Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Elder Holland called Richard Bushman "a good friend and faithful LDS scholar" in general conference, of all places. And in the printed version of his talk, he urged members to read Bushman's essay, "A Joseph Smith for the Twenty-First Century," "in its entirety."

Actually the question I have for you is a yes or no.. did Richard Bushman, 'Rough Stone Rolling', change the narrative of LDS history? Not asking you if you liked it or not, did he write a book that makes traditionalists like me now somehow no longer creditable or relevant?  

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Only two of these people (Mulder and Orton) were even alive in the year 2000, and neither were publishing anything in their final years. Mulder's best-known work was Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia, published in 1957. Orton never published anything on Mormon history. Adamson, Lyon, and Read died in the 1970s.

So, no, there was no "steady drumbeat" "starting in yr. 2000" of publications from the "Swearing Elders" (a short-lived study group that last met in 1955).

 

What's your source for Richard Bushman speaking to the group? He graduated from high school in 1949—the year the group started—and was living in the northeastern US between 1950 and 1955. 

 

Still? From the grave? Which ones?

First of all I said we became aware of the movement, The New Mormonism,  read below. A drumbeat by authors (such as) do you not understand the phrase " such As"?   You're not here to discuss anything, you just want to deflect with silly little gotchas !  Where did I say starting with the Swearing Elders?   Do you actually read my post, please focus.

  About that time or starting in yr. 2000 we became aware of "The New Mormonism" and a steady drumbeat by authors such as , William Mulder, Don Orton, Jack Adamson, LowellBennion, T. Edgar Lyon, and Drs. McMurrin, Read, Tanner, Arrington, and many others....

 

I should have stated we're spreading instead of are spreading.... this is not a book, just I hope a friendly disagreement...

[rjohnson7]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Never said it was. You didn’t seem interested in engaging or anyone being helpful at that point to me. I am willing to reconsider but your last posts do not encourage me.

I don’t see you ridiculing faithful scholars as helpful either.

Who did I ridicule..... copy my quote where I ridiculed anyone.

[rjohnson7]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Actually there is quite a bit.  If you are interested in the topic, I recommend these two books, the first I have read, the second is on my nightstand waiting for some undistracted nights.

https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-at-Mountain-Meadows/dp/B00320NM1Y/ref=sr_1_2?

https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/vengeance-is-mine-the-mountain-meadows-massacre-and-its-aftermath/

Thank you

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Ok, so you don't think Joseph Smith had any seer stones.  Not one?  Even though Brigham Young stated so?  I'm not talking about the one that the church still has the vault.  I'm not even talking about the possible stone that Joseph might have used in a hat.  I'm asking if you accept Brigham Young's statement that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.  If not, what about Brigham Young's statement is invalid?  You are really picky about what sources you accept so why is Brigham Young not a valid source in this regard?

Umm, I don't understand how this helps my dilemma.  Ignore the blanket.  I just mentioned that because David Whitmer mentioned it but I guess I shouldn't have.  Can you go back to my questions and look at them again.  Why did Joseph Smith demonstrate a false method of translation?  Why would he deceive them?

Do you pick and choose what BY said?  Do you agree with BY on Adam God sermon or blacks can't hold the priesthood?

A demonstration of how he dictated to. a scribe, where is there a deception, do we know what questions were being asked of him or how the presenter JS was using the stone in a hat as a teaching method?  So much is not recorded, but we have at least 8 claims by JS that he used the Urim and Thummim, why do you wish to ignore this?

[webbles]

28 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you pick and choose what BY said?  Do you agree with BY on Adam God sermon or blacks can't hold the priesthood?

Considering later prophets have clarified both of those, I don't see why I should agree with Brigham Young about that.  There hasn't been any later prophets that have ever said that Joseph Smith didn't have seer stones.  And there have been several that have said he did have seer stones.  So this line of reasoning feels a little weird to me.  But I guess it means you won't accept any source from Brigham Young.  I'll have to refrain from quoting him from now on.  Is there any other prophets that you won't accept as well?

 

28 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

A demonstration of how he dictated to. a scribe, where is there a deception, do we know what questions were being asked of him or how the presenter JS was using the stone in a hat as a teaching method?  So much is not recorded, but we have at least 8 claims by JS that he used the Urim and Thummim, why do you wish to ignore this?

You don't see any deception?  If Joseph Smith never used a stone in the hat to translate the Book of Mormon, then why would he demonstrate that method?  What purpose does that serve?  Why didn't he demonstrate the actual method instead?  And we have multiple eyewitnesses of the demonstration or of the stone in the hat, so we do know what he did.

 

And can you list the 8 claims by Joseph Smith?  I can see 3 first-hand accounts written by Joseph Smith that claim that.

* Elder's Journal, July 1838

* Joseph Smith - History, Pearl of Great Price

* Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842

Edited September 10, 2023 by webbles

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you pick and choose what BY said?  Do you agree with BY on Adam God sermon or blacks can't hold the priesthood?

A demonstration of how he dictated to. a scribe, where is there a deception, do we know what questions were being asked of him or how the presenter JS was using the stone in a hat as a teaching method?  So much is not recorded, but we have at least 8 claims by JS that he used the Urim and Thummim, why do you wish to ignore this?

What we are witnessing, in real time, is how apostasies take place. Rather than relying solely on the iron rod of the word of God that testifies the translation of the Nephite record was accomplished by means of the Urim and Thummim, the learned, who are wise in their own conceits, as well as those who desire to be perceived as learned and sophisticated, are being persuaded to ease their grip on the iron rod as prelude to wandering off into strange and forbidden paths.

This inevitable tragedy (due to the unavoidable fact that there is opposition in all things) is inspired and overseen by the devil himself, for he is exceedingly expert in slowly, almost imperceptibly, drawing away the susceptible from the word of God into strange, dead end roads that lead away from the tree of life.

For those who are led away, the fear of being perceived as unlearned fools in the eyes of the worldly wise exerts greater sway on their hearts than does maintaining a fixed a determination to hold fast to the iron rod. And when the mighty, destructive storms of the prophesied great tribulation arrive (even now they are at the doors) many of those who are now unaware of the fact that they are holding on to the iron rod with only one hand will be sorely tempted to let go altogether, in a futile attempt to seek peace and safety among the enemies of Zion.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Not asking you if you liked it or not, did he write a book that makes traditionalists like me now somehow no longer creditable or relevant?  

Yes and no. When I say yes, what I mean is that the LDS Church and its leaders have recognized that the history of the LDS Church, when viewed through the evidence of the past (the documentary evidence) is different than what has been traditionally taught. Those voices that claim that the only faithful understanding of the past is this traditional view - those voices are no longer creditable. This is not, though, a suggestion that those voices of faith are irrelevant. If such a traditionalist view works for you, then by all means, take it. And speak with that voice of faith.

Described another way - if someone is having a crisis of faith over the history, it is not appropriate to suggest that the way to understand the past is through a lens of traditionalists - to suggest that everything they are reading is the result of a badly motivated effort to rewrite the history of the Church. This is wrong. This goes against what the LDS Church and its leadership is trying to do. What is better is to use these voices of faith to show how believers have re-understood that history in terms of the historical evidence, and have come away from that re-discovery with testimonies intact, and a greater understanding of the Church and its past and present leadership - and the necessity for us to develop our own testimonies - our own sense of faith built on our own experiences and not the experiences of others.

8 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Do you pick and choose what BY said?  Do you agree with BY on Adam God sermon or blacks can't hold the priesthood?

Yes, I do pick and choose from what Brigham Young said. And yes, as Latter-day Saints we collectively do this.After all, it was Bruce R. McConkie who, in 1978, said this:

Quote

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.

We are not obligated to believe everything that Brigham Young said. We are not obligated to believe everything that Joseph Fielding Smith said. We are not obligated to believe everything that Bruce R. McConkie said. Joseph Smith didn't place a restriction on the knowledge that we receive, he said: "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism, is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." Those who cannot adjust to change with the introduction of more light and knowledge (regardless of its source) - they are crossing that line into a fundamentalism that is damaging to faith and to belief.

A book that you should perhaps read is Elder Bruce Hafen's The Believing Heart. The book is devoted to the idea of how we interact with ambiguity in religious believe - and how we secure our faith when it is challenged. Elder Hafen describes the problems that come when we (as members) encounter ambiguity in all of its different forms, and how that ambiguity forces us to change. I won't put up much of a summary here, but it is worth reading. He develops a hierarchy of responses to that ambiguity. I would be interested in seeing where you put yourself int hat hierarchy.

Finally,

9 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

So much is not recorded, but we have at least 8 claims by JS that he used the Urim and Thummim, why do you wish to ignore this?

As the LDS Church website notes:

Quote

the early Saints sometimes used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the seer stone as well as the interpreters.

One of the things that we know from the documentary history is that the first person to use the term "Urim and Thummim" in a Mormon context was William Phelps in 1833. After he introduced the comparison, LDS sources tended to use the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with 'seer stone'. You keep ignoring this idea. Can you show me anywhere where Joseph Smith refers to a Urim and Thummim prior to 1833? I would be really interested in seeing it. After that point, any reference to the Urim and Thummim can refer to either the seer stone(s) or to the Nephite Interpreters or to both. So it is necessary for you not only to show that there is a reference to the "Urim and Thummim" but also that this reference cannot refer to the seer stone that you claim was never used for the translation of the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, I can argue that each of these references to the Urim and Thummim is just as likely to be a reference to the stone in the hat and not to the spectacles.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

What we are witnessing, in real time, is how apostasies take place.

Apostate here. Just so I understand, are you saying that if Joseph used his brown, found in a well, rock to translate the Book of Mormon, the church isn’t true? 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

What we are witnessing, in real time, is how apostasies take place. Rather than relying solely on the iron rod of the word of God that testifies the translation of the Nephite record was accomplished by means of the Urim and Thummim, the learned, who are wise in their own conceits, as well as those who desire to be perceived as learned and sophisticated, are being persuaded to ease their grip on the iron rod as prelude to wandering off into strange and forbidden paths.

History is what actually happened, not a strange or forbidden path.

You can't change facts.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

One of the things that we know from the documentary history is that the first person to use the term "Urim and Thummim" in a Mormon context was William Phelps in 1833. After he introduced the comparison, LDS sources tended to use the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with 'seer stone'. You keep ignoring this idea. Can you show me anywhere where Joseph Smith refers to a Urim and Thummim prior to 1833? I would be really interested in seeing it. After that point, any reference to the Urim and Thummim can refer to either the seer stone(s) or to the Nephite Interpreters or to both. So it is necessary for you not only to show that there is a reference to the "Urim and Thummim" but also that this reference cannot refer to the seer stone that you claim was never used for the translation of the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, I can argue that each of these references to the Urim and Thummim is just as likely to be a reference to the stone in the hat and not to the spectacles.

You might already know about this source, but I just found a quote from Oliver Cowdery where he wrote in the Patriarchal Blessings book 1 ( see the last part of the "Historical Introduction" at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/blessing-to-newel-k-whitney-7-october-1835/1#historical-intro ) :

Quote

The following blessing was given by president Joseph Smith, Jr. through the Urim and Thummim, according to the spirit of prophecy and revelation, on Wednesday, the 7th of October, 1835, and written by president Frederick G. Williams, who acted as clerk

So we have Oliver using "Urim and Thummim" to describe something that isn't the Nephite interpreters since this is in 1835 which is many years after they were returned to Moroni.  Most likely, this is talking about one of Joseph's seer stones.

[rjohnson7]

To the person who reported me about rudeness on my part, it would serve you well to first  discuss with me your complaint so as a good LDS member and believing Saint I can apologize.... this has happened before, someone gets bent out of shape and then decides the passive-aggressive  grievance way is best for them.   I take the initiative and usually confront them in person or give a call to them and ask why are you not speaking to me.  Every time its been a miscommunication issue and  all is well and we move on.   I find that after I had reactivated my account and started to post a new topic it was apparent some few here were attacking me and not really answering my questions or my claims.   I was accused of being a troll, acting as someone else, a false accuser of Richard Bushman and etc. etc.    Is this the way other Mormons treat each other on  the Forum? they should be ashamed of themselves  and actually apologize to me.... 

So if the person who reported my actions to the moderator, I apologize that you may have a issue which I 'm not aware of and if you would like we can discuss it here on this forum or you can privately contact me. 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

To the person who reported me about rudeness on my part, it would serve you well to first  discuss with me your complaint so as a good LDS member and believing Saint I can apologize.... this has happen before, someone gets bent out of shape and then decides the passive-aggressive  grievance way is best for them.   I take the initiative and usually confront them in person or give a call to them and ask why are you not speaking to me.  Every time its been a miscommunication issue and  all is well and we move on.   I find that after I had reactivated my account and started to post a new topic it was apparent some few here were attacking me and not really answering my questions or my claims.   I was accused of being a troll, acting as someone else, a false accuser of Richard Bushman and etc. etc.    Is this the way other Mormons treat each other on  the Forum? they should be ashamed of themselves  and actually apologize to me.... 

So if the person who reported my actions to the moderator, I apologize that you may have a issue which I 'm not aware of and if you would like we can discuss it here on this forum or you can privately contact me. 

 

I didn't report you, but I have been reported on and even banned from threads. I've been a member of the board since 2012, so a lot of years to learn, practice, and try to behave with what I do or say. And just learn from those on here that know what they're talking about, and even the warts of the church are discussed and not covered up. Which I think is the best way. But you seem not to accept the warts, or you do and I misunderstand. Hang in there, and just know that this is normal. Maybe I'll c/p the early posts I've made, I'm on "limited" for a reason and once you get there it's sort of a jail like feel as far as not being able to start topics or post freely any amount. I once was let out of jail, but it didn't take long before I was put back in with the "limited" status. So don't take it too hard, just keep on swimming as Dora says. We all do the best we can, most of us, to be able to get our thoughts and ideas through, on the internet and not in person. 

I went back and found this, lol. Seems to align with how you're feeling. The bold is what I said clear back then. 

1.  John Dehlin - Why They Leave

   in General Discussions

   Posted June 26, 2012

     On 6/26/2012 at 9:54 AM, calmoriah said:

   It has nothing to do with you wanting a relationship with Christ, it's the consistent talking down of what LDS do and believe as well as stuff like:

   You are acting like someone here has painted a target on your back and we all are just waiting to hear someone say "fire" if you say "born again" or "Jesus" just once too often.

    

   Sorry, I don't mean to paint myself as "poor me". I want to move on to bigger and better convos. I'm sorry for the angst I brought on. Let's just move on. And let other's post about other stuff. I'm embarrassed that this is happening. I know that somethings up when I get fellow LDS people saying the things they're saying to me.

    
2.  

Edited September 12, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

To the person who reported me about rudeness on my part, it would serve you well to first  discuss with me your complaint so as a good LDS member and believing Saint I can apologize.... this has happened before, someone gets bent out of shape and then decides the passive-aggressive  grievance way is best for them.

Moderators have asked people to report rather than sidetrack topics with complaints.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

  I find that after I had reactivated my account and started to post a new topic it was apparent some few here were attacking me and not really answering my questions or my claims.   I was accused of being a troll, acting as someone else, a false accuser of Richard Bushman and etc. etc.    Is this the way other Mormons treat each other on  the Forum? they should be ashamed of themselves  and actually apologize to me.... 

 

I don’t do memes, but this popped up in my FB a few hours ago and just seems so relevant…sorry for the size, PM me if you known how to shrink it.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:40 AM, webbles said:

Considering later prophets have clarified both of those, I don't see why I should agree with Brigham Young about that.  There hasn't been any later prophets that have ever said that Joseph Smith didn't have seer stones.  And there have been several that have said he did have seer stones.  So this line of reasoning feels a little weird to me.  But I guess it means you won't accept any source from Brigham Young.  I'll have to refrain from quoting him from now on.  Is there any other prophets that you won't accept as well?

Okay, I have never said BY did not say JS had seer stones, we even have Wilford Woodruff  talking abut the white sone and even consecrating it on the alter of one of our Temples. 

At some point Wilford Woodruff had it but then Joseph F. Smith retained it in the Smith family and Joseph Fielding Smith eventually put in the First Presidency’s collection. The white stone seems to have been carried by Joseph Smith throughout his life, and may have been valued above the brown stone, which he had given away. The authors believe it may have actually been the stone that was used in the Book of Mormon translation. It is supposed that the white stone travelled with the brown stone after Joseph’s death, and was the seer stone that Wilford Woodruff consecrated on the altar of the Manti Temple.

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2016/11/21/book-review-joseph-smiths-seer-stones

 

 

On 9/10/2023 at 12:40 AM, webbles said:

You don't see any deception?  If Joseph Smith never used a stone in the hat to translate the Book of Mormon, then why would he demonstrate that method?  What purpose does that serve?  Why didn't he demonstrate the actual method instead?  And we have multiple eyewitnesses of the demonstration or of the stone in the hat, so we do know what he did.

What deception? would be a demonstration of a answer to many of the questions being asked of JS while translation in the Whitmer home.   The housekeeper  girl was about to quit until someone answer what was going on...

"As a young girl of nineteen she was the housekeeper in the Peter Whitmer home when the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery finished translating the "Book of Mormon." Because of persecution they had to work in secret. Sallie would see the Prophet and Oliver come down out of the attic room after working long hours. She remembers them looking like angels. She was aware that something strange and unusual was taking place. Finally she insisted that Sister David Whitmer, her aunt, tell her the truth. Sister Whitmer had to reveal to Sallie what was taking place. She warned her that if she let the secret out, their lives would be in danger." 

"I conversed with one old lady 88 years old who lived with David Whitmer when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were translating the Book of Mormon in upper room of the house, and she, only a girl, saw them come down from the translating room several times, when they looked so exceedingly white and strange that she inquired of Mrs. Whitmer the cause of their unusual appearance, but Mr. Whitmer was unwilling to tell the hired girl, the true cause as it was a sacred holy event connected with a holly sacred work which was opposed and persecuted by nearly every one who heard of it.  The girl felt so strange and unusual [about] the appearance, she finally told Mrs. Whitmer that she would not stay with her until she knew the cause of the strange looks of these men.  Sister Whitmer then told her what the men were doing in the room above and that the power of God was so great in the room that they could hardly endure it; at times angels were in the room in their glory which nearly consumed them.  This satisfied the girl and opened the way to embrace the gospel" 

 

http://www.supportingevidences.net/18-year-old-sarah-conrad/#:~:text="As a young girl of,room after working long hours.

 

 

On 9/10/2023 at 12:40 AM, webbles said:

And can you list the 8 claims by Joseph Smith?  I can see 3 first-hand accounts written by Joseph Smith that claim that.

I may have been wrong, I will keep looking but we do have these accounts: 

1. Joseph Smith – as recorded by Oliver Cowdery 1835
(The messenger) said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record. (Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, “Letter IV,” Messenger and Advocate, February 1835, 80)

2. Joseph Smith 1842
Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God. (Joseph Smith, Church History, Times and Seasons 3(March 1, 1842):707)

3. Joseph Smith – as published by Daniel Rupp- 1844
Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record, by the gift and power of God. (“Latter Day Saints,” in I. Daniel Rupp, comp., An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States (Philadelphia: J.Y. Humphreys, 1844), 406)

4. Martin Harris – as interviewed by the Iowa State Register -1870
By means of the urim and thummim “a pair of large spectacles,” as Mr. Harris termed them, the translation was made, and Mr. Harris claims to have written, of the translations as they were given by Smith, “116 solid pages of cap (foolscap). (A Witness to the Book of Mormon, Des Moines Iowa State Register, August 28, 1870)

5. Oliver Cowdery – as interviewed by Samuel Whitney Richards- 1907
He (Oliver Cowdery) represents Joseph as sitting by a table with the plates before him. and he reading the record with the Urim & Thummim. Oliver, his scribe, sits close beside to hear and write every word as translated. This is done by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. This instrument now used fully performed its Mission. Every word was made distinctly visible even to every letter, and if Oliver did not in writing spell the word correctly it remained in the translator until it was written correctly. This was a mystery to Oliver, how Joseph being comparatively ignorant could correct him in spelling, without seeing the word written, and he would not be satisfied until he should be permitted or have the gift to translate as well as Joseph. (Samuel W. Richards statement, May 21, 1907, holograph, 2-3, Church Archives)

6. David Whitmer as interviewed by Thomas Wood Smith -1879
I personally heard him state, in Jan. 1876 in his own house in Richmond, Ray Co. Mo…. that he saw Joseph translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, time and again, and he (David) then produced a large pile of foolscap paper closely written in a very fair hand, which he declared was the manuscript written mainly by Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, as the translation was being read by the aid of the Urim and Thummim of the characters on the plates by Joseph Smith, which work of translation and transcription he frequently saw. (Thomas Wood Smith, Fall River Herald, March 28, 1879; cited in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991, 10)

7. David Whitmer as interviewed by Eri B. Mullin -1880
Mr. D. Whitmer told me in the year 1874, that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim when he was translating…

I for my part know he said that Joseph had the instrument Urim and Thummim. I asked him how they looked. He said they looked like spectacles, and he (Joseph) would put them on and look in a hat, or put his face in the hat and read. Says I, “Did he have the plates in there.” No, the words would appear, and if he failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then pass away, another come, and so on. (Eri B. Mullin, Letter to the editor, Saints’ Herald 27(March 1, 1880):76)

 

 

 

 

On 9/10/2023 at 12:40 AM, webbles said:

* Elder's Journal, July 1838

* Joseph Smith - History, Pearl of Great Price

* Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842

 

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don’t do memes, but this popped up in my FB a few hours ago and just seems so relevant…sorry for the size, PM me of you known hot to shrink it.

Question asking for a honest answer, did you report me to the moderator  for being rude?  yes or no.  And if so, can you provide the post where I was rude to you? 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

The white stone seems to have been carried by Joseph Smith throughout his life, and may have been valued above the brown stone, which he had given away. The authors believe it may have actually been the stone that was used in the Book of Mormon translation.

Your link indicates the white stone is the one found in the well according to their research.

Quote

Chapter three addresses the question of where Joseph Smith found his seer stones, of which he had at least three. Research done by D. Michael Quinn is compared with that of Mark Ashurst-McGee, and found to be conflicting in some details. Various historic accounts from both believers and critics are compared. It is determined that the brown stone may have been found on the shore of Lake Erie, after looking through someone else’s stone and being shown where to find it, while the white stone was probably found either while digging a well or looking for treasure. “…It is clearly acknowledged that the stones were found in the New York landscape and under the influences of money-digging culture, yet that context does not seem to conflict with the idea that God guided Joseph Smith to find the seer stone. Decades later, Mormons had disconnected other ideas and emphasized the idea that it was a revelatory process, similar to Joseph Smith’s future prophetic role.” [5]

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Question asking for a honest answer, did you report me to the moderator  for being rude?  

Nope.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Moderators have asked people to report rather than sidetrack topics with complaints.

Pretty much knowing it was you... show me my rudeness so I can review it and if needed apologize. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Pretty much knowing it was you... show me my rudeness so I can review it and if needed apologize. 

Are you implying I am a liar or did you not see my previous post?  I don’t report people for rudeness, I report them for breaking board rules.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Calm

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Pretty much knowing it was you...

This is rude. 

[rjohnson7]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't report you, but I have been reported on and even banned from threads. I've been a member of the board since 2012, so a lot of years to learn, practice, and try to behave with what I do or say. And just learn from those on here that know what they're talking about, and even the warts of the church are discussed and not covered up. Which I think is the best way. But you seem not to accept the warts, or you do and I misunderstand. Hang in there, and just know that this is normal. Maybe I'll c/p the early posts I've made, I'm on "limited" for a reason and once you get there it's sort of a jail like feel as far as not being able to start topics or post freely any amount. I once was let out of jail, but it didn't take long before I was put back in with the "limited" status. So don't take it too hard, just keep on swimming as Dora says. We all do the best we can, most of us, to be able to get our thoughts and ideas through, on the internet and not in person. 

I went back and found this, lol. Seems to align with how you're feeling. The bold is what I said clear back then. 

1.  John Dehlin - Why They Leave

   in General Discussions

   Posted June 26, 2012

     On 6/26/2012 at 9:54 AM, calmoriah said:

   It has nothing to do with you wanting a relationship with Christ, it's the consistent talking down of what LDS do and believe as well as stuff like:

   You are acting like someone here has painted a target on your back and we all are just waiting to hear someone say "fire" if you say "born again" or "Jesus" just once too often.

    

   Sorry, I don't mean to paint myself as "poor me". I want to move on to bigger and better convos. I'm sorry for the angst I brought on. Let's just move on. And let other's post about other stuff. I'm embarrassed that this is happening. I know that somethings up when I get fellow LDS people saying the things they're saying to me.

    
2.  

Thank you so much for this post, I'm not here to bring contention and have some serious issues with the rock in a hat as the means of translation..... I feel people just want to play games here and try to do a gotcha and then report any little tiny infraction without trying to even communicating with the person they are outing, this to me is pathetic and a indication the topic is to much for them to respond to in away that will support their bias... You seem like a very good person and I can easily dialogue with.  

[rjohnson7]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Moderators have asked people to report rather than sidetrack topics with complaints.

That you did and I hope you're able to move on and address the issues and not make this about me... 

Edited September 12, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This is rude. 

Well do what you do best, report me and make yourself satisfied, you may make a great moderator... you're now blocked...