Some LDS scholars like to agree with Anti-Mormons

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I guess I was confused by what you were saying because I'm only speaking about those things that have been concluded to be facts--not the opinions or personal conclusions.

My point is that you're divorcing the facts from the broader meaning of those facts. That's misleading. Meanings matter quite a bit. If I kill someone it matters whether it was murder or me during war. The contexts and relationships matter a great deal.

Quote

Just after my wife and I got married, in a conversation, I had made note of Joseph being a polygamist, that he married or was sealed to many women, including teenage girls and other men's wives.  I had offered no conclusions, explanations or thoughts on those pieces of information when she was absolutely floored and broke down in tears.  Come to find out she thought I was an "anti-Mormon" because I had said things that she had only heard from anti-Mormons.  I learned how to share ideas and thoughts with her early on as a result.  All these years later and she knows about these pieces of history that she was previously not aware of.  She feels far more betrayed by the Church than I.  For some reason, I attribute mostly ignorance to the Church's terrible efforts to hide information, or create an unworkable narrative.  She blames the leaders for knowingly trying to control us.  Both are probably at least partly true, I'd guess, since over the many years so many people have been involved in creating the dominant narrative. 

Well I won't get into that issue. As I said I think the church would do better to get the information out there. But I also think that it hasn't been hard to find for quite some time. At least since my college years and that was a long time ago now. And the internet has been widely available for basically all Americans since around 1993 - before that if you were in college. By that time there were many well read non-anti-Mormon books on polygamy including polyandry along with reviews by FARMS and elsewhere.

I'm not saying the church shouldn't have done more to get the information out there. I am saying that it wasn't hiding it by the mid 90's. (Compton's In Sacred Loneliness was widely discussed in 1997 and he'd been a regular writer for FARMS) FARMS was about as mainstream in the church as you could get in that era (IMO) and was associated with BYU by then. General polygamy was also discussed in the Church pushed Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Admittedly that was mainly an academic book in the early 90's. (It came out in 1992) It was put online by BYU fairly early on though - although I don't know the exact year. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's about whether or not our image of God, Joseph Smith, the Church, morality and honesty is big enough to include these types of things.  For some people they are.  For others, they aren't.

But it seems to me you're agreeing with me. The issue is tied to broader issues. So fundamentally to discuss the issue requires discussing far more than the facts about polygamy and gets into broader questions of theology. Further because it is precisely these broader theological questions that really are the issue, traditional histories that intentionally avoid such things end up being misleading relative to the central questions.

It would seem to me that the issue with anti-Mormons is their stance to those broader questions. 

Quote

There will always be faithful LDS who are willing to accept the situation with Joseph Smith's polygamy, and the Book of Abraham, and the Priesthood ban, on faith and the "picture" the Church presents.  As Scientology shows us, there is no limit to what people are willing to believe, even if it's not God's spoken truth.

Well I think it goes well beyond the picture the Church presents. As I've often said I knew all these things because they came up on my mission and I bought books that engaged with them. I knew then (the late 80's) most of the controversies. Honestly things have changed only slightly in the big picture since then. Likewise my investigators always encountered them thanks to anti-Mormons who mysteriously always seemed to show up when they were learning about the Church. I'd simply tell them that what ultimately counts is what God says and they should find out for themselves. Rather than take it as an obstacle I'd take it as an opportunity for them to learn by personal revelation the truth. If we'd made it through the 3rd discussion before the antis found them, they'd pray and learn it was true. If we didn't they would stop seeing us. So context matters a lot. And the most important context is the Holy Ghost. The exact same facts might lead some away while in others it strengthens their testimony because they have to find out.

Edited June 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well, facts are facts.  A person's conclusions may be based on facts or not.  Sadly for so much of our existence, our individual members have been treating the facts that "anti-Mormons" have used in their arguments as falsehoods, mostly because the members have been told to think that way.  But I think that's mostly going away. 

There are no facts, only interpretations of what we think we "know"

[cinepro]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But it seems to me you're agreeing with me. The issue is tied to broader issues. So fundamentally to discuss the issue requires discussing far more than the facts about polygamy and gets into broader questions of theology. Further because it is precisely these broader theological questions that really are the issue, traditional histories that intentionally avoid such things end up being misleading relative to the central questions.

It would seem to me that the issue with anti-Mormons is their stance to those broader questions.

No.  You are arguing for the position the Church held for the first 170+ years. 

You are saying that if you have a "testimony" of the Restoration and Joseph Smith and President Monson etc., that "the facts" about polygamy and the Book of Abraham and the Priesthood Ban don't matter.

If that is the case, then the Church made a mistake with the Gospel Topics essays and other "transparency" efforts because they are wasting their time and energy on things that don't matter.

But these "facts" do matter.  And while "broader questions of theology" may help salvage some peoples' testimonies on these issues, if we look at the "data" of the last 20 years of the internet it would suggest that these facts are still devastating in spite of all the context and "theology" the Church can muster.  That's why the Church is reduced to a position of begging people to believe in spite of these issues, whereas 100 years ago they would have been seen as reasons to believe because of them:

"Joseph Smith restored Old Testament polygamy, just like you would expect a modern prophet to!" 

"Joseph Smith translated ancient Egyptian scrolls, just like a modern prophet would!" 

"The Church follows the scriptures and their teachings about the black races not being able to have the priesthood instead of going along with social pressure, just like you would expect a Church with scripture and modern revelation to."

Now it's all about "We don't know" and "Context!" and "Remember the spiritual experiences you had!" and "Stay in the boat!"

For 180+ years, the Church has been based on a foundation of people feeling good, spiritual feelings about its teachings.  Now it has to deal with people feeling revulsion about some of its history and teachings.  And I can promise you that if your main selling point is the good feelings you have when you hear the message, revulsion is not your friend!

And you might convince someone to ignore that feeling of revulsion with context and theology, but that feeling does not go away.  If someone is bothered by the thought of Joseph Smith being sealed to 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, that feeling of revulsion will never go away, regardless of what the statistical average age of marriage on the US Frontier from 1820-1850 was.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by cinepro

[Calm]

"If someone is bothered by the thought of Joseph Smith being sealed to 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, that feeling of revulsion will never go away, regardless of what the statistical average age of marriage on the US Frontier from 1820-1850 was."

However, it might if they understood it was a dynastic marriage, if they weren't inherently offended by arranged marriages not based on romantic love, and if they interpreted the evidence to indicate the relationship was more of a betrothal and less of a full marriage with no physical relationship intended to occur until she was older, similar to what occurred when plural marriage was lived openly in Utah (where young women continued to lived with their parents until  they were deemed old enough to actually become wives rather than just promised wives).

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

No.  You are arguing for the position the Church held for the first 170+ years. You are saying that if you have a "testimony" of the Restoration and Joseph Smith and President Monson etc., that "the facts" about polygamy and the Book of Abraham and the Priesthood Ban don't matter.

No that's not what I'm saying. I am saying, it's true, that God can tell you if it's true regardless of things that might trouble you. But I'm not saying those things don't matter. Far from it. Rather I am saying how they matter depends upon bigger questions beyond the mere facts that they happened in Church history. That particular claim you appear to agree with when you talk about how they bother people. Where we disagree is over what gives these things their particular meaning. i.e. what say Kimball's marriage to Joseph means. You are assuming it means something horrible that can't change, but as Calm notes, that's hardly univocal.

Edited June 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

No.  You are arguing for the position the Church held for the first 170+ years. 

You are saying that if you have a "testimony" of the Restoration and Joseph Smith and President Monson etc., that "the facts" about polygamy and the Book of Abraham and the Priesthood Ban don't matter.

If that is the case, then the Church made a mistake with the Gospel Topics essays and other "transparency" efforts because they are wasting their time and energy on things that don't matter.

But these "facts" do matter.  And while "broader questions of theology" may help salvage some peoples' testimonies on these issues, if we look at the "data" of the last 20 years of the internet it would suggest that these facts are still devastating in spite of all the context and "theology" the Church can muster.  That's why the Church is reduced to a position of begging people to believe in spite of these issues, whereas 100 years ago they would have been seen as reasons to believe because of them:

"Joseph Smith restored Old Testament polygamy, just like you would expect a modern prophet to!" 

"Joseph Smith translated ancient Egyptian scrolls, just like a modern prophet would!" 

"The Church follows the scriptures and their teachings about the black races not being able to have the priesthood instead of going along with social pressure, just like you would expect a Church with scripture and modern revelation to."

Now it's all about "We don't know" and "Context!" and "Remember the spiritual experiences you had!" and "Stay in the boat!"

For 180+ years, the Church has been based on a foundation of people feeling good, spiritual feelings about its teachings.  Now it has to deal with people feeling revulsion about some of its history and teachings.  And I can promise you that if your main selling point is the good feelings you have when you hear the message, revulsion is not your friend!

And you might convince someone to ignore that feeling of revulsion with context and theology, but that feeling does not go away.  If someone is bothered by the thought of Joseph Smith being sealed to 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, that feeling of revulsion will never go away, regardless of what the statistical average age of marriage on the US Frontier from 1820-1850 was.

 

I've known a person where it did go away though.  They prayed about it, studied it a little more, and then it just did not bother them anymore.  I don't know that we can ever really speak in absolutes when we are talking about the feelings of other people.

Most of the time I don't feel comfortable speaking in absolutes about my own feelings.  I can see how added knowledge and experience can really change how i react or respond to things.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

And you might convince someone to ignore that feeling of revulsion with context and theology, but that feeling does not go away.  If someone is bothered by the thought of Joseph Smith being sealed to 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, that feeling of revulsion will never go away, regardless of what the statistical average age of marriage on the US Frontier from 1820-1850 was.

You might wish to talk to Lucy Walker, Helen mar Kimball herself, James Allred, Thomas, Grover, Zina Huntington, Benjamin Johnson, Emily Partridge, and even Brigham Young, to name a few whose feelings of repugnance of polygamy did go away. Some people do change their minds about some things even without revelation. Interracial marriage is one such item. Of course, not all people change their minds about such things, but it is not unheard of.

[Physics Guy]

To accept that a primitive society might have large-scale polygamy and fourteen-year-old brides, and yet not be entirely horrible, that is one thing. It is another thing to accept that God Almighty explicitly directed that lifestyle in a society that had moved far beyond it.

Arguing that Smith's polygamy was somehow less than entirely horrible cannot excuse him, because his polygamous marriages with underage brides weren't supposed to be flaws like Martin Luther King's adultery. They were supposed to be the revealed will of God. Dynastic marriages, or young girls being put on reserve for later use like an underripe pear being stuck in the fridge—okay, those might be less bad than other things one could imagine. But there is still no way that the real God would command a real prophet to do them. 

I'm not Mormon, but I try not to be anti-Mormon. There are lots of things about Mormonism that are just interesting. The polygamy is an enormous problem, however. The revulsion is real and indeed it does not go away. The Mormon defenses that I've seen so far only seem to make the problem worse, by giving the impression that even intelligent modern-day Mormons are determined to condone something hideous. The defenses make it seem as though Mormons just don't get it about polygamy, and that's disturbing, because how can they not?

[california boy]

On 6/13/2017 at 10:51 PM, clarkgoble said:

My point is that you're divorcing the facts from the broader meaning of those facts. That's misleading. Meanings matter quite a bit. If I kill someone it matters whether it was murder or me during war. The contexts and relationships matter a great deal.

Well I won't get into that issue. As I said I think the church would do better to get the information out there. But I also think that it hasn't been hard to find for quite some time. At least since my college years and that was a long time ago now. And the internet has been widely available for basically all Americans since around 1993 - before that if you were in college. By that time there were many well read non-anti-Mormon books on polygamy including polyandry along with reviews by FARMS and elsewhere.

I'm not saying the church shouldn't have done more to get the information out there. I am saying that it wasn't hiding it by the mid 90's. (Compton's In Sacred Loneliness was widely discussed in 1997 and he'd been a regular writer for FARMS) FARMS was about as mainstream in the church as you could get in that era (IMO) and was associated with BYU by then. General polygamy was also discussed in the Church pushed Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Admittedly that was mainly an academic book in the early 90's. (It came out in 1992) It was put online by BYU fairly early on though - although I don't know the exact year. 

I have heard this rational a lot in the past couple of years.  But people that present this narrative just don't get the feeling of deceit the church has participated in.  Some of these issues may very well have been available if one looked hard enough.  But that is not the point.  The church was teaching a false narrative.  That is the point.  They portrayed Joseph and Emma as a loving married couple.  No other wives were included.  They built a statue of Joseph and Emma holding hands, looking into each others eyes on temple square for heavens sake.  Where are the rest of the wives.  Every picture I have EVER seen of Joseph translating the BOM has Joseph with the golden plates beside him.  NEVER did the church portray him looking into a hat.  Yet that is the MAIN way Joseph used to come up with the BOM.  Why does the church even say that Joseph Smith "translated" the BOM?  Did he even translate it?  Or is is solely an inspired text that appeared on a rock??  

Quite honestly, I haven't seen the church move much towards the true narrative.  While they have acknowledged those narratives through church essays, I have yet to see the church widely portray Joseph with his other wives or the paintings at the church visitors centers having Joseph peeping into a hat.  When missionaries tell the story of the BOM coming forth, do they talk about Joseph looking into a hat?  Or do they still teach that he translated golden plates buried by Moroni?  Is the church being as deceitful as it was in the past?  No.  Is the church being entirely truthful today? No.  They still love their made up narrative they have been telling for 170 years.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've known a person where it did go away though.  They prayed about it, studied it a little more, and then it just did not bother them anymore.  I don't know that we can ever really speak in absolutes when we are talking about the feelings of other people.

Most of the time I don't feel comfortable speaking in absolutes about my own feelings.  I can see how added knowledge and experience can really change how i react or respond to things.

I think you are absolutely correct.  So why isn't the real narrative taught openly and continuously both within the church and to new investigators?  Why is the church, after all that has happened, still clinging to the narrative they have held for 170 years as still the main narrative taught in sunday school, priesthood, seminary, institute and to investigators?  Instead of the main narrative being changed, it remains the same, the only change has been to acknowledge what happened in the past in a very controlled way. Does the church lack the faith that God will give people testimonies if that old narrative completely went away?

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I have heard this rational a lot in the past couple of years.  But people that present this narrative just don't get the feeling of deceit the church has participated in.  Some of these issues may very well have been available if one looked hard enough.  But that is not the point.  The church was teaching a false narrative.  That is the point.  They portrayed Joseph and Emma as a loving married couple.  No other wives were included.

Again, I'd just disagree on this point. First off there's no doubt Joseph and Emma loved each other greatly. That definitely comes through the history. Even during the Nauvoo era. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that many of the problems with polygamy arose because Joseph loved Emma so much and thus wouldn't do things in a straightforward way as apparently commanded. 

I know that's never going to convince people who feel betrayed. Feelings are feelings and are a gut level reaction. I also wouldn't say "if one looked hard enough." There's tons of stuff on this if one looked even superficially. Maybe if you're talking the 1980's or before I'd agree with you. But the past 25 years? Portraying it as hard to find is just misleading at best.

Quote

Every picture I have EVER seen of Joseph translating the BOM has Joseph with the golden plates beside him.  NEVER did the church portray him looking into a hat.  

Again that's just wrong. I'll grant you the Del Parson painting (which is relatively recent) is misleading. I've been pretty critical of it. But the Church always taught Joseph translated the Book of Mormon via stones he looked through. (Either the spectacles that came with the plates or his seer stones -- both were called the Urim and Thummim from an early date) The Urim and Thummim is so widely discussed at church it's not even funny. There's even discussion of receiving our own. It's in the version of Joseph's history that's in the Pearl of Great Price and gets discussed all the time. Now I'll grant you that not every discussion mentions the hat, which was used to shade out the light, but I've never heard a single discussion of the translation of the Book of Mormon that didn't mention Joseph seeing the words on the Urim and Thummim. However even a quick search at LDS.org finds regular discussion of the hat going back decades. For instance this Ensign from way back in 1977 quoting the Whitmer account.:

"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 "At that time David Whitmer said that Joseph “was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.”

The Whitmer account is quoted regularly such as am Elder Nelson talk from 1993. I don't have old manuals, but I recall it being in quite a few manuals including priesthood manuals. Any third party book covering the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon mentioned this. That's not exactly having to look hard. There's numerous FARMS articles on this and those were on the internet by the mid-90's. 

So to say that "NEVER did the church portray him looking into a hat" is so wrong that I think you're being intentionally deceitful. You're basing your entire argument on two paintings which clearly didn't line up with the texts the church did publish. I'd say that the Church never portrayed the translation as happening by any way other than the Urim and Thummim. (The hat, honestly, seems kind of beside the point since it was just shielding the light - it was hardly an essential part of the translation)

Quote

Quite honestly, I haven't seen the church move much towards the true narrative.  While they have acknowledged those narratives through church essays, I have yet to see the church widely portray Joseph with his other wives or the paintings at the church visitors centers having Joseph peeping into a hat.

Good grief. That's a ridiculous requirement. 

Quote

When missionaries tell the story of the BOM coming forth, do they talk about Joseph looking into a hat?  Or do they still teach that he translated golden plates buried by Moroni?

Both the old missionary lessons and the current ones discussed it and quote the history in the Pearl of Great Price. But of course you are presenting a false dichotomy since the teaching is that he translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim.

Quote

 Is the church being as deceitful as it was in the past?

Well someone is being deceitful but it's not the Church here.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are absolutely correct.  So why isn't the real narrative taught openly and continuously both within the church and to new investigators?  Why is the church, after all that has happened, still clinging to the narrative they have held for 170 years as still the main narrative taught in sunday school, priesthood, seminary, institute and to investigators?  Instead of the main narrative being changed, it remains the same, the only change has been to acknowledge what happened in the past in a very controlled way. Does the church lack the faith that God will give people testimonies if that old narrative completely went away?

These seem like rhetorical questions, since there is no way for me to speak for the church.  Did you really want me to try to answer or are you using them to make a point?  (Honest question).

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, I'd just disagree on this point. First off there's no doubt Joseph and Emma loved each other greatly. That definitely comes through the history. Even during the Nauvoo era. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that many of the problems with polygamy arose because Joseph loved Emma so much and thus wouldn't do things in a straightforward way as apparently commanded. 

I know that's never going to convince people who feel betrayed. Feelings are feelings and are a gut level reaction. I also wouldn't say "if one looked hard enough." There's tons of stuff on this if one looked even superficially. Maybe if you're talking the 1980's or before I'd agree with you. But the past 25 years? Portraying it as hard to find is just misleading at best.

Again that's just wrong. I'll grant you the Del Parson painting (which is relatively recent) is misleading. I've been pretty critical of it. But the Church always taught Joseph translated the Book of Mormon via stones he looked through. (Either the spectacles that came with the plates or his seer stones -- both were called the Urim and Thummim from an early date) The Urim and Thummim is so widely discussed at church it's not even funny. There's even discussion of receiving our own. It's in the version of Joseph's history that's in the Pearl of Great Price and gets discussed all the time. Now I'll grant you that not every discussion mentions the hat, which was used to shade out the light, but I've never heard a single discussion of the translation of the Book of Mormon that didn't mention Joseph seeing the words on the Urim and Thummim. However even a quick search at LDS.org finds regular discussion of the hat going back decades. For instance this Ensign from way back in 1977 quoting the Whitmer account.:

"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 "At that time David Whitmer said that Joseph “was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.”

The Whitmer account is quoted regularly such as am Elder Nelson talk from 1993. I don't have old manuals, but I recall it being in quite a few manuals including priesthood manuals. Any third party book covering the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon mentioned this. That's not exactly having to look hard. There's numerous FARMS articles on this and those were on the internet by the mid-90's. 

So to say that "NEVER did the church portray him looking into a hat" is so wrong that I think you're being intentionally deceitful. You're basing your entire argument on two paintings which clearly didn't line up with the texts the church did publish. I'd say that the Church never portrayed the translation as happening by any way other than the Urim and Thummim. (The hat, honestly, seems kind of beside the point since it was just shielding the light - it was hardly an essential part of the translation)

Good grief. That's a ridiculous requirement. 

Both the old missionary lessons and the current ones discussed it and quote the history in the Pearl of Great Price. But of course you are presenting a false dichotomy since the teaching is that he translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim.

Well someone is being deceitful but it's not the Church here.

You missed the entire point of my post didn't you.  I acknowledged the essays.  And I acknowledged that this material is way more available than in the past.  What I was addressing and what you didn't address is the MAIN narrative that is currently used in teaching investigators, in sunday school, in seminary, in institute, in primary.  I never said that Joseph didn't love Emma.  What I said was, are his other wives NOW a part of the MAIN narrative the church uses today?  (are the cap letters and bold enough this time for you to address my point?)  

And I will agree that the Urim and Thummim has been a part of the narrative for a very long time.  They are always connected with how Joseph Smith translated the gold plates.  But that is not what I was addressing.  As I understand it, while Joseph used the  Urim and Thummim and the gold plates to translate the Book of Lehi, he used the seer stone in the hat to dictate the bulk of what we know as the Book of Mormon.  Since the seer stone in the hat the main way Joseph received the BOM, is the seer stone in the hat NOW a part of the MAIN narrative the church uses today?  And are you really trying to tell me that the seer stone in the hat has always been a part of the main narrative that has been going on for decades???  Where are all the paintings in the visitor center of Joseph looking into a hat which is what I met when I said never portrayed?  Where are all the missionary flip charts with Joseph looking into a hat?  

WHY is presenting the true narrative of Joseph having multiple wives and how the bulk of the BOM was actually translated a ridiculous requirement????  Which narrative is more closer to the truth?  

I looked through your link.  Plenty of pictures of gold plates which were actually used very little in the translating process, but NO head in hat paintings.  Are you really trying to convince me that the MAIN narrative has changed?

I really think you should read my posts more carefully and address what I actually wrote before you call me deceitful.

Edited June 15, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These seem like rhetorical questions, since there is no way for me to speak for the church.  Did you really want me to try to answer or are you using them to make a point?  (Honest question).

I was asking your opinion on what you though?  And I wonder if the current direction is really fixing the problem.  More important, do you think the church should teach the correct narrative on all things?

Edited June 15, 2017 by california boy

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

You missed the entire point of my post didn't you.  I acknowledged the essays.  And I acknowledged that this material is way more available than in the past.  What I was addressing and what you didn't address is the MAIN narrative that is currently used in teaching investigators, in sunday school, in seminary, in institute, in primary.  I never said that Joseph didn't love Emma.  What I said was, are his other wives NOW a part of the MAIN narrative the church uses today?  (are the cap letters and bold enough this time for you to address my point?)  

The statements I quoted were explicitly wrong. You were portraying this information as hard to find not merely talking about main narrative.

Certainly Joseph's plural marriages aren't part of the main narrative because contemporary polygamy is apostasy. In the same way Old Testament polygamy isn't part of our main narrative. That's because the main narrative is to teach the current teachings of the church.

My point is that whatever the main narrative is, the other aspects are also taught. So for people to be ignorant when the information is easily there and typically part of required readings for lessons seems illegitimate.

Quote

And I will agree that the Urim and Thummim has been a part of the narrative for a very long time.  They are always connected with how Joseph Smith translated the gold plates.  But that is not what I was addressing.  As I understand it, while Joseph used the  Urim and Thummim and the gold plates to translate the Book of Lehi, he used the seer stone in the hat to dictate the bulk of what we know as the Book of Mormon.  Since the seer stone in the hat the main way Joseph received the BOM, is the seer stone in the hat NOW a part of the MAIN narrative the church uses today?

Again, I don't get the point of your emphasis on the hat which was just to make it easier to see when there was light around. The seer stones were called Urim and Thummim, I think you'll agree. And as you just acknowledged, the Urim and Thummim was the main narrative. I agreed that hat wasn't always discussed -- mainly because it's largely irrelevant -- but the Urim and Thummim were.  So yes, the Church has always emphasized rocks/glass as part of its main narrative. To the point it's part of every Missionary teaching.

Quote

Plenty of pictures of gold plates which were actually used very little in the translating process, but NO head in hat paintings.  Are you really trying to convince me that the MAIN narrative has changed?

There are lots of pictures of him using the hat of late. We have pictures of the seer stone in the Ensign. The following are examples pf pictures at lds.org.

Joseph using spectacle version of U&T

Joseph's seer stone

But again, it seems odd to me how much emphasis you are putting on pictures over text here. So no, I'm not trying to tell you the main narrative has changed because the main narrative has always been Joseph using devices called Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon. Again I think I've been pretty clear that I wish we had better illustrations for lessons. I certainly would like to see some of Anthony Sweat's paintings of Joseph using the hat used more at lds.org. They are in the recent book on the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon, From Darkness Unto Light, published by Deseret Books. But ultimately I think this is only a problem if people don't know how to read.

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The statements I quoted were explicitly wrong. You were portraying this information as hard to find not merely talking about main narrative.

Certainly Joseph's plural marriages aren't part of the main narrative because contemporary polygamy is apostasy. In the same way Old Testament polygamy isn't part of our main narrative. That's because the main narrative is to teach the current teachings of the church.

My point is that whatever the main narrative is, the other aspects are also taught. So for people to be ignorant when the information is easily there and typically part of required readings for lessons seems illegitimate.

Again, I don't get the point of your emphasis on the hat which was just to make it easier to see when there was light around. The seer stones were called Urim and Thummim, I think you'll agree. And as you just acknowledged, the Urim and Thummim was the main narrative. I agreed that hat wasn't always discussed -- mainly because it's largely irrelevant -- but the Urim and Thummim were.  So yes, the Church has always emphasized rocks/glass as part of its main narrative. To the point it's part of every Missionary teaching.

There are lots of pictures of him using the hat of late. We have pictures of the seer stone in the Ensign. The following are examples pf pictures at lds.org.

Joseph using spectacle version of U&T

Joseph's seer stone

But again, it seems odd to me how much emphasis you are putting on pictures over text here. So no, I'm not trying to tell you the main narrative has changed because the main narrative has always been Joseph using devices called Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon. Again I think I've been pretty clear that I wish we had better illustrations for lessons. I certainly would like to see some of Anthony Sweat's paintings of Joseph using the hat used more at lds.org. They are in the recent book on the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon, From Darkness Unto Light, published by Deseret Books. But ultimately I think this is only a problem if people don't know how to read.

Do you think the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone in the hat are the same thing???

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone in the hat are the same thing???

Technically there was only one Urim and Thummim which was held by the high priest in Palestine and presumably lost when the Temple of Solomon was sacked. The rocks that looked like large spectacles that came with the Book of Mormon were seer stones held by the brother of Jared. There was also a different stone or stones that King Mosiah had. (At least he has it prior to obtaining the Jaredite plates or knowing about the Jaredites - but the origin isn't in our Book of Mormon but might have been on the lost 116 pages) By the time of D&C 17 the Jaredite seer stones were called Urim and Thumim. By the early to mid 1830's all seer stones were called Urim and Thummim. (From Darkness Unto Light goes through the history quite well on this) The evidence appears to be that initially even the spectacles that were with the plates weren't called Urim and Thummim. Initially Joseph called them "glasses" and later "interpreters" (following the name in the Book of Mormon). It's actually surprising but there's evidence that Joseph didn't initially think he would be the one to translate the Book of Mormon.

There's also some seer stones called Urim and Thummim had by Abraham. Whether those are the same ones later given to Moses and then the high priest isn't clear. My guess is that there were many seer stones and that Urim and Thummim was applied to all of them.

So yes, I think the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones were the same things and that the terms Urim and Thummim and seer stone are practically synonymous even though technically only the two stones held by the high priest in Palestine properly is the Urim and Thummim.

I should note that Alma 37:23 also talks about a stone separate from the interpreters that I think likely is a prophecy about Joseph's other seer stone.

Finally the white stone in Rev 2:17 is said to become a Urim and Thummim and is symbolically given to everyone in the endowment.

During the early Utah period use of seer stones wasn't uncommon although as tensions arose between priesthood authority and seers their public use was discouraged and they became folk practices not really trusted. (The influx of spiritualism and other competing ideas by British saints coming to Utah also contributed as did the broader Godbeite apostasy)

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Five Solas]

On 6/14/2017 at 3:23 PM, bluebell said:

I've known a person where it did go away though.  They prayed about it, studied it a little more, and then it just did not bother them anymore.  I don't know that we can ever really speak in absolutes when we are talking about the feelings of other people.

Most of the time I don't feel comfortable speaking in absolutes about my own feelings.  I can see how added knowledge and experience can really change how i react or respond to things.

I don't think most people, outside of Mormonism, are going to think that's a good thing, bluebell.  That by following the guidance & techniques promoted by the LDS Church, a person can lose what cinepro called "that feeling of revulsion" towards the fact of a middle-aged man married to a 14 year-old girl.  (Calm's wheelbarrow of extenuating circumstances notwithstanding.)

Someone who loses that feeling--would you really want him or her around your kids?  Certainly wouldn't be my first choice. 

--Erik

[longview]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So yes, I think the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones were the same things and that the terms Urim and Thummim and seer stone are practically synonymous even though technically only the two stones held by the high priest in Palestine properly is the Urim and Thummim.

Several months ago I had a discussion with Robert F. Smith about U&T.  I believe Joseph Smith started thinking that it was a generic term to describe any "instrument" that conveyed spiritual information.  Examples include the Liahona, White Stone, etc.  See:  

 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Technically there was only one Urim and Thummim which was held by the high priest in Palestine and presumably lost when the Temple of Solomon was sacked. The rocks that looked like large spectacles that came with the Book of Mormon were seer stones held by the brother of Jared. There was also a different stone or stones that King Mosiah had. (At least he has it prior to obtaining the Jaredite plates or knowing about the Jaredites - but the origin isn't in our Book of Mormon but might have been on the lost 116 pages) By the time of D&C 17 the Jaredite seer stones were called Urim and Thumim. By the early to mid 1830's all seer stones were called Urim and Thummim. (From Darkness Unto Light goes through the history quite well on this) The evidence appears to be that initially even the spectacles that were with the plates weren't called Urim and Thummim. Initially Joseph called them "glasses" and later "interpreters" (following the name in the Book of Mormon). It's actually surprising but there's evidence that Joseph didn't initially think he would be the one to translate the Book of Mormon.

There's also some seer stones called Urim and Thummim had by Abraham. Whether those are the same ones later given to Moses and then the high priest isn't clear. My guess is that there were many seer stones and that Urim and Thummim was applied to all of them.

So yes, I think the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones were the same things and that the terms Urim and Thummim and seer stone are practically synonymous even though technically only the two stones held by the high priest in Palestine properly is the Urim and Thummim.

I should note that Alma 37:23 also talks about a stone separate from the interpreters that I think likely is a prophecy about Joseph's other seer stone.

Finally the white stone in Rev 2:17 is said to become a Urim and Thummim and is symbolically given to everyone in the endowment.

During the early Utah period use of seer stones wasn't uncommon although as tensions arose between priesthood authority and seers their public use was discouraged and they became folk practices not really trusted. (The influx of spiritualism and other competing ideas by British saints coming to Utah also contributed as did the broader Godbeite apostasy)

Didn't Joseph Smith have a seer stone before he even got the gold plates?  How does this fit in with your understanding of Urim and Thummin.  Is every seer stone a Urim and Thurmmim? 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Didn't Joseph Smith have a seer stone before he even got the gold plates?  How does this fit in with your understanding of Urim and Thummin.  Is every seer stone a Urim and Thurmmim? 

Yes, as I said I think that stone is what's referred to in Alma 37. 

My point was that from the time of D&C 17 the phrase "urim and thummim" became applied to any seer stone that was accepted as legitimate and used by a seer until the 20th century when use of seer stones died out. Even after that it continued to be used to refer to Joseph's seer stones that weren't given him by Moroni.

Functionally there's no difference between Joseph's seer stone and the urim and thummim.

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Several months ago I had a discussion with Robert F. Smith about U&T.  I believe Joseph Smith started thinking that it was a generic term to describe any "instrument" that conveyed spiritual information.  Examples include the Liahona, White Stone, etc. 

I don't think the Liahona was ever called a urim and thummim although there certainly are strong parallels. I'm open to being wrong on that though. 

I do agree that broadly speaking urim and thummim was applied to any rock-like item that conveyed spiritual information. In his tract "Spiritual Gifts" (~1856) Orson Pratt defined it as follows: "The Urim and Thummim is a stone or other substance sanctified and illuminated by the Spirit of the living God, and presented to those who are blessed with the gift of seeing."

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I don't think most people, outside of Mormonism, are going to think that's a good thing, bluebell.  That by following the guidance & techniques promoted by the LDS Church, a person can lose what cinepro called "that feeling of revulsion" towards the fact of a middle-aged man married to a 14 year-old girl.  (Calm's wheelbarrow of extenuating circumstances notwithstanding.)

Someone who loses that feeling--would you really want him or her around your kids?  Certainly wouldn't be my first choice. 

--Erik

Anyone who makes a judgement about someone without bothering to understand the extenuating circumstances is going to be making a lot of really bad judgments and we can probably mostly ignore their conclusions.  

But beyond that, who cares what other people think?  I know of people who think that Christianity is 'not a good thing' and who sincerely believe that Christians are all dangerous idiots that they don't want their kids to around.

Does that give you pause in your own beliefs?  I'm guessing not.  I think most of us know that deciding what is good or right or true by what other people think of it is dumb.  Other people are not a good standard to use in figuring out God's will or doctrine.

[Five Solas]

On 6/16/2017 at 9:39 AM, bluebell said:

...

But beyond that, who cares what other people think?  I know of people who think that Christianity is 'not a good thing' and who sincerely believe that Christians are all dangerous idiots that they don't want their kids to around.

Does that give you pause in your own beliefs?  I'm guessing not.  I think most of us know that deciding what is good or right or true by what other people think of it is dumb.  Other people are not a good standard to use in figuring out God's will or doctrine.

I'm guessing not--because I actually don't know *anyone* who thinks that, bluebell.  Seriously, I can't name a single person around here and my kids are in public school, I have a career in professional services that connects me to lots of folks, businesses, etc.  But then again, I live in a backwater in the Pacific Northwest that no one's ever heard of (named after some Native American no one remembers).  So that doubtless explains my ignorance. 

Thank you for helping me stay humble. 

;0)

--Erik