Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

So you are just going to ignore the reviews pointing out his misuse of sources?

Tacenda, read the reviews before you order the book so you know what you are getting.  I have linked them a couple of places iirc.

I read the book, if you are concerned about reviews then read the ones about the BOM.

Just maybe that will keep folks from reading it.

I'm in no way trying to say history of the church is accurate or that we were lied to as our progress friends are putting forth.  But when someone says I was lied to.... Vogel, Quinn, Bushman and Arlington have, then it's really up to me to validate.

 

[rjohnson7]

On 9/2/2023 at 1:34 PM, Pyreaux said:

What do you think of the Tzohar chain midrash, the Jewish commentary and lore that all the greatest prophets had divining rocks. Adam's Book of Raziel, a book or stone (sefer=book, sapphire=precious stone) that taught him how to read, Noah's Tzohar (Light) stone that provided light in the ark, and divined whether it was day or night, the same stone was passed on, Joseph of Egypt put it in his divining cup, buried his face in his cup to interpret dreams, Moses' Prescious Stones written upon by the finger of God. Then there was the Urim and Thummim, the High Priest divined answers to questions by sitting in the dark, and the two rocks would glow. Also, Jonah's Pearl inside the fish, through which he could clairvoyantly see everything.

How is Joseph's Seer Stone somehow more cringy magical than the Urim and Thummim, they're both either magic rocks or holy rocks. Just because the Seer Stone may exist doesn't validate the myths that Joseph was a witch instead of a prophet, nor money digger or some sort of con, which Joseph denied being a money digger, a rumor that only started after being hired to dig a silver mine at a location on a map.

Tzohar stones as depicted in the film Noah (2014)

You would have to believe God prepared a brown stone and buried it in a well, why would he do this?

[rjohnson7]

On 9/2/2023 at 9:41 AM, webbles said:

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are not the only first hand witnesses.  Martin Harris and Emma Smith were both scribes and both of them said he had his face in a hat.

Edited to add:

By the way, are you saying that Oliver Cowdery is a first handwitness because he attempted to translate (D&C 8 and 9)?  Or are you just saying that he is a first hand witness because he was a scribe most of the time?  And also, how do you account for Oliver's translation attempt?  Did he use the Urim and Thummim?  Was he allowed to look at the plates?  This is long before the 3 Witnesses experience.

What was the purpose of the blanket which hid JS and anyone seeing?

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/welch/2016-04-11/welch_the_miraculous_translation_of_the_book_of_mormon_opening_the_heavens.pdf has possibly all of the first-hand, second-hand, third-hand, etc sources about the translation of the Book of Mormon.  The book is specifically about the timeline of the translation but starting on page 44, it lists 202 sources.

Darn, I'm having trouble finding page 44. I saw a 44 chapter per se, but no sources. 

[rjohnson7]

On 9/2/2023 at 12:57 PM, Calm said:

Or not…
 

https://interpreterfoundation.org/an-unfortunate-approach-to-joseph-smiths-translation-of-ancient-scripture/
 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-rejoinder-to-jonathan-nevilles-response-to-recent-reviews/

 

Or not is true, since you have why not anyone else, are we not to read out of the best books and then ask for light and knowledge?   David Whitmire never acted as scribe.              
Why did JS hide behind a blanket when translating?

[Pyreaux]

14 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

You would have to believe God prepared a brown stone and buried it in a well, why would he do this?

God prepared a brass ball and left it outside a tent. Not much fanfare with that... Or special divining stones are just very abundant, you lose one and can find another if you are spiritually gifted for it.

[rjohnson7]

On 9/3/2023 at 12:45 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

How about for Joseph's mother Emma, or his brother William? Or Oliver Cowdery, or Martin Harris?

How about the blanket JS hid behind when translating,  should we just throw it under the buss?  Why would God not allow anyone to see the urim and thummim but it was according to our progressive just fine, no problem, except it's a problem nobody addresses...  

 

 

 

 

On 9/3/2023 at 12:45 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

When the Ancient Israelites used their Urim and Thummim as a tool of divination, does it imply magic and the occult? When Jesus walked on water, did it look like magic to those around him? I think that part of the problem here is that we can always use language in such a way as to create bias or problems. When you describe it in these ways, you are effectively agreeing with the critics of the LDS Church and accepting their way of building narrative around the historical record. When the LDS Church accepts the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon (which they do), do you think that they are describing magical or occult practices?

What you are suggesting is a very narrow perspective - one that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny, and one that doesn't help reduce the risk to belief but keeps that risk (or even makes it worse). By recognizing that history, and by creating better narratives and understanding of that narrative, the Church prevents people from discovering something that they didn't know, and because it is supported by the historical evidence, of then believing the narrative that is created around that evidence by critical sources.

You may be okay with progressive and revisionist saying the church lied to us, not me!

[rjohnson7]

57 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

God prepared a brass ball and left it outside a tent. Not much fanfare with that... Or special divining stones are just very abundant, you lose one and can find another if you are spiritually gifted for it.

Really. You call that a comparison?  That's like telling Brother of Jared to go out find some stones to light up the vessels because you're spiritually gifted.

Edited September 5, 2023 by rjohnson7

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

What was the purpose of the blanket which hid JS and anyone seeing?

What about it?  When Joseph Smith used the Nephite interpreters, he would use a blanket to keep them hidden.  When Joseph Smith used the seer stone in the hat, he had no need to use a blanket.

If you look at the document that I linked earlier, you can find all the people who mention a blanket, curtain or being separated.  Of the possible first or second hand witnesses, we have Martin Harris (definitely first-hand witness as he was a scribe), David Whitmer (possibly viewed it as it was in his house but definitely second-hand), and Elizabeth Cowdery (possibly viewed it as the sister of David Whitmer and wife of Oliver Cowdery but definitely second-hand).  There's a bunch of third-hand sources as well.

Martin Harris said in 1840 in an interview by John A. Clark (#45 in the document).

Quote

The way that Smith made his transcripts and transcriptions for Harris was the following. Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of decyphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris’s own account of the matter to me.

David Whitmer said in 1885 in an interview in the Chicago Tribune (#93):

Quote

In order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portière, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides.

David Whitmer said in 1909 in an interview by Nathan Tanner (#98):

Quote

He [David Whitmer] said that Joseph was separated from the scribe by a blanket, as I remember; that he had the Urim and Thummim, and a chocolate colored stone, which he used alternately, as suited his convenience, and he said he believed Joseph could as well accomplish the translation by looking into a hat, or any other stone, as by the use of the Urim and Thummim or the chocolate colored stone.

Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery (sister of David Whitmer, wife of Oliver Cowdery) said in 1870 as recorded by William McLellin (#112):

Quote

And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read the words?] as they appeared before him.

 

If you can find other sources from one of the scribes, I'd love to see.  But based on that, Martin Harris has testified to both using the blanket to separate Joseph and him as well as using the stone in the hat.  David Whitmer and Elizabeth Cowdery both testified that there was no separation.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Darn, I'm having trouble finding page 44. I saw a 44 chapter per se, but no sources. 

Weird.  It should open up a PDF that has 139 pages.  The document doesn't have chapters so I'm not sure what you are looking at.

[rjohnson7]

30 minutes ago, webbles said:

What about it?  When Joseph Smith used the Nephite interpreters, he would use a blanket to keep them hidden.  When Joseph Smith used the seer stone in the hat, he had no need to use a blanket.

 

That's a contradiction, first you quote they used a blanket to hide the interpreters and below you quote there was no separation!

Can't you see that there is confusion and contradiction amongst the witnesses.   Three times JS made correction to the stories being told and wrote countering statements to the fact he used the urim and thummim to translate.  Twice I believe Oliver Cowdery stated the same..... good enough for me, since there were no better than these two witnesses.

 

30 minutes ago, webbles said:

If you look at the document that I linked earlier, you can find all the people who mention a blanket, curtain or being separated.  Of the possible first or second hand witnesses, we have Martin Harris (definitely first-hand witness as he was a scribe), David Whitmer (possibly viewed it as it was in his house but definitely second-hand), and Elizabeth Cowdery (possibly viewed it as the sister of David Whitmer and wife of Oliver Cowdery but definitely second-hand).  There's a bunch of third-hand sources as well.

Martin Harris said in 1840 in an interview by John A. Clark (#45 in the document).

David Whitmer said in 1885 in an interview in the Chicago Tribune (#93):

David Whitmer said in 1909 in an interview by Nathan Tanner (#98):

Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery (sister of David Whitmer, wife of Oliver Cowdery) said in 1870 as recorded by William McLellin (#112):

 

If you can find other sources from one of the scribes, I'd love to see.  But based on that, Martin Harris has testified to both using the blanket to separate Joseph and him as well as using the stone in the hat.  David Whitmer and Elizabeth Cowdery both testified that there was no separation.

The above is a admitted contradiction.

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Really. You call that a comparison?  That's like telling Brother of Jared to go out find some stones to light up the vessels because you're spiritually gifted.

You can disbelieve it if you want, the standard works are the measuring stick by which we measure every man's doctrine. The scriptures only say it was done by the gift and power of God. Some of us are just more open minded than you, it wouldn't matter too much to some of us if it was a rabbit in a hat, or a white salamander, he produced a book from which millions felt the touch of God. We who study the matter usually conclude that Gods ways are not our ways. If Paul can make a holy healing relic out of a handkerchief, Joseph Smith can make an Interpreter out of his childhood well rock.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[rjohnson7]

17 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You can disbelieve it if you want, the standard works are the measuring stick by which we measure every man's doctrine. The scriptures only say it was done by the gift and power of God. Some of us are just more open minded than you, it wouldn't matter too much to some of us if it was a rabbit in hat, or a white salamander, that produced a book from which millions felt the touch of God. We who study the matter usually conclude that Gods ways are not our ways. If Paul can make a holy healing relic out of a handkerchief, Joseph Smith can make an Interpreter out of his childhood well rock.

You're okay with our critics saying the church has lied to us.   You my friend have not dealt with family and friends who leave the church because they believe the church lied to them, and you call me closed minded.  I feel that this topic is just a throw away for you and maybe a little over your head showing your lack of interest for the lost sheep,  Apathy maybe?  Hmm
 

 

The text of the Book of Mormon calls these stones “interpreters” and explains that they “were prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages,” being “kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord” (Mosiah 28:14‒15, 20).

The book also recounts how the Lord gave “two stones” to the brother of Jared, with a promise that they would aid future generations to recover his words. “Write these things and seal them up,” the Lord directs him, “and I will show them in mine own due time unto the children of men.” These stones, the Lord explains, “shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write” (Ether 3:24, 27).

Edited September 5, 2023 by rjohnson7

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 

That's a contradiction, first you quote they used a blanket to hide the interpreters and below you quote there was no separation!

Can't you see that there is confusion and contradiction amongst the witnesses.   Three times JS made correction to the stories being told and wrote countering statements to the fact he used the urim and thummim to translate.  Twice I believe Oliver Cowdery stated the same..... good enough for me, since there were no better than these two witnesses.

 

The above is a admitted contradiction.

You are right that there is confusion and contradiction amongst the witnesses.  But if you ignore those statements, then there is no first hand witness of a blanket/curtain/etc.  Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never mention a blanket/curtain/etc.  You keep bringing up why the blanket/curtain/etc was used but apparently you also disregard all the testimonies about the blanket/curtain/etc.  You can't have it both ways.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Just maybe that will keep folks from reading it.

 

I don’t have the least problem with anyone reading the book or any other of Neville’s stuff.  I have read some of his online material.  I encourage anyone to read the book I f able if involved in seerstone discussions at all, especially if publishing on them oneself.  It is important to know what others are publishing and reading so one will get references being made and why certain aspects have assumed importance for another when it might seem trivial to oneself, especially if those aspects are likely inaccurate so as to present the needed correct info.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Weird.  It should open up a PDF that has 139 pages.  The document doesn't have chapters so I'm not sure what you are looking at.

On the first page it says pages 76-213

And not chapters, but headings with numbers like this:

44. Martin Harris (1834)

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

How about the blanket JS hid behind when translating,  should we just throw it under the buss?  Why would God not allow anyone to see the urim and thummim but it was according to our progressive just fine, no problem, except it's a problem nobody addresses...  

You keep suggesting that God wouldn't allow anyone to see the Nephite Interpreters. That isn't what God told Joseph Smith. You keep ignoring what the text actually says:

Quote

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

This isn't God saying he couldn't show them to anyone. And when you talk about the curtain, this doesn't require us to believe that either it was always there, or that Joseph didn't describe what he was doing to those with him, or that they couldn't observe (through the curtain) some of what was going on.

More to the point, when you portray this as entirely black or white, you end up with a different problem. You ask, why should we push the blanket under the bus - and yet, you are willing to push all of these other witnesses (including Joseph's brothers and mother) under the proverbial bus - just so that you don't have to change your understanding of the past? This is the problem that occurs when we try to emphasize a narrative that doesn't have strong connections to the historical record.

9 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

You may be okay with progressive and revisionist saying the church lied to us, not me!

I have never said that the church lied to us. And you need to stop lumping everyone under these labels that don't really mean what you think they mean. It is muddying your argument - watering it down, making it less helpful.

It is a fact that the LDS Church itself has adopted much of the historical record into its narratives. And you can believe that the LDS Church is somehow progressive, or revisionist, but this means that what you are really saying is that you don't care about what actually happened - you only care about protecting the narrative that explains what you think should have happened. This is how people lose their faith - it is not by accepting more accurate historical accounts that come from first hand sources, it is by continuing to insist that the flawed and incorrect version must be true for the Church and its gospel message to be true.

Edit: I wanted to add one more comment. If the Church's narrative has been wrong, and the Church has now updated that narrative to better reflect what we now know was the historical reality, then there is a group of us (older members who have been members a long time) that will have to deal with this issue. But, most new members and younger members will not experience this same disconnect because the Church has in fact changed what they are telling people, and so those members won't experience the historically inaccurate narratives that you seem to be struggling with so much. The problem isn't with the Church changing the narrative, it is with some of us (as members) being unwilling to change with the Church. It is this sort of believing too much and not too little that creates frail testimonies.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

On the first page it says pages 76-213

And not chapters, but headings with numbers like this:

44. Martin Harris (1834)

Ah, yes in the PDF, it counts by that (I was talking about the page number that my PDF viewer shows).  By that page numbering, it would start on page 118.  And the 44 that you mentioned is one of the sources.  That is the 44th source.  There are 202 sources and each have a number, who said it, through whom (if it was an interview, etc), and when.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Ah, yes in the PDF, it counts by that (I was talking about the page number that my PDF viewer shows).  By that page numbering, it would start on page 118.  And the 44 that you mentioned is one of the sources.  That is the 44th source.  There are 202 sources and each have a number, who said it, through whom (if it was an interview, etc), and when.

Thanks!

[rjohnson7]

15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You keep suggesting that God wouldn't allow anyone to see the Nephite Interpreters. That isn't what God told Joseph Smith. You keep ignoring what the text actually says:

This isn't God saying he couldn't show them to anyone. And when you talk about the curtain, this doesn't require us to believe that either it was always there, or that Joseph didn't describe what he was doing to those with him, or that they couldn't observe (through the curtain) some of what was going on.

More to the point, when you portray this as entirely black or white, you end up with a different problem. You ask, why should we push the blanket under the bus - and yet, you are willing to push all of these other witnesses (including Joseph's brothers and mother) under the proverbial bus - just so that you don't have to change your understanding of the past? This is the problem that occurs when we try to emphasize a narrative that doesn't have strong connections to the historical record.

I have never said that the church lied to us. And you need to stop lumping everyone under these labels that don't really mean what you think they mean. It is muddying your argument - watering it down, making it less helpful.

It is a fact that the LDS Church itself has adopted much of the historical record into its narratives. And you can believe that the LDS Church is somehow progressive, or revisionist, but this means that what you are really saying is that you don't care about what actually happened - you only care about protecting the narrative that explains what you think should have happened. This is how people lose their faith - it is not by accepting more accurate historical accounts that come from first hand sources, it is by continuing to insist that the flawed and incorrect version must be true for the Church and its gospel message to be true.

Edit: I wanted to add one more comment. If the Church's narrative has been wrong, and the Church has now updated that narrative to better reflect what we now know was the historical reality, then there is a group of us (older members who have been members a long time) that will have to deal with this issue. But, most new members and younger members will not experience this same disconnect because the Church has in fact changed what they are telling people, and so those members won't experience the historically inaccurate narratives that you seem to be struggling with so much. The problem isn't with the Church changing the narrative, it is with some of us (as members) being unwilling to change with the Church. It is this sort of believing too much and not too little that creates frail testimonies.

It's obvious you know little to nothing about "The New Mormonism " and those who promote it.  Those who want to see, will see and those who want to hear will hear.....ignorance is bliss for some...

[rjohnson7]

22 hours ago, webbles said:

You are right that there is confusion and contradiction amongst the witnesses.  But if you ignore those statements, then there is no first hand witness of a blanket/curtain/etc.  Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never mention a blanket/curtain/etc.  You keep bringing up why the blanket/curtain/etc was used but apparently you also disregard all the testimonies about the blanket/curtain/etc.  You can't have it both ways.

I see, you believe JS and all the scribes witnessed the means of translation, and you then must believe the plates were always covered and JS could use the brown seer stone with no need of the plates being open.  So why the gold plates and urim and thummim at all, the stone found in the well according to your knowledge could have done it all, oh my!

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I see, you believe JS and all the scribes witnessed the means of translation, and you then must believe the plates were always covered and JS could use the brown seer stone with no need of the plates being open.  So why the gold plates and urim and thummim at all, the stone found in the well according to your knowledge could have done it all, oh my!

No, I don't believe the plates were always covered.  And I don't really know which color the seer stone was, nor do I think it really matters.  I just believe that if you need to look at all of the first hand witness (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma Smith) to get an idea of what happened.  Focusing on just Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery isn't enough to figure out what happened since they both give extremely little information.  For example, neither of them mention the curtain.

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

So why the gold plates and urim and thummim at all

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

It's obvious you know little to nothing about "The New Mormonism " and those who promote it.  Those who want to see, will see and those who want to hear will hear.....ignorance is bliss for some...

This is funny ...

As I recall, I first started engaging what you call "The New Mormonism" back in 1987. @juliann probably still remembers those days at AOL on the Christianity Online Message Boards (COMB). I was a naive teenager at the time. There was the decade and a half I spent arguing with Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel on ZLMB (Zion's Lighthouse Message Board). I started posting here fairly early in the life of the FairMormon message board (which eventually turned into this forum). I was, for many years, a contributor to FairMormon (in 2015, they recognized me with the John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award). I was asked to join the board of Interpreter a decade ago. I am mostly inactive in that role now - mostly what I do is to review submissions in my areas of expertise to determine publishability. I occasionally provide peer review for other other Mormon related journals. If you think that it's obvious that I know little to nothing about "The New Mormonism," I think, perhaps, that it reflects more on what you believe "The New Mormonism" is and what it represents rather than on what I know. I am not a powerhouse in Mormon thought, but I have been involved in the discussion long enough that I do get the occasional recognition.

Now, why not respond to the issues ...

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There was the decade and a half I spent arguing with Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel on ZLMB (Zion's Lighthouse Message Board)

And other critics….I can testify to that, one of our more thorough and informed posters.  I was a moderator for that board and read pretty much everything.  You have always been one of my favourite posters because you have been willing to put effort into your comments, backing them up with substance and engaging with other posters and conflicting evidence without defensiveness.
 

 I burst out laughing when I read rjohnson’s appraisal of your background.

Quote

 

 I was, for many years, a contributor to FairMormon

You are warmly remembered….come back!

Edited September 6, 2023 by Calm