Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

Any one believe that the seer stone in a hat is viable? if so what is your proof and any first hand accounts would be great..

 

rjohnson7 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, rjohnson7 said:

Any one believe that the seer stone in a hat is viable? if so what is your proof and any first hand accounts would be great..

What do you mean by "viable"?

[rjohnson7]

Viable (possible)!  

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Any one believe that the seer stone in a hat is viable? if so what is your proof and any first hand accounts would be great..

I get the feeling that this isn’t a good-faith question, but anyway here’s my answer.

Yes, I believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat, because that is what multiple witnesses reported, including Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery.

You can find their statements in numerous publications, including John W. Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844; Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick, Joseph Smith's Seer Stones; Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon; and Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents series—at least two of which are online.

Additional references can be found here: https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/10/yes-joseph-smith-really-did-use-a-seer-stone-in-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon.html

Edited August 28, 2023 by Nevo

[rjohnson7]

Which of the above you posted witnessed the Urim and Thummim and the actual translation.  Was Joseph told not to show the plates, the Urim and Thummim  to any one?   Did God not provide the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of translation and did he also provide the seer stone and if so, where does it state He buried the seer stone in a well for JS to dig up?    Was the seer stone one of the items that the 3 witnesses were allowed to see with the other items and if not  why?  Did not Moroni  take back all the items except for the seer stone and why not?    Did Emma, Whitmer or Harris ever see any of the devices except for the seer stone?   Was it possible that Cowdery was allowed to see the Urim and Thummim for reasons he was allowed to try and translate and the same Cowdery also witnessed that the Translation took place by the use of the Urim and Tummim as did Jospeh Smith.... give me some examples of why you believe what you do... 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Which of the above you posted witnessed the Urim and Thummim and the actual translation.  Was Joseph told not to show the plates, the Urim and Thummim  to any one?   Did God not provide the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of translation and did he also provide the seer stone and if so, where does it state He buried the seer stone in a well for JS to dig up?    Was the seer stone one of the items that the 3 witnesses were allowed to see with the other items and if not  why?  Did not Moroni  take back all the items except for the seer stone and why not?    Did Emma, Whitmer or Harris ever see any of the devices except for the seer stone?   Was it possible that Cowdery was allowed to see the Urim and Thummim for reasons he was allowed to try and translate and the same Cowdery also witnessed that the Translation took place by the use of the Urim and Tummim as did Jospeh Smith.... give me some examples of why you believe what you do... 

I think that you have a need to understand some of the history here - and this forum isn't really going to be a good place to argue about it - to keep it simple -

The term "Urim and Thummim" is first introduced to the LDS community in reference to the Nephite Interpreters and the Seer Stones by William Phelps in 1833. Before 1833, we can find references to seer stones and to Nephite Interpreters. After 1833, the term Urim and Thummim is used to describe either the seer stone, the Nephite Interpreters, or both collectively.

This fact creates problems for your assertions here. When you ask: "Which of the above you posted witnessed the Urim and Thummim and the actual translation" the question makes no sense (at least in a historical context) because anyone who was present for the translation of the Book of Mormon would not have understood the tool that Joseph used to translate as a Urim and Thummim until years later (not before 1833). After the term becomes common in LDS circles, the term would have referred to either translation by the seer stone, or translation using the Nephite Interpreters indiscriminately.

God told Joseph Smith not to show the plates or the Nephite Interpreters to JUST anyone - God told Joseph that there would be a few people who could be shown these things. Of those that were shown the plates, statements by David Whitmer and Martin Harris discuss the use of both the Nephite Interpreters and a dark seer stone (that was not one of the Nephite Interpreters) in the translation of the gold plates. It is also noted that the angel took back the Nephite Interpreters after the 116 page manuscript was lost - and the Nephite Interpreters were not returned to Joseph Smith with the plates when they were given back to allow Joseph to finish the Book of Mormon (this was described by David Whitmer). This means that it is likely that most of the Book of Mormon that we have was not translated using the Nephite Interpreters.

The seer stone that Joseph used wasn't something specifically created for the task. Joseph seems to have understood it as a personal tool, and that anyone could find their own stone to use in a similar way. Brigham Young wrote in a journal entry dated 12/27/1841 of something Joseph Smith presented:

Quote

I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone.

This is a good quote for my purposes here because it illustrates the problem of language in the descriptions, while at the same time showing that the seer stone that Joseph used functioned as a Urim and Thummim. Of course, it is worth pointing out that this function was something that was largely intuited by the early members of the Church on the basis of the Phelps comparison. The Old Testament Urim and Thummim functioned as a tool that would answer yes or no questions, not as some sort of tool through which someone saw visions or parchment. At the same time, Joseph continued to use the seer stone to receive revelation after the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished. And Joseph showed that seer stone to a lot of people. So you ask:

Quote

Was the seer stone one of the items that the 3 witnesses were allowed to see with the other items and if not why?

It wasn't something that was shown to the witnesses at the time they were shown the gold plates. But then there wasn't any reason (or commandment) for them not to see it - and Joseph showed it to a lot of people - and quite casually, as the statement from Brigham Young's journal illustrates.

Quote

Did not Moroni  take back all the items except for the seer stone and why not?

We assume that Moroni took back all of the items that were found by Joseph including the Plates, the breastplate, the Nephite Interpreters, and the sword of Laban. The seer stone wasn't a part of that collection of items, and so it wasn't taken back.

Quote

Did Emma, Whitmer or Harris ever see any of the devices except for the seer stone?

We don't really know. We do know that there were descriptions of the Nephite Interpreters and different ways that they could function that are provided in the historical record. The details are such that it is hard to imagine that they didn't come from an eyewitness statement. Martin Harris, described them in the 1850s this way:

Quote

The two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow. They were joined by a round bar of silver, about three-eighths of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches.

The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks. I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that “no man could see God and live,” and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind.

This suggests that Martin Harris had in fact seen them, and held them. But decided against trying to use them himself. David Whitmer tells us that he never saw Joseph Smith translate using the Nephite Interpreters - he only ever saw Joseph Smith translating using the seer stone. And occasionally, we are told, Joseph Smith had difficulty seeing anything - David Whitmer wrote this:

Quote

At times when Brother Joseph would attempt to translate, he would look into the hat in which the stone was placed, he found he was spiritually blind and could not translate. He told us that his mind dwelt too much on earthly things, and various causes would make him incapable of proceeding with the translation. When in this condition he would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently humble before God, he could then proceed with the translation.

Did Oliver Cowdery ever use the Nephite Interpreters? We don't know. We do know that Oliver and Joseph together received what is now Section 7 of the D&C using the seer stone. This is from the current header to that chapter (taken from Joseph's History):

Quote

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim as to whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried in the flesh or had died. The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself.

The earliest accounts of the use of the Nephite Interpreters and the seer stone being used in the translation of the Book of Mormon show up in 1829. Some of the accounts suggest that Joseph said that once he was able to see the vision of the record, then it really didn't matter whether his own eyes were opened or shut. So, as far as what they did and how they worked, we don't really know. I think that the idea that Joseph Smith used them as a focus of some sort is probably accurate - that the process was more about Joseph and less about the tool that he used. He used the Nephite Interpreters first - then shifted to his seer stone - and eventually determined that they didn't really matter at all, and was able to produce revelation without using anything at all.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone.

Actually that is not correct:  Here it is in full context:  

Joseph also showed the white stone to the Twelve Apostles when they met together, followed by a speech that described the white stone as his own personal stone. Brigham Young recorded, “I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim, which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters.”

Young also declared that Joseph “showed us his stone.” Joseph then explained “that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it.”

[rjohnson7]

Unlike his brown stone, Joseph Smith did not give his white stone away. In fact, the Nauvoo Apostles remember him showing them his seer stone, and they imply that he may have been using it in some way. Joseph showed Wilford Woodruff his white stone in 1841, years before Woodruff ever saw the brown stone (which was presumably in Oliver Cowdery’s possession until 1850). During that time, Joseph had been working on the Book of Abraham and preparing the Nauvoo Temple endowment. On 27 December 1841, Wilford Woodruff wrote that Joseph showed him his seer stone at a meeting with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From the fall of 1841 to the summer of 1842, Wilford Woodruff called Joseph Smith “Joseph the seer” in his journal numerous times.

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The earliest accounts of the use of the Nephite Interpreters and the seer stone being used in the translation of the Book of Mormon show up in 1829. Some of the accounts suggest that Joseph said that once he was able to see the vision of the record, then it really didn't matter whether his own eyes were opened or shut. So, as far as what they did and how they worked, we don't really know. I think that the idea that Joseph Smith used them as a focus of some sort is probably accurate - that the process was more about Joseph and less about the tool that he used. He used the Nephite Interpreters first - then shifted to his seer stone - and eventually determined that they didn't really matter at all, and was able to produce revelation without using anything at all.

Do you know the source of the above about his eyes either being open or shut?  Its interesting. 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We don't really know. We do know that there were descriptions of the Nephite Interpreters and different ways that they could function that are provided in the historical record. The details are such that it is hard to imagine that they didn't come from an eyewitness statement. Martin Harris, described them in the 1850s this way:

Quote

The two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow. They were joined by a round bar of silver, about three-eighths of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches.

The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks. I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that “no man could see God and live,” and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind.

This suggests that Martin Harris had in fact seen them, and held them. But decided against trying to use them himself. David Whitmer tells us that he never saw Joseph Smith translate using the Nephite Interpreters - he only ever saw Joseph Smith translating using the seer stone. And occasionally, we are told, Joseph Smith had difficulty seeing anything - David Whitmer wrote this:

Quote

What do you make of this?:  While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information [Page 146]is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.  Doctrines of Salvation... 

[Calm]

Never mind

Edited August 28, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

Wasn't the Urim and Thummim not to be show to anyone? 

 

42. Again, he told me, that when I got these plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. (Joseph Smith—History 1:34-

[rjohnson7]

How does one go back to edit their mistake or typo's..???

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

How does one go back to edit their mistake or typo's..???

25 posts are needed to do that and to start threads in other forums.

[rjohnson7]

Thx..

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Actually that is not correct:  Here it is in full context:  

Perhaps you could tell me what isn't correct in what I wrote. The material you provide isn't a direct quote from Brigham Young's journal. It comes from this site here. Joseph certainly showed a seer stone to the Twelve. Whatever your disagreement is, I don't think it changes my point.

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you know the source of the above about his eyes either being open or shut?  Its interesting. 

Yes. The source is a letter by Ezra Booth dated October 24, 1831, published in The Ohio Star (Oct. 27, 1831, p. 509). He states that his sources are interviews with Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery. He writes:

Quote

Smith is the only person at present, to my knowledge, who pretends to hold converse with the inhabitants of the celestial world. It seems from his statements, that he can have access to them, when and where he pleases. He does not pretend that he sees them with his natural, but with his spiritual, eyes; and he says he can see them as well with his eyes shut, as with them open. So also in translating. — The subject stands before his eyes in print, but it matters not whether his eyes are open or shut; he can see as well one way as the other.

 You can also find a copy in Early Mormon Documents, 5:308–309. There is at least one other reference to this idea - but it is second hand, coming from a discussion remembered with Lucy Mack Smith describing the translation of the Book of Abraham, where she allegedly states that Joseph would close his eyes before beginning to translate.

4 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

What do you make of this?:  While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information [Page 146]is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.  Doctrines of Salvation...

As I explained earlier, we have a set of problems here. In particular, Joseph Fielding Smith is responding to the writings of Martin Harris, published in 1859. The challenge is that Joseph Fielding Smith didn't have the same access to the historical record that we have today. He also has the problem of the term Urim and Thummim that I describe - he is arguing that the Urim and Thummim only refers to the Nephite Interpreters and not to the seer stones at all. And, of course, given the better understanding of the historical record discovered since then, the LDS Church has explicitly refuted this idea:

Quote

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” ... Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.

So, I think that Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong in both his understanding of history and in his rationale behind his statements.

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Wasn't the Urim and Thummim not to be show to anyone? 

You seem to be missing part of the text that you quoted:

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them;

So, we have a select group that Joseph is allowed to show them to. It is worth pointing out (just to be consistent) that this is written in 1838 - nearly five years after the LDS community starts using the term Urim and Thummim to describe both the Nephite Interpreters and the seer stones.

[rjohnson7]

Do you see others leaving the Church for reasons they believe the Church has lied to them, that we now have what I call revised history and revisionism by BYU professor and LDS historians.  How can any of this be good?

I see where LDS Historians borrow citations and other second and third hand accounts taken from Mormonism Unveiled and I have read that the heading (Mormonism Unveiled) is what was JS hiding behind the blankets he used to keep the scribe from seeing the plates and urim and thummim for JS was hiding the Book written by Spaulding.   We all know that the Book written by Spaulding has nothing in common with the BOM.   But can you see maybe why the seer stone in a hat may have been used to fool the critics and that the theory is that JS met with all those in the Whitmer home and put on a demonstration using a rock in the hat as part of the demonstration?   Nobody was allowed to see the plates nor the urim and thummim so this is the beginning of how it developed.  

Joseph Smith—History 1:42, 46

Pearl of Great Price

42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you see others leaving the Church for reasons they believe the Church has lied to them, that we now have what I call revised history and revisionism by BYU professor and LDS historians.  How can any of this be good?

I don't know of anyone who has left the Church simply because they believed the Church has lied to them. I think that this can be part of the reason some people leave the Church.

You might enjoy this short essay by a Catholic theologian. I have appreciated this essay over the years. In particular, this really impressed me:

Quote

Whenever I think there’s a perfect pattern, further reading and study reveal an exception. Whenever I want to say “only” or “always,” someone or something proves me wrong. My scientist friends have come up with things like “principles of uncertainty” and dark holes. They’re willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of “faith”! How strange that the very word “faith” has come to mean its exact opposite.

One of the things that I believe is that not only do we not have anything that I would be willing to call absolute truth or perfect understanding, I don't think that we can actually conceive of what that perfect understanding or absolute truth would look like. The only thing I can say for those who leave the Church because they could not find absolute truth is that they won't find it wherever they end up either. I think at times that the real risk isn't that we believe too little, it is that we believe too much. We build our faith around narratives rather than our own experience. And while we may struggle (those of us who have been in the Church long enough to see lots of change), many others will encounter these new narratives when they are introduced to these topics. They won't develop the sort of baggage of belief that we have. And because the LDS Church is getting better at facing its own history and uncertainties, I think that so too will our children and grandchildren, and the converts who find the gospel for the first time.

[rjohnson7]

Do you see the Church ever marrying same sex individuals and women holding the priesthood?   Yes the Church has made some amazing changes, all for the good and I don't want to see outside pressure ever changing doctrine.  I don't think this can happen or ever will happen... 

 

Richard. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you see the Church ever marrying same sex individuals and women holding the priesthood?   Yes the Church has made some amazing changes, all for the good and I don't want to see outside pressure ever changing doctrine.  I don't think this can happen or ever will happen... 

No, I don't see the Church marrying same sex individuals (at least not in any forseeable future). I think that same sex relationships are a complicated issue, and I expect the Church's position to continue to evolve.

As far as women and the priesthood goes, I think that this is an even more complicated situation. In the early years of the Church, women were understood to have received the priesthood through the temple ordinances. And they used that priesthood in a larger number of contexts in the 1800s than they do today (they gave blessings, they performed some types of baptisms, and so on). This disappears over time. But, the fact that it was there means that those early practices could be used to change the status quo that we see today. Now, this is not to say that I expect to see women ordained to the offices of the priesthood, but it does suggest that we may see changes that are more than superficial. And we should note that nowhere in scripture does it ever say that women cannot be ordained or hold a priesthood office. Having said that, the Church has taken steps in recent years to try and address the challenge of gender inequality in the Church. For example, women can now pray in General Conference (the first time this ever happened was in 2013). I think personally that there is a lot of room for improvements still.

60 years ago, most of Mormonism was convinced that blacks would never be given the priesthood. 60 years before that, we were convinced that polygamy was a necessary principle of exaltation. I remember telling my wife a year or two after we were married that I didn't expect the legalization of same-sex marriage in my lifetime. I was wrong (by a large margin - and a good thing too - I am not quite ready to pass on). And in 1978 after the priesthood ban was lifted, Elder McConkie famously stated: ""Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

With ongoing revelation, the only certainty is that change is inevitable, and that we never know quite as much as we think we do. And even as we receive more revelation we are reminded that our present understanding too is limited; we can assume with absolute certainty that we believe some things (perhaps many things) that are not absolute truth (and which may be entirely wrong), that are not understood, and about which we presume that we will receive additional insight and revelation. Our leaders and our prophets, our texts, even our scripture, are not viewed as inerrant, perfect, or necessarily self-revealing. I noted in my last post that there is a risk in believing too much. What I mean by that is that the risk to our eternal progression isn't that we will discover that we believed wrong things and need to change - the risk is that we decide that we have found complete truth and no longer need to look for change. And, just as personal revelation can alter our individual perceptions of our faith and the world around us, so too revelation alters the perception of the LDS Church as a whole. The risk isn't that the Church or its members continue searching and asking for more truth, it is that at some point the Church stops searching, believing that it has found all there is to find, and concludes that God has said all that He is going to say.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you see the Church ever marrying same sex individuals and women holding the priesthood?   Yes the Church has made some amazing changes, all for the good and I don't want to see outside pressure ever changing doctrine.  I don't think this can happen or ever will happen... 

 

Richard. 

Happens all the time. Think Ordain Women...

[rjohnson7]

Thx you, can you please expand... 

[rjohnson7]

No, I don't see the Church marrying same sex individuals (at least not in any forseeable future). I think that same sex relationships are a complicated issue, and I expect the Church's position to continue to evolve.

 

I may be hasty, but if this ever happens this will cause my testimony to be shaken.  I would have to wait for a more fully explained reason and confirmation from the HG.  

 

 

As far as women and the priesthood goes, I think that this is an even more complicated situation. In the early years of the Church, women were understood to have received the priesthood through the temple ordinances. And they used that priesthood in a larger number of contexts in the 1800s than they do today (they gave blessings, they performed some types of baptisms, and so on). This disappears over time. But, the fact that it was there means that those early practices could be used to change the status quo that we see today. Now, this is not to say that I expect to see women ordained to the offices of the priesthood, but it does suggest that we may see changes that are more than superficial. And we should note that nowhere in scripture does it ever say that women cannot be ordained or hold a priesthood office. Having said that, the Church has taken steps in recent years to try and address the challenge of gender inequality in the Church. For example, women can now pray in General Conference (the first time this ever happened was in 2013). I think personally that there is a lot of room for improvements still.

 

Yes, I understand the history of women and priesthood, but like any new and restored church there is a time of growth and understanding of Doctrine and Church Government that will proceed the actual programs, laws and covenants of the true Church of Christ.  We had to slowly learn what was meant by the saving ordinances which included the Temple Ordinances. 

 

 

 

60 years ago, most of Mormonism was convinced that blacks would never be given the priesthood. 60 years before that, we were convinced that polygamy was a necessary principle of exaltation. I remember telling my wife a year or two after we were married that I didn't expect the legalization of same-sex marriage in my lifetime. I was wrong (by a large margin - and a good thing too - I am not quite ready to pass on). And in 1978 after the priesthood ban was lifted, Elder McConkie famously stated: ""Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

This is called a continuation of the Restoration God promised.   I was born in 1945 and would never have guessed how society would have changed so much that to me it is unrecognizable, but my foundation has not changed a foundation built on Faith,  personal revelation and God Based truths. 

 

 

 

 

With ongoing revelation, the only certainty is that change is inevitable, and that we never know quite as much as we think we do. And even as we receive more revelation we are reminded that our present understanding too is limited; we can assume with absolute certainty that we believe some things (perhaps many things) that are not absolute truth (and which may be entirely wrong), that are not understood, and about which we presume that we will receive additional insight and revelation. Our leaders and our prophets, our texts, even our scripture, are not viewed as inerrant, perfect, or necessarily self-revealing. I noted in my last post that there is a risk in believing too much. What I mean by that is that the risk to our eternal progression isn't that we will discover that we believed wrong things and need to change - the risk is that we decide that we have found complete truth and no longer need to look for change. And, just as personal revelation can alter our individual perceptions of our faith and the world around us, so too revelation alters the perception of the LDS Church as a whole. The risk isn't that the Church or its members continue searching and asking for more truth, it is that at some point the Church stops searching, believing that it has found all there is to find, and concludes that God has said all that He is going to say.

You're so right, I have changed my own personal translations of Gospel Principles and  concepts that have been for the better for reasons of better understanding of Gods words and scripture along with modern day Prophets and Apostles. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, I understand the history of women and priesthood, but like any new and restored church there is a time of growth and understanding of Doctrine and Church Government that will proceed the actual programs, laws and covenants of the true Church of Christ.  We had to slowly learn what was meant by the saving ordinances which included the Temple Ordinances

Do you assume we have the final form now?  If so, why?

[rjohnson7]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you assume we have the final form now?  If so, why?

Expand please... final form? or complete restoration?