Revisión del 14:09 24 mar 2014

Tabla de Contenidos

Respuesta a la PiensaMormón página "Traducción del Libro de Mormón"

PERCEPCIÓN DEL FAIRMORMON DE LAS CONCLUSIONES DE LA CRÍTICA

• Se afirma que los intentos de la Iglesia para ocultar el uso de la piedra en el sombrero durante la traducción del Libro de Mormón al permitir obras de arte que muestra a José y Oliver se sienta en la misma mesa con las planchas de oro a la vista . La Iglesia puede estar usando estas pinturas para tratar de promover la idea de que Oliver vio las placas antes de ser testigo, pero continúa enseñando que Oliver no vio las placas hasta que se convirtió en uno de los tres testigos .
• Se reconoce que al menos dos Apóstoles han mencionado el uso del sombrero en los discursos públicos que aparecían en la prensa, y al menos una creencia mormona defensor de la fe lo ha mencionado en la televisión. Esto es , de acuerdo con el sitio web, " sorprendente ", ya que dicen que si los miembros o los investigadores sabían que José usó una piedra y un sombrero en lugar de dos piedras en un conjunto de espectáculos , y que él no tenía que ver directamente en las placas en lugar de ver una conversión misteriosa de caracteres egipcios reformados a las palabras en inglés , que no iban a querer unirse a la Iglesia. Teniendo en cuenta que hay muy poca diferencia en la manera en que se utilizaron los intérpretes nefitas y la piedra del vidente , es realmente el sombrero que es el problema .

Estos dos instrumentos, los intérpretes y el vidente de piedra eran aparentemente intercambiables y trabajado de la misma manera que en el transcurso del tiempo, José Smith y sus asociados a menudo utilizan el término "Urim y Tumim" para referirse a la piedra sola así como a los intérpretes. En la antigüedad, los sacerdotes israelitas utilizaron el Urim y Tumim para ayudar en recibir comunicaciones divinas. Aunque los comentaristas difieren en la naturaleza del instrumento, varias fuentes antiguas afirman que las piedras de instrumentos involucrados que iluminaban o eran divinamente Correc [at] ed. Santos de los Últimos Días más tarde entendió el término "Urim y Tumim" para referirse exclusivamente a los intérpretes. José Smith y otros, sin embargo, parecen haber entendido el término más como una categoría descriptiva de los instrumentos para la obtención de revelaciones divinas y menos como el nombre de un instrumento específico.

Haga clic aquí para ver el artículo completo en Inglés

Plantilla:Designación conclusión

• Hablando sólo del método de traducción, nunca fue una mentira. Se trata simplemente de la manera los miembros de la iglesia comenzaron explicando los acontecimientos de la traducción. Esas explicaciones fueron pasados a lo largo de mucho más frecuentemente que la historia (que ni siquiera estaba disponible hasta unos cincuenta años después de las otras historias habían comenzado, y por lo tanto ya muy atrás en el establecimiento de la percepción).
• Luego tenemos la cuestión de por qué en el mundo es importante. ¿Qué milagro es extraño, que José usaría una roca en un sombrero, o que iba a mirar a través de las piedras translúcidas. Ambos producen un texto que el propio José no podía traducir. Ningún método explica el milagro.

{{{publicación}}}, "Los Espectáculos, la Piedra, el Sombrero y el Libro: Un XXI Ver Siglo Creyente del Libro de Mormón Traducción"

Este ensayo tiene por objeto examinar el Libro de Mormón método de traducción desde la perspectiva de un nonscholarly , miembro de la creencia habitual en el siglo XXI , teniendo en cuenta tanto lo que se aprende en la Iglesia y lo que se puede aprender de los registros históricos que ahora son fácilmente disponible . ¿Qué sabemos ? ¿Qué debemos saber ? ¿Cómo puede un miembro de la Iglesia conciliar creyendo aparentemente contradictorias cuentas del proceso de traducción ? Un examen de las fuentes históricas se utiliza para proporcionarnos una comprensión más plena y más completa de la complejidad que existe en los primeros acontecimientos de la Restauración . Estas cuentas vienen de tanto creer y no creyentes fuentes , y cierto escepticismo debe ser empleado en la elección de aceptar algunas de las interpretaciones ofrecidas por algunas de estas fuentes como un hecho . Sin embargo , un examen de estas fuentes ofrece una imagen más grande, y las respuestas a estas preguntas proporcionan una mirada esclarecedora en historia de la Iglesia y de la evolución de la historia de la traducción. Este ensayo se centra principalmente en los métodos e instrumentos utilizados en el proceso de traducción y como un fiel miembro de la Iglesia podría ver esto como una prueba más de la veracidad del Evangelio restaurado.

Haga clic aquí para ver el artículo completo en Inglés

RESPUESTA DE FAIRMORMON Y DATOS DE APOYO

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Esta imagen abajo fue publicada en Octubre de 2006 en Liahona que muestra a José Smith y Oliver Cowdery en la misma mesa con las planchas a la vista de ambos lo cual no es generalmente enseñado por la Iglesia.

Comentario de FairMormon

• Pregunte a cualquier persona en la Iglesia si Oliver se le permitió ver las placas antes de que él era un testigo-van a responder que no.
• Artistas de la Iglesia no siempre son expertos en la evidencia histórica de lo que ellos están tratando de ilustrar.
• El arte religioso tiene una larga tradición en el uso de imágenes "no históricas" para ilustrar un punto, pero, esto no es algo más amplio que funciona tan bien hoy en día, ya que esperamos que las fotos (y por tanto las imágenes) de ser "precisa".
• Algunos de la dificultad se debe al hecho de que hay múltiples etapas del Libro de Mormón método de conversión-mientras que José y Oliver probablemente nunca funcionó de esta manera, Joseph pudo haber hecho por sí solo antes.

Información adicional

• La exactitud del arte de la Iglesia—Se afirma que la Iglesia a sabiendas "mentiras" o distorsiona el registro histórico de sus obras de arte con el fin de encubrir el pasado, o con fines de propaganda. Un ejemplo de uso general es la inexactitud de cualquier arte de la Iglesia que representa el proceso de traducción del Libro de Mormón. (Enlace)

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Cuando José se le preguntó cómo fue exactamente que tradujo el Libro de Mormón, nunca dió detalles. Se limitó a decir que lo hizo por el “don y el poder de Dios”.

Comentario de FairMormon

• No tenemos una descripción de José Smith con respecto al método de traducción. Tales descripciones sólo fueron proporcionados por sus socios.
• A una persona para dar este tipo de descripción era David Whitmer en 1887 en su panfleto "Un Mensaje para Todos los Creyentes en Cristo." Esto fue publicado 57 años después de que el Libro de Mormón fue traducido y publicado.

Citas a considerar

• David Whitmer dijo: “Les daré una descripción de la manera en qué se tradujo el Libro de Mormón, José Smith ponía la piedra vidente en un sombrero y metía su cara en el sombrero, ajustándolo alrededor de su rostro para no permitir el paso de la luz y que en esa oscuridad brillara la luz espiritual. Algo parecido a un pergamino aparecía y sobre ello aparecía la escritura. Podía aparecer un carácter a la vez y, abajo, su interpretación al inglés. El Hermano José leería el inglés a Oliver Cowdery, quien era su escriba principal, y cuando estaba escrito y lo repetía al Hermano José para ver si estaba correcto, entonces desaparecía y otro carácter con la interpretación aparecía. Así es que se tradujo el Libro de Mormón por medio del Poder de Dios y no por ningún poder del hombre.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887 Wikisource)
  

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
La mayoría de los miembros SUD no están al tanto de que José Smith buscó tesoros en su juventud. La siguiente declaración es a veces citado en la iglesia. Esto viene en las Enseñanzas del Profeta José Smith, p. 120: "Pregunta: ¿Fue José Smith un buscador de tesoros? Sí, pero no fue un trabajo muy rentable ya que ganaba sólo catorce dólares al mes." Esto es por lo general lo único que se dice en la iglesia con respecto a su pasado en la busqueda de tesoros.

Comentario de FairMormon

• Esta cita vino del propio Joseph Smith.
•   El autor tiene un dato incorrecto:  
  Esta no es la única mención de "búsqueda del tesoro" de José se menciona en la Iglesia. Se habla en la Iglesia acerca de José ayudando Josías Stowel search for a lost mine.
•   El autor emplea un ataque ad hominem:   Desde el tesoro búsqueda anterior a su papel profético, ¿es esto sorprendente? Aprendemos casi nada acerca de la vida de Moisés en la corte del Faraón. Este tipo de cosas son de interés histórico, pero tienen poca aplicación religiosa. Esta es una forma de argumento ad hominem, en concreto, la "ad hominem abusivo."

Información adicional

• búsqueda del tesoro—Fue la participación de José Smith en "dinero cavando" o en busca de un tesoro enterrado una mancha en su carácter? (Enlace)

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Basado en estos documentos, el siguiente expediente tomado del libro de registro del Juez Neely parece genuino. Apologistas mormones levantan dudas y tratan de sugerir que el juicio fue añadido por alguien que no fue Neely. No hay nada para apoyar tal argumento el registro se encuentra tal como se recibió. Aquí esta el expediente del juicio de 1826

Comentario de FairMormon

• Josías Stowel testificó fuertemente en defensa de José. Se unió a la Iglesia se quedaba un miembro fiel durante toda su vida.
• Esto no fue un "juicio", pero una audiencia preliminar.
• Los que llevó el caso pueden haber estado motivados por prejuicios religiosos.

Citas a considerar

No sabemos por qué Peter G. Bridgman llevó a los cargos, pero fácilmente podría haber sido porque estaba preocupado de que su tío estaba aceptando Joseph Smith en sus afirmaciones religiosas. Josías hizo unirse a la iglesia organizada por José Smith y se mantuvo fiel toda su vida. En cuanto a Peter Bridgman, "Dentro de un mes después de que el juicio fue licenciado como un exhortador por los metodistas y en tres años había ayudado a establecer la Iglesia Metodista West Bainbridge. A su muerte en 1872 sus colegas ministros le caracterizan como" un Metodista ardiente y cualquier ataque a cualquiera de las doctrinas o la política de la Iglesia Metodista Episcopal, dentro de su campo de trabajo, estaba seguro de ser repelidos por él con una mano vigorosa ".^[1]

El juicio de Joseph Smith fue uno de sus primeros intentos de aplicar una "mano fuerte".
Información adicional

• 1826 trial for "glasslooking"—Joseph Smith was brought to court in 1826 for "glasslooking." (Enlace)

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
En marzo de 1826, José Smith fue arrestado a sus veinte años de edad y llevado ante el juez de paz Albert Neely del Sur de Bainbridge bajo la acusación de ser “una persona desordenada y un charlatan”. Este acontecimiento surgió de su trabajo como buscador de tesoros con Josias Stowell entre otros cinco meses atrás. José fue contratado por Josias Stowel para buscar tesores escondidos en la tierra con su piedra. José llevó a Josiah para convencerlo de que podría encontrar tesoros enterrados con solo consultar su piedra en el sombrero. José pagó de fianza $2.68 por la ofensa. El juez pudo haberlo dejado ir si solo aceptaba irse del estado debido a su edad.

Comentario de FairMormon

•   El autor tiene un dato incorrecto:  
  José no era multado. El 2,68 dólares eran las tasas judiciales. Esto es aún confirmado por los Curtidores en el cambiante mundo del mormonismo (p. 68). El proyecto de ley establece que: "el mismo vs mirón Joseph Smith The Glass 20 de marzo 1826 Delito Menor A mis honorarios en el examen de la causa por encima de 2,68."

Información adicional

• 1826 trial for "glasslooking"—Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Learn about what the hearing involved, and why Joseph could not have been fined or found guilty. (Enlace)

• Marvin S. Hill, "Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism: An Interpretative Suggestion," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984), ?–??. GospeLink
• Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939). [{{{url}}} GL direct link]
• Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2000), D&C 9. GL direct link
• Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993): 201–206. off-site (Inglés) wiki
• Plantilla:DFS1 GL direct link
• Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990), 52. GL direct link

|respuesta= |enlace=Mormonism_and_history/Censorship_and_revision/Hiding_the_facts#The_stone_and_the_hat |sujeto=Hiding history? |sumario=Official curriculum mentions of the 'stone in the hat' }}

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Many LDS defenders say that the Urim and Thummim or seer stone was used just by Joseph Smith to primarily translate the Book of Mormon and for some revelations but that it was not needed any more. However, in 1843 Joseph Smith revealed section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants which mentions the eternal importance of seer stones for everyone: D&C 130: 10-11 10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known; 11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word. So apparently the seer stone wasn't just a one-time use device by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon with, but rather something of eternal significance so important that everyone that gets to the Celestial Kingdom will receive one. Why is this never talked about at church when it's plainly in our modern-day scriptures?

Comentario de FairMormon

• Well, since MormonThink believes that the Church never mentions the seer stone, but it does—even in the children's Friend--is it really true that this is never talked about? It's right there in the scripture, as they admit.
• If people aren't talking about it, how is that the Church's fault—aren't we told to read, study, and teach from the scriptures?
• More importantly, the "white stone" mentioned here involves things which are held private and sacred: it ties into LDS temple practice, which FAIR and other believing members will not discuss in a public forum. So, part of the reason this is not discussed in more detail is because it involves temple doctrines. Those who attend the temple can reflect upon these passages and realize that they play a large role in LDS temple worship.
• Joseph seemed to regard his own seer stone as a "stepping-stone" to greater knowledge and revelatory experience. This is exactly what D&C 130 says the "white stone" given to the exalted will do: "things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known."
• LDS doctrine teaches that we will continue to learn and progress after this life, until we receive "all that the Father hath." A urim and thummim will, according to Joseph, play a role in that process. But, one would also expect that it too will become unnecessary when we, like Joseph, master the spiritual discipline and principles which the urim and thummim aids in developing.
• MormonThink seems to have proven that Joseph's ideas on this point are astonishingly self-consistent. Not bad for a total fraud.

Citas a considerar
"LDS defenders" say this because it's what Joseph Smith said about it. Unlike MormonThink, we try to follow all the historical evidence instead of simply copying the historical references from anti-Mormon websites without checking the actual sources themselves. Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued reported:

While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained 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.^[2]

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
From the Doctrines of Salvation, the 10th president of the church, Joseph Fielding Smith said the following: "While the statement has been made by some writers that the Propher JS used a seerstone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that the stone was used for this purpose."....So apparently even the 10th president of the church thinks that using a stone to translate the Book of Mormon with "hardly seems reasonable". That's the same view any reasonable, intelligent person should have. President Joseph Fielding Smith makes a good point here when he says "It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the prophet would substitute something evidently inferior [to the U&T] under these circumstances". This is further evidence showing that it doesn't appear reasonable for Joseph to translate the BOM using a common stone he found with his brother Hyrum on Willard Chase's property years before the gold plates were given to him when the stone box had an instrument referred to as the urim & thummim, which was kept and preserved with the plates for some 2,000 years, for the very purpose of translating the plates.

Comentario de FairMormon

• Did you know that the Nephite interpreter, the instrument found in the stone box with the plates, was not referred to as the "Urim and Thummin" until several years after the Book of Mormon was published?
• Is it easier to translate using a couple of stones mounted in a set of "spectacles," which require Joseph to prevent his scribe from seeing them by hanging up a curtain between them? Or is it easier to translate using a stone in a hat in plain view of everyone without requiring the curtain?
• Did you know that the historical sources indicate that a curtain was used in the early days of the translation, and that Joseph later switched to the stone and hat "for convenience?"
• So are we saying that anyone in the 19th-century who believed in seer stones was not "reasonable" or "intelligent?"
• Joseph Fielding Smith was entitled to his opinion, and he clearly stated that it was his opinion. However, statements made by Joseph Smith's contemporaries clearly indicate that the seer stone was used in the translation, and that the name "Urim and Thummim" was later applied to the seer stone in addition to the Nephite interpreters.

Información adicional

• Chronology of translation methods—We have a number of accounts of the translation process from the perspective of various contemporary second-hand witnesses who viewed the Prophet as he dictated to his scribes. The only person other than Joseph who attempted to directly translate was Oliver Cowdery. Oliver, however, did not record any details regarding the exact physical process that he employed during his attempt—we only have the spiritual aspect of the process. (Enlace)

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Why doesn't the church be honest when teaching the method to investigators or even its own members? The short answer of course is that it would make the whole story sound unbelievable. No one would join the church if the missionaries plainly taught that Joseph put his face in a hat with a stone in it and translated the Book of Mormon when the plates were either covered so no one, including Joseph could see them or that the plates were hidden in the woods when he translated them. But that doesn't make it right to deceive innocent truthseekers, does it?

Comentario de FairMormon

• So, the stone and the hat would make the whole story "sound unbelievable?" You mean that the current story does sound believable? It sounds so much more "believable" to tell investigators a story that Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ, saw an angel, found an ancient relic and plates, and looked at that relic to dictate a document over 500 pages long in approximately 90 days.
• Everybody in the early days of the Church knew about the stone and the hat, and they still joined the Church.

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Critic's response If you really believe it makes no difference that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat with a common stone that he found 24 feet underground while digging a well and dictated the entire Book of Mormon without even using the Golden Plates, than why doesn't the Church plainly teach this? Even missionaries that are aware of the actual translation process will purposely tell investigators the incorrect, commonly-believed version of Joseph using the Urim & Thummim in conjunction with the plates, instead of mentioning the verified 'stone in the hat' method with the plates not even being in the room.

Comentario de FairMormon

• Did you realize that the term "Urim and Thummim" was applied to both the Nephite Interpreters and Joseph's seer stone?
• After all, as MormonThink points out earlier, Joseph noted that everyone would eventually have their own "stone." This means that there can be more than one "stone" or "Urim and Thummim."

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Church Education teachers have actually been disciplined for teaching truths such as the plates were not used in the translation process. This shows to what lengths the church goes to in order to keep the common member from knowing how the translation of the Book of Mormon was actually done. If it's the truth, as admitted to by top church authorities

Comentario de FairMormon

• You mean Grant Palmer? Palmer was disciplined because he wrote a book that essentially claims that Joseph Smith fabricated all of the important elements of the restoration, and he wrote it while he was still working for the Church. He was not disciplined for stating the plates "were not used in the translation process." Many LDS scholars can confirm the observed details of the translation process—why are they still members then?

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Also if it is really no big deal receiving revelation from a stone in a hat, ask yourself how many people in the church would be comfortable if the current prophet of the church was asked on national TV by Larry King or some other talk show host how exactly he received God's word and he said he would put a stone in a hat and put his face in the hat and received revelations that way?

Comentario de FairMormon

• Even Joseph Smith himself eventually stopped using the stone and the hat. He said that he no longer needed it. Why would any subsequent prophet need it?
• Obviously, people today would view the use of such artifacts as silly—and, doing so would be unlikely to help an inexperienced prophet build faith and experience.
• Why is MormonThink trying to make things appear absurd?
• Ask yourself if they think the idea of God talking to anyone by any means is "reasonable" or "believable." They don't believe in revelation at all, and so will make any example look foolish if it suits their purposes.

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
FAIR has an impressive list of articles that mention the seer stone, which they present as evidence that the church doesn't hide the seer stone history. BUT, virtually all the actual church references (not apologist references) only mention the word 'stone' without mentioning the hat also, so the context isn't given. Most members don't read obscure articles in Dialogue or apologist publications.

Comentario de FairMormon

• So its not the stone that is the problem....it's the hat???
• "Virtually" never mentioning: so, any mention can be dismissed as not really counting.
• Take a look at the FAIR article linked to by MormonThink: The "apologist references" from which examples are show are from the Church magazines The Friend, the Ensign and from LDS Church archives. Many are also listed above.
• So, it turns out that MormonThink concedes that the Church does talk about these things—but now they want to claim that these sources are too "obscure"? Which is it--do they never talk about it, or do they just not talk about it as much or in the place MormonThink wants them to?
• Do you get the feeling MormonThink would never be happy on this score, no matter where it was talked about or how much?

Citas a considerar
As MormonThink points out in a quote on their page, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an Ensign article:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.

• This is in the Ensign, by an apostle, and the hat is mentioned. How often must it be mentioned?
• Bottom line, though, isn't any production of the Book of Mormon amazing or almost unbelievable? A farmboy translating ancient records he got from an angel? Does it really matter how he did it? Is it surprising the Church focuses more on what he produced than how he produced it? As Neal A. Maxwell noted:

Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark. - Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine, 26.

• Those apostles sure don't do a good job of hiding the hat, do they?

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Take in mind there are two significant items here regarding just the translation process. The first is that the spectacle-version of the urim and thummim, as described by Joseph, wasn't really used to produce the BOM. Instead, he used a common stone found while digging a well for Mr. Chase. The second is that the plates were not used in any way in the translation process. If all the members knew these facts, then this may very well change their opinion of the BOM. It is every member's right to know these facts so they can make an informed decision.

Comentario de FairMormon

• How does the plates being "not used in any way in the translation process" make the story less believable?
• Is it more believable to think that Joseph looked through the stones mounted in the "spectacle-version" of the Urim and Thummin at the plates and that he saw....what exactly? Is it easier to believe that a crystal somehow rearranged the "reformed Egyptian" characters into English words?
• Why is it difficult to believe that Joseph used the "spectacles" and a curtain during the time that he translated the 116 pages with Martin Harris acting as scribe, and then switched to the seer stone "for covenience" (according to Martin Harris) and dictated openly without the curtain after he resumed translation with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe?
• Do you think that Joseph would have dared use an instrument to translate that wasn't approved by God?
• What is the difference between the Nephite interpreters and the "common" stone if they were both approved by God for use in translating? In the end, they are both just rocks. Joseph eventually learned that he no longer needed such an aid in order to receive revelations.

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Take in mind there are two significant items here regarding just the translation process. The first is that the spectacle-version of the urim and thummim, as described by Joseph, wasn't really used to produce the BOM. Instead, he used a common stone found while digging a well for Mr. Chase. The second is that the plates were not used in any way in the translation process. If all the members knew these facts, then this may very well change their opinion of the BOM. It is every member's right to know these facts so they can make an informed decision.

Comentario de FairMormon

• So a pair of stones mounted in spectacles does not sound strange, but using a stone in the bottom of a hat does sound strange? Simply choose your favorite seer stone and roll with it, but don't try to make us believe that one of these items sound more strange than the other!
• Since they keep calling this a "common stone," does that mean that they believe that the stones used in the Nephite interpreters were not "common?"

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
There seems to be little doubt that Joseph translated the published Book of Mormon using a simple stone placed in a hat without even using the golden plates. Perhaps what we find most disturbing about the translation process is that it is admitted by the LDS apologists and occasionally by high-ranking officials such as Elder Nelson yet it still is not plainly taught to the members. If it's not really that important, as some LDS defenders claim, then why don't we, as a church, just acknowledge this openly and stop hiding it?

Comentario de FairMormon

• Elder's Nelson and Maxwell did acknowledge it openly, and it appeared in Church publications. The early Church leaders called the stone the "Urim and Thummim."
• Beyond simply stating that the "Urim and Thummin" was found with the plates and used for translation and to receive revelation, what exactly does the Church teach about it anyway? Pretty much nothing at all.

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
We are also disturbed by the current trend in the church of showing pictures that portray Oliver Cowdery in full view of the plates when Joseph was translating. This was not what we were taught growing up in the church. It also doesn't make sense, if Oliver Cowdery saw the plates all the time during the months he scribed for Joseph translating the BOM, why bother having the angel show Oliver the plates again? ? Growing up in the church, we were all clearly taught that Oliver never saw the plates when he was scribing for Joseph. We were also taught that a curtain was placed between them so the scribe never saw the plates. Why is the church trying to change this account and also to another wrong version?

Comentario de FairMormon

• The Church still teaches that Oliver was not allowed to see the plates until he was a witness—that hasn't changed just because of some artwork. We agree that it is not accurate, but it isn't even accurate according to what is openly taught. Some artists, apparently, aren't comfortable even attempting to depict the Urim and Thummim, whether it be a set of "spectacles," or a stone in a hat. So far, all artistic depictions of Joseph using a stone and hat are created by critics (or even South Park) and are designed to make the process appear silly.

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
PBS did a special called 'The Mormons'. It aired in two parts on April 30 and May 1, 2007. The first part briefly mentions the 'stone in the hat' method of translation. What's astonishing is that it is mentioned, not by a critic of the Church, but by defender of the faith Daniel Peterson, who is a faithful LDS historian and member of FARMS.

Comentario de FairMormon

• Why is this "astonishing?" Both the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) and FAIR have posted extensive information about the "stone in the hat," some of which MormonThink just linked to. So, why is it "astonishing" that a faithful LDS scholar should mention this? It is part of the historical record.
• So to summarize, it is claimed that the Church tries to hide knowledge of the stone and the hat, except when Apostles mention it in public discourses, and believing defenders of the faith mention it on television.

Reclamaciones PiensaMormón...
Editor comment: On the PBS Special, LDS apologist Daniel Peterson says that the stone Joseph used to translate the BOM with is something we don't know much about except that it was found in the vicinity of Cumorah. That is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used or something anciently divine. In reality, Peterson is undoubtedly aware that the stone was found some 20 feet underground on Willard Chase's property when Joseph and his brother Hyrum were digging a well for Mr. Chase years before the gold plates were even given to Joseph. He also neglected to say that the church still has this stone in their possession.

Comentario de FairMormon

• This is what Daniel Peterson actually said in the interview:

There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was that he used an instrument that was found with the plates that was called the Urim and Thummim. This is kind of a divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. The seer stone is obviously something like the Urim and Thummim. It seems to be a stone that was found in the vicinity, and I can't say exactly how it would have worked. It may have been a kind of a concentrating device or a device to facilitate concentration. He would put the stone for most of the concentration period in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. Then he would put his face into the hat. It's kind of a strange image for us today, but it sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen, I suppose: You don't want to be looking at [anything] against a bright background; it hurts your eyes. ... He would read off what he saw in the stone, apparently in passages of about 25 to 35 words. ...

•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  If MormonThink wants to claim that Dan Peterson was attempting to "make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used or something anciently divine," they should at least be truthful in the sources they use as examples. Note that Dr. Peterson did not say that the stone "was found in the vicinity of Cumorah"—The critics said that, then they responded to their own misleading assertion by assigning a motive that this "is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used or something anciently divine." Dr. Peterson never mentioned any relationship between the stone and the Nephites, nor did he imply that the stone had an ancient origin or purpose.

-->

Notas

1. [back]  Plantilla:Book:Jensen Woodford Harper:Manuscript Revelation Books:Facsimile Edition
2. [back]  Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials," The Westminster Theological Journal 36:2 (1974), 141–142.
3. [back] Palmyra Herald (24 July 1822); cited in Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (2002 FAIR Conference presentation.) FAIR link
4. [back]  Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith Miscellany," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2005 FAIR Conference) FAIR link
5. [back]  "Wonderful Discovery," Wayne Sentinel [Palmyra, New York] (27 December 1825), page 2, col. 4. Reprinted from the Orleans Advocate of Orleans, New York; cited by Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 170–171. Buy online
6. [back]  Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (1984). PDF link
   Precaución: Este artículo fue publicado antes de que Mark Hoffman 's se descubrieron falsificaciones. Se puede tratar documentos fraudulentos como genuinos. Haga clic para la lista de documentos falsificados conocidos.
   Discusses money-digging; Salem treasure hunting episode; fraudulent 1838 Missouri treasure hunting revelation; Wood Scrape; “gift of Aaron”; “wand or rod”; Heber C. Kimball rod and prayer; magic; occult; divining lost objects; seerstone; parchments; talisman ; citing Orson Pratt, "Discourse at Brigham City," 27 June 1874, Ogden (Utah) Junction, cited in Orson Pratt, "Two Days´ Meeting at Brigham City," Millennial Star 36 (11 August 1874), 498–499.

Acerca de FairMormon        Únete a FairMormon        Contactar FairMormon        Donar a FairMormon

Derechos de autor © 1997-2015 por la Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research. Todos los derechos reservados. Ninguna parte de este sitio puede ser reproducida sin el consentimiento expreso y por escrito de Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.