Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Google will only get you so far.

If you haven't read the Prince book that you reference, I recommend it. I would like to quote a little from Chapter 31 that deals with the topic that you raise in retrospect (pp. 456-457, 459):

It is easy to talk about those in Church leadership that resisted this shift to a more open and accurate history - but you also need to include the fact that the Church did come around. The publication of the Joseph Smith Papers would not have happened without Arrington's work. And the 'New Mormon History' has effectively been embraced by the LDS Church. There isn't a going backward at this point - which really moots the argument that we shouldn't have gone that route at all.

Have you ever heard of the swearing Elders?   What did you think of them and their goals to rewrite the church narrative?
Here is a fact and not a judgement, Arrington only read the BOM once, which he admitted.

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Here is a fact and not a judgement, Arrington only read the BOM once, which he admitted.

The fact you mention it means it is a judgement.

I don't recall a temple or baptism question regarding the number of times one reads the BoM.

You are really stretching here to make a point.

 

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

The fact you mention it means it is a judgement.

I don't recall a temple or baptism question regarding the number of times one reads the BoM.

You are really stretching here to make a point.

 

Why do you say I made a judgement.... please expound on that

[CA Steve]

Just now, rjohnson7 said:

Why do you say I made a judgement.... please expound on that

it's these kinds of responses that lead me to believe you are either a troll or someone who is totally unaware of the implications of what he types. If you cannot see the judgement in your initial response, I don't think I can help you.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I don't think the church lied...

You have stated as much already, but that isn't what I asked. 

This is my third time asking now.  Please review the question and respond accordingly. 

 

[webbles]

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I believe in truthful history and not by some 2nd and third hand account.... LDS history is complex and limited in some areas of JS and his money digging, seer stone in a hat, lazy youth and magic and occult practices. 

In some cases, all we have is second or third hand accounts.  For example, Joseph never said how the translation worked.  He just said it was by the power of God.  Everything else is second hand or worse.

You also appear to ignore some first hand accounts.  Emma Smith was a scribe, Martin Harris was a scribe, David Whitmer was in the room when someone was scribing. That's first hand accounts of what the scribe saw.  All three say they saw Joseph use his seer stone in the hat.

[rjohnson7]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

it's these kinds of responses that lead me to believe you are either a troll or someone who is totally unaware of the implications of what he types. If you cannot see the judgement in your initial response, I don't think I can help you.

It's in his diary, it's information he put out there to be read.  How is commenting a judgement?

[rjohnson7]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I’d be happy to discuss that with you in a thread related to that subject.  
 

I am glad to hear your testimony wouldn’t be affected by them lying.  

Do you consider it lying to intentionally concealing “difficult” history because they didn’t view it as helpful?

Yes, intentionally lying about anything, even knowing you know but don't want other to find out.... can you now answer my question

[rjohnson7]

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

In some cases, all we have is second or third hand accounts.  For example, Joseph never said how the translation worked.  He just said it was by the power of God.  Everything else is second hand or worse.

You also appear to ignore some first hand accounts.  Emma Smith was a scribe, Martin Harris was a scribe, David Whitmer was in the room when someone was scribing. That's first hand accounts of what the scribe saw.  All three say they saw Joseph use his seer stone in the hat.

Are you calming JS and Cowdery never made a recorded first hand witness claim of only using the Urim and thummim?  I will give you time to actually do the research.... if after that you can't find their claims I will help you.

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Have you ever heard of the swearing Elders?   What did you think of them and their goals to rewrite the church narrative?

*shrug*

You are deflecting again. Do you think that the current First Presidency is wrong in accepting a more accurate history of the beginnings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It's not a difficult question.

18 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Here is a fact and not a judgement, Arrington only read the BOM once, which he admitted.

Once again, Google is not being your friend. I have two comments here.

First, James F. Stoddard III (whose website I assume you picked up this detail - let me know if I am wrong and show me where you did get it) isn't what I would consider to be a reliable source. You should look at his foundation's website (he passed a couple of years ago, but its still there). I mean it's probably a good thing if you like Wayne May or Rodney Meldrum. Those names (I hope) don't mean a whole lot to you - but they will ring a lot of warning bells on these forums - even for those who don't know who James F. Stoddard III is.

Second - and more to the point, this is based on a comment made in one of Arrington's diaries in which he said that he had only read the Book of Mormon straight through from cover to cover once. I'll be honest - the last time I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover was on my mission. Do you think that this mean that I haven't read the Book of Mormon since my mission? The journal entry that Stoddard refers to here was written decades before Arrington's death (so its even possible that he read it from cover to cover in his later years), but, what Arrington's journal does say is that he did continue to read it - just not from cover to cover. So Stoddard, with his agenda isn't really being particularly honest in his depiction.

[rjohnson7]

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

In some cases, all we have is second or third hand accounts.  For example, Joseph never said how the translation worked.  He just said it was by the power of God.  Everything else is second hand or worse.

You also appear to ignore some first hand accounts.  Emma Smith was a scribe, Martin Harris was a scribe, David Whitmer was in the room when someone was scribing. That's first hand accounts of what the scribe saw.  All three say they saw Joseph use his seer stone in the hat.

Yes that is their claim... read "The man that could translate". I can' nor will I do the research for others.  So once more I stand by claim, JS never translated with a rock in a hat.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why am I hearing a 3 year old temper tantrum in my head when I read this? I'm actually tending my granddaughter and she's having one now.

It is the large green type. We have been trained by custom to see large font like capitals, meaning yelling. The green makes is childlike to me. 

The fact that your granddaughter is yelling is making it impossible for you not to see it that way, lol

No offense meant, rjohnson, truly; it is just the way we are used to interpreting large font. 
 

When we first could use color, I used to play with it in my writing, changing words for emphasis. But now it just doesn’t seem right. Same with using fancy fonts. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

You are deflecting again. Do you think that the current First Presidency is wrong in accepting a more accurate history of the beginnings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It's not a difficult question.

 

shrug!

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Once again, Google is not being your friend. I have two comments here.

First, James F. Stoddard III (whose website I assume you picked up this detail - let me know if I am wrong and show me where you did get it) isn't what I would consider to be a reliable source. You should look at his foundation's website (he passed a couple of years ago, but it's still there). I mean it's probably a good thing if you like Wayne May or Rodney Meldrum. Those names (I hope) don't mean a whole lot to you - but they will ring a lot of warning bells on these forums - even for those who don't know who James F. Stoddard III is.

I'm aware of Stoddard and daughter, I have  not used them for any of my sources.

 

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Second - and more to the point, this is based on a comment made in one of Arrington's diaries in which he said that he had only read the Book of Mormon straight through from cover to cover once. I'll be honest - the last time I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover was on my mission. Do you think that this mean that I haven't read the Book of Mormon since my mission? The journal entry that Stoddard refers to here was written decades before Arrington's death (so its even possible that he read it from cover to cover in his later years), but, what Arrington's journal does say is that he did continue to read it - just not from cover to cover. So Stoddard, with his agenda isn't really being particularly honest in his depiction.

I have read it 15 times, that does not make me any better than someone who has never read it.  What is your point, we are discussing how the new Mormonism has changed church traditionalist history radically... I mean for anyone to believe a rock, stone, found in a well and not prepared by God unlike the Urim and thummim which was prepared for the purpose of being the means of translation is just not paying attention to reality.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

No, this is serous about how we are being accused of lying about our history... you don't have to respond if your mind is made up and your not worried about our youth haveing faith crisis and leaving the church.  I am concerned and don't play games.

I haven't been following this thread very closely but I'm very confused by what your goal is here.

You seem more concerned that the youth will think they've been lied to because the scholars pointed it out then whether they've actually been lied to or not.

People leave the church when they find out they've been lied to or at least feel like they were. The answer isn't to pretend that history never happened and let them keep their heads in the sand. When they discover truth it hits much harder if it comes from outside than within.

As a church we need to be 100% honest about our history. Hiding things to make people keep their testimonies is a bad idea. Every time!

Edited September 7, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, rjohnson7 said:

I'm aware of Stoddard and daughter, I have  not used them for any of my sources.

Then what was your source? I can't imagine you can make a statement like that after having actually read the diaries.

Just now, rjohnson7 said:

hat is your point, we are discussing how the new Mormonism has changed church traditionalist history radically... I mean for anyone to believe a rock, stone, found in a well and not prepared by God unlike the Urim and thummim which was prepared for the purpose of being the means of translation is just not paying attention to reality.

And yet the First Presidency of the LDS Church has been incorporating that New Mormon History into their website, and incorporating it into the historical discussions. Are they wrong to do so?

[rjohnson7]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the large green type. We have been trained by custom to see large font like capitals, meaning yelling. The green makes is childlike to me. 

The fact that your granddaughter is yelling is making it impossible for you not to see it that way, lol

No offense meant, rjohnson, truly; it is just the way we are used to interpreting large font. 
 

When we first could use color, I used to play with it in my writing, changing words for emphasis. But now it just doesn’t seem right. Same with using fancy fonts. 

I have my reasons, but thx for the no offense....🤤

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Are you calming JS and Cowdery never made a recorded first hand witness claim of only using the Urim and thummim?  I will give you time to actually do the research.... if after that you can't find their claims I will help you.

First, Oliver Cowdery is NOT a first hand witness of the translation process.  Only Joseph Smith is.  He is the only one that looked in either the seer stone or the Nephite interpreters.  He is the only one that knows how that process works and there is no source from him directly on how it happened.  There's plenty of second and third hand witnesses but nothing from him.

Second, Oliver Cowdery is NOT the only first hand witness of the scribal process.  I don't know why you keep harping on that.  It ruins your point by only focusing on him.  You keep saying that you only accept first hand witnesses and then go and ignore the other first hand witnesses.

14 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes that is their claim... read "The man that could translate". I can' nor will I do the research for others.  So once more I stand by claim, JS never translated with a rock in a hat.

Yes, Joseph Smith never was explicit about a seer stone in the hat.  But, as has been already mentioned, "urim and thummim" means both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters.  Since he only said "urim and thummim" and never clarified what he meant by that, you can't use that source to say he never used the seer stone in a hat.

In addition, of the people who had first hand knowledge of what the scribes saw, multiple of them say he used the seer stone in a hat.  Stop ignoring those first hand accounts just because you don't like them.

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I haven't been following this thread very closely but I'm very confused by watch your goal is here.

You seem more concerned that the youth will think they've been lied to because the scholars pointed it out then whether they've actually been lied to or not.

People leave the church when they find out they've been lied to or at least feel like they were. The answer isn't to pretend that history never happened and let them keep their heads in the sand. When they discover truth it hits much harder if it comes from outside than within.

As a church we need to be 100% honest about our history. Hiding things to make people keep their testimonies is a bad idea. Every time!

That's been my point, our critics, even members and church scholars have claimed the church lied about our history.
 

 

[rjohnson7]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

First, Oliver Cowdery is NOT a first hand witness of the translation process.  Only Joseph Smith is.  He is the only one that looked in either the seer stone or the Nephite interpreters.  He is the only one that knows how that process works and there is no source from him directly on how it happened.  There's plenty of second and third hand witnesses but nothing from him.

Second, Oliver Cowdery is NOT the only first hand witness of the scribal process.  I don't know why you keep harping on that.  It ruins your point by only focusing on him.  You keep saying that you only accept first hand witnesses and then go and ignore the other first hand witnesses.

Yes, Joseph Smith never was explicit about a seer stone in the hat.  But, as has been already mentioned, "urim and thummim" means both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters.  Since he only said "urim and thummim" and never clarified what he meant by that, you can't use that source to say he never used the seer stone in a hat.

In addition, of the people who had first hand knowledge of what the scribes saw, multiple of them say he used the seer stone in a hat.  Stop ignoring those first hand accounts just because you don't like them.

Chuckle, I never stated that there were not reliable witnesses of the seer stone in a hat, my point is the rock in the hat was not the true means of the translation.

Edited September 7, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Was that necessary?  When have I ridiculed you?    

While tending my granddaughter, she laid down on my laptop keys and what I had typed was erased.  I'll try again.

I'm sorry about ridiculing, this is a sensitive topic to me. I went through a faith crisis back in 2007 at the age of 45. I had been a fully believing member, who held a current temple recommend and was in a RS presidency. As I was searching for something on the internet something popped up, a website brought up Joseph Smith's many wives with the ages, and ones with living husbands already. Well, it felt like everything was in slow motion, shock does that, something I'd never heard of.

Ever since, I've researched and found all kinds of unknowns about the church, this led to my losing a strong testimony. I use to wonder why in church we were always being told to work on our testimonies. It was a given to me, never doubted. Wasn't always perfect but never doubted. 

So you see why the church needs to be more forthcoming and accurate and blunt about it. I had always known about Brigham Young's polygamy and it had never fazed me. Too bad I learned later the way he lived it was similar to Joseph Smiths way.

Had Leonard J. Arrington, known as "the Father of Mormon History", and others like him were able to keep history on pace, members like myself might not have had to go through this horrific experience. 

My granddaughter needs me, maybe I'll post more. Sorry again, for being rude.

 

 

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Chuckle, I never stated that there were reliable witnesses of the seer stone in a hat, my point is the rock in the hat was not the true means of the translation.

Wow.  Really, just wow.  That is not what you have been saying.

Ok, then how did Joseph Smith translate while Emma Smith was next to him and his head was in a hat?  Or how did Joseph Smith translate while David Whitmer was in the room watching him with his head in a hat?  Or why was Joseph's ability to translate affected when Martin Harris switched out the stone in the hat?

Edited September 7, 2023 by webbles

[rjohnson7]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Then what was your source? I can't imagine you can make a statement like that after having actually read the diaries.

And yet the First Presidency of the LDS Church has been incorporating that New Mormon History into their website, and incorporating it into the historical discussions. Are they wrong to do so?

I have read all the church essays, where does it require one has to agree with it... the BOM is true, I had a intense spiritual experience of its truthfulness...

[rjohnson7]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

While tending my granddaughter, she laid down on my laptop keys and what I had typed was erased.  I'll try again.

I'm sorry about ridiculing, this is a sensitive topic to me. I went through a faith crisis back in 2007 at the age of 45. I had been a fully believing member, who held a current temple recommend and was in a RS presidency. As I was searching for something on the internet something popped up, a website brought up Joseph Smith's many wives with the ages, and ones with living husbands already. Well, it felt like everything was in slow motion, shock does that, something I'd never heard of.

Ever since, I've researched and found all kinds of unknowns about the church, this led to my losing a strong testimony. I use to wonder why in church we were always being told to work on our testimonies. It was a given to me, never doubted. Wasn't always perfect but never doubted. 

So you see why the church needs to be more forthcoming and accurate and blunt about it. I had always known about Brigham Young's polygamy and it had never fazed me. Too bad I learned later the way he lived it was similar to Joseph Smiths way.

Had Leonard J. Arrington, known as "the Father of Mormon History", and others like him were able to keep history on pace, members like myself might not have had to go through this horrific experience. 

My granddaughter needs me, maybe I'll post more. Sorry again, for being rude.

 

 

Apology accepted, let's be friends, but not necessarily always on the same page.

Edited September 7, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

Wow.  Really, just wow.  That is not what you have been saying.

Ok, then how did Joseph Smith translate while Emma Smith was next to him and his head was in a hat?  Or how did Joseph Smith translate while David Whitmer was in the room watching him with his head in a hat?  Or why was Joseph's ability to translate affected when Martin Harris switched out the stone in the hat?

Sorry, I went back and made a correction.... it should have read, never stated there were not reliable witnesses. ... my bad.    Harris account was a second account, not original.

Edited September 7, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

.. I mean for anyone to believe a rock, stone, found in a well and not prepared by God unlike the Urim and thummim which was prepared for the purpose of being the means of translation is just not paying attention to reality.

All things testify of God.  Why can’t God prepare a stone and then place it where a well will be dug for Joseph to find?  If he can prepare and use so mundane a tool as a 14 year old farm boy, why wouldn’t he prepare and use any stone that is a part of his creation?

Are you a stone snob?