Seer Stone In A Hat

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

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.  

When I was allowed to post topics, I posted this. Don't know how helpful, but maybe it was on my shelf for a little bit.  

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Tacenda

[Nevo]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

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

Hulk font. Nice 👍

Here I was hoping this thread would die a peaceful death. 

[rjohnson7]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This is rude. 

Petty much now that you're outed folks on this forum, the nicer ones, will know pretty much more about you and you willingness not to discuss your personal feeling towards me or my lost opportunity to apologize... I was called a troll, maybe this is closer to your  own description... 

[rjohnson7]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nope.

Really, and you just called me rude again.... nice!   There is someone who does know all truths... hmm! 

[rjohnson7]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I was allowed to post topics, I posted this. Don't know how helpful, but maybe it was on my shelf for a little bit.  

 

Thank you so much, I will gladly study it.... 

[rjohnson7]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Yes, so we will eliminate the word rude and go with you just reported me for breaking the rules... yes or no.   Do I hear crickets...

Edited September 12, 2023 by rjohnson7

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

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.

I said "I'm asking if you accept Brigham Young's statement that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.".  You responded "Do you pick and choose what BY said?  Do you agree with BY on Adam God sermon or blacks can't hold the priesthood?"  You could have just said "Yes, I accept Brigham Young's statement".  But you asked a really weird question that really looks like you didn't accept it.  I'm glad we both agree that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.

25 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 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...

Let me try again.  The scribes and others asked Joseph Smith to demonstrate how he translated.  Is that correct?  If so, why did Joseph Smith demonstrate a false method?  Why didn't he just ask for some spectacles and a book and demonstrate how it worked?  I don't understand why Joseph Smith would demonstrate a stone in the hat.  I don't see any valid reason for him to do that if he never used it in his translation.

25 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

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

So, of those 7 sources (not 8), only 2 are first hand and they are actually the same source.  The #2 and #3 are both from the Church History.  Joseph Smith wrote #2 and then when Daniel Rupp asked for a history of the church to publish in his book, Joseph Smith sent it to him (with modifications but not around this).  You quote twice from Oliver Cowdery (who is not a first hand witness to how the translation occurred), Martin Harris (who also says Joseph Smith used the seer stone), and twice from David Whitmer (who also says Joseph Smith used the seer stone and your second source even says he put them in a hat).  Additionally, only one from Oliver Cowdery would be in his hand.  The other from him and the ones from Martin Harris and David Whitmer are through a reporter.  Yet you won't accept Martin Harris's statement that was reported by a member of the church that talks about the switching stones?  How do you pick and choose the sources you accept?

[rjohnson7]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:34 AM, Calm said:

From what I was seeing, weebles, pogi, and everyone else are handling the topic just fine. From what I am seeing several posters, including myself, are having issues with you, not the topic. We all have engaged with the topics lots of times as a search of the board will show, even with those who disagree with us.  My guess (since I am experiencing it) is they feel frustration with your posts, your lack of actual engagement with points being made, repetition of the same misinterpreted material, lack of precision in citation and interpretation, lack of explanation of details, contradictions in your method (there appears not be much consistency in what you accept and what you don’t), massive dependency on a poorly written book while refusing to engage with reviews of that book, mislabeling sources as secondhand or whatever, and then most annoying complaints that other posters are rude when they point out errors in your posts and slanders of faithful members or push you to give substantive responses. 

Here is another mis-representation, he said I stated that someone was rude... I would love for him to find that post, and when you can't be  man enough to apologize... 

Edited September 12, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

I said "I'm asking if you accept Brigham Young's statement that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.".  You responded "Do you pick and choose what BY said?  Do you agree with BY on Adam God sermon or blacks can't hold the priesthood?"  You could have just said "Yes, I accept Brigham Young's statement".  But you asked a really weird question that really looks like you didn't accept it.  I'm glad we both agree that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.

 

Yes, I have always admitted to several stones or rocks, one of the most special was the white Stone Joseph Smith had.... did you know anything about the white stone?  or is this new to you?   Yes BY did state so.... 

 

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

Let me try again.  The scribes and others asked Joseph Smith to demonstrate how he translated.  Is that correct?  If so, why did Joseph Smith demonstrate a false method?  Why didn't he just ask for some spectacles and a book and demonstrate how it worked?  I don't understand why Joseph Smith would demonstrate a stone in the hat.  I don't see any valid reason for him to do that if he never used it in his translation.

No, and exactly, I stated it was a theory and the Book one would read to find out more,  The Man Who Can Translate... good book as a different view...  I'm not ready to give a reason for the demonstration other then we believe it was at the family table and everyone at the Whitmer's could ask question about the means and the how, what and why... 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, of those 7 sources (not 8), only 2 are first hand and they are actually the same source.  The #2 and #3 are both from the Church History.  Joseph Smith wrote #2 and then when Daniel Rupp asked for a history of the church to publish in his book, Joseph Smith sent it to him (with modifications but not around this).  You quote twice from Oliver Cowdery (who is not a first hand witness to how the translation occurred), Martin Harris (who also says Joseph Smith used the seer stone), and twice from David Whitmer (who also says Joseph Smith used the seer stone and your second source even says he put them in a hat).  Additionally, only one from Oliver Cowdery would be in his hand.  The other from him and the ones from Martin Harris and David Whitmer are through a reporter.  Yet you won't accept Martin Harris's statement that was reported by a member of the church that talks about the switching stones?  How do you pick and choose the sources you accept?

I also stated I'm still looking for them.  Oliver Cowdrey if you  remember asked and tried to do the translation, I don't understand your issue with Cowdrey.  David Whitmer never saw the actual translation, he is most likely getting the from somebody else and his biggest concern was the Spaulding transcripts and not the seer stone.... the reason being is that Mormonism Unveiled needed  to be corrected and shown that the transcripts by Spaulding were never used.   The title of Mormonism Unveiled was relating to what did JS have hidden behind the veil, the concern by these ex-mormons or enemies of the church was to prove that JS used Spaulding to write the BOM. 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Yes, breaking rules and I don't think you are LDS Saint either, more or less someone who just wants some contention... just my opinion of course.   Chuckle.   When someone goes to the lengths you do to make post about me, I am pretty sure they are not here to debate with love and civility.  

[rjohnson7]

55 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Hulk font. Nice 👍

Here I was hoping this thread would die a peaceful death. 

May I kindly suggest that you might want to just ignore this debate... just thinking! 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

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

so mature of you!
R Johnson - “Show me where I am being rude”

Steve - “this post here where you call the most respected person on the board a liar? That was rude”

R Johnson - “Blocked!”

Your utter lack of self awareness is hilarious. 

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, breaking rules and I don't think you are LDS Saint either, more or less someone who just wants some contention... just my opinion of course.   Chuckle.   When someone goes to the lengths you do to make post about me, I am pretty sure they are not here to debate with love and civility.  

Letting you know that I just now reported you on this post so that you don't assume calm is lying.

These are the board rules I reported so that you know why:

•Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
• Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)
• Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing

I will NOT further engage with you on this matter and will let the moderators do what they feel they should with it.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Rain

[webbles]

27 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, I have always admitted to several stones or rocks, one of the most special was the white Stone Joseph Smith had.... did you know anything about the white stone?  or is this new to you?   Yes BY did state so....

I know about the white seer stone.  It apparently looks like a baby's foot.  I also know about the green one.  It isn't new.  I believe Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.  They aren't just "stones or rocks" but actual seer stones.

27 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 No, and exactly, I stated it was a theory and the Book one would read to find out more,  The Man Who Can Translate... good book as a different view...  I'm not ready to give a reason for the demonstration other then we believe it was at the family table and everyone at the Whitmer's could ask question about the means and the how, what and why... 

If I said that I had read the book and that I was still confused, would you answer me?  Because I really don't see how Joseph Smith could be telling the truth if the demonstration theory is correct.  He actively deceived his followers by demonstrating a false method.

30 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I also stated I'm still looking for them.  Oliver Cowdrey if you  remember asked and tried to do the translation, I don't understand your issue with Cowdrey.  David Whitmer never saw the actual translation, he is most likely getting the from somebody else and his biggest concern was the Spaulding transcripts and not the seer stone.... the reason being is that Mormonism Unveiled needed  to be corrected and shown that the transcripts by Spaulding were never used.   The title of Mormonism Unveiled was relating to what did JS have hidden behind the veil, the concern by these ex-mormons or enemies of the church was to prove that JS used Spaulding to write the BOM.

I have no issue with Oliver Cowdery.  I just don't elevate him above the other scribes since he had no first-hand knowledge.  I do know that he attempted to translate but it wasn't with the plates or the Nephite spectacles because Joseph was still under a commandment to not show them.  Also, if Oliver had been allowed to view the plates and spectacles at that time, then what's the purpose of the blanket as he doesn't need to be blocked from view anymore.  Most likely, Cowdery used a dowsing rod for his translation method per D&C 8 (the original manuscript talks about "sprout", see https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-april-1829-b-dc-8/2)

If you don't think David Whitmer never saw the actual translation, then I'm not sure why you listed him as a source.

I don't understand why you are pointing out Mormonism Unvailed (you can read it at https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/ if you are curious what is in it).  Yes, it linked the Spaulding theory for the first time.  But that doesn't really have anything to do with the seer stone.  It isn't the first time the seer stone in the hat is mentioned, nor is it the first time it is connected with the translation.  Mormonism Unvailed just aggregated a bunch of testimonies into one book to show how Joseph was a scoundrel and then said that Sidney Rigdon stole Spaulding's manuscript, modified it, and then worked with Joseph to publish it.  I don't see how people who saw the translation method (whether because it was a demonstration or because it actually was a seer stone in the hat) would focus on the seer stone in the hat to refute Mormonism Unvailed.  You seem to say it is because the book was pulling back the curtain (unveiling) and so if the saints could say they actually saw the translation without any papers, then it would refute it.  So that would mean that saints are perpetuating a lie since Joseph Smith lied to them about using the seer stone in the hat.  This theory just keeps getting worse in my opinion.

[rjohnson7]

47 minutes ago, Rain said:

Letting you know that I just now reported you on this post so that you don't assume calm is lying.

These are the board rules I reported so that you know why:

•Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
• Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)
• Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing

I will NOT further engage with you on this matter and will let the moderators do what they feel they should with it.

 If that is how you engage so be it.... I  have been attacked ever since I got here and don't go running to a mod to cry about some remark I never made, I never called anyone rude and yet that's what I got written up for, to me that is very bad folks you have on the Board who really don't want to do anything but complain.... so good for you and hopefully you will not need to engage anymore. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

51 minutes ago, Rain said:

Letting you know that I just now reported you on this post so that you don't assume calm is lying.

These are the board rules I reported so that you know why:

•Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
• Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)
• Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing

I will NOT further engage with you on this matter and will let the moderators do what they feel they should with it.

Chuckle, did you read what Calm said, he stated he never complained about rude, just those who break the rules.... so this is his way of circumventing by way of words... I'm not fooled and asked again if he posted a complaint but this time on accusing me of breaking the rules.   No replies just crickets...  he then accused me of posting that I called someone else rude and he hasn't been able to do so.... 

Edited September 12, 2023 by rjohnson7

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Chuckle, did you read what Calm said, he stated he never complained about rude, just those who break the rules.... so this is his way of circumventing by way of words... I'm not fooled and asked again if he posted a complaint but this time on accusing me of breaking the rules.   No replies just crickets...  he then accused me of posting that I called someone else rude and he hasn't been able to do so.... 

Calm is a she.

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Chuckle, did you read what Calm said, he stated he never complained about rude, just those who break the rules.... so this is his way of circumventing by way of words... I'm not fooled and asked again if he posted a complaint but this time on accusing me of breaking the rules.   No replies just crickets...  he then accused me of posting that I called someone else rude and he hasn't been able to do so.... 

Calm is a stalwart LDS, I'm sad you're being such a pill, strong pill. Not a good one either.

Edit to add:

She's also been defending the church or the gospel for forever!

You on the other hand seem to be digging a grave for it. Are you sure you're not Mike?

Edited September 12, 2023 by Tacenda

[rjohnson7]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Calm is a stalwart LDS, I'm sad you're being such a pill, strong pill. Not a good one either.

Edit to add:

She's also been defending the church or the gospel for forever!

You on the other hand seem to be digging a grave for it. Are you sure you're not Mike?

 

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Calm is a stalwart LDS, I'm sad you're being such a pill, strong pill. Not a good one either.

Edit to add:

She's also been defending the church or the gospel for forever!

You on the other hand seem to be digging a grave for it. Are you sure you're not Mike?

Sorry you feel that way, I like your post and you were kind....so ask her why she made up a story and accused me of calling someone else rude... never happened and I believe she reported me for rule braking, the Mod. wrote it up as being rude.. 

Yes I'm new here and there a few good folks here who really want  to discuss the topic and don't make it all about me... seems reasonable to talk about the topic and not labeling me this and that... I have been on other forum and never treaded like this.   So ask you friend why she lied about me.... and no I'm not Mike, if I was the Mods would have known by now... I can give you my address, my drivers license and anything else you wish, I can do it privately if you want, but please stop with the Mike accusation!   I imagine Mike is getting his kicks from this... hmmm. 

[rjohnson7]

44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Calm is a she.

That I did not know, thx. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 

Sorry you feel that way, I like your post and you were kind....so ask her why she made up a story and accused me of calling someone else rude... never happened and I believe she reported me for rule braking, the Mod. wrote it up as being rude.. 

Yes I'm new here and there a few good folks here who really want  to discuss the topic and don't make it all about me... seems reasonable to talk about the topic and not labeling me this and that... I have been on other forum and never treaded like this.   So ask you friend why she lied about me.... and no I'm not Mike, if I was the Mods would have known by now... I can give you my address, my drivers license and anything else you wish, I can do it privately if you want, but please stop with the Mike accusation!   I imagine Mike is getting his kicks from this... hmmm. 

I should be reported I guess. But I don't get why you're not believing what a current prophet of God has told you as far as the head in the hat with a stone. 

[rjohnson7]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I should be reported I guess. But I don't get why you're not believing what a current prophet of God has told you as far as the head in the hat with a stone. 

If you listen to the video of Pres. Nelson, he states, there are many various accounts of the translation and means and then he goes on to state that the Urim and Thummim seer Stones, that is plural were placed in a hat.

Notice he calls them the Urim and Thummim seer stones (plural) meaning two stones, well the Urim and Thummim came with two stones.  

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

If you listen to the video of Pres. Nelson, he states, there are many various accounts of the translation and means and then he goes on to state that the Urim and Thummim seer Stones, that is plural were placed in a hat.

Notice he calls them the Urim and Thummim seer stones (plural) meaning two stones, well the Urim and Thummim came with two stones.  

But you said he didn't look into a hat. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-05-0290-the-book-of-mormon-is-tangible-evidence-of-the-restoration?lang=eng

And Pres Nelson does mention Urim and Thummin and seer stones. So it could be both. What do you think about the head in the hat then? 

Also, there were many seer stones according to this article put out by the Deseret News, church owned newspaper. 

https://www.deseret.com/2017/2/26/20606987/10-insights-about-joseph-smith-and-seer-stones-from-the-authors-of-joseph-smith-s-seer-stones#:~:text=Joseph had several seer stones,as a single seer stone.

"The challenges associated with interpreting historical records make it difficult to know for certain where each stone was obtained. Nonetheless, explained Frederick in an email interview, “there are two primary stories that are generally told about Joseph Smith’s seer stones.” One story states Joseph found a stone at Lake Erie while another states he found a stone digging a well. The two Nephite seer stones that comprised a single device were given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni."

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, so we will eliminate the word rude and go with you just reported me for breaking the rules... yes or no.   Do I hear crickets...

I was at the doctor’s (just follow up for my daughter) and have only now gotten back.  Why wouldn’t I say what I reported you for if I thought you broke a rule and you asked?

 I may have reported you, I can’t remember whether I just thought about it or did it.  If I did it was quite a few days ago.

This would have been the rule I reported you for if I did. 
 

Quote

Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing

Slandering scholars who are active church members as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” violates this rule of judging others’ faithfulness and sincerity. 

And yes, those calling you a troll are breaking rules and insisting you are another poster if you have denied it as well and you should feel free to report them if you care to, though I believe it is permissible to ask for clarification if someone is posting under a new name or not.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But you said he didn't look into a hat. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-05-0290-the-book-of-mormon-is-tangible-evidence-of-the-restoration?lang=eng

What I said and the theory is that JS did a demonstration with a rock in a hat at the Whitmer's home.....and also I said that the Video show what Pres. Nelson said was one of various versions, that it was Urim and Thummim seer stones (plural) in a hat. 

 

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And Pres Nelson does mention Urim and Thummin and seer stones. So it could be both. What do you think about the head in the hat then? 

That's his take on one of the various accounts. 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, there were many seer stones according to this article put out by the Deseret News, church owned newspaper. 

https://www.deseret.com/2017/2/26/20606987/10-insights-about-joseph-smith-and-seer-stones-from-the-authors-of-joseph-smith-s-seer-stones#:~:text=Joseph had several seer stones,as a single seer stone.

"The challenges associated with interpreting historical records make it difficult to know for certain where each stone was obtained. Nonetheless, explained Frederick in an email interview, “there are two primary stories that are generally told about Joseph Smith’s seer stones.” One story states Joseph found a stone at Lake Erie while another states he found a stone digging a well. The two Nephite seer stones that comprised a single device were given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni."

He also had a white transparent stone he never gave up.... so what is the story about this stone?   He claimed:  

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.

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.”