No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[Keq82]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"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.

It's not just in our art--it's in our books, manuals, videos, etc.  It is embedded in our doctrine across the board. 

[Keq82]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Read my previous quotes from Bushman on this subject.  He agrees that the way the church is portraying this part of our history is incorrect. 

If it was all plucked from the air...when then do we proclaim to the world the importance of the golden plates?  And it wasn't plucked from the air if Joseph Smith used a magical seer stone. 

[cdowis]

1 minute ago, Keq82 said:

"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

You did not answer my question.  Having done this several times, I sense that you have a problem with reading comprehension.  There is professional help available for this condition.  It is rather expensive, but i strongly suggest that you consider this.   It really is worth the expense.  

Anyway, let me know when you have overcome this handicap and capable of responding appropriately.  In the meantime I'm sure you will understand that I  will put you on ignore mode, because this is very tiresome.
Nothing personal, I assure you.

[Keq82]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

This was meant for somebody else. 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

It's not just in our art--it's in our books, manuals, videos, etc.  It is embedded in our doctrine across the board. 

I think you are confused.  Art is not "doctrine".  It is difficult to even define doctrine for LDS

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

It's not just in our art--it's in our books, manuals, videos, etc.  It is embedded in our doctrine across the board. 

And who is this "our"?

With your beliefs I would not be a member and I doubt that you are anyway.

[Keq82]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You did not answer my question.  Having done this several times, I sense that you have a problem with reading comprehension.  There is professional help available for this condition.  It is rather expensive, but i strongly suggest that you consider this.   It really is worth the expense.  

Anyway, let me know when you have overcome this handicap and capable of responding appropriately.  In the meantime I'm sure you will understand that I  will put you on ignore mode, because this is very tiresome.
Nothing personal, I assure you.

Cool story...

[Keq82]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you are confused.  Art is not "doctrine".  It is difficult to even define doctrine for LDS

So what is written in our church manuals is also not doctrine?  The pics on our church walls mean absolutely nothing?  I disagree. 

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

This was meant for somebody else. 

No worries.

[Keq82]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And who is this "our"?

With your beliefs I would not be a member and I doubt that you are anyway.

As in our church...yes...I am an active member (as hard as that might be for some to believe). 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

So what is written in our church manuals is also not doctrine?  The pics on our church walls mean absolutely nothing?  I disagree. 

You need to get out more. This is a widely held view.  And where is my Bushman quote?

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

[Keq82]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

You need to get out more. This is a widely held view.  And where is my Bushman quote?

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

I'm sure I get out more than most Mormons...pretty much positive on that...  I'm glad those who hold opposing views to certain doctrine in the church today are so welcomed.  Bushman quote will be there in the next few months is what I hear... 

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

So what is written in our church manuals is also not doctrine?  The pics on our church walls mean absolutely nothing?  I disagree. 

Pictures are meant to teach and inspire.  But, as I was taught in anthropology 101, they should not be confused with what really happened.

Does a picture of Joseph Smith bent over the plates while Oliver Cowdrey writes mean that the church believes that this is how the plates were translated? No.  All it really means is that someone painted a picture and someone else liked it enough to put it on the wall.

Art, paintings, even photographs do not show reality. 

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

I'm sure I get out more than most Mormons...pretty much positive on that...  I'm glad those who hold opposing views to certain doctrine in the church today are so welcomed.  Bushman quote will be there in the next few months is what I hear... 

Comprehension problem- the Bushman quote that objective history of things as they really happened is possible.  THAT is what the cfr is for.

You just keep changing the subject and answer nothing

This is a waste of time.

[Garden Girl]

I've skimmed through the six pages of this topic... as far as I'm concerned, the process of Joseph using a seer stone in a hat does not bother me at all... in fact, to me it means... more the miracle... of the translation, which from my studies included several methods including finally the face in hat.  I appreciate Emma's description of the process (quoted in earlier pages) about how Joseph would dictate for hours, without notes, his face in the hat with the stone, and how if they were interrupted he would resume dictating exactly where he left off without looking at the manuscript or asking her to read back where they left off, etc.  One has only to seriously read/ponder the BofM to realize just how incredible it was for him to dictate as she described... the flow, the names, places, events, the relationships and interactions of individuals/families/peoples, and on and on... dictated for hours as described by Emma, without notes, and with his face in a hat no less...  I can understand the Church wanting to emphasize the plates on the table in proximity to Joseph... vs opening the process to the mocking or jeering that pictures of Joseph sitting with his face in a hat would and does bring... but I'm even more glad that the Church has become more open about the process... 

GG

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I've skimmed through the six pages of this topic... as far as I'm concerned, the process of Joseph using a seer stone in a hat does not bother me at all... in fact, to me it means... more the miracle... of the translation, which from my studies included several methods including finally the face in hat.  I appreciate Emma's description of the process (quoted in earlier pages) about how Joseph would dictate for hours, without notes, his face in the hat with the stone, and how if they were interrupted he would resume dictating exactly where he left off without looking at the manuscript or asking her to read back where they left off, etc.  One has only to seriously read/ponder the BofM to realize just how incredible it was for him to dictate as she described... the flow, the names, places, events, the relationships and interactions of individuals/families/peoples, and on and on... dictated for hours as described by Emma, without notes, and with his face in a hat no less...  I can understand the Church wanting to emphasize the plates on the table in proximity to Joseph... vs opening the process to the mocking or jeering that pictures of Joseph sitting with his face in a hat would and does bring... but I'm even more glad that the Church has become more open about the process... 

GG

http://www.daralislam.org/portals/0/Publications/TheQURANHowitwasRevealedandCompiled.pdf

Well, it's interesting that the story behind the Quran is very similar to the BoM.  Mohammad a prophet as well.   

I wonder, with my new faith paradigm, if some people have a brain disorder or not, but something that gives them the religious experience both prophets received.  I'm sure I could dig up a few just like them.  Or the woman who also received revelations which enventually started a religion...http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#who ..."During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books; but today, including compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, more than 100 titles are available in English. She is the most translated woman writer in the entire history of literature, and the most translated American author of either gender. Her writings cover a broad range of subjects, including religion, education, social relationships, evangelism, prophecy, publishing, nutrition, and management. Her life-changing masterpiece on successful Christian living, Steps to Christ, has been published in more than 140 languages. Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world's attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ's second advent. From the time she was 17 years old until she died 70 years later, God gave her approximately 2,000 visions and dreams. The visions varied in length from less than a minute to nearly four hours". 

Both Ellen and Joseph had physical trauma in their youth.  I don't know if there is a connection there. While Joseph's work is indeed incredible, he isn't the only one.  And this...

"The keenness of the Great Disappointment that Jesus did not return to earth on October 22, 1844 was not lessened by Ellen's youth, and she, with others, studied the Bible and prayed earnestly for light and guidance in the succeeding days of perplexity. When many were wavering or were abandoning their Adventist experience, Ellen Harmon, one morning late in December, joined four other women in family worship at the home of a fellow believer in South Portland. Heaven seemed near to the praying group, and as the power of God rested on Ellen she witnessed in vision the travels of the Advent people to the city of God. (Early Writings, pp. 13-20.) As the 17-year-old girl reluctantly and tremblingly related this vision to the Adventist group in Portland, they accepted it as light from God. In response to a later vision, Ellen traveled with friends and relatives from place to place to relate to the scattered companies of Adventists that which had been revealed to her in the first and in succeeding revelations.  Those were not easy days for the Adventists who had been disappointed. Not only did they meet scoffing and ridicule from the world at large, but among themselves they were not united, and fanaticism of every sort arose in their ranks. But God, through revelation, opened up to Ellen Harmon the outcome of some of these fanatical moves, and she was charged with the responsibility of reproving wrong and pointing out error. This work she found difficult to perform."

Edited March 23, 2016 by Tacenda

[hope_for_things]

On 3/22/2016 at 0:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

If you do or don't you are right.

It's the belief that gives it power either way.  

Ha!  The fact that I actually understand what you're saying here, means I've progressed a long way, or maybe digressed, I guess that's a matter of perspective.  :-)  

My inner realist still struggles with the discomfort of your statement and wants to prove objectively that the physical attributes of a stone does not contain any supernatural properties.  My guess is that you'd say this isn't relevant to your statement, in which case the other part of me that reluctantly understands what you're saying would admit that you have a point.  

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  The fact that I actually understand what you're saying here, means I've progressed a long way, or maybe digressed, I guess that's a matter of perspective.  :-)  

My inner realist still struggles with the discomfort of your statement and wants to prove objectively that the physical attributes of a stone does not contain any supernatural properties.  My guess is that you'd say this isn't relevant to your statement, in which case the other part of me that reluctantly understands what you're saying would admit that you have a point.  

 

LOL!  You are right - the funny thing is that if you did that experiment it would still be a matter of definitions of "supernatural".  I can tell you right now you would not find "supernatural" properties because you could not find them using natural methods looking for "natural" properties  anyway!  

You do not find "supernatural" properties through science because they are SUPERnatural!

And now you hand the stone to someone who believes it does, and he receives what are, or what he thinks to be "revelations".  Now the question is whether or not to believe him.

The two choices are to take his word for it, or take the word of science.  Which do you pick?

Of course the revelations can only be "proven" by YOUR own revelation.

You are back to the same quandary!

Either way it becomes a circular argument.  Your preconceived belief in either spirituality or science will predominate and you will see it one way or the other.

Understanding this point is crucial to the whole question of science vs the spirit.  They are two different universes- two different ways to perceive the world, and never the twain shall meet.  Can both be "true"?  Of course because each operates within it's own context of truth, or per section 93

Quote

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

The gospel confirms it, and contemporary philosophy gives us the rational explanation in contextual theories of truth.  If it is not in a sphere- in a context- it doesn't "exist" because existence itself is a classification.  Without a system of classification, intelligence is nothing.  Intelligence IS classification- separating unorganized matter from that which is organized.  Intelligence puts classifications into place, defining what is and what is not.

How incredible is it that old Joe Smith came up with that??  Not possible!  It is of God- no question.  Old Joe Smith and Wittgenstein on the same page.

Truth is a property of sentences, and sentences are always in a context.  Spiritual sentences are about the spirit, scientific sentences are about science.  It's like discussing basketball and mixing it with embroidery.  Each has its own "language" and context, or as Wittgenstein would say, it's own "language game".  Truth only exists in a "sphere"- in a language game.

If you totally get this point, you get all you need to understand much of contemporary philosophy as well as all the problems involved in "reason vs faith" type problems.

I wish I made it up- it took me 40 years to learn it!

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL!  You are right - the funny thing is that if you did that experiment it would still be a matter of definitions of "supernatural".  I can tell you right now you would not find "supernatural" properties because you could not find them using natural methods looking for "natural" properties  anyway!  Y

You're stretching my mind, but I need to ask some questions.  What about those things that 200 years ago were considered supernatural, but that science can explain today?  As science continues to get better we're able to understand many things that previously were considered supernatural.  Shouldn't we expect this to continue?  

Quote

And now you hand the stone to someone who believes it does, and he receives what are, or what he thinks to be "revelations".  Now the question is whether or not to believe him.
The two choices are to take his word for it, or take the word of science.  Which do you pick?

I'd like to add a third choice.  Consider that the man may be receiving inspiration, but that this inspiration comes from the mind of the man at a subconscious level, that this inspiration isn't necessary some communication from a deity, but it is a higher function of the man's brain.  

You also say, should we "take his word for it" or believe the man.  I don't think we should take anyone's word for it 100% of the time.  I think we should listen, and consider the words of others, and then use our own judgement about what we consider of value and what we believe isn't of value.  For me, one principle of the gospel is that principle of using our own wisdom and judgement to discern truth from error.  I can accept only what I believe is in harmony with ethical principles, if its isn't in harmony then I can either adjust my paradigm to fit with the new information, or reject the ideas that are out of harmony.  

Quote

Either way it becomes a circular argument.  Your preconceived belief in either spirituality or science will predominate and you will see it one way or the other

Yes, I completely agree, great point.  

Quote

How incredible is it that old Joe Smith came up with that??  Not possible!  It is of God- no question.  Old Joe Smith and Wittgenstein on the same page

It's totally possible that Joseph came up with this idea from his 19th century context.  The more I research church history the more evidence I see everywhere for Joseph's ideas being heavily influenced by contemporary thinking.  

A person could conclude that this was part of God's plan, to put these other ideas in the environment for Joseph to either re-purpose or to inspire Joseph to tweak a concept just enough to push it in the right direction.   No way I can disprove that hypothesis entirely.  But why should I jump to the conclusion that Joseph didn't come up with this idea or wasn't influenced by some other contemporary concept that he came across.  Why is it important to believe that this one idea in D&C 93 was somehow different than all the other revelations that so clearly have the fingerprints of culture and Joseph's environment?  

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Read my previous quotes from Bushman on this subject.  He agrees that the way the church is portraying this part of our history is incorrect. 

If it was all plucked from the air...when then do we proclaim to the world the importance of the golden plates?  And it wasn't plucked from the air if Joseph Smith used a magical seer stone. 

Your quote from Bushman do you have a link to the text before and after that comment?  It comes across as the middle of a conversation and often greater context leads to a different understanding of what is being said.

[cdowis]

Tacenda,

"Ellen White, Mohammed"

Well, it's interesting that the story behind the Quran is very similar to the BoM.  

It is interesting that you think so.  There are few parallels, and they are very superficial.

You are missing a fundamental difference between these individuals and Joseph Smith as claimants as prophets.  He is unique that he has a cloud of witnesses of spiritual manifestations that he experienced.  We have the eight witnesses who had a physical experience with the plates, the three witnesses who had a vision and heard a divine voice, the appearance of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John who appeared and ordained both Joseph and others, the shared vision of the appearance of Jesus Christ in the Kirtland Temple.

Now share with us, not about passionate believers, but actual eyewitnesses for your prophets to divine manifestations of angelic visitations and visions.

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

 

Cdowis, I hadn't realized how many visionaries there were during JS's lifetime.  And several churches were started much like our own.  I wonder if they have the distinction you provided and had people or witnesses see the same thing at the same time, dunno.

http://www.nonegw.org/egw32.shtml

Thus, the 1700s and early 1800s were an era when visionaries and prophets were popular and attracted large followings. Mrs. White grew up in this atmosphere of religious "enthusiasm" and was closely associated with several other visionaries of her time. Perhaps these associations helped to shape her own prophetic career.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 3/23/2016 at 11:46 AM, hope_for_things said:

You're stretching my mind, but I need to ask some questions.  What about those things that 200 years ago were considered supernatural, but that science can explain today?  As science continues to get better we're able to understand many things that previously were considered supernatural.  Shouldn't we expect this to continue?  

I'd like to add a third choice.  Consider that the man may be receiving inspiration, but that this inspiration comes from the mind of the man at a subconscious level, that this inspiration isn't necessary some communication from a deity, but it is a higher function of the man's brain.  

You also say, should we "take his word for it" or believe the man.  I don't think we should take anyone's word for it 100% of the time.  I think we should listen, and consider the words of others, and then use our own judgement about what we consider of value and what we believe isn't of value.  For me, one principle of the gospel is that principle of using our own wisdom and judgement to discern truth from error.  I can accept only what I believe is in harmony with ethical principles, if its isn't in harmony then I can either adjust my paradigm to fit with the new information, or reject the ideas that are out of harmony.  

Yes, I completely agree, great point.  

It's totally possible that Joseph came up with this idea from his 19th century context.  The more I research church history the more evidence I see everywhere for Joseph's ideas being heavily influenced by contemporary thinking.  

A person could conclude that this was part of God's plan, to put these other ideas in the environment for Joseph to either re-purpose or to inspire Joseph to tweak a concept just enough to push it in the right direction.   No way I can disprove that hypothesis entirely.  But why should I jump to the conclusion that Joseph didn't come up with this idea or wasn't influenced by some other contemporary concept that he came across.  Why is it important to believe that this one idea in D&C 93 was somehow different than all the other revelations that so clearly have the fingerprints of culture and Joseph's environment?  

Great comments and I want to go over this in detail- perhaps take it to email after we pm each other, don't have time to reply fully for a day or two.

PM me if you want to do that, and I will send you my email and then we can go from there- but I WILL respond here as well - whichever works for you.

But I want you to think about something - "WHAT" is knowledge?   "Where" is it?   Is it in your head?  Is it in libraries and the internet?  Where does the knowledge of the human race reside? 

If the human race were exterminated tomorrow, would there be "knowledge"?  The moon crashes into earth- or a huge asteroid and the planet becomes trillions of tons of rocks floating in space- what happens to "knowledge"?

Does everything which exists at that time become "unknown" because knowledge no longer exists?  (lets leave out God for the moment- just a philosophical question without assuming spirituality)

The crux of all your questions are based in the question I have just raised- they PRESUME that knowledge exists independent of knowers. 

Your question about scientific "miracles"- the unknown becoming known - that which seems miraculous becomes known- presumes that there is knowledge independent of knowers.  (That which exists as an unknown becomes known.)

I am proposing that there is no knowledge independent of knowers.  Moon crashes into earth- the universe continues, yes, but who "knows" anything about the universe?  No one! (except God, spirits, etc - and we are not talking about that for the moment)

Proposition: Yes the universe is "out there" of course, but the only thing relevant to our lives about the universe is WHAT WE KNOW.  

Think of all the suns which have gone supernova perhaps a million years ago and perhaps all the earths - and we are still receiving the light from them- the "fact" that they are no longer there is unknown and unknowable.

The only thing relevant to our lives is what we know- it cannot be otherwise!  - To be continued, if you like!

And yes, the ideas were around- they started with Kant in the late 18th century.  More later if you like

Edited March 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/21/2016 at 2:10 PM, Keq82 said:

One factor I think is extremely important in looking back on our history is transparency and maintaining an objective understanding of what actually took place, regardless if it is easy to accept or not.  Over the last few years, the church has publically acknowledged that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat as the primary method in translating the Book of Mormon.  Furthermore, there are numerous accounts that support the fact that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon (quotes/references can be found below).

 

Additionally, I found it interesting that the seer stone Joseph Smith used was actually present during the dedication of the Manti Temple.  Even years subsequent to the translation of the Book of Mormon, a prophet of the church found this seer stone important enough to bring it to a temple dedication.  Granted the seer stone is currently in the church museum and various church leaders have acknowledged its existence/importance; nevertheless, it seems as if there is almost a taboo associated with brining to light that a rock in a hat was used to translate the Book of Mormon.  The difficulty I have with this is: we try to fit so much of church history into a suitable, likeable mold in order to comply with creating the noblest legacy.  In a lot of ways, so much of church history is, in fact, difficult to digest and extremely controversial/complicated.  The use of seer stones in a hat falls under one of the “controversial” subjects, in my opinion.  

 

If this seer stone is such a pivotal relic in our history, why are there no pictures and/or photographs of it in our churches?  Moreover, if the golden plates were not technically used in the translation process, why do we still have numerous pictures depicting an event that did not take place?  Are we as members expected to embrace the use of talismanic objects to reveal God’s word?  I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power.  However, I do know some members who believe the notion that a rock in a hat could have served as a focusing device for Joseph Smith to utilize, in some unknown way.  All-in-all, a lot of members I have talked to about this topic want transparency and an accurate representation of events (as they actually happened…not a whitewashed version).    

 

“In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” 

Emma Smith Bidamon Interview with Joseph Smith III, February 1879 Published as "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. 

 

“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.”

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.

 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/02/seer-stone-lessons/

I haven't really followed this thread, but It strikes me that you are somewhat behind the times in your stock complaints and faultfinding.

It appears that you are unacquainted with the Church's "Gospel Topics" essay on "Book of Mormon Translation." (Pardon me if this has already been brought up.)

Furthermore, in addition to the Church History Museum, a photograph of the seer stone is displayed in one of the latest volume releases in the Joseph Smith Papers series.

And, at the newly developed Priesthood Restoration Site at Oakland Township (formerly called Harmony), Pa., a photo of the seer stone is displayed. The dwelling of Joseph and Emma Smith is replicated there. Inside, visitors see a small table with objects as they might have appeared at the time the Book of Mormon was being translated. One of the objects is a hat, suggesting that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat during the translation process. During tours, guides will explain this.

Here is my news coverage last fall of the dedication of the Priesthood Restoration Site. Scroll through the photo gallery. You will see my photo of the table with the objects, including the hat.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Of course art is not doctrine but it's disingenuous to suggest that the ubiquity of certain, historically false images, doesn't create a false narrative and that the church is not responsible for the narrative it created. The church is not being victimized by the art it commissioned.

Claiming that people need to "get out more" or that they should know better than to believe the church is accurate in its narrative is victim blaming.