Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process
Mormon Times ^ | Nov. 30, 2009 | Michael R. Ash

Posted on 12/04/2009 4:17:34 PM PST by Colofornian

As we continue our discussion about the Book of Mormon translation, some members may be troubled that the process doesn't match their conceptions of how they thought the process worked. For members who were unaware of the seer stone in the hat, at least two questions or concerns may arise: 1) Is it strange that Joseph used a stone in a hat? 2) Why have we have always been told that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim?

To answer the first question we might also ask: Is it strange that a man could rise from the dead, walk on water, heal the lame, create the heavens, and answer the prayers of billions of people? There are basically two kinds of non-Mormons who reject LDS beliefs: A) those who believe that there is no God (or that if such a being exists he doesn't interact with humans), and B) those who believe that a supreme being exists and has communicated with mankind.

For those who don't believe in a God, all supernatural and miraculous events are automatically brushed aside as imaginary, impossible, etc. All spiritual experiences are seen as "strange," superstitious, and possibly the result of the evolutionary process of the mind. Joseph's translation process is just as strange as any other supernatural claim.

For those who believe that God can and has communicated with mankind, it seems hypocritical to summarily dismiss Joseph's method of translation because it doesn't fit with pre-conceived views of how God communicates. As with all spiritual claims, the only way to know if they come from God is to ask God for a witness.

For Mormons who think the seer stone in the hat is strange compared to a translation through the Nephite Interpreters, one might ask: Why is a translation through a stone outside of a hat (the Nephite Interpreters) acceptable, while a translation through a stone inside of a hat (the seer stone) is unusual? It should be obvious that if someone finds the one normal and the other odd, that such a perspective is based on nothing more than pre-conceived assumptions.

Number 2: Why have we have always been told that Joseph translated the book with the Urim and Thummim? The answer is simple: The early Saints referred to both the Interpreters and the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." The real problem is not that the seer stone is called the Urim and Thummim, but rather that when most modern members hear the phrase they typically envision the Interpreters. Why is this? The critics claim that most members don't know about the stone and the hat because the church hides the information. This claim, however, is false.

That Joseph used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon has been mentioned in several official church publications such as the Improvement Era, the Ensign, and even the Friend by such people as B.H. Roberts, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Neal A. Maxwell and Russell M. Nelson. It stretches the imagination to believe that the church would hide this information if it has been included in official church magazines.

So why are some members unfamiliar with the translation process? The answer is a bit more complex. This topic and the frequent but false claim that the church "hides its history from members" will be discussed in greater depth in a future issue.

Number 3: Why isn't the seer stone used today? In Joseph's world, he and many of his contemporaries believed that God could reveal things through a seer stone. Joseph's mind was already open and prepared for revelation and a translation process through the Urim and Thummin. The Lord utilized Joseph's worldview to help restore the gospel. If Joseph had been skeptical of seer stones, he may not have been receptive to translating the Book of Mormon.

As Joseph continued to receive more revelations, he discovered that the seer stone was merely an elementary tool for teaching him how to focus his thoughts on the things of God. By the time he was working on the Inspired Version of the New Testament, he no longer needed the seer stone. Joseph apparently told Orson Pratt that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim "when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument," (Richard L. Anderson, BYU Studies 24:4, 489-560).


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Other Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: antimormonthread; bookofmormon; josephsmith; lds; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
From the commentary: For members who were unaware of the seer stone in the hat, at least two questions or concerns may arise: 1) Is it strange that Joseph used a stone in a hat? 2) Why have we have always been told that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim?

Oh sure. An angel led Smith to some gold plates. Which were totally irrelevant 'cause Smith never read them in his supposed "translation" of the Book of Mormon. (And even had he read them, he knew not the language!)

So why bother leading this pimply-faced teen-ager to some "gold plates" that were never retained? What good were they if all Smith needed was a rock stuck in a hat to begin with? Irrelevant. Useless. A 100% waste of the supposed time Nephi took to carve them out. 'Cause nobody's actually accessed them for any real direct "translation."

Why is this simple concept so complicated for Mormons to understand?

Also, what purpose did this hat serve?
Have the Mormons retained it as a sacred relic?
Where's the urim & thummim?
Conveniently gone as well?
Did it run out of its 19th-century "batteries"?

1 posted on 12/04/2009 4:17:35 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

And a whole world full of non-Mormons as well. ;-)

2 posted on 12/04/2009 4:22:37 PM PST by doc1019 (Obama, not so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Romney for President...... Oh, nevermind.

3 posted on 12/04/2009 4:24:21 PM PST by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Some Mormons may not understand Joseph’s translation process
_______________________________________________________

OK Nana will teach the little grasshoppers...

Children for this project we need the following items:

1 table
1 chair
1 stove top hat
1 rock
1 human head

Instructions:

Place the hat on the desk.
Place the rock in the hat.
Place the chair beside the table and sit in it.
Place your face in the hat until you cannot see any light.
No peeking.

Write a papragraph explaining why a grown man would do such a dumb thing and think he could fool other people into thinking he was translating from Reformed Egyptian.


4 posted on 12/04/2009 4:29:39 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Better make that a stove pipe hat ...

Stove Top would make a good stuffing for a hat in lew of brains but it wasnt invented yet...


5 posted on 12/04/2009 4:33:23 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

>>Some Mormons may not understand Joseph’s translation process<<

I’ll say they don’t. And when they finally do, they join ex-mormons for Jesus.


6 posted on 12/04/2009 4:33:25 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
For members who were unaware of the seer stone in the hat, at least two questions or concerns may arise: 1) Is it strange that Joseph used a stone in a hat? 2) Why have we have always been told that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim?


7 posted on 12/04/2009 4:35:38 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
It's hard to find this level of B.S. about someone else's B.S.!

For heavens sakes, get a clue you dupped cult worshipers!

8 posted on 12/04/2009 4:38:27 PM PST by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
It's hard to find this level of B.S. about someone else's B.S.!

For heavens sakes, get a clue you duped cult worshipers!

9 posted on 12/04/2009 4:39:14 PM PST by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Most Mormons don’t know about the stone in the hat. If you told them, they’d tell you you were crackers or lying.

The real problem that the hat translation presents is in the finished product of the Book of Mormon. If the stone only gave a new sentence after Oliver wrote it down word and punctuation perfect, then why have there been 3915 changes in the BOM(not including spelling and punctuation) since the 1830 edition?


10 posted on 12/04/2009 4:42:52 PM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

The Mormons didn’t get the memo that the canon of Scripture was closed in the 4th century......and God doesn’t change His mind.

And then there’s the pesky problem of textual criticism when they change verses in the Bible to fit their theology,
such as John 1:1.


11 posted on 12/04/2009 4:45:41 PM PST by Salvavida (mormons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

say what you want about the hat, the stone, etc etc.

personally, i dont find that stuff any more or less believable than sacred things in other religions.

i read a biography about joseph smith recently and he was an amazing guy. read about the cities he built out of nothing and the society he created. he started with nothing in the middle of nowhere in upstate new york.

say what you want, the guy had it going on , no question.


12 posted on 12/04/2009 4:50:07 PM PST by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana; Alex Murphy; sirchtruth; RobRoy; doc1019
Instructions:
Place the hat on the desk.
Place the rock in the hat.
Place the chair beside the table and sit in it.
Place your face in the hat until you cannot see any light.
No peeking.

Write a papragraph explaining why a grown man would do such a dumb thing and think he could fool other people into thinking he was translating from Reformed Egyptian.

Now, now, Nana, perhaps you just didn't digest enough of what this apologist was trying to say. For example:

From the commentary: To answer the first question we might also ask: Is it strange that a man could rise from the dead, walk on water, heal the lame, create the heavens, and answer the prayers of billions of people?

Oh. On second thought, you're right, again, Nana.

Ash's original angle made me ask, why are Mormon apologists and their allies so quick to use this argument? (I've actually seen similar versions among nominal FR Catholics & other vague religionists defending Mormon beliefs...they'll say, "Well, some of my Christian beliefs are kind of strange, too, so if we're going to judge a belief or event upon weirdness, then we're all subject to the same crit.")

Now, what's the problem with this argument?

Well, first of all, my Q to such people is, "Do you consider Jesus of Nazareth, the historical figure in the Bible, 'weird' or 'strange?'" I would think most of the people making the argument above might respond something to effect of, "Well, He's certainly unusual and unique, but I wouldn't go so far as to label him 'weird.'"

To which I'd say, "Exactly." The examples Ash gives here: rising from the dead, walking on water, and healing the lame were all things done openly before at least 6 or 7 (walking on water) to 500 (how many Jesus appeared to post-resurrection). These were highly unusual events, but once Jesus did them as precedents, we no longer consider it "weird." The resurrection of us all, for example, is a widely shared belief, as is the other couple of examples Ash gave (Jesus answering the prayers of billions and creating the heavens).

But now Ash wants to put what Joseph Smith did, looking at a rock in a hat, into the same category as Jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, healing, creating, and answering prayers? Really?
Where do we have any precedent for Jesus receiving orders from Father by opening up some "viewfinder" on a rock & then sticking it into a hat?
Why would a hat environment be so "sacred" for either Smith or his god, anyway, given the Jewish apostles before him, like Paul, to not even honor hats?
Didn't Paul tell the Corinthians: A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God... (1 Cor. 11:7)

13 posted on 12/04/2009 4:50:07 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: beebuster2000
personally, i dont find that stuff any more or less believable than sacred things in other religions

Ah, how prophetic of me. I didn't read this post of yours, yet anticipated it & posted it within the same minute(see post #13 as my "pre-response" to your comment here)

14 posted on 12/04/2009 4:52:28 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Then again they were later called a top hat..

Song Maestro please...

Putting on my Top hat
(as sung by Joey Smith)

Putting on my top hat
The gold plates to explain
Putting on my top hat
I’m translating again

Got the missus with me
Writtin up a storm
This seems to work for me, though
She says its not the norm

Putting on my top hat
Face kiss rock again
Harris asks a question
Chipped tooth I’m now in pain

I mumble that I’m ailing
he writes just what he hears
hes got the guys a’sailing
Throughout the world for years.

A good idea but wait there
We can improve on that
lets say they got to somewhere
In just months due my hat

Putting on my Top hat
Lets have a war or three
Emma wheres the whisky?
Think beeter on my knees

A Mormon and a Nephi
An Alma thats a girl
We’re nearly finished Jacob
My how the time does fly

Emma run and get me
A headache powder please
This silly rock is hurting
My head, my eyes, my knees

Cumorah Hill sounds ducky
Lets add a tarpon too
And since I’m feeling lucky
Horses, elephants a few

Putting on my top hat
Is there any more?
Martin we need an ending
The start is quite a bore

Putting on my Top Hat
Lets sell this in the North
No Canada dont like it
And wont pay what its worth.


15 posted on 12/04/2009 4:59:58 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

i see.

perhaps a couple other examples that come to mind. burning bushes, parting seas, etc etc. i dont see a hat as inconsistent with that. not to mention the “miracles” from modern times that are cited when saints are made. check out some of those stories.

and the “seer stones” were well known and used by the old testament jews, smith didnt invent that.


16 posted on 12/04/2009 5:00:33 PM PST by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

havent read it, but apparantly the bible itelf contains reference to the stones:

1 Samuel 14:41 — in the Books of Samuel is regarded by biblical scholars as key to understanding the Urim and Thummim[


17 posted on 12/04/2009 5:02:46 PM PST by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Check # 15 for the lyrics i just wrote on the fly

:)


18 posted on 12/04/2009 5:03:14 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The presupposition is that Smith was actually receiving direct revelations from God. Anyone can claim that God is speaking to them. The insane asylums of full of such people. I have heard of a cat in a hat, but a rock in the hat has that beat. It seems that the sillier a cult becomes the more nuts it attracts. How any sane person could believe this manure is beyond me. It makes about as much sense as Scientology.


19 posted on 12/04/2009 5:06:28 PM PST by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beebuster2000
read about the cities he built out of nothing and the society he created. he started with nothing in the middle of nowhere in upstate new york.

Rev. Moon was persecuted & imprisoned by the communists in Korea, & before you knew it, he owned the Washington Times & a slew of other businesses! (And now we know his followers as "Moonies")
Jim Jones started with a small town in the Bay area, and before you knew it, he had expanded to large acreages in Guyana after becoming a key civic leader in the Bay Area. (You've heard all about the coolaid in Jonestown, haven't you?)
Shall I go on?

As for the societies he created, well, that's a myth. He moved first to Ohio, but he didn't create the community of Kirtland, OH. In fact, he fled that town in the middle of the night because the bank he started wasn't solvent. (He literally issued $3 bills, giving us the phrase, "As phony as a $3 bill.")

The Missouri experience? Smith sent others ahead to populate MO while he remained in OH. He wasn't responsible for setting up those small, temp communities -- others were. It was a non-Mormon who helped to carve out a new county for Lds in MO in 1838.

So now we're down only to Nauvoo. Oh, sure, Smith was directly involved in creating Nauvoo. But what kind of a "society" did he create? (All I can say is that if you want to go to a community where "Mayor Smith" orders his henchmen to go smash your opposition printing press because he didn't like your critiques of him, then quick, head off to those Phillippine compounds where they've surrounded these regional lords for killing off the opposition party's family -- & about 15 journalists in the process!).

20 posted on 12/04/2009 5:07:13 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

you should read up on nauvoo, it was a pretty amazing place for the time. and they built it out of swamp.

i know you dont like the guy, for some reason, but you cant deny what he built. take a look at his legacy in Utah. thats not out of a hat, it is real.

anyway, signing off on this thread. been fun.


21 posted on 12/04/2009 5:18:45 PM PST by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

>>> The Lord utilized Joseph’s worldview to help restore the gospel.

I found this particularly interesting....
that God would use a “worldview” to do His divine will.
Anyone who has read the bible enough, understands that “worldview” is down right EVIL.... it is Anti-God... because the “worldview” is Satan’s view... which he spreads by any and every means possible.

This is very much like saying that God asked Satan to give Him a hand in helping Joseph Smith restore something that supposedly Satan himself had a direct hand in defeating in the first place. How much sense does that make???

What is a “Seer” stone anyway???

Well, it is an instrument of witchcraft....
Since when did God EVER “use” or empower an inanimate object to reveal anything to mankind??? HE NEVER DID!
Fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith is THE ONLY ONE who claimed that he was receiving revelation from God by way of an object normally used for unholy divination...

Not to mention the fact that Joseph Smith used the same process to find buried treasure... for which he was conveniently paid for by his farmer clients up-front.
This so-called process was a fraudulent means by which he tricked gullible farmers out of money... And to think that God would use that “world view” for something Holy and inspired???? Come on!... this would be like me trying to sell a cure for cancer made from tobacco products!

It is astounding to me that such an obvious ploy can successfully be passed off as an act of God.
Sometimes I think cult leaders like JS come up with ridiculous stuff like that just for the fun of it to see how duped their followers really are.

Oh... and to compare Smith’s translation process to the miracles of Jesus just takes the cake...
That’s really good... If they think it’s strange, just blame Jesus... as if nothing is strange or suspicious compared to the miracles of Jesus.


22 posted on 12/04/2009 5:22:27 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lurk
If the stone only gave a new sentence after Oliver wrote it down word and punctuation perfect, then why have there been 3915 changes in the BOM(not including spelling and punctuation) since the 1830 edition?

A bright ray of clarity in a muddled mormon world.

23 posted on 12/04/2009 5:25:57 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

What other major world religion claimed to have been a hitherto-lost/neglected descendent of Abraham chosen by God to return people to the true way that had been covered up by crooked religious leaders, even to the point of altering scripture?


24 posted on 12/04/2009 5:27:19 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

I work with a lot of rocks, and they are insulted being implicated by smith as part of this endeavor.


25 posted on 12/04/2009 5:27:26 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: beebuster2000
...you cant deny what he built. take a look at his legacy in Utah. thats not out of a hat, it is real.

(Sorry, but Smith didn't make it to Utah...that was Brigham Young's leading)

...and they built it out of swamp.

Well, that's been South Louisiana all over in the same time range, and some before...nothing peculiar

26 posted on 12/04/2009 5:29:07 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

For those who believe that God can and has communicated with mankind, it seems hypocritical to summarily dismiss Joseph’s method of translation because it doesn’t fit with pre-conceived views of how God communicates. As with all spiritual claims, the only way to know if they come from God is to ask God for a witness.

- - - - - - - -
They are forgetting the other option. Using our brains to see the inconsistencies between the Bible and BoM.

The “method” of JS’s “translation” of the BoM changed over time. First it was the hat, then it was the spectacles, then it was with the plates, then without anything.

*Sigh*


27 posted on 12/04/2009 5:29:19 PM PST by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

>>Some Mormons may not understand Joseph’s translation process<<

I’ll say they don’t. And when they finally do, they join ex-mormons for Jesus.

- - - - - -
Pretty much. When I was LDS and I found out JS DIDN’T use the “gold plates” it made me question the whole point of the focus on them. If they weren’t used, why all the focus on them.


28 posted on 12/04/2009 5:32:21 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

>>> What other major world religion claimed to have been a hitherto-lost/neglected descendent of Abraham chosen by God to return people to the true way that had been covered up by crooked religious leaders, even to the point of altering scripture?

VERY interesting point!... can’t say that I ever contemplated that one.

Are there cults of Islam? Where the leader of the cult said “hey wait a minute... it’s all wrong... here’s the update!”

Yeah... If I hear you correctly, Christianity is unique in it’s having to deal with so many attempts to change it at it’s core.


29 posted on 12/04/2009 5:34:00 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Yes I can sypathise ...

Joey Smith gave rocks a bad name...

Rodney Dangerfield and rocks get no respect...


30 posted on 12/04/2009 5:34:24 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

***Is it strange that a man could rise from the dead, walk on water, heal the lame, create the heavens, and answer the prayers of billions of people?***

For a man to do this? Yes, extremely strange, in fact impossible. For God to do it? Not strange, or impossible.

However, does that mean you are equating Joseph Smith with Jesus?


31 posted on 12/04/2009 5:38:35 PM PST by irishtenor (Beer. God's way of making sure the Irish don't take over the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I'm looking for the logic in that article....nope, can't find it...still looking.

I'm also guessing that the "Joseph" mentioned is not the Joseph of Mary & Joseph fame. Joe Smith I presume.
32 posted on 12/04/2009 5:40:01 PM PST by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
From the article: The Lord utilized Joseph’s worldview to help restore the gospel.

Anyone who has read the bible enough, understands that “worldview” is down right EVIL.... it is Anti-God... because the “worldview” is Satan’s view... which he spreads by any and every means possible. [Safrguns]

Well, I, too was interested in what you said right before this, and I comment on that below, but to be fair to Ash, the author, he's not necessarily talking about the "world's view" but the querky "worldview" -- as in "view of the world" or lens Smith saw through.

I found this particularly interesting.... that God would use a “worldview” to do His divine will.

Yes, I noted that apologetic try Ash was shooting for, too.

My recommendation is that people get ahold of material that shows more comprehensively exactly what Smith's "worldviews" of the time. The book to start? D. Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View."

Quinn was a prof of history @ BYU. He was ushered out of the church for some of his rather forthright expositions of the church; but still, BYU has other reasons now to oppose him: "D. Michael Quinn is a former Mormon historian now turned homosexual apologist." http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=1&id=280

Still, try to find a used book or borrow it. Here's a description of the book from Signature Books (http://www.signaturebooks.com/magic.htm):

In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder Joseph Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited by supernatural creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism. This thoroughly researched examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formulae utilized to discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text.

33 posted on 12/04/2009 5:42:12 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Are there cults of Islam? Where the leader of the cult said “hey wait a minute... it’s all wrong... here’s the update!”

I think Sunnis and Shias think of each other as cults.
34 posted on 12/04/2009 5:48:24 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

lol next you guys will be jumping on Jehova witnesses


35 posted on 12/04/2009 5:52:46 PM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Might want to re-think the inanimate object analogy....The "Burning Bush" and "Mene Tikel Upharasin(sp?)", that writing on the wall stuff, are but 2 incidents that come to mind.
Overall though, I agree with your sentiment.
36 posted on 12/04/2009 5:54:56 PM PST by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: beebuster2000; Colofornian

Urim and Thummim essentially means cursed or faultless, in reference to the deity’s view of an accused - in other words Urim and Thummim were used to answer the question innocent or guilty.

Additionally, they were NOT spectacles (as JS says), but rather items placed in a breastplate.

Nevertheless, the passage does describe them as being put into the breastplate, which scholars think implies they were objects put into some sort of pouch within it, and then, while out of view, one (or one side, if the Urim and Thummim was a single object) was chosen by touch and withdrawn or thrown out; since the Urim and Thummim were put inside this pouch, they were presumably small and fairly flat, and were possibly tablets of wood or of bone. With the view of scholars that Urim essentially means guilty and Thummim essentially means innocent, this would imply that the purpose of the Urim and Thummim was an ordeal to confirm or deny suspected guilt; if the Urim was selected it meant guilt, while selection of the Thummim would mean innocence.

The BIBLICAL Urim and Thummim is a far cry from the “seer stone” placed in a hat.

Smith’s invention was using biblical terms for the same “seer stone” that he used in treasure hunting.


37 posted on 12/04/2009 5:55:07 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

>>> he’s not necessarily talking about the “world’s view” but the querky “worldview” — as in “view of the world” or lens Smith saw through.

I agree that “world view” is a vague term which can mean different things... but God doesn’t speak to us from our own point of view, because that view (regardless of what it is) is faulty. God speaks to us from His point of view. That is one of the reasons it is so foreign to the world.

But... it is easy enough to set an individual’s viewpoint aside, and address the concept of whether or not God would choose an instrument of Satan (seer stone) as His own means of empowering an individual. First of all, it is not needed. Second, it promotes idolatry. And third, it equates Satanic practices with God’s ways.

The burning bush by the way, was a manifestation of God’s presence. Not an object that Moses used to hear God.
So was the large hand which wrote on the wall... but in that case it was a divine manifestation of God’s judgment.

Joseph Smith himself was a known con artist, and was arrested for defrauding people with a seer stone...
So why would God choose to speak through the same type of instrument or process that was used to deceive?

If Pelosi said tomorrow that she wants to reduce taxes, would you believe her?

Would you believe her if she claimed that she was inspired to reduce taxes after reading Al-Gore’s book on Global warming?

Of course you wouldn’t... and the book claim wouldn’t help things either... because the messenger is corrupted and unbelievable, as is the object which she claimed as a reference.

God’s ways are NOT our ways.
He does not adapt his will to fit our understanding.


38 posted on 12/04/2009 6:34:15 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
God’s ways are NOT our ways. He does not adapt his will to fit our understanding.

Agreed. (As the prophet Isaiah proclaimed)

39 posted on 12/04/2009 6:44:35 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Good explanatory post.

I'd also recommend to threadsters: TranslationOrDivination?

Here's the first three graphs: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has published many pictures of Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. These depictions invariably show Joseph seated at a table, carefully examining the gold plates which are in front of him on the table. The impression given is that the dictation process involved Joseph’s direct visual contact with the plates.

However, this scenario does not square with the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. These witnesses include all three of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (the same individuals whose testimony appears in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon), as well as Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma Hale Smith. They tell a similar story of Joseph dropping a magical seer stone into his hat, then burying his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated. Several of the witnesses comment that the gold plates were sometimes not even in sight as Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon. This evidence of the actual Book of Mormon translation method has been discussed in at least six different scholarly articles and several books by Mormon historians over the past 30 years.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the LDS Church wishes to distance itself from the compelling evidence that Joseph Smith both discovered and produced the Book of Mormon in a context of magic/ divination/ clairvoyance. We encourage all members of the LDS Church and others who are interested in the LDS Church’s claims, to carefully review this important evidence. Here is the eyewitness testimony to Joseph Smith's dictation procedure, followed by some brief observations and conclusions.

40 posted on 12/04/2009 6:51:34 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

>>> Might want to re-think the inanimate object analogy....The “Burning Bush” and “Mene Tikel Upharasin(sp?)”, that writing on the wall stuff, are but 2 incidents that come to mind.

When it comes to delivering God’s message or word, there is no biblical basis or example where God directed someone to find something that was hidden to reveal something that could not be read. The closest example we can find in the bible of using an object to divine God’s will was the casting of lots... but even that practice was never set down as a commandment or direction from God to do so. And, the only words that the casting lots was intended was to “divinate” from God was a “yes” or a “no”.

If Joseph Smith’s “translation process” was from God, then we would see similar forms of delivery set forth in the bible. There is none. Joseph Smith stands alone. He is as alone as Morman himself... a name which means exactly that... “Man Alone”.

God says in His word that SCRIPTURE interprets scripture. Not some seer stone. That means that a doctrine or a truth about God’s word will be confirmed or refuted in other biblical passages. It’s the reason we have 4 gospels pretty much telling the same story... for confirmation.
The only thing that lines up with the bible in the BOM are the passages that were plagiarized word for word directly from it.


41 posted on 12/04/2009 6:52:02 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Photobucket
42 posted on 12/04/2009 6:53:01 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dalebert; sirchtruth; Colofornian

lol next you guys will be jumping on Jehova witnesses

- - - - - - - -
Well, if the JW’s start showing up pushing their presidential candidate and cult, we may.

Oh wait...JW’s are apolitical and pacifists. This is a conservative site, doubt it will happen.


43 posted on 12/04/2009 7:01:46 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

44 posted on 12/04/2009 7:05:57 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

GROAN! Careful, comments like that might get you sent to “outer darkness”.


45 posted on 12/04/2009 7:15:09 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
GROAN! Careful, comments like that might get you sent to “outer darkness”.

If my comments haven't gotten me sent to the outer darkness by lds, nothing will.


46 posted on 12/04/2009 7:25:41 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

ROFL. What is THAT from?


47 posted on 12/04/2009 7:29:18 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

http://www.salamandersociety.com/spacedoctrine/


48 posted on 12/04/2009 7:31:12 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

I forgot about them. Too atheistic for my tastes, but funny nevertheless.


49 posted on 12/04/2009 7:36:42 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
I forgot about them. Too atheistic for my tastes, but funny nevertheless.

Agreed, but every now and then something good pops up.

50 posted on 12/04/2009 7:37:34 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson