No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is not an original document. 

I wonder where it came from?  Like I said earlier, I'm not real knowledgeable about this trial.  Did someone fake this?

I actually don't care one way or the other if he was convicted (I've heard some say he was and some say he was charged, but not convicted and haven't looked into it much).  I think there's ample record and evidence to show what the activities were that Joseph was involved in at that time.  

.

Edited March 22, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I actually don't care one way or the other if he was convicted (I've heard some say he was and some say he was charged, but not convicted and haven't looked into it much).  I think there's ample record and evidence to show what the activities were that Joseph was involved in at that time.  

.

There is no question as to what Joseph Smith was up to. Keq82 made the assertion that Joseph Smith was convicted of glass looking.  Both of which are untrue.  There is no evidence that he was convicted.  And the charge was not glass looking.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There is no question as to what Joseph Smith was up to. Keq82 made the assertion that Joseph Smith was convicted of glass looking.  Both of which are untrue.  There is no evidence that he was convicted.  And the charge was not glass looking.

I agree that he wasn't charged with glass looking.

I'd love to hear what Nevo or JLHPROF have found regarding the conviction (or a not conviction) and the documents that have been found.  I trust their evaluation and research as they'd give their honest findings.  But like I said, to me it's not that important (I get why you asked for references from Keq though).

Edited March 23, 2016 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

My point: the story the church uses for the translation of the Book of Mormon (in our manuals, pics, etc.) is incorrect.

I think the church, in many ways, is guilty of institutionalized deception and is not being honest about its own history.  

In terms of quotes, I find it interesting that by quoting Presidents of the Church and FAIR apologists on this topic, some members consider it anti Mormon, due to the fact that it doesn't fall in line perfectly with what the church wants us to believe.  

A picture of Joseph translating showing his face instead of a hat is deceptive?

The entire point is that Joseph translated the BOM- the hat did not.  It SHOULD be a picture of Joseph- not a hat.

Joseph translated by the power of God.  What he was doing while receiving the translation is irrelevant.

Is an illustration in an article about heart surgery showing the person on a table without blood and guts deceptive?

Do we have to see every function of the internal workings of a car to show a picture of a car?

This is about art criticism, not about anything "deceptive".   So any picture with Joseph and the plates is deceptive?   How much of the operative details of an event need to be shown to escape the accusation of being "deceptive"?  Do wedding pictures have to be pornographic to prove the marriage is real?

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I'm glad you find it interesting; I think as members of the church, we should try to obtain an objective view of our own history and be honesty about even the most controversial events.  

Do we have to have ward and stake callings to learn about our own history?  

There is no such thing as "objective history"- that is the bottom line.  Even if you were present and a witness, your story will differ from other witnesses.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Please explain to me how trying to understand events as they actually took place an attack on the church?

I'm saying that the church isn't telling the story the right way--it didn't happen like they say it happened.  I'm not trying to lead people away from the church in any way; rather, I'm maintaining an objective view of our history and trying to reconcile major gaps that have been left out.  

There is no such thing- ask any historian 

[Keq82]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Since you cleverly changed the subject, I assume that you actually know what I was talking about.  I even quoted you directly, so exactly who  is "we"?  And what did "we" do?  Who exactly are the deceivers (those who have told half-truths).  You have your hand outstretched to steady the ark.

No need to answer.

What are you talking about?  We (as in members of the church).  

[Keq82]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Which primary source reports the result of the trial?

 

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Keq82

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no such thing- ask any historian 

Like Richard Bushman?  Perhaps one of the best LDS experts on Joseph Smith...because he would clearly agree with my position.  

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no such thing as "objective history"- that is the bottom line.  Even if you were present and a witness, your story will differ from other witnesses.

Ok.  As objective as much as possible.  Is the fact that Joseph Smith didn't use the golden plates in the translation (but the church indicates that he did in our manuals, pics, etc.) objective?  If you think so, then that is your opinion.  

[Calm]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith

"

Conclusion

• It wasn’t a trial, it was an examination
• Likely initiated from religious concern.
• Seven witnesses.
• Editing of witness testimonies.
• Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight
• We can accept Joseph in his culture and time.

What we can obtain from the conclusions are first of all that it wasn’t a trial, it was an examination. It was likely initiated not so much from a concern about him being a money digger, as it was that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt that relationship if possible. It is likely that there were seven witnesses. It is also probable there was some editing of the witnesses’ testimonies. All witnesses however, testified that Joseph did possess a gift, though there is some variation about how strong that gift was. The key issue is that we can accept Joseph Smith. When we put him in this early 19th century culture, he is consistent with that environment. We can accept that what he did was part of that culture, his age and experience, and it doesn’t have any impact or discredit that fact that he was a prophet of God."

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

A picture of Joseph translating showing his face instead of a hat is deceptive?

The entire point is that Joseph translated the BOM- the hat did not.  It SHOULD be a picture of Joseph- not a hat.

Joseph translated by the power of God.  What he was doing while receiving the translation is irrelevant.

Is an illustration in an article about heart surgery showing the person on a table without blood and guts deceptive?

Do we have to see every function of the internal workings of a car to show a picture of a car?

This is about art criticism, not about anything "deceptive".   So any picture with Joseph and the plates is deceptive?   How much of the operative details of an event need to be shown to escape the accusation of being "deceptive"?  Do wedding pictures have to be pornographic to prove the marriage is real?

 

They show him translating with golden plates, which did not occur.  They were not used...it changes a lot.  

[Keq82]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree that he wasn't charged with glass looking.

I'd love to hear what Nevo or JLHPROF have found regarding the conviction (or a not conviction) and the documents that have been found.  I trust their evaluation and research as they'd give their honest findings.  But like I said, to me it's not that important (I get why you asked for references from Keq though).

Here is a good like:

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp

 

[Keq82]

So Moroni made a transcontinental journey on foot to bury the plates in upstate New York. 

Then Joseph gets the plates ... which Moroni lugged across a continent, and doesn't even need them because he has this magical seer stone he found on his neighbor's property when he was helping him dig a well.  

But we display pics and write in our books/manuals that he used the plates.

But none of that matters now? 

Read the statements on the translation from:

Emma Smith, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight Sr, David Whitmer, William Smith, among others are VERY authentic...and their description harmonizes.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Keq82

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

 

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp

 

That doesn't seem to be a primary source.  Also, few would label Dan Vogel an "objective" historian.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

They show him translating with golden plates, which did not occur.  They were not used...it changes a lot.  

What is changed?  Regardless of the translation method, the miracle is, and was, that the Book of Mormon was translated.  Head in a hat, hands tied behind his back, barefoot, on the roof, in a cellar, it really doesn't matter.  "By the gift and power of God" is how Joseph Smitn reported it and in the end that's all that matters.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

Ok.  As objective as much as possible.  Is the fact that Joseph Smith didn't use the golden plates in the translation (but the church indicates that he did in our manuals, pics, etc.) objective?  If you think so, then that is your opinion.  

But the Church isn't objective.  No one is objective.  Objective history is a myth, a tall tale invented by historians who were trying to justify why their views were better than the views of other historians.  

The only thing that really matters is each individual's interactions with the Spirit.  If that doesn't happen then no amount of knowledge about stones or plates or money digging or angles is worth a hill of beans.  

If it does happen, and we let that spirit and the knowledge it teaches work within us (Alma 32) that Spirit brings us closer to Christ, which is the purpose of the Book of Mormon after all.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Like Richard Bushman?  Perhaps one of the best LDS experts on Joseph Smith...because he would clearly agree with my position.  

CFR

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Ok.  As objective as much as possible.  Is the fact that Joseph Smith didn't use the golden plates in the translation (but the church indicates that he did in our manuals, pics, etc.) objective?  If you think so, then that is your opinion.  

Now you are fudging.  I want a CFR from Bushman proving that knowledge of history "as it happened" is possible.

Of course he did not use the plates, it was pure inspiration.  Plucked from the air, directly from God as Joseph understood it through his own mind.

Edited March 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Keq82 said:

They show him translating with golden plates, which did not occur.  They were not used...it changes a lot.  

"A lot"?  What does that mean.

That painting of Washington crossing the Delaware is a lie too then.  So is every painting ever painted in that case.  So what?

Do you understand that art is not "reality"?  It is a description of one person's artistic impression of something for artistic purposes.

Art is not "reality," never was, never will be.  

Michelangelo is a liar, and so is every artist according to you.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Keq82 said:

So Moroni made a transcontinental journey on foot to bury the plates in upstate New York. 

Then Joseph gets the plates ... which Moroni lugged across a continent, and doesn't even need them because he has this magical seer stone he found on his neighbor's property when he was helping him dig a well.  

But we display pics and write in our books/manuals that he used the plates.

But none of that matters now? 

Read the statements on the translation from:

Emma Smith, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight Sr, David Whitmer, William Smith, among others are VERY authentic...and their description harmonizes.

You are showing a definite fundamentalist side.  Literalism in the scriptures simply doesn't work

1 Corinthians 13:11King James Version (KJV)

¹¹ When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Edited March 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

That doesn't seem to be a primary source.  Also, few would label Dan Vogel an "objective" historian.

I've already shared this several times...Bushman would obviously agree with me:

"I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.

So I think we should just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked. It’s weird. It’s a weird picture. It implies it’s like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that’s a reading and so gives a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, what in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?”

- Richard Bushman, LDS Scholar, FAIR Podcast, Episode 3: Richard L. Bushman p.1, 47:25

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Keq82 said:

They show him translating with golden plates, which did not occur.  They were not used...it changes a lot.  

And you know this....how?  This is directly from JS history

"Two days after the arrival of Mr. Cowdery (being the 7th of April) I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me."  Can you kindly show us the precise method he used on that day and whether he was directly using the plates.  You claim knowledge of that process for which I find no account, but surely you are not just blowing in the wind.

Read the statements on the translation from:
Emma Smith, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight Sr, David Whitmer, William Smith, among others are VERY authentic

Why don't you share that with us, the part where the plates were hidden somewhere away while the translation was being done.  I am not an expert on such details as you seem to claim, so educate us with exact quotes from their account regarding those missing plates.  Give us those VERY authentic details from those who were direct eyewitnesses to the translation process.  Just curious, where were William Smith, and Joseph Knight Sr during the translation. Were they scribes, or just spectators.

Edited March 23, 2016 by cdowis

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

I've already shared this several times...Bushman would obviously agree with me:

"I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.

So I think we should just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked. It’s weird. It’s a weird picture. It implies it’s like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that’s a reading and so gives a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, what in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?”

- Richard Bushman, LDS Scholar, FAIR Podcast, Episode 3: Richard L. Bushman p.1, 47:25

 

You've changed subject matter.  We were discussing your claim that Joseph Smith was convicted of "glass looking" in 1826.  Your quite from Budhman doesn't seem to relate to that subject.

[Keq82]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

And you know this....how?  This is directly from JS history

"Two days after the arrival of Mr. Cowdery (being the 7th of April) I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me."  Can you kindly show us the precise method he used on that day and whether he was directly using the plates.  You claim knowledge of that process for which I find no account, but surely you are not just blowing in the wind.

Read the statements on the translation from:
Emma Smith, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight Sr, David Whitmer, William Smith, among others are VERY authentic

Why don't you share that with us, the part where the plates were hidden somewhere away while the translation was being done.  I am not an expert on such details as you seem to claim, so educate us with exact quotes from their account regarding those missing plates.  Give us those VERY authentic details from those who were direct eyewitnesses to the translation process.  Just curious, where were William Smith, and Joseph Knight Sr during the translation. Were they scribes, or just spectators.

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."

Page 11 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Part First, Chapter 1. Also, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: 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 that 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."

Reported by Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," Millennial Star, Volume 44, pp86-87.

"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. Also found in B. H. Roberts' Defense of the Faith and the Saints, pp. 277 & 350.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

Affidavit of Isaac Hale dated March 20, 1834, cited in Rodger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), pp. 126-128.

"Now the way he translated was he put the Urim and Thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentence and it would appear in bright roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence would come and so on. But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

(spelling preserved from original) Neal A Maxwell Institute