is the complaint?
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I always knew it involved putting his head in a hat from the South Park episode so this new stuff isn't shocking to me. You mean South Park is in charge of Church History...I knew it, I knew it!
JAHS Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Can you find any pictures or teachings about the seer stone in any official Church publication, magazine or manual between 1940 & 1990? A Peaceful Heart (Friend 1974) "Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him." By the GIft and Power of God" (Ensign 1977) The Keystone of Mormonism—Little Known Truths about the Book of Mormon Paul R. Cheesman (New Era 1974) Edited March 22, 2016 by JAHS Added some additional references 1
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, JAHS said: A Peaceful Heart (Friend 1974) "Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him." So much for not mentioning it between 1840-1990, and so much for hiding in shame.
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: That's a bit of a stretch. They may be incomplete, but multiple methods were used. Don't see dark motives where none were intended. The primary method was by using a seer stone (rock) in a hat. I don't think their motives are dark; rather, misleading and confusing. 1
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Yeah, not so much. Tell me, what is the priority to teach to members and everyone else - 1) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, crucified and resurrected, or 2) the process of the translation of scripture? How many things to you think have a bigger priority than this process? This is almost the significance of .....a rock. If it's just the significance of...a rock...why then did President Woodruff feel it was important enough to bring the seer stone (rock) to the dedication of the Manti temple and place it on the altar? It obviously is/was an extremely important object and/or relic in the church.
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 3 hours ago, ksfisher said: What is the "great deal" that is "founded on a magical/mystical rock?" As far as I've always been taught the church is founded on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice. The seer stone was a tool, nothing more. Yes, because it was used in translating the Book or Mormon it is special, but it was still just a tool. If the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion (and the most correct of any book), isn't the mechanism by which it was translated extremely important? It was much more than a stone--it was placed on the altar of a temple ceremony (Manti temple). It still has an extremely important significance even today.
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, cinepro said: It should be noted that people do impossible things all the time, and even if we can 3 hours ago, cdowis said: Keq82 Let me ask you a really relevant question -->> we know that JS put his face into a hat while he was translating. He would translat for hours without any corrections. Now the question What did he have in that hat of his? Was there a manuscript from which he was dictating? Well, that must mean there was a table in that hat with a candle. Or it had a window so that he could see the writing on the manuscript. The next time an antiMormon falls on the floor laughing over that bloody stone in the hat, ask him what was REALLY in that hat, and how Joseph Smith was able to dictate the Book of Mormon. How big was that hat. If he accepts the story of the stone in a hat, explain how Joseph Smith did it. He had a seer stone in his hat. Where were the golden plates? The next time somebody comes to the church and sees a pic of Joseph Smith translating from the golden plates, when, in fact, he didn't use them, how do we explain that to "anti-Mormons" or non-members? Do we tell them that we put up pics on our church walls of events that didn't take place? Or...do we tell them that it's simply symbolic that we have pics of him using the golden plates? If the seer stone was REALLY in that hat, why do we have nothing accurately depicting in our pics? You basically proved my point...how can we truly explain how he did it if we are not accurately depicting how he did it?
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Pa Pa said: So much for not mentioning it between 1840-1990, and so much for hiding in shame. "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. So I guess the 10th President of the Church didn't want to accept the fact that a seer stone was used?
JAHS Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Keq82 said: If the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion (and the most correct of any book), isn't the mechanism by which it was translated extremely important? It was much more than a stone--it was placed on the altar of a temple ceremony (Manti temple). It still has an extremely important significance even today. But only historical significance; not so much regarding the doctrines of the church. We know that the scripture was translated by the power of God. That is what is important. God has in the past either provided such things or instructed man to build or use existing things as tools in manifesting His power and communication with man. There was for example, the rod of Aaron(Ex 7:9-10); the burning bush(Ex 3:2); the pillar of fire(Ex 13:21); the tabernacle of Moses(Ex 33:9); the ark of the covenant(Judg. 20:27); and the Liahona(Alma 37:38). But these were just physical objects that may have otherwise held no supernatural powers themselves, except that God caused them to be used in that way. Edited March 22, 2016 by JAHS 1
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, JAHS said: But only historical significance; not so much regarding the doctrines of the church. We know that the scripture was translated by the power of God. That is what is important. God has in the past either provided such things or instructed man to build or use existing things as tools in manifesting His power and communication with man. There was for example, the rod of Aaron(Ex 7:9-10); the burning bush(Ex 3:2); the pillar of fire(Ex 13:21); the tabernacle of Moses(Ex 33:9); the ark of the covenant(Judg. 20:27); and the Liahona(Alma 37:38). But these were just physical objects that may have otherwise help no supernatural powers themselves, except that God caused them to be used in that way. I guess I'm concerned with how we depict how the Book of Mormon was translated. I understand that certain objects will have historical significance; nevertheless, I don't think we are really paining an accurate picture (no pun intended) with regard to how the translation of the Book of Mormon occurred. Leaders have briefly admitted it, but it's as if the seer stone in the hat is very awkward and uncomfortable for most members to even talk about.
JAHS Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I guess I'm concerned with how we depict how the Book of Mormon was translated. I understand that certain objects will have historical significance; nevertheless, I don't think we are really paining an accurate picture (no pun intended) with regard to how the translation of the Book of Mormon occurred. Leaders have briefly admitted it, but it's as if the seer stone in the hat is very awkward and uncomfortable for most members to even talk about. I think to some degree you are right. It's the kind of thing that is better learned later on after one has developed a testimony of the scripture. If that was the main thing that was presented to the world in missionary efforts, the average Joe would think it ridiculous that holy scripture would come to us in such a manner; forgetting all the other physical props God used throughout the Bible to communicate with prophets.
Steve Noel Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 As a non-Mormon I must say that the transparency and openness about these things is refreshing. Nearly every evangelical critique of Mormonism that I have ever read tells this side of the story. It is a common narrative in these works that the average LDS member has been sold a bill of goods about their early history. Another implication in these critiques is that the LDS leadership is intentionally deceiving the members about the truth of their history.
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, Steve Noel said: As a non-Mormon I must say that the transparency and openness about these things is refreshing. Nearly every evangelical critique of Mormonism that I have ever read tells this side of the story. It is a common narrative in these works that the average LDS member has been sold a bill of goods about their early history. Another implication in these critiques is that the LDS leadership is intentionally deceiving the members about the truth of their history. I agree that being open and transparent about our history is extremely important, especially when you consider how other faiths view us. Not only that, be we owe it to ourselves to be honest about our own history (and not sweep difficult subjects under the rug) just because they are controversial and/or difficult to believe. Further, focusing on a difficult aspect and trying to obtain the most accurate account shouldn't be considered "anti Mormon." Unfortunately, even if some events are true and actually took place, some LDS members will be quick to label them as anti Mormon.
Keq82 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 19 minutes ago, JAHS said: I think to some degree you are right. It's the kind of thing that is better learned later on after one has developed a testimony of the scripture. If that was the main thing that was presented to the world in missionary efforts, the average Joe would think it ridiculous that holy scripture would come to us in such a manner; forgetting all the other physical props God used throughout the Bible to communicate with prophets. I respectfully disagree. I think we need to paint the true pic from the very start. If the average Joe thinks it is ridiculous that holy scripture would come to us in such a manner, then that is up to us to reconcile that part of our history. Why would we tell them one thing (a half truth) and then admit to them something entirely different in the future? It just causes a great deal of unneeded confusion and frustration. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 5 hours ago, JLHPROF said: This is true. And it has taken the Church many years to correct that error in thinking. We should be grateful to live in an era where more openness in our history is the order of the day. Give it time. It will be. There will be primary lessons on the subject one day I would wager. I do. Very much so. If our bodies can be filled with the holy spirit why not other mortal elements? Agreed. All things were created spiritually before the were created physically. Why could not that spirit be called to perform some specific task? 1
JAHS Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 7 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I respectfully disagree. I think we need to paint the true pic from the very start. If the average Joe thinks it is ridiculous that holy scripture would come to us in such a manner, then that is up to us to reconcile that part of our history. Why would we tell them one thing (a half truth) and then admit to them something entirely different in the future? It just causes a great deal of unneeded confusion and frustration. I didn't learn about the seer stone until later in life and it didn't cause me any confusion and frustration because I had already developed a strong testimony about the scripture and was therefore able to accept whatever method was used to produce it. I don't think it's half-truth; I call it additional historical details. Joseph Smith did use the Urim and Thummim. Whether it was the two stones in a bow or a seer stone, they were both considered Urim and Thummim.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) I am all for re-embracing the mystical /"magical" elements of our faith. Prophets using stones to translate ancient records hidden in the ground! That's great stuff and nothing to be embarrassed about. People don't like it, they can lump it. Edited March 22, 2016 by BookofMormonLuvr 2
strappinglad Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Keq82 said: So you are saying that Joseph never, not even once, sat at the table and spent some time leafing through the plates ? Sorry, I don't buy it. I think he would have looked at the plates quite a bit , trying to see how they were put together and even marveling at the craftsmanship. 2
ksfisher Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Keq82 said: If the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion (and the most correct of any book), isn't the mechanism by which it was translated extremely important? It was much more than a stone--it was placed on the altar of a temple ceremony (Manti temple). It still has an extremely important significance even today. The Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God." While the stone was a tool in that translation, it was not the means. And while it was placed upon the alter at the Manti temple dedication, this was the only time that was done. It is important and significant, but no more than that. It was part of a miracle, but it was not the miracle.
Recommended Posts