Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?   

That's great, I can't change what you want to believe.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Answering their questions, we do a poor job of that and allow our enemies, progressives and even some of our BYU professors to set the narrative.

What questions haven’t been answered?  Serious question as I see answers being given where possible these days and I wouldn’t want answers that were half guesses.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

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

You got it! 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

That's great, I can't change what you want to believe.

You can’t change it, but if you aren’t here to try and persuade others to share your beliefs, why are you posting?  Actual question, I am curious.

If you don’t explain why it matters, then I can’t follow your thought process on it.

[Calm]

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

From front to back or at all?  I hate reading it in order, much more interesting to read by topic.  I have probably only read it once front to back and that was in seminary.  Studying it, Otoh, all the time.

[rjohnson7]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

From front to back or at all?  I hate reading it in order, much more interesting to read by topic.  I have probably only read it once front to back and that was in seminary.  Studying it, Otoh, all the time.

 

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

From front to back or at all?  I hate reading it in order, much more interesting to read by topic.  I have probably only read it once front to back and that was in seminary.  Studying it, Otoh, all the time.

You're doing good...

[rjohnson7]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can’t change it, but if you aren’t here to try and persuade others to share your beliefs, why are you posting?  Actual question, I am curious.

If you don’t explain why it matters, then I can’t follow your thought process on it.

I thought it would be interesting topic and it seems I was right... it's not about persuade anyone, its know different then if I gave a Elders Quorum lesson.  I see is as sharing knowledge... 

[rjohnson7]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You got it! 

👍

[rjohnson7]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

What questions haven’t been answered?  Serious question as I see answers being given where possible these days and I wouldn’t want answers that were half guesses.

Can you answer any question given by a young person, that is not taught at church.   Do you have enough information to answer why JS used a seer stone and not the urim and thummim or was JS into magic and the occult or why is the Book of Abraham not what JS said was on the papyri.  Are you prepared to do this, I feel I am and have taken the time and research to be able to give a good answer...  

Edited September 7, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

What questions haven’t been answered?  Serious question as I see answers being given where possible these days and I wouldn’t want answers that were half guesses.

Okay, how was JS able to carry the Gold Plates that weighted up to 60 lbs, fight off two muggers?   How is it that JS was still digging for treasure even after Moroni was teaching him?   Why did God hide a stone in a well and make it a seer stone?

Why and how can you answer the question that the Church lied to us?  Why did the Church seem to cover up the 150 billion dollars in investments?  Why did the Church use tithing money to build a Mall?

Why are our Temple rites similar to Masons?   Why do we not have the Gold Plates?   Why do we only have the papyri of the Book of Abraham and its nothing more then a funeral text...so are you prepared to give a answer to all these issues?

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Okay, how was JS able to carry the Gold Plates that weighted up to 60 lbs, fight off two muggers?   How is it that JS was still digging for treasure even after Moroni was teaching him?   Why did God hide a stone in a well and make it a seer stone?

Why and how can you answer the question that the Church lied to us?  Why did the Church seem to cover up the 150 billion dollars in investments?  Why did the Church use tithing money to build a Mall?

Why are our Temple rites similar to Masons?   Why do we not have the Gold Plates?   Why do we only have the papyri of the Book of Abraham and its nothing more then a funeral text...so are you prepared to give a answer to all these issues?

How do you answer these questions?

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

How do you answer these questions?

Chuckle... one at a time 😇😁

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

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

 

Because they did.

I'm still missing your point.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

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.

When you say "second account", are you meaning that he didn't write the thing himself?  Because you do realize that the person who recorded it was an assistant church historian?  And it was printed in two different church publications.  You really think that the assistant church historian made it up?  You believe that Martin Harris wouldn't have put out a retraction or something if it had been incorrect?  Or maybe Brigham Young would have corrected it?  Why?

And if you accept that Joseph Smith used a stone in a hat, then what exactly are you arguing?  Are you really trying to argue (like "a man that can translate" does) that he did it as a "demonstration"?  Why would he do that?  What is the point of it?  Why mislead people?  And why do it multiple times to multiple people in multiple settings?  That sounds more like a conman than a prophet.

[rjohnson7]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because they did.

I'm still missing your point.

 

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because they did.

I'm still missing your point.

Well stay on this particular topic and see if you eventually get my point or reread my post they petty much are my point

[rjohnson7]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

When you say "second account", are you meaning that he didn't write the thing himself?  Because you do realize that the person who recorded it was an assistant church historian?  And it was printed in two different church publications.  You really think that the assistant church historian made it up?  You believe that Martin Harris wouldn't have put out a retraction or something if it had been incorrect?  Or maybe Brigham Young would have corrected it?  Why?

And if you accept that Joseph Smith used a stone in a hat, then what exactly are you arguing?  Are you really trying to argue (like "a man that can translate" does) that he did it as a "demonstration"?  Why would he do that?  What is the point of it?  Why mislead people?  And why do it multiple times to multiple people in multiple settings?  That sounds more like a conman than a prophet.

I believe you're wrong, it was a news article.  What I accept is some people, Whitmers and others only witnessed a demonstration, the means of the translation and gold plates were always hidden, please demonstrate otherwise.

Edited September 8, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Nevo]

For anyone interested, here is Leonard Arrington's diary entry from 1975:

Quote

I do not recall attending very many sacrament meetings as a child—just Sunday school and Quarterly Conference. This was probably because we had to travel by buggy and my parents did not want to travel at night. It might also have been because my father was away many Sundays on High Council business. We did not learn much doctrine or scripture. I recall studying the Book of Mormon and the Bible and Church history, but more as history than as doctrine or theology.

Something must have influenced me to read the Bible when I was 13, and [to] follow it up with the Book of Mormon. I have not read either completely through since then, although I have devoted many hours to reading in them. I did not enjoy reading either, but think I would today. I have appreciated the new translations of the Bible, and wish we had a Book of Mormon which eliminated the “and it came to pass” and other colloquial expressions. I have often thought it would be interesting to read the Book of Mormon in a foreign language so as to get away from the early American frontier idiom of the English edition.

— Leonard J. Arrington diary, 26 April 1975, in Gary James Bergera, ed., Confessions of a Mormon Historian: The Diaries of Leonard J. Arrington, 1971–1997, Volume 1, Church Historian, 1971–75 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018), 1007–1008.

Arrington died in 1999, so it's possible that he took another stab at it in his last 23+ years of life. In any case, it doesn't really matter. It has no bearing on his credibility as a historian.
 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Nevo

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Nevo said:

For anyone interested, here is Leonard Arrington's diary entry from 1975:

Arrington died in 1999, so it's possible that he took another stab at it in his last 23+ years of life. In any case, it doesn't really matter. It has no bearing on his credibility as a historian.
 

Or his faithfulness as a member.  Thank goodness our commitment to scripture is not dependent on reading them from start to finish.  I would be in a sad state…to be honest, I am not sure I even manage to cover the entire text of the Book of Mormon that way.  I know I have never read the New Testament that way.  Have for sure read the D&C that way (we did that as a family when we were in Russia when we had very little distraction, that was fun) and almost positive the Old Testament all the way through (I was hooked on it and didn’t want to miss anything).

Edited September 8, 2023 by Calm

[Nevo]

38 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

What I accept is some people, Whitmers and others only witnessed a demonstration, the means of the translation and gold plates were always hidden, please demonstrate otherwise.

This will have no effect on you, I'm sure, but here is Elizabeth Ann Whitmer again. Oliver Cowdery's wife of 17 years.

“I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated most of it at my Father’s house. 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 in his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light. . . ."

— Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, in William E. McLellin, “My Dear Friends,” February 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Nevo

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

This will have no effect on you, I'm sure, but here is Elizabeth Ann Whitmer again. Oliver Cowdery's wife of 17 years.

“I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated most of it at my Father’s house. 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 in his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light. . . ."

— Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, in William E. McLellin, “My Dear Friends,” February 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.

You will be amazed at all of the account describing the sheet which hung between JS and the scribes...

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2009/10/24/twa-project-the-curtain-accounts

 

and again this may have no affect on you.... hmmm!

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

For anyone interested, here is Leonard Arrington's diary entry from 1975:

Arrington died in 1999, so it's possible that he took another stab at it in his last 23+ years of life. In any case, it doesn't really matter. It has no bearing on his credibility as a historian.
 

Thx, good post...

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I believe you're wrong, it was a news article.

Wrong about what?  Who wrote Martin Harris' story?

It was printed in the Millennial Star in 1886 (the official church publication in England, editor at that time is Daniel H. Wells, an apostle) - https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/28210/rec/48

It was printed in Historical Record in 1887 by Andrew Jenson, later to be assistant church historian.

 

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

What I accept is some people, Whitmers and others only witnessed a demonstration, the means of the translation and gold plates were always hidden, please demonstrate otherwise.

What was the purpose of this "demonstration"?  Why did Joseph Smith do this "demonstration"?  I'd really love to know why because it makes absolutely no sense to me that he would do this.  It turns him into a conman.

Also, as mentioned earlier, Emma Smith also stated that it was with a seer stone and it was in a letter that she wrote.

Quote

Now, the first part my husband translated, was translated by the use of Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost After that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.

 

[webbles]

18 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

You will be amazed at all of the account describing the sheet which hung between JS and the scribes...

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2009/10/24/twa-project-the-curtain-accounts

 

and again this may have no affect on you.... hmmm!

But you don't accept any of those sources because they are either second hand, third hand, or written by someone who isn't the first hand source.  We talked about this, remember?

[Nevo]

45 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

You will be amazed at all of the account describing the sheet which hung between JS and the scribes...

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2009/10/24/twa-project-the-curtain-accounts

and again this may have no affect on you.... hmmm!

No, I'm not amazed. I accept that a blanket or curtain was used, at least some of the time, to separate Joseph Smith and Martin Harris while Harris was acting as scribe.

And there was evidently a blanket in Fayette too. But not between Joseph Smith and his scribes. David Whitmer told the Chicago Tribune in 1885 that "in order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, 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 the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith's relatives besides" (see Welch, Opening the Heavens, 153).

In fact, there are no credible accounts of a blanket or curtain concealing Joseph Smith in Fayette, which is where nearly all of the translation of the Book of Mormon transpired. (Nathan A. Tanner's 1909 letter to his son, reciting from memory a visit with David Whitmer in 1886, is not such an account.) Whitmer, in his lifetime, explicitly and repeatedly declared that he was an eyewitness of the translation. As he put it in his letter to the Kansas City Journal in 1881: "My statement was and now is that in translating he put the stone in his hat and [put] his face in his hat so as to exclude the light and that then the light and characters appeared in the hat together with the interpretation which he uttered and was written by the scribe." 

David Whitmer saw Joseph Smith translating using a seer stone in a hat, as did "the entire Whitmer household." Not once, but "often" as Elizabeth Whitmer stated.

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

But you don't accept any of those sources because they are either second hand, third hand, or written by someone who isn't the first hand source.  We talked about this, remember?

My point being, just as with the rock in a hat, there are only two first hand accounts, JS and Cowdery.   Reason being is Cowdery was given the opportunity to translate and none of the others were.  Also I believe the plates needed to be open when translating and each carving translated individually.   If JS did the translation without the plates or the Urim and Thummim then why were they buried as a bundle and taken back as a bundle, meaning the plates, the Urim and Thummim, the compass and sword of Laban, but not he seer stone?

Edited September 8, 2023 by rjohnson7