|
|
Línea 137: |
Línea 137: |
| |sumario=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. | | |sumario=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. |
| }} | | }} |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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?
| |
− |
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | * 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.
| |
− | |cita=
| |
− | "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.{{ref|pratt.1}}
| |
− |
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | |response=
| |
− | |enlace=Book of Mormon/Translation/Method
| |
− | |sujeto=Chronology of translation methods
| |
− | |sumario=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.
| |
− |
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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?
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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."
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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?
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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?
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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 [[Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones|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?
| |
− | |cita=
| |
− | 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?
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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?"
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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?
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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?
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− |
| |
− | ==== ====
| |
− | {{PiensaMormónReclamaciónÍndice
| |
− | |reclamación=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.
| |
− | |pensar=
| |
− | *This is what Daniel Peterson ''actually'' said in the interview:
| |
− | <blockquote>
| |
− | 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. <span style="color:blue">It seems to be a stone that was found in the vicinity,</span> 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. ...
| |
− | </blockquote>
| |
− | *{{antispeak|caricature}} 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.
| |
− | }}
| |
− | -->
| |
− | == ==
| |
− | {{designación notas}}
| |
− |
| |
− | #{{note|rev.book.1}} {{Book:Jensen Woodford Harper:Manuscript Revelation Books:Facsimile Edition|pages=4,11-15}}
| |
− | #{{note|fn21}} {{Periodical:Walters:Joseph Smith's Bainbridge Court Trials|pages=141–142}}
| |
− | # {{note|herald1}}''Palmyra Herald'' (24 July 1822); cited in Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (2002 FAIR Conference presentation.){{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html}}
| |
− | #{{note|gamble1}} Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith Miscellany," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2005 FAIR Conference){{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_A_Joseph_Smith_Miscellany.html}}
| |
− | #{{note|mcgee1}} "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 {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=170|end=171}}
| |
− | #{{note|pratt.1}} {{MatureJS}} ; citing Orson Pratt, "Discourse at Brigham City," 27 June 1874, Ogden (Utah) Junction, cited in {{MS|author=Orson Pratt|article=Two Days´ Meeting at Brigham City|vol=36|date=11 August 1874|start=498|end=499}}
| |
| | | |
| {{Articles Footer 1}} | | {{Articles Footer 1}} |
| [[en:Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon]] | | [[en:Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon]] |
El juicio de Joseph Smith fue uno de sus primeros intentos de aplicar una "mano fuerte".
Información adicional