Joseph Smith's Seer Stone Photos Released

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(As this thread continues to discuss this, please take a moment and say a prayer for all those Mormon faithful, who because of this, are now experiencing not only a crisis of faith, but possible a crisis of identity. Both are very painful experiences.)
 
Marie5890 said:
(As this thread continues to discuss this, please take a moment and say a prayer for all those Mormon faithful, who because of this, are now experiencing not only a crisis of faith, but possible a crisis of identity. Both are very painful experiences.)
Click to expand...
Prayer said, Marie. Thank you!
 
gazelam said:
Perhaps you were unaware of this 1993 Ensign article that references the Seer Stone in the process of translating the Book of Mormon.

lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng
Click to expand...
This article is fraught with problems.

Re: “silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate…”

Where are the silver bows, the breastplate, the golden plates with bearing inscriptions in the Semitic language, using a modified Egyptian type of script? Other than a couple of rocks recently produced, there’s no physical evidence. If the golden plates could be produced and the translation even remotely authenticated, maybe the rocks would have some meaning but we know that won’t happen.

Re: “I am intrigued that Joseph Smith—an unschooled young man in rural America—could have translated this Semitic language mix into the English language.”

There’s no evidence that such a translation occurred. In fact, if we look at the wholly erroneous translation of the BoA, we can reasonably infer that JS wasn’t actually “translating” anything at all the traditional sense to produce the BoM. He was making things up at best or plagiarizing at worst, probably a combination of both.

Re: “Think of the short time Joseph took to translate the Book of Mormon.”

Translated… Meh. A lot of it was simply plagiarized. If plagiarism equates to writing, then I could “write” a significant tome in a shorter period than that. Significant passages of the BoM are just duplicating chunks of the Bible or other works. Add in all the “and it came to passes” and all you’re left with is a booklet. (Apologies to Mark Twain.) The rapid authorship is not terribly impressive when you look at the actual original content involved.

Re: “[The BoM] refutes the practice of infant baptism.”

Ok, but early Christian practiced infant baptism, as have most Christians throughout history (Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.). The rejection of infant baptism is a minority and relatively modern view that JS adopted from his comtemporaries.

Re: “[The BoM] refutes methods of baptism other than that of immersion…”

Ok, but early Church fathers and Christianity throughout history has honored varying forms of baptism. Even the Biblical account of Jesus’ baptism is not as conclusive as some seem to think. Again, this is just a relatively modern view that JS adopted from his contemporaries

Re: "The Book of Mormon reveals that Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary, is literally the Son of God. "

If by “literally,” this article means God the Father had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary to produce Jesus, then I would contend this is a offensive and blasphemous teaching that no true Christian accepts. I know the modern LDS church in their desire to be accepted as mainstream now reject the idea, but early Mormon prophets clearly taught this idea and it seems to be echoed in this 1993 article.

Yuck. I don’t want to read this article anymore. It’s anti-Christian rubbish and gives no credibility to the rocks.
 
gazelam said:
Perhaps you were unaware of this 1993 Ensign article that references the Seer Stone in the process of translating the Book of Mormon.

lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng
Click to expand...
1993? Gosh I was out for 8 yrs by then. The only rocks in the JS BoM story then were those in the mythical urim and thumim. A seer stone was outrageously anti-Mormon. But if the LDS Church produced photos of a photo of the urim and thumim, that might be something.

I expect we’ll have sacred stone jewelry and knick knacks at Deseret Book in the near future.

BTw, the LDS Church is known for changing the contents of its publications, so, unless someone has a copy of an original 1993 Ensign, I wouldn’t go all gaga over this link. A photo of a photo will be fine.

And also BTW, I’m not convinced this rock was Smith’s. Could be any old rock.
 
iepuras said:
Not surprised that he is trotting out this Ensign article. It’s been making the rounds.

My question is where is the stone in hat translation method described in seminary lesson manuals, Sunday School lesson manuals, missionary lesson manuals (i.e., any correlated material)?

Gazelam, I will take you more seriously if you can provide a link to an official lesson manual that describes the stone in hat translation method. When you were a missionary, did you tell your investigators that Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon by looking at a seer stone in a hat? Or did you talk about the golden plates?

Below is a picture depicting the translation in the Preach My Gospel missionary manual. When will the artwork in the Preach My Gospel manual be updated to more accurately reflect what actually happened? Will a photograph of the stone be added?
Click to expand...
That’s the picture I have seen in Mormon homes. There is also a picture of him looking down into a hat that was always considered “anti Mormon”. Will the picture below become “anti” now?😦
 
Marie5890 said:
(As this thread continues to discuss this, please take a moment and say a prayer for all those Mormon faithful, who because of this, are now experiencing not only a crisis of faith, but possible a crisis of identity. Both are very painful experiences.)
Click to expand...
:gopray2:

That they not throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
I went to college in Utah and while there studied Mormonism. Not that I was considering converting, I just wanted to know what they believed so I could answer why I wouldn’t convert. I know back then, the early 90s, I learned JS “translated” the gold plates into BoM while sitting behind a curtain, peering into a hat with magic rocks. I remember seeing a drawing depicting that scene.

Regardless non mormons know it’s a bunch a hooey and I would guess some mormons also know it’s crazy but stay because of family.
 
Horton said:
I I know back then, the early 90s, I learned JS “translated” the gold plates into BoM while sitting behind a curtain, peering into a hat with magic rocks. I remember seeing a drawing depicting that scene.
Click to expand...
Where did you learn/see this?
 
JaminB123 said:
This article is fraught with problems.

Re: “silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate…”

Where are the silver bows, the breastplate, the golden plates with bearing inscriptions in the Semitic language, using a modified Egyptian type of script?
Click to expand...
I’d settle for the stone box that Joseph claimed the plates, breastplate et al were in. He never reported removing the box from the hill.
51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.
Click to expand...
52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.
Click to expand...
  • Joseph Smith - History 51-52
Click to expand...
Note that Joseph claimed the box was made of stones and cement and was in the side of the hill covered by a large, heavy stone. No one from the LDS Church has ever explained why this apparently very durable stone/cement box was there in the hill for 1400 years but now all traces of it are gone.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
Hello.
Not much time recently, but I must ask.
For.those who didn’t know of “seer stone” (and for those who did) does this mean that you no longer believe in a naturalistic explanation for the BOM and the genisis of the CoJCoLDS?
Charity, TOM
 
RebeccaJ said:
Where did you learn/see this?
Click to expand...
I don’t remember but it was in a book I read. It’s been more than 25 years since I lived in Utah. I’m sure the book wasn’t an approved LDS book. I checked it out of the university library. I remember thinking how Wizard of Oz’ish it was, the man behind the curtain, looking into a hat, and telling his scribe what to write.
TOmNossor said:
Hello.
Not much time recently, but I must ask.
For.those who didn’t know of “seer stone” (and for those who did) does this mean that you no longer believe in a naturalistic explanation for the BOM and the genisis of the CoJCoLDS?
Charity, TOM
Click to expand...
I’ve never believed in any explanation for the BoM except that it is a result of part plagiarism and part fantasy.
 
TOmNossor said:
Hello.
Not much time recently, but I must ask.
For.those who didn’t know of “seer stone” (and for those who did) does this mean that you no longer believe in a naturalistic explanation for the BOM and the genisis of the CoJCoLDS?
Charity, TOM
Click to expand...
No. Why do you think it would?
 
RebeccaJ said:
No. Why do you think it would?
Click to expand...
I have long found the naturalistic explanations for the BOM and the CoJCoLDS to be far less compelling than the solely naturalistic explanations for 5th century Christianity. I believe that 5th century Christianity has supernatural sources just as I believe the BOM has supernatural sources. Some things on this thread lead me to believe that Catholics here were looking for a non-naturalistic way of explaining the BOM.
If that is not the point, then what is the point?
It would seem to me that in the naturalistic world in which I live, the existence of a seer stone would be a way to embarrass the CoJCoLDS. Is that your point. Those with flying spaghetti monster bumper stickers will surely align their selves with you here.

First, give me truth. But if all claims were equally likely (and I of course do not think they are) I would expect God’s church to be a divine church with public revelation instead of a church that claims that public revelation ended about 2000 years ago. My engineering mind might not appreciate seer stones, but it doesn’t appreciate turning water into wine or men rising from the dead either. This doesn’t of course mean that the weird is somehow compelling evidence for truth, just that it has very little negative impact if any.

Charity, TOm
 
RebeccaJ said:
It depends on how long ago you were reading. 2002 Grant Palmr’s An Insider’s View, but he references older works.
Click to expand...
It was earlier than 2002. I lived in Utah in the early 90s. The story of a man reading gold plates while looking at rocks in a hat…well I found it to be ludicrous. I mean we’re talking about God here. If (a big if) there had been a great apostacy and God wanted to bring back the one true Church He would come up with something, well more God like than a man looking in a hat. Just saying!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top