The Church is growing so fast...

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think if you consider who the authors are in each of the examples, including yours, the answer to your point might be self evident.

I’m also reasonably sure Mormon Doctrine was officially recognised as recommended reading. Virtually every member of a certain age has a copy of Mormon Doctrine on their shelves, or did.

and Mormon Doctrine was/is used in references in lds.org content.

And other Deseret Books are also recommended. Which was my point.

[why me]

The seerstone in the hat was known. We discussed in the 70s. It was also in the ensign in the early 90s.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&_r=1

 

[why me]

The idea of LDS history is an interesting one. I know of no church which deals with its history. Rather it is left up to scholars to dissect history and make interpretations of the facts. I don't think that it is a church business to to do their own history in detail. But historians are free to write about lds history at will. This is what is needed in the lds community. The fact is: not many historians are interested in wasting their time writing about mormon history from a neutral viewpoint. Historians have written many books about Martin Luther. Lutherans can read these books to discover their leader and the history that surrounds him. Historians are free to write about Joseph Smith but who wishes to? Not many.

Edited September 15, 2017 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/15/2017 at 11:16 AM, why me said:

The idea of LDS history is an interesting one. I know of no church which deals with its history. Rather it is left up to scholars to dissect history and make interpretations of the facts. I don't think that it is a church business to to do their own history in detail. But historians are free to write about lds history at will. This is what is needed in the lds community. The fact is: not many historians are interested in wasting their time writing about mormon history from a neutral viewpoint. Historians have written many books about Martin Luther. Lutherans can read these books to discover their leader and the history that surrounds him. Historians are free to write about Joseph Smith but who wishes to? Not many.

We may be unique in this respect, but a knowledge of how God has dealt with His people, both anciently and in latter days, is part of our liturgy. Much of our doctrine is conveyed through stories. 

Furthermore, Jesus Christ commanded early in this gospel dispensation that "a record shall be kept among you."

[Marginal Gains]

On 15/09/2017 at 6:12 PM, why me said:

The seerstone in the hat was known. We discussed in the 70s. It was also in the ensign in the early 90s.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&_r=1

 

Have you got anything other than the 1993* ensign article, such as a lesson manual?

*In the late 1980’s circa 500,000 copies of the Ensign were being distributed across an 8 million membership.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Have you got anything other than the 1993* ensign article, such as a lesson manual?

*In the late 1980’s circa 500,000 copies of the Ensign were being distributed across an 8 million membership.

Are you only considering the Ensign, or are you taking into account editions of Church magazines (Liahona) that circulate abroad, in other languages, etc. 

Furthermore, the Ensign was/is available to everyone whether or not they chose to access it. Thus, the knowledge was there for the taking. 

[Marginal Gains]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you only considering the Ensign, or are you taking into account editions of Church magazines (Liahona) that circulate abroad, in other languages, etc. 

Furthermore, the Ensign was/is available to everyone whether or not they chose to access it. Thus, the knowledge was there for the taking. 

Apart from this article in 1993, have there been other mentions of the seer stone in the hat Book Of Mormon methodology in something main stream, such as a teaching manual?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Apart from this article in 1993, have there been other mentions of the seer stone in the hat Book Of Mormon methodology in something main stream, such as a teaching manual?

I would have to research that, but I don't think I'll bother. If I found something, you would just claim it doesn't count or matter because not everybody saw it. 

[Marginal Gains]

23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Apart from this article in 1993, have there been other mentions of the seer stone in the hat Book Of Mormon methodology in something main stream, such as a teaching manual?

 

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would have to research that, but I don't think I'll bother. If I found something, you would just claim it doesn't count or matter because not everybody saw it. 

I think we both know why you (and Why Me) won’t bother...

...but if anyone wants to help you out, we’re looking for the Church teaching the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and when the Essay that came out in, I want to say 2014/5. I’ll also take any references of the Church teaching it across the membership prior to 1993.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I think we both know why you (and Why Me) won’t bother...

...but if anyone wants to help you out, we’re looking for the Church teaching the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and when the Essay that came out in, I want to say 2014/5.

I clearly expressed why I won't bother. Any other reason is your own supposition, nothing more. Don't impute it to me. 

[Marginal Gains]

26 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Apart from this article in 1993, have there been other mentions of the seer stone in the hat Book Of Mormon methodology in something main stream, such as a teaching manual?

 

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would have to research that, but I don't think I'll bother. If I found something, you would just claim it doesn't count or matter because not everybody saw it. 

 

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I think we both know why you (and Why Me) won’t bother...

...but if anyone wants to help you out, we’re looking for the Church teaching the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and when the Essay that came out in, I want to say 2014/5. I’ll also take any references of the Church teaching it across the membership prior to 1993.

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I clearly expressed why I won't bother. Any other reason is your own supposition, nothing more. Don't impute it to me. 

I understand your perspective. I understand why you wouldn’t want to put time and effort into it. Your imputation as to what my imputation is, is supposition and nothing more.

I’m open to others providing references to the Church teaching about the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and the release of the essay. In fact, what about before 1993?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

 

 

I understand your perspective. I understand why you wouldn’t want to put time and effort into it. Your imputation as to what my imputation is, is supposition and nothing more.

I’m open to others providing references to the Church teaching about the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and the release of the essay. In fact, what about before 1993?

Your remark "I think we both know why..." denotes your imputing something to me that you're not in a position to impute. 

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

 

 

I understand your perspective. I understand why you wouldn’t want to put time and effort into it. Your imputation as to what my imputation is, is supposition and nothing more.

I’m open to others providing references to the Church teaching about the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and the release of the essay. In fact, what about before 1993?

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your remark "I think we both know why..." denotes your imputing something to me that you're not in a position to impute. 

What are you imputing that I’m imputing?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

What are you imputing that I’m imputing?

What did you mean with your "we both know why" remark?

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I understand your perspective. I understand why you wouldn’t want to put time and effort into it. Your imputation as to what my imputation is, is supposition and nothing more.

I’m open to others providing references to the Church teaching about the seer stone in the hat methodology between 1993 and the release of the essay. In fact, what about before 1993?

Why Me always shows up with this same posting regarding random articles in the Ensign.  Here is the best response I've seen to him doing this over and over and over again.  

It's posted by Nevo:

Quote

 

  Quote

This is a terrible apologetic argument and I wish people would stop using it. Paul Malan got it right:

Sure, there are a handful of official documents that mentioned the face-in-the-hat technique, but these are isolated needles buried within haystacks that have been carefully arranged by Church gatekeepers.

 

Needle: 150 words from a 38-year-old article in an official Church magazine.

Haystack: 150 years of sermons, art, film production, and culture that celebrate a striking, blue-eyed demigod reading from gold plates the way a third-grader reads Harry Potter. (Which is to say, not with a rock in a hat.)

Plot twist: You don’t even know there is a needle to look for until someone blames you for not finding it.

https://medium.com/@ungewissen/the-day-i-won-the-internet-dc236fb81723

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Marginal Gains]

I put “seer stones and hat” into the search engine of lds.org 

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=seer+stones+and+hat

Not even a second page of references. In fact 3 of the 9 references aren’t relevant. Needle in a haystack indeed.

We have in total, 1 mention in the Ensign (and repeated in Liahona etc)  in 1977, 1 mention in the Ensign (and repeated in Liahona etc) in 1993, and the Gospel Topics essay in 2014.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your remark "I think we both know why..." denotes your imputing something to me that you're not in a position to impute. 

I think the problem with stands like you are making where you pretend that the stone in the hat was commoningly known and taught  in the church all falls apart if you were to put one Ensign article and stack it against all the songs, missionary presentations, seminary manuals, sunday school manuals, priesthood manuals, church articles, conference talks etc etc etc. that talk and illustrate Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon by using the gold plates.  

Just because the church was honest about how the Book of Mormon came forth in one article back in 1993 doesn't mean that for the other 99.9% of the time they presented an accurate narrative of how the Book of Mormon came forth.  

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by california boy

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would have to research that, but I don't think I'll bother.

Because you know what you'll fine (or won't find).  The stone in the hat translation method was absolutely not commonly taught in the past.  It's still not, but I hope that will change.  

Try bringing it up in a Sunday School lesson or a Priesthood lesson.  You'll find that many (possibly still most) won't be familiar with it.  It also will not be a welcomed part of the conversation and most teachers will try to quickly move on.

It's also still the same with any mention of Joseph Smith having 30+ wives or even just a comment about him living polygamy.  It's not a comfortable topic that is included in discussions at church as of yet.  Once again, I do see this changing....slowly.

This other topic is very relevant for members right now and shows that progress is being made:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69578-church-whitewashing-and-hiding-history/

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I put “seer stones and hat” into the search engine of lds.org 

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=seer+stones+and+hat

Not even a second page of references. In fact 3 of the 9 references aren’t relevant. Needle in a haystack indeed.

We have in total, 1 mention in the Ensign (and repeated in Liahona etc)  in 1977, 1 mention in the Ensign (and repeated in Liahona etc) in 1993, and the Gospel Topics essay in 2014.

You're wasting your time...as long as apologists can point to a single obscure reference in an article published by the church in 1993, they can always claim that the information was common knowledge that was widely disseminated and taught throughout the church.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Because you know what you'll fine (or won't find).  The stone in the hat translation method was absolutely not commonly taught in the past.  It's still not, but I hope that will change.  

Try bringing it up in a Sunday School lesson or a Priesthood lesson.  You'll find that many (possibly still most) won't be familiar with it.  It also will not be a welcomed part of the conversation and most teachers will try to quickly move on.

 

 

I say, ho-hum. It doesn't matter to me whether Joseph used two seer stones set into a bow (what we commonly refer to as the urim and thummim) or one stone in a hat.

In fact, on its face, the former seems more bizarre than the latter. But if you accept Joseph's word that he brought forth the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, the mechanism -- or lack thereof -- by which it happened is of no great moment.

 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I say, ho-hum. It doesn't matter to me whether Joseph used two seer stones set into a bow (what we commonly refer to as the urim and thummim) or one stone in a hat.

That's great and I do not doubt you feel this way.

However, many members do not feel the same as you do when they learn about this.  It can then snowball as they learn about other details regarding church history, etc.  Especially details they were not taught or were not aware of previously. So, it is still a very relevant conversation for a lot of members.  The actions that the leaders are now taking to correct this is long overdue, IMO.  But I'm very happy they are making an effort to get more accurate information out there to the members.

Hopefully this will also kind of wake members up to the fact that they need to do more searching and studying on their own as well.  But that's a double-edged sword for the leaders too. 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I say, ho-hum. It doesn't matter to me whether Joseph used two seer stones set into a bow (what we commonly refer to as the urim and thummim) or one stone in a hat.

In fact, on its face, the former seems more bizarre than the latter. But if you accept Joseph's word that he brought forth the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, the mechanism -- or lack thereof -- by which it happened is of no great moment.

 

You appear to be missing the point. Members don’t leave activity because Joseph used a seer stone in a hat (and other controversial topics).

They leave activity because they learned about it from someone other than the Church itself and are left with a feeling of being misled.

Were the information readily available to members from Church sources, the essays would not have been necessary.

The essays themselves are a tacit admission that the Church has not been forthcoming about certain things. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine. But not doing so has been a huge error.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You appear to be missing the point. Members don’t leave activity because Joseph used a seer stone in a hat (and other controversial topics).

They leave activity because they learned about it from someone other than the Church itself and are left with a feeling of being misled.

Were the information readily available to members from Church sources, the essays would not have been necessary.

The essays themselves are a tacit admission that the Church has not been forthcoming about certain things. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine. But not doing so has been a huge error.

I'm asking an honest question here, but why does it matter if Joseph used seer stones in a hat, the U&T, or whatever?  Why does it matter whether we learn about this from the church itself or another source? 

I'm trying to intimate that these things are not important to you or other people, I just don't understand why they are. 

[Marginal Gains]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm asking an honest question here, but why does it matter if Joseph used seer stones in a hat, the U&T, or whatever?  Why does it matter whether we learn about this from the church itself or another source? 

I'm trying to intimate that these things are not important to you or other people, I just don't understand why they are. 

I think there are two issues. 

Joseph translating the Book of Mormon using the same stone he used, unsuccessfully, to search for buried treasure, rather than instruments given to him by an angel specifically for that purpose, makes the story less tenable for a lot of people.

But perhaps more damaging - The Church not being up front about Joseph using the same stone he used, unsuccessfully, to search for buried treasure, rather than instruments given to him by an angel specifically for that purpose, makes the Church look deliberately deceptive.

Its the perceived lack of transparency that’s important to me and other people, in my opinion.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm asking an honest question here, but why does it matter if Joseph used seer stones in a hat, the U&T, or whatever?  Why does it matter whether we learn about this from the church itself or another source? 

I'm trying to intimate that these things are not important to you or other people, I just don't understand why they are. 

I think that it's not just learning about the seer stones in a hat.  It's learning that the ancient translators that were preserved for years and years were not used (much or at all) to translate the Book of Mormon.  It's learning that the gold plates were not even present for much of the translation.  It's learning that Joseph actually did participate in treasure seeking (which is upsetting to many on its own), and not only that, he used the same method and the same seer stone that he later used to translate the Book of Mormon.  Then this leads to searching for more information....

Then they learn about the multiple first vision accounts.

They learn details regarding Joseph's and other's polygamy.

And there much more they learn that they feel was hidden from them or at the very least, was not taught to them.

So, it's not just as simple as learning that "Joseph used seer stones in a hat".

I firmly believe this is why the CES letter has seen such wide circulation and affected so many members.  It's a one stop place to find a flood of information that members seem starved for when they learn there is much they don't know.  I don't agree with many of the conclusions in that document....but it's a very easy read and all in one location for members who are desperately searching.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson