There is no such thing as valid criticism of the LDS Church

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Are you for real?  You're Joking, pulling our leg aren't you...

I'm beginning to think it's a parody account. Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Thanks for pointing that out. It is certainly an example of the Church putting into the public domain documents that weren’t accessible before.

I confess to not being familiar with the contents of the project. Is there anything of significance (that you’re aware of) within those documents that we didn’t already know?

There's been a considerable amount of knowledge that's come out of the Joseph Smith project. Here's one paper going through important things learned - and this was from several years ago. Lots new since.  https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/discoveries-joseph-smith-papers-project-early-manuscripts

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm beginning to think it's a parody account. Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan.

Glad we can agree on something Clarkgoble

[SamuelTheLamanite]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Are you for real?  You're Joking, pulling our leg aren't you...

I am thinking maybe Satan didn't have to magically changes the historical documents, he could have simply inspired men to make changes because many of the historical documents we have are second and third hand. It is true Satan made changes the 116 pages, why wouldn't he do the same thing over and over again?      

Edited September 5, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm beginning to think it's a parody account. Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan.

Is D&C 10 a parody?  I am not talking about your Science documents, I am talking about weird passages like "I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here" 

Read it in FAIR https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory 

It says "God revealed to me", that is not possible if you believe Brigham Young was able to tell the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. 

Was that really Brigham Young? 

Edited September 5, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How relevant is that? Of course they will not videotape proceedings, who wants publicity? Transparency is the last thing Church wanted on this matter. Not trying to be negative here, I run a business too I don't want anything negative around me.

Video taping would probably become a legal issue.  The ward used to inform the priesthood of actions against a member, but a lawsuit (in another church) stopped that practice.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

While critics don't have a literal seat at the table in a church council, their ideas certainly find their way into the room and into the discussion.  You need only spend a little time with content made available via MormonLeaks to appreciate the fact.  LDS leaders even commissioned a summary slide about them, listing critics & movements on an ideological spectrum, left to right.  It got a fair bit of attention when it was released, including on this forum.

You sure you can't think of even one example, CV75?

--Erik

I remember the bubble graph slide, which I think is a useful tool for comparing various relationships and their relative weight. I don’t see how having a place on the chart indicates an influence on the Church adopting the respective idea. And it is critical in my mind that one have a literal seat to have a voice in council, and that each participant cultivates a credibly informed voice by reaching out to a broad range of others and to reliable sources of information. I don’t recall how any of the bubbles on that slide fit that criteria. This and the other example you shared aren't prompting any thoughts about a critic's role in councils or his impact on the Church aligning herself closer to his recommendations.

[ALarson]

20 hours ago, Danzo said:

There is a big difference between finding an error and correcting it and beating someone over the head with it.

Yesterday, in priesthood, the story of Ammon's Mission to the lamanites came up.  The teacher was telling how Ammon was sent to take care of the King's Sheep. I pointed out that the Story never mentions sheep.  After I made this comment, there was a fun discussion on what animals could have composed this flock. Some people said it could have been geese others thought about turkeys.  It was fun and a common misconception was corrected (if they remember the class at all).

On the other hand, many here seem to think that I should have made a big issue on how the church deceived them, tricked them by commissioning someone to paint a picture with sheep in it.  I should have told them that they can now no longer trust the church that it is only out to deceive, trick them and take their money.  Everything good thing, every spiritual experience they had was fake because the church taught them there were sheep in the Ammon Story.

That's not a good comparison, IMO (your sheep story vs. how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon).   Joseph Smith taught that the Book Of Mormon is the "keystone to our religion" and how it came to be is of extreme importance to most members of the church.   Whether or not there are sheep in a picture matters little to most members (as illustrated by your story above).  Do you think the class members would have been joking and having fun if the teacher had put up one of the illustrations that we now know is incorrect regarding the translation process, and you "pointed out" that it was wrong and that Joseph should be shown with his head in a hat?

I've not seen anyone "beating" anyone "over the head" with how the church erroneously taught and portrayed the translation process for years, but members have every right to discuss it when they do learn the truth. The church is also making an effort to correct the teachings and I applaud that.

Edited September 5, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Ok, we were speaking in general terms previously so that's how I responded.

But for me?  The answer is, possibly as I'm always willing to read any new information available.   Do you have a source that aligns the two (Joseph's seer stones and the ancient Urim & Thummim)?   (Other than speculation or just stating that they were both instruments through which God worked?)  If so, I'd definitely read what you have.  I've read the history of how Joseph's seer stones evolved into being called the Urim & Thummim.  The problem is that it was still believed and taught that  the terms were used only for the interpreters (that Joseph stated came with the plates).  

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Quote

 

From the Time of Moses

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

Only Questions of Congregational Importance

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

Compare with Moroni's query to Alma in conducting their war against the Lamanites. As High Priest, Alma possessed the Jaredite interpreters. 

Quote

Alma 43

22 Behold, now it came to pass that they durst not come against the Nephites in the borders of Jershon; therefore they departed out of the land of Antionum into the wilderness, and took their journey round about in the wilderness, away by the head of the river Sidon, that they might come into the land of Manti and take possession of the land; for they did not suppose that the armies of Moroni would know whither they had gone.

23 But it came to pass, as soon as they had departed into the wilderness Moroni sent spies into the wilderness to watch their camp; and Moroni, also, knowing of the prophecies of Alma, sent certain men unto him, desiring him that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should go to defend themselves against the Lamanites.

24 And it came to pass that the word of the Lord came unto Alma, and Alma informed the messengers of Moroni, that the armies of the Lamanites were marching round about in the wilderness, that they might come over into the land of Manti, that they might commence an attack upon the weaker part of the people. And those messengers went and delivered the message unto Moroni.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Is D&C 10 a parody?  I am not talking about your Science documents, I am talking about weird passages like "I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here" 

Read it in FAIR https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory 

It says "God revealed to me", that is not possible if you believe Brigham Young was able to tell the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. 

Was that really Brigham Young? 

No I'm saying you're positions are so unfalsifiable that I'm starting to think you're a critic just having fun here.

As for Brigham, read the link I posted earlier to the FAIR presentation. What is or isn't inspired by Brigham is more complicated than you let on. There's no problem with Adam being crowned a father, God and King in terms of the patriarchal order. Joseph as the head of our dispensation is as well. He'll have to give an account of this dispensation to Adam who will in turn give it to Christ. That's all mainstream LDS doctrine separate from what gets terms Adam/God theory (by which most people just mean the controversial parts).

 

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Compare with Moroni's query to Alma in conducting their war against the Lamanites. As High Priest, Alma possessed the Jaredite interpreters. 

The quote you supplied states nothing about the Jaredite Intepreters being used.  And, I see no connection between the two quotes you provided other than making some leaps of faith or assumptions (that Alma used the interpreters when inquiring of the Lord in those passages).  Also, as far as I know, nothing was recorded or stated that Lehi brought a Urim and Thummim to this continent.

Do you believe that the Nephite Interpeters were the ancient Israelite Urim & Thummim?

Either way, this has nothing to do with Joseph's seer stones.  He did not use the ancient interpreters other than for the 116 pages (iirc).  The seer stones were what became known as the Urim & Thummim after 1833 (and those terms weren't even used by Joseph Smith prior to that date as far as we know and did not originate with him).

Edited September 5, 2017 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Is D&C 10 a parody?  I am not talking about your Science documents, I am talking about weird passages like "I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here" 

Read it in FAIR https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory 

It says "God revealed to me", that is not possible if you believe Brigham Young was able to tell the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. 

Was that really Brigham Young? 

It was not actually Brigham Young. It was George D. Watt editing Brigham Young.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Glenn, I honestly do not see how your scenario applies to what Joseph did regarding marrying other men's legal wives.  The plural wives involved in his polyandrous marriages did not civilly divorce their husbands.  You may be able to make a case for spiritual polyandry in the scenario.  Is that what you meant?  (It was confusing and I'm not sure what your point was, to be honest....just trying to understand here )

I was hoping that you would give me an opinion just on the scenario I depicted. It really is relevant to the discussion and to the OP about valid criticisms of the church. In the scenario that I proposed there would be no legal polyandry, even if the original sealings were recognized as legal marriages the state or country in which they were performed because there is no state or country that I know of that recognizes any LDS sealing to be valid for time and eternity. Thus when a civil divorce is instituted that is the legal end of any marriage as far as the state is concerned.

And that is why the situation with Joseph Smith's plural wives is not polyandry. None of the sealings were civil unions, so civil polyandry did not exist. None of the women were sealed to their current husbands, i.e they were not married to those husbands for time and eternity, therefore spiritual polyandry did not exist. To protest that it was indeed polyandry is to conflate spiritual and civil as being one and the same, to validate the spiritual sealings. If you are going to validate them, you are probably going down a path that you do not wish to walk.

In all reality, what is actually the case is a situation that you and others do not like. The concept is alien to you (and actually to me also. It is confusing, to say the least.) But just because a person, or even a group of people does not like something does not mean it is morally wrong, or right. If your moral compass is from God, then God must be the one pronouncing the correctness or incorrectness of the situation since we do not have a scriptural precedent upon which to seek for guidance. If your moral compass is societal, heaven help you. 

Glenn

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

That's not a good comparison, IMO (your sheep story vs. how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon).   Joseph Smith taught that the Book Of Mormon is the "keystone to our religion" and how it came to be is of extreme importance to most members of the church.   Whether or not there are sheep in a picture matters little to most members (as illustrated by your story above).  Do you think the class members would have been joking and having fun if the teacher had put up one of the illustrations that we now know is incorrect regarding the translation process, and you "pointed out" that it was wrong and that Joseph should be shown with his head in a hat?

I've not seen anyone "beating" anyone "over the head" with how the church erroneously taught and portrayed the translation process for years, but members have every right to discuss it when they do learn the truth. The church is also making an effort to correct the teachings and I applaud that.

1.  You don't know it is incorrect, you were not there and their are reports from a eyewitnesses that the interpreters were used.

2.  Although you may disagree, most members I know say there is little difference between looking at a rock in a hat or looking at a rock outside a hat.

3.  Church sources have published about the seer stone and Joseph looking in a hat, in other words.

4.  I have talked to people about the rock in the hat. Most don't care. It is like the sheep, or the fact that probably Nephi didn't really go around with one shoulder exposed.  People usually get an image in their mind at some point and expect it as a fact, even though all images, included your image of someone staring in a hat are most likely incorrect, you weren't there, there wasn't a video recording and there wasn't as far as I know anything close to a contemporary account (i believe the face in the hat account come some 50 years after the fact)

5. I have seen people beating the church over the head about it, in fact you have done it on this thread, others have done it repeatedly here.  We is the subject even brought up on this thread except as stick to beat the church with. You want to be critical of the church, not just correct a possible misconception by church members caused by some artists.

 The purpose of your criticism is not to correct misunderstanding (Like I did with the sheep in the book of Mormon) but is an attempt to persuade us that the church cannot be trusted.  It seems you  used it for that purpose in this very thread.  From what I could tell, you  didn't mention it to correct anyone's misunderstanding of the translation process, you used it as a reason to distrust, criticise and point out fault in the church.   

Properly used, criticism can be a great tool to hep the church and its members to grow and progress.  There isn't a Sunday that goes by that we don't spend leadership meetings criticizing the church to help it fulfill its mission.  This evening, I have a meeting with the missionaries where a good portion of the meeting will involve analyzing attempting to improve the way the missionaries teach in our area.  In fact we will be praying for guidance and revelation on the best way to discover things that aren't going well and find ways to improve. 

When it comes to discovering faults in the church or its leaders, I like to take the advice of Moroni.  

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

1.  You don't know it is incorrect, you were not there and their are reports from a eyewitnesses that the interpreters were used.

I think Emma stated they weren't used after the lost 116 pages incident, didn't she?  I also thought they were taken from Joseph at that time, but were they returned?  Thanks for any info on that!

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think Emma stated they weren't used after the lost 116 pages incident, didn't she?  I also thought they were taken from Joseph at that time, but were they returned?  Thanks for any info on that!

I am referring to oliver cowdery's statement.  

"“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’"

Oliver was involved after the 116 pages were lost

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

1.  You don't know it is incorrect, you were not there and their are reports from a eyewitnesses that the interpreters were used.

Yes, definitely there were eyewitness statements that they were used for the 116 pages.  But after that, it appears he used his seer stone in his hat.

Here are statements regarding afterwards:

From Emma:

  Quote

“Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.”

 

 

From Emma again:

  Quote

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

 

 

Statement from David Whitmer:

  Quote

"By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it was promised should serve the same purpose as the missing urim and thummim. ... With this stone all the present Book of Mormon was translated."

 

 

From David Whitmer again:

  Quote

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

 

 

Martin Harris stated:

  Quote

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by martin, and when finished he would say 'written' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

 

 

And regarding Michael Morse's experience (Emma's brother-in-law):

  Quote

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

3.  Church sources have published about the seer stone and Joseph looking in a hat, in other words.

I never stated that they haven't.  It just was not widely known nor extensively written about or discussed prior to recent years (other than in the early years, of course).  Like I stated, I'm grateful the essays and other materials are being more informational on that and more members are learning more facts regarding this.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, definitely there were eyewitness statements that they were used for the 116 pages.  But after that, it appears he used his seer stone in his hat.

Here are statements regarding afterwards:

From Emma:

  Quote

“Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.”

 

 

From Emma again:

  Quote

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

 

 

Statement from David Whitmer:

  Quote

"By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it was promised should serve the same purpose as the missing urim and thummim. ... With this stone all the present Book of Mormon was translated."

 

 

From David Whitmer again:

  Quote

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

 

 

Martin Harris stated:

  Quote

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by martin, and when finished he would say 'written' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

 

 

And regarding Michael Morse's experience (Emma's brother-in-law):

  Quote

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."

How do you explain oliver Cowderys statment?

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

4.  I have talked to people about the rock in the hat. Most don't care.

That's good.  My experience has been quite different and we shouldn't discount those who struggle with it, have questions or want to further discuss it just because some don't care.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's good.  My experience has been quite different and we shouldn't discount those who struggle with it, have questions or want to further discuss it just because some don't care.

When I first heard about the "stone in the hat" thing back around 1990 or so, I thought it was a lie. Didn't really bother me much, though, but it changes the Biblical connection to the Urim and Thummim to something more related to Joseph's treasure seeking activities. And that does bother a lot of people, understandably. I learned a long time ago that, just because something doesn't bother me, it doesn't mean it's not very troubling to someone else. Best to find out why it's troubling and try to help. Otherwise, such folks will come to those of evil intent, like me, for answers. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When I first heard about the "stone in the hat" thing back around 1990 or so, I thought it was a lie. Didn't really bother me much, though, but it changes the Biblical connection to the Urim and Thummim to something more related to Joseph's treasure seeking activities. And that does bother a lot of people, understandably. I learned a long time ago that, just because something doesn't bother me, it doesn't mean it's not very troubling to someone else. Best to find out why it's troubling and try to help. Otherwise, such folks will come to those of evil intent, like me, for answers. 

Exactly.  I do think it's upsetting for many to learn that first, Joseph was indeed involved in treasure seeking using seer stones (what used to be called an anti-Mormon lie) and then further, to learn that he used the same stones to translate the Book of Mormon.  

It's actually still pretty much a taboo topic to bring up in a class situation at church to discuss and I hope that will evolve and change as I do see the leaders attempting to get the information out there.  They are at least making an effort to correct some past teachings regarding the translation process (albeit slowly ),

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How do you explain oliver Cowderys statment?

I think his statements can be conflicting and confusing (although some are second hand).  With the other  definite statements made by numerous eye witnesses, each person will just have to read them and form their own opinion.  Also remember that all of the terms became interchangeable as time went on to add to the confusion.

Read this, for example (a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that shows the confusion at times):

Quote

The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of,  however,  was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.'"

 

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think Emma stated they weren't used after the lost 116 pages incident, didn't she?  

Yes, she stated he used his seer stone in his hat for the portion of the Book of Mormon that we have.

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I also thought they were taken from Joseph at that time, but were they returned?

I think there is some confusion on that as well.  But, I'll look and see what I can find.  I know I looked into it at one time....

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think his statements can be conflicting and confusing (although some are second hand).  With the other  definite statements made by numerous eye witnesses, each person will just have to read them and form their own opinion.  Also remember that all of the terms became interchangeable as time went on to add to the confusion.

Oliver's statement was published in 1834, he would have been a primary witness.  How does that compare to the dates that the other witness published?  My understanding is that David Whitmers statement was made almost 50 years later.

I am not saying I know what exactly happened, I am saying that there are reasons to believe both stories occurred (it doesn't even have to be one or the other). You don't have to make accusations of lying or deceit just because some people prefer one version over the other.  the truth is, non of the images in our minds on what actual happened are likely to be correct. 

Until hidden video footage emerges we will just have to picture it in our minds the way our imagination sees it.