No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The seer stone was made not of in Church publications many years before 2015.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

If you're saying there were random pictures published or that the stone was mentioned before 2015, I agree.  But, it wasn't really taught like it's going to be taught to our youth today in seminary and institute classes.  I know some claim they heard of it or had a teacher mention it, but I think those instances were pretty few and far between as well.  Were you taught it in seminary?  I know that I was not and neither were my kids.  But hopefully my grand-kids will learn about it.

.

Edited March 25, 2016 by ALarson

[cdowis]

I still am puzzled by the many paintings of the Baby Jesus stable scene.  It not only shows the family and the shepherds, but also the Three Wisemen.  What nefarious plot places them there in these paintings and creches all over the world two years earlier than when they likely arrived?  Do you realize that these creches are found in millions of homes and nobody questions the historical facts of what it depicts.  Even the sharp eyes of the antiMormons missed it, while they focus solely on Joseph Smith.

The mystery of the magic appearing wisemen  is unsolved to this day.

Edited March 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

I still am puzzled by the many paintings of the Baby Jesus stable scene.  It not only shows the family and the shepherds, but also the Three Wisemen.  What nefarious plot places them there in these paintings and creches all over the world two years earlier than when they likely arrived?  So you realize that these creches are found in millions of homes and nobody questions the historical facts of what it depicts.

The mystery of the magic wisemen  is unsolved to this day.

I have thought about that too...and always in school and church plays the wisemen were there with the shepherds. 

[consiglieri]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

One is that an artist does have every right to paint an event or person(s), using their own impressions, inspiration or interpretation.  Of course, church leaders have no right to dictate how an artist chooses to portray events or people from church history.  

But, whether or not that art makes it into a church manual, publication or is chosen to be hung in a visitor center, church building, etc., is up to church leaders (or whoever makes up the committee who approves what goes into manuals, into libraries and so on).  An artist can paint whatever he wants in the manner he chooses, but will it pass the approval of the leaders or be published on lds.org or hung in a church owned building?  That's the difference, IMO.

There is nobody on this board who actually believes the Church does not correlate artwork it commissions, pays for, and publishes in its official sources.

If there is, please speak now or forever hold your peace.

It appears the Church will throw absolutely anybody under the bus to avoid taking responsibility for hiding negative aspects of Church history from its members for decades and decades.

The artists are just the newest group to get the tread mark treatment.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

In my opinion, the church does not want to include any pictures or descriptions of seer stones in its manuals, churches, etc., in an attempt to disassociate Joseph Smith from magical beliefs and/or practices.  Similarly, the church wants to sugarcoat the most tolerable, pleasing narrative possible in order to extenuate the actual translation process using a seer stone.  Apparently, Joseph Smith might have thought we should all have our own personal seer stones:

 

 

 

”Oliver sent me Joseph's first seer stone; Oliver always kept it until he sent it to me - the second seer stone Dr. Williams had - the third one was a very large - and Joseph found two small ones on the beach in Nauvoo - a little larger than a black walnut without the shock on - Joseph said there is a stone for every person on the earth - I don't know that I have ever had a desire to have one.”

 

 

 

Salt Lake City, Council Meeting, LJA 9-13-4, 149-150; BYC, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, 2010, Vol. 2, Pg. 1004.

 

 

 

Apparently you are not familiar with this scripture.  It is found in the Bible in a book called "Revelation", Chapter 2 verse 17.  If you do not have a bible, they are available on line.

Quote

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

It appears that everyone will have their own seer stone at some point.

Perhaps studying the bible and other standard works would help your understanding of these issues.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Apparently you are not familiar with this scripture.  It is found in the Bible in a book called "Revelation", Chapter 2 verse 17.  If you do not have a bible, they are available on line.

It appears that everyone will have their own seer stone at some point.

Perhaps studying the bible and other standard works would help your understanding of these issues.

Which is why everybody who has studied the New Testament over the past 2,000 years believes in the use of seer stones by prophets.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Which is why everybody who has studied the New Testament over the past 2,000 years believes in the use of seer stones by prophets.

And of course everybody who reads it is correct and understands all aspects of it perfectly.

See we have this thing we believe called the "Great Apostasy".  Heard about that?

[Walden]

35 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I still am puzzled by the many paintings of the Baby Jesus stable scene.  It not only shows the family and the shepherds, but also the Three Wisemen.  What nefarious plot places them there in these paintings and creches all over the world two years earlier than when they likely arrived?  Do you realize that these creches are found in millions of homes and nobody questions the historical facts of what it depicts.  Even the sharp eyes of the antiMormons missed it, while they focus solely on Joseph Smith.

The mystery of the magic appearing wisemen  is unsolved to this day.

And what about the fact that Jesus is portrayed as white; as a first-century Jew, Jesus would have been dark-skinned, or at the very least, olive complexioned, and not the blond-haired, blue-eyed "surfer" Jesus that is the image that most Mormons, and most Christian adherents, picture or have been led to believe. 

[Keq82]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Apparently you are not familiar with this scripture.  It is found in the Bible in a book called "Revelation", Chapter 2 verse 17.  If you do not have a bible, they are available on line.

It appears that everyone will have their own seer stone at some point.

Perhaps studying the bible and other standard works would help your understanding of these issues.

Ok...that could be one reason that explains why it was extremely popular in the 1800's to use seer stones.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Where did he state the church had "nefarious motives"?   I think it's quite obvious that there were some leaders who were not anxious to publish pictures or address the seer stone in the hat.  I understand why too. It opens up the whole topic of Joseph's treasure seeking when he was younger and how he used the same stone for these activities.  

Again, I think it's great we're getting more honest depictions now.  The pictures of the stones (links Calm has posted) will open up conversations and will also hopefully encourage members to search and learn further on their own.

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. 

Why do I have to keep explaining this?

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I just spent some time reading more of this.  Thanks for posting it, Calm as it's interesting.

I think we are really discussing two different things or aspects here, though.

One is that an artist does have every right to paint an event or person(s), using their own impressions, inspiration or interpretation.  Of course, church leaders have no right to dictate how an artist chooses to portray events or people from church history.  

But, whether or not that art makes it into a church manual, publication or is chosen to be hung in a visitor center, church building, etc., is up to church leaders (or whoever makes up the committee who approves what goes into manuals, into libraries and so on).  An artist can paint whatever he wants in the manner he chooses, but will it pass the approval of the leaders or be published on lds.org or hung in a church owned building?  That's the difference, IMO.

.

 

I haven't read through this entire thread so I am not sure if this has been discussed. I did some graphic design work for the Ensign years ago. This is how the process works. The art director who works for the church magazine gets the copy for the article. He then designs the article suggesting the visual and size based on subject matter and space allotted. That layout is approved or rejected by the editor. If it is approved the magazine hires the artist to execute the illustration based on the design. He is chosen based on his style of painting or other media that the artist specializes in. They render the design given them. They do not get to paint what they want or how they feel about the subject. It is dictated to them by the art director. Part of that contract given to the artist is that the church owns the image and retains all control of that image. That is why you often see the same images used over and over again in church publications. Rarely will the church ever buy or use a painting that they do not own outright or have not asked for.  Compensation to the artist is pretty minimal. So yes, the church does dictate to the artists that it uses in its publications the subject matter and how it is shown  

 

Well at at least that is how this all worked 20 years ago. If an artist is just doing a painting with no intention of having it published in church publications then obviously the church has no part in dictating the subject matter and how it is depicted. Hope that gives some clarification 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you mean here?

If you're saying there were random pictures published or that the stone was mentioned before 2015, I agree.  But, it wasn't really taught like it's going to be taught to our youth today in seminary and institute classes.  I know some claim they heard of it or had a teacher mention it, but I think those instances were pretty few and far between as well.  Were you taught it in seminary?  I know that I was not and neither were my kids.  But hopefully my grand-kids will learn about it.

.

I've known about the seer stone so long I don't remember first hearing of it. Probably some time in my youth. 

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've known about the seer stone so long I don't remember first hearing of it. Probably some time in my youth. 

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!

Edited March 26, 2016 by JulieM

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course everybody who reads it is correct and understands all aspects of it perfectly.

See we have this thing we believe called the "Great Apostasy".  Heard about that?

Not recently.

The LDS Church backed off its traditional "Great Apostasy" teachings when it began to realize the same arguments could be used on the LDS Church with equal devastation. 

Happy Easter!

[consiglieri]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've known about the seer stone so long I don't remember first hearing of it. Probably some time in my youth. 

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.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

There is nobody on this board who actually believes the Church does not correlate artwork it commissions, pays for, and publishes in its official sources.

If there is, please speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

consiglieri,

Clearly you are unhappy about how the church is run.  We get it.  

Anyway, the artists are given alot of flexibility in their artistic depictions of historical events.  I seem to remember depictions of the Three Witnesses standing together rather than in two separate groups, BOM pictures of Roman styled soldiers riding horses, etc etc.  These artists were not micromanaged in creating certain images as long as it did not show the church in a negative light.  And this happens EVERYWHERE, not just in the LDS chuch.

May i suggest that you find another hobby that is positive and bring you happiness rather than making misery for yourself and others.

[Keq82]

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

 

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

I haven't read through this entire thread so I am not sure if this has been discussed. I did some graphic design work for the Ensign years ago. This is how the process works. The art director who works for the church magazine gets the copy for the article. He then designs the article suggesting the visual and size based on subject matter and space allotted. That layout is approved or rejected by the editor. If it is approved the magazine hires the artist to execute the illustration based on the design. He is chosen based on his style of painting or other media that the artist specializes in. They render the design given them. They do not get to paint what they want or how they feel about the subject. It is dictated to them by the art director. Part of that contract given to the artist is that the church owns the image and retains all control of that image. That is why you often see the same images used over and over again in church publications. Rarely will the church ever buy or use a painting that they do not own outright or have not asked for.  Compensation to the artist is pretty minimal. So yes, the church does dictate to the artists that it uses in its publications the subject matter and how it is shown 

It's great to hear from someone who has actually done this for the church.  It sounds like the art director for the church publication or project is very hands on and I can't  believe anyone would think it would be any different than this.  The church is very particular about having quality art, I'm sure, as well as how all things are represented.

Edited March 26, 2016 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

49 minutes 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

 

And he also tried to circumvent the very first vision recorded by Joseph by tearing it out of a journal apparently.  Makes sense he'd say this also.  In fact I've read recently that Joseph Smith started calling the stone the Urim and Thummin because it looked better to those coming into the church, since it's mentioned in the Bible.  Maybe that's what Scott knew about so long ago, the U & T not the Seerstones.  Scott?  I know that's what I heard growing up.

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Not recently.

The LDS Church backed off its traditional "Great Apostasy" teachings when it began to realize the same arguments could be used on the LDS Church with equal devastation. 

Happy Easter!

I must have missed church that week.

[ksfisher]

3 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

 

From the Fair article you linked to

"Joseph Fielding Smith was entitled to his opinion, and he clearly stated that it was his opinion."

You're not going to give up on this one, are you.

[mfbukowski]

4 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

 

Holy cow.

So you have no problem with Joseph using a stone to translate, but if it is called a "seer stone", then all of a sudden there is a problem, but if it is called "Urim and Thummim" it is ok?  Even though the Bible says everyone gets a stone??

Does that sum it up?  This is about semantics??

You understand that we do not believe that prophets are infallible, right?

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

consiglieri,

Clearly you are unhappy about how the church is run.  We get it.  

Anyway, the artists are given alot of flexibility in their artistic depictions of historical events.  I seem to remember depictions of the Three Witnesses standing together rather than in two separate groups, BOM pictures of Roman styled soldiers riding horses, etc etc.  These artists were not micromanaged in creating certain images as long as it did not show the church in a negative light.  And this happens EVERYWHERE, not just in the LDS chuch.

May i suggest that you find another hobby that is positive and bring you happiness rather than making misery for yourself and others.

You really want to be shunt of me, don't you? 

This has nothing to do with my emotional state about how the church is run.

I am trying to correct the error that some seem to hold on this board that the LDS Church commissions artwork for official use that does not reflect the picture the LDS Church wants people to see.

It isn't that complicated, really.

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I must have missed church that week.

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

[consiglieri]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy cow.

So you have no problem with Joseph using a stone to translate, but if it is called a "seer stone", then all of a sudden there is a problem, but if it is called "Urim and Thummim" it is ok?  Even though the Bible says everyone gets a stone??

 

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!