Seer stones history getting a bad rap

[Calm]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 It seems like the story of the Gold Plates should be the obscure, mentioned every 20 or 30 years story and the stone in the hat should be the narrative that everyone knows about.

Gold plates are exotic and cool, head in the hat is rather mundane as anyone can go to their coat closet and grab one (well, anyone who does hats).

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We were discussing the context of the details of LDS history, which involves far more than just some stone that Joseph may have used.  Without context, there is no factual explanation about stones or anything else.  Only professional historians have that context for us.  They explicate it in non-presentist terms, if we are interested.  And interest is crucial.  Not everyone is interested, and most people don't even have the time for it.  Not everyone will have spent the 1970s, for example, going to meetings of the MHA, Sunstone, or the John Whitmer Historical Society, nor reading their journals cover to cover.  During that time, one would also have to read all issues of Dialogue, and BYU Studies.  I did all that while also attending university and doing regular writing and research (I spent 7 years in the RLDS Archives).  No time for anything else, like marriage and raising kids.  Who is going to make that kind of commitment?  Why would anybody be so foolish?  It is a monastic endeavor in a non-monastic Church environment.

You say that "the stone in the hat... seems pretty straight forward."  No, it's not.  I spent a lot of time in the 70s discussing such matters with the late Rev Wesley Walters and others, which aided my perspective.  A historian needs context.  If you were to go to the UofU Library Special Collections and examine the Michael Marquardt Papers, you would find among them a detailed assemblage of accounts of seerstones, witch hazel rods, and other magical practices in early Colonial and 19th century America.  You would no doubt consult the book on the magical worldview by Mike Quinn (who cites me).  And all that just for starters.

If they are unfamiliar with the Bible and other ancient works (most people don't really know the Bible, nor the context), then they will not be able to understand the magical worldview of the Bible.  Then presentism overwhelms them, they get frustrated, and apostatize.  Why?  Because, due to deep ignorance, they don't realize that magic is an integral part of religion, including biblical religion.

The final point to be made is that LDS leaders are fallible humans, none of them professional historians or archeologists.  Would I have done things differently than they did?  Of course, but that was not my calling, nor is it clear that my decisions would be better than theirs.  In fact, I would likely have done a very poor job of it.  Would I have put seerstones and witch hazel rods front and center in Church magazines and in LDS commissioned art?  Yes.  Even if I put those items into proper context, however, you can bet that many would still be discomfited.  No matter how well presented, it just doesn't fit a certain worldview -- not to mention the complete rejection of God and supernaturalism (which isn't even a valid LDS value anyhow).  Even when you win, you lose.

I guess I am still not getting the problem.  I think it is pretty easy to understand that Joseph Smith was not the first one to come up with the idea of a seer stone.  But what difference does that make?  Either you believe that Joseph looked in a hat and saw words appear or you don't.  How is that any different than the narrative the church decided to use about Gold Plates?  Either you believe Joseph received them by an angel or he didn't.  The only difference I see is that one narrative is actually how the Book of Mormon was written and one narrative is not actually what happened.  

Sure maybe a PhD might give better understanding about the nuances of it all, but you don't need a PhD to believe that Joseph Smith looked in a hat to receive the Book of Mormon any more than you need a PhD to believe the words of Christ found in the New Testament.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Gold plates are exotic and cool, head in the hat is rather mundane as anyone can go to their coat closet and grab one (well, anyone who does hats).

Really? Go with a different narrative than what actually happened because it is exotic and cool?  Are you teasing me?  I can't tell.  Sorry if you are just being humorous.  For me it is a sincere question.

[longview]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

Hope that helps.  I am interested in your opinion of these accounts.

I have seen several versions of those stories over the decades.  I have a jaundiced eye for them.  I do not trust the sourcings or the tale tellers.  My spiritual testimony is way above the sordid narratives.  I prefer to stick with JS' personal accounts.  He has had an amazing life.  A deciever would NOT want go through the tribulations that JS endured all his life.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

I have seen several versions of those stories over the decades.  I have a jaundiced eye for them.  I do not trust the sourcings or the tale tellers.  My spiritual testimony is way above the sordid narratives.  I prefer to stick with JS' personal accounts.  He has had an amazing life.  A deciever would NOT want go through the tribulations that JS endured all his life.

Thanks for giving me your opinion.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I guess I am still not getting the problem.  I think it is pretty easy to understand that Joseph Smith was not the first one to come up with the idea of a seer stone.  But what difference does that make?  Either you believe that Joseph looked in a hat and saw words appear or you don't.  How is that any different than the narrative the church decided to use about Gold Plates?  Either you believe Joseph received them by an angel or he didn't.  The only difference I see is that one narrative is actually how the Book of Mormon was written and one narrative is not actually what happened.  

You are wrong about one major point:  The Church did not decide upon the narrative you complain about.  The narrative came about by topsy.  No one planned it.  It just happened and ordinary folk told the simplest version of what happened (an inaccurate version by non-historians).  That unplanned narrative came down to us via an old fashioned pioneer culture which was caught up in bare survival.  Church leaders had their hands full with other, more pressing issues, like powerful persecution at every turn.  Their hard-scrabble existence did not allow of much leisure time to pursue our current interests.  Now that we can pursue them, and now that our hindsight is 20-20,  it easy to find fault.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Sure maybe a PhD might give better understanding about the nuances of it all, but you don't need a PhD to believe that Joseph Smith looked in a hat to receive the Book of Mormon any more than you need a PhD to believe the words of Christ found in the New Testament.

Which is what I already said in a previous post:  What has real value?  A testimony via the Holy Spirit.  You don't need a PhD for a testimony, but you do need it (or the equivalent) to write sound history.  Non-professionals just do not understand why.  'Why must I constantly repeat that point?  Doesn't anyone get the difference?  Knowing about seerstones is valueless to the guy who doesn't have a testimony.  And seerstones are not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are wrong about one major point:  The Church did not decide upon the narrative you complain about.  The narrative came about by topsy.  No one planned it.  It just happened and ordinary folk told the simplest version of what happened (an inaccurate version by non-historians).  That unplanned narrative came down to us via an old fashioned pioneer culture which was caught up in bare survival.  Church leaders had their hands full with other, more pressing issues, like powerful persecution at every turn.  Their hard-scrabble existence did not allow of much leisure time to pursue our current interests.  Now that we can pursue them, and now that our hindsight is 20-20,  it easy to find fault.

Which is what I already said in a previous post:  What has real value?  A testimony via the Holy Spirit.  You don't need a PhD for a testimony, but you do need it (or the equivalent) to write sound history.  Non-professionals just do not understand why.  'Why must I constantly repeat that point?  Doesn't anyone get the difference?  Knowing about seerstones is valueless to the guy who doesn't have a testimony.  And seerstones are not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am not complaining.  I am trying to understand why the church did what they did.  Am I understanding you correctly?  You believe that church leaders did not have control over the narrative of how the Book of Mormon came to be?  

And I got your point the first time about needing a PhD to write sound history when you are talking about nuances and subtleties of what happened.  But seriously, you think you need a PhD to say Joseph Smith looked at a stone in a hat to write the Book of Mormon?  THAT is what I don't get.  Those that witnessed it didn't have PhD's and they seemed to be able to describe the process quite clearly.  What would a PhD need to add to what they wrote?

[blarsen]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 . . . . . .The LDS version of God places Him within space & time, subject to natural law -- of which He is master.  Satan is only allowed to do what God allows him to do, as in the case of harming Job and his family.  Satan and his ilk are only allowed to act in our fallen world in accordance with God's own Plan of Salvation, but he and his minions will be cast into the pit at the end.

But I don't think the final word is in about everything that may be encompassed by "natural law".    Then you have the concept and apparent reality of 'non-localized space', which has essentially been proven by the experimental results disproving Bell's inequality derived from Bell's Theorem.  Finally, you have the utter mystery and enigma of consciousness itself, and the degree that it may partake of what is called the Quantum enigma.

[SettingDogStar]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not complaining.  I am trying to understand why the church did what they did.  Am I understanding you correctly?  You believe that church leaders did not have control over the narrative of how the Book of Mormon came to be?  

And I got your point the first time about needing a PhD to write sound history when you are talking about nuances and subtleties of what happened.  But seriously, you think you need a PhD to say Joseph Smith looked at a stone in a hat to write the Book of Mormon?  THAT is what I don't get.  Those that witnessed it didn't have PhD's and they seemed to be able to describe the process quite clearly.  What would a PhD need to add to what they wrote?

I’m confused by your back and forth as well. Whether it was the church that started the current narrative or not, they could still teach it correctly. Instead they produced pamphlets and pictures to use in Sunday Wchool and seminary that wee innaccurate. They had control to correct the majority of members understanding. No PhD or history books needed, just whenever you bring up the the translation of the BoM also bring up the seer stone. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

But I don't think the final word is in about everything that may be encompassed by "natural law".    Then you have the concept and apparent reality of 'non-localized space', which has essentially been proven by the experimental results disproving Bell's inequality derived from Bell's Theorem.  Finally, you have the utter mystery and enigma of consciousness itself, and the degree that it may partake of what is called the Quantum enigma.

Of course, and we are not capable of understanding natural law anyhow.  We tinker around the edges and formulate clever theories, but in most cases it is all really only speculation.  We can reason about it via analogy and extrapolate to suit ourselves.  That seems to give us some solace in the interim.  But at the very least we are not obligated to posit law abrogating miracles -- which take us completely off the reservation.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am not complaining.  I am trying to understand why the church did what they did.  Am I understanding you correctly?  You believe that church leaders did not have control over the narrative of how the Book of Mormon came to be?  

And I got your point the first time about needing a PhD to write sound history when you are talking about nuances and subtleties of what happened.  But seriously, you think you need a PhD to say Joseph Smith looked at a stone in a hat to write the Book of Mormon?  THAT is what I don't get.  Those that witnessed it didn't have PhD's and they seemed to be able to describe the process quite clearly.  What would a PhD need to add to what they wrote?

I never suggested that anybody needs a PhD (or an equivalent) to live an ordinary life and to draw ordinary conclusions.  God isn't going to demand any PhDs.  He doesn't care.  However, a physicist without the proper training is worthless, as is an historian who doesn't have control of his sources.  Church leaders were not professionals and certainly did not have time or ability to create the sort of correct narrative that you and I (with 20-20 hindsight) demand.  So the narrative we do have was not created by professionals with control of the sources.  They were not competent to create a detailed and accurate narrative.  Maybe you don't know what topsy means.  Maybe you don't understand the sort of historical narratives that hayseeds tend to create.  Well, they are far from satisfactory in my view.  Since I understand why, I don't play the blame game.

The other aspect of this is that no one is ever satisfied.  You give them a seerstone, and they want more details than you can corral.  Then they want witch hazel rods, and they want to know how Brother Brigham "witched" the location of the Salt Lake Temple with Oliver's rod, etc., ad infinitum.  They want to know the mysteries, but are unwilling to first understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That was the problem for Jerald & Sandra Tanner:  They published lots of early LDS documents (which I thought was wonderful), and made a cottage industry of it, but they missed the point:  The Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They had plenty of legitimate complaints, but they took their eye off the prize.

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, blarsen said:

But I don't think the final word is in about everything that may be encompassed by "natural law".    Then you have the concept and apparent reality of 'non-localized space', which has essentially been proven by the experimental results disproving Bell's inequality derived from Bell's Theorem.  Finally, you have the utter mystery and enigma of consciousness itself, and the degree that it may partake of what is called the Quantum enigma.

I sure didn't get the idea that Robert thought science was finished at all. He said that God was the Master, not any of you naturalists. The final word? Of course not. The significant difference that Robert originally raised about hope_for-things was about whether God's activity ever extends to the supernatural. Surely, as an LDS you agree with Robert that God's activity never extends beyond the natural? It makes no difference how advanced non-God humans are in their scientific knowledge. It can be the 1st century or the 31st Century. The same principles would apply and you should agree with Robert, as any LDS who never heard or cared about quantum enigmas should agree. Surely, you can think natural is mysterious, but only because of your ignorance (relative to God, the Master of Natural Law). Mysterious does not need to mean supernatural for LDS. The important point for an LDS would not be about whether the science is fully understood in 2019 by non-Heavenly Fathers, but to know that for LDS, Heavenly Father's activity is limited to the natural law. That is where any controversial discussion starts, not with whether all the science is now known.

Edited July 7, 2019 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m confused by your back and forth as well. Whether it was the church that started the current narrative or not, they could still teach it correctly. Instead they produced pamphlets and pictures to use in Sunday Wchool and seminary that wee innaccurate. They had control to correct the majority of members understanding. No PhD or history books needed, just whenever you bring up the the translation of the BoM also bring up the seer stone. 

That assumes that the guys who prepared the old Sunday School manuals, etc., actually knew about seerstones.   Lack of professional historians meant that from the very beginning terms like "Urim & Thummim" were interlarded with and interchangeable with "seerstone" and "Nephite interpreters."  I can show how this happened in great detail today, but those who lived in the 19th century didn't have a clue how to untangle the confusion.  The narrative we got from them was so confused because the sources were confused.  No problem for a professional, but for ordinary people too difficult to make coherent sense of it.  So they went for the least problematic path, the path of least resistance.  That has not been the case since Leonard Arrington was Church Historian in the 70s, and everything gets published now.  It was a long time coming, but we shouldn't be playing the blame game.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

As a non-LDS, if I am convinced by the evidence that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon with his head in a hat, I lose any naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. At that point the non-LDS needs an answer for why the Book of Mormon doesn't come from God. I don't know why seer stones would lead an LDS to conclude that the Book of Mormon is not from God. Besides, it appears that this is an issue on which LDS can have a difference of opinion anyway.

I might be missing something. Why would anybody that is LDS be embarrassed, or otherwise disturbed to have it known that Joseph used stones in a hat? Why do you think the church would try to cover this up? Who that would make a member in any of our different faith communities would have an objection to this kind of "miracle" (the quotes are for you Robert) in religion?

I lost my belief in the idea that something suprahuman was occurring when Joseph dictated the BoM with his face in a hat with a stone in it.  

The embarrassing element is the process which Mormons in this thread have elucidated.  People think God actually transmitted something through a stone to Joseph.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, mnn727 said:

That's your belief, its certainly not everyone's.

It goes without saying honestly.  Might as well add that to your signature.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C130:18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

Abraham 1:2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

D&C 93:36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

And that's just a handful.  Anyone that thinks there is sufficient knowledge in the Sunday School manual lessons to lead to salvation and exaltation among the Gods has only themselves to blame.  I'll say it again, we are responsible for seeking personal knowledge and understanding.  Nobody else has that responsibility for us.

Bottom line is many of us have become lazy.  We have more access to gospel knowledge than ever and we don't bother to look.

I’m all in favor of gaining knowledge, but I don’t think games of hide and seek by church leaders are the right way to impart knowledge to members.  If knowledge is important, shouldn’t the leaders be held to a higher standard on this topic of seer stones and other topics of church history that members seem to have gross misperceptions about?  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No resurrection?

Literal?  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The embarrassing element is the process which Mormons in this thread have elucidated.  People think God actually transmitted something through a stone to Joseph.  

Why should you be embarrassed by what others believe?

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The internet does allow us to pretend that we are experts, even if we are not.

You missed my main point, though:  Even if the LDS faith puts its best foot forward, something all faiths and secular organizations do, the LDS business is preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, thus fulfilling the Great Commission.  Why would you expect them to take their eye off the prize?  Just to indulge your penchant for side issues?  You don't believe in Jesus as Christ anyhow, and you certainly aren't interested in fulfilling the Great Commission.  So why engage in this conversation at all?  Is it revenge?

Nobody pretending to be a expert here that I can see, only pointing out the obvious poorly executed information dissemination by the church on this topic.

As for preaching the gospel of Jesus being the primary emphasis, I would support that idea.  In that case I could make a pretty strong argument that the much of the restoration narrative is a distraction from preaching the gospel of Jesus.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, blarsen said:

And I can certainly say my unbidden encounter w/the 'numinous' was existentially reorienting for me, as well.  I don't know why I have been a recipient of these types of experiences, and others, apparently including you, have not. 

I didn’t say I haven’t had spiritual experiences in my life.  I find these experiences quite powerful and significant.  I don’t interpret them through the same lens you do though, but that’s ok by me.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why should you be embarrassed by what others believe?

Why should someone be embarrassed by anything for that matter.  Perhaps more mature individuals can completely rise above that feeling.  I’m not there yet.  Maybe someday.  

[SettingDogStar]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Literal?  

Very

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Nobody pretending to be a expert here that I can see, only pointing out the obvious poorly executed information dissemination by the church on this topic.

You said that the internet allowed people to find out the skinny on the LDS Church more easily, and I took that to mean that one could find dirt on the LDS Church much more easily now.

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for preaching the gospel of Jesus being the primary emphasis, I would support that idea.  In that case I could make a pretty strong argument that the much of the restoration narrative is a distraction from preaching the gospel of Jesus.  

Why would  you care about the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  You don't believe in it anyway, or do I misunderstand what you have told us about your loss of belief?

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Very

Some think a literal view of this is essential, but others don’t.  Many early Christians had various differing perspectives on the theological Jesus.  

The historical Jesus can make no strong evidentiary argument for a literal resurrection.  But I don’t want to even argue it, as I don’t this the value of the theology is tied to this being literal or not.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You said that the internet allowed people to find out the skinny on the LDS Church more easily, and I took that to mean that one could find dirt on the LDS Church much more easily now.

Yes, that is true.  I didn’t say anything about claiming to be an expert on these subjects though.  

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why would  you care about the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  You don't believe in it anyway, or do I misunderstand what you have told us about your loss of belief?

Yes you are completely misunderstanding my beliefs.  Losing belief in a supernatural deity doesn’t mean I don’t find value in religion and the gospel in particular.  Try reading some Marcus Borg.  Some people who believe differently and still engage in a community as a person on the margins may actually care more about their beliefs and the tribe than the mainstream members of that tribe do.