- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A postee on New Order Mormon, which some of you have likely seen, raised an interesting proposition. He provided a very interesting recounting of a discourse he gave in gospel doctrine class in which he actually raised the issue of JS using a seer stone and a hat to translate the BM. In itself this is amazing, but it is his conclusion that is striking. He made the observation that, if true, which he seemed to accept, the hat and seer stone thesis very much proves that the BM is of divine origin. Here is his logic as he put it forth (I have inserted bracketed comments where I agree). “I mentioned that almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon was translated between April 7, 1829 (when Oliver Cowdery showed up in Harmony, Pennsylvania) and June 30, 1829 (when the translation was completed); and how what with other things that were being done during the time, the total time for translation has been estimated at 63-days.
That means that Joseph Smith dictated about 5,000 words per day.
I then said that there are only three explanations that take this into account.
The first is that Joseph Smith was translating by supernatural means [agreed].
There are only two other possibilities for what happened, in order to explain this by naturalistic methods.
The first naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Mormon on the fly, but that anybody who has seriously studied the Book of Mormon recognizes this to be an impossibility. [agreed]
The second naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith had a manuscript somewhere that he kept hidden on which was written the Book of Mormon, and that he memorized and regurgitated 5,000 words a day; and that he did this day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day.
…..
I said this second naturalistic explanation is just about as impossible as the first. [agreed]
….”
His point, if I am characterizing it correctly, was that JS’s using his seer stone and a hat is NOT proof that the BM is NOT of divine origin but quite the contrary; it is proof of it. Because JS could not have made it up on his own (on the fly) and, given the evidence of the translation (that he used the seer stone and the hat, which people witnessed), he clearly did not have a manuscript in front of him, means it was of divine origin.
Here is my question: Isn’t it the case that all of the viewings of JS using the seer stone and the hat only refer to the first 116 pages of the translation that were lost? This is the portion that Emma served as a scribe for and Whitmer, I think. Did not the Cowdery/Smith translation occur in virtual secrecy? And, therefore, isn’t this argument historically inaccurate? I am trying to get at the accuracy of the history here. But I think I am correct.
Curt
I recall it being the other way around. I thought JS claimed to have used the Urim and Thumim for the first 116 pages. The peep stone in the hat was used for what we have today as the BofM. There are lots of naturalistic explanations that don’t involve God:
4. A super-advanced alien race used telepathy to implant the BoM into Joseph’s mind, making him think he saw words in a stone.
5. Just like evolution, the random chemicals in the universe combined in just the right configuration that the BoM popped out of JS’s brain by chance. It’s the million monkeys with typewriters theory that actually happened.
6. The book was written by theologians on actual golden plates in our future. They then used time travel to deposit the book in the past for JS to find. They sent a time traveller named “Moroni” back to start the story and tell JS where to find the plates. They also gave him a stone that had a viewing screen embedded in it (like a cell phone screen) that would scroll the text translation.
7. Lehi’s family and the whole america’s BoM civilization lived in a parallel universe, an alternate reality in the quantum multiverse. We have their story, but the physical evidence they left behind is all in South America in that other universe. Our’s just has Mayans, Aztecs and Incas.
[edit: I am being a little dopey, not serious]
or
It could also be real scripture. That is a possibility.
There is a fundamental problem at some level in every aspect of religion (not just Mormonism): there is no proof for anything. You can’t prove the existence of God. You can’t prove the lack of existence either. You can’t prove the BofM came from God. There’s no proof it was a complete fraud and made up. The same goes for the existence of Jesus, the history of the Bible, or any other religious text or deity. Nobody has ever proven anything in all of human history. Why hasn’t someone, anyone, in the last 7,000 years come up with a smoking gun? Well some decide that means there is no God. That is a choice to make. The rest of the billions and billions of people choose to believe in some other permutation of a religious mythology.
In the end, it is a choice everyone makes.
The history of our Church is fascinating. It is very cool. It is whacky, strange, inspiring, enlightening and even frightening at times. I love it.
How did JS create the Book of Mormon? I don’t know. The fact that it is frustrating to figure out, that in itself is a story that I think God wants to tell us.
I was also under the impression that the stone in the hat period was with Oliver Cowdery, this is what David Whitmer would have witnessed (and of course Emma was near during both periods). I think someone could also argue that Joseph hid manuscript pieces under the lining in his hat – but like Valoel said it really doesn’t matter what types of arguments you can come up with — if it speaks to your heart it’s scripture. It may be literal, it may be symbolic mythology, you simply cannot physically prove spiritual things (the physical ancient record is not the spiritual meat in my opinion). Even if it was proven to come from some mortal’s mind you cannot prove that God didn’t use them to produce an inspired work. I do agree that it can be an interesting discussion, I’m not saying don’t ask the questions. Personally I just like to separate the physical from the spiritual. This is what works for me.
It’s always interesting to hear people discussing seer stones in church. There is the Ensign article from July 1993 that we can point to: “A Treasured Testament” by Russell M. Nelson – it says:
The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:“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. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe…”
So David Whitmer at least seemed to think Joseph was reading the interpretation in written English. I find that interesting, he didn’t think Joseph was personally searching for the words to describe images that came to his mind.
Anyway, glad you’re still hangin with us Curt! What else is on your mind lately?
I found this on lds.org. Thought maybe some would be interested. It’s about Urim and Thummim vs the Peep Stone in the hat. The artical is written by Richard Lloyd Anderson “By The Gift And Power Of God.” Go to lds.org main page and type in “seer stone” in the search box and it will be a few articles down.
Sorry if this doesn’t link out, I tried to follow the instructions.
I also understand it to be the other way around, the peepstone was primarily used for the translation. I don’t have a specific concern with the use of a peepstone for the translation, God could even have used the peepstone as a crutch to build the faith of JS to be able to do the translation (and I favor the idea of images/ideas appearing in JS mind that he had to find words to match). I don’t think the peepstone, in particular, is any more difficult to believe than JS physically looking at the plates and being inspired on how to translate them (as LDS gospel art depicts). Both explanations require a leap of faith. My difficulty is that the church largely seems to foster one view of the translation (through Gospel art, implication by word choice, etc.) and largely seems to ignore the peepstone version which is well documented. Its not as if angelic visions/God appearing/etc are easy concepts for people to believe anyways, so why not just tell the story as it really seems to have happened, rather than giving a similarly miraculous, but “scrubbed” version? I had accepted one version of the translation account, but to find out that the factually correct account is not the version largely taught by the church, makes me distrust the church’s version and the factually correct version.
Of course, documented translation errors for the Book of Abraham don’t solidify my faith in JS translation abilibities. Even if you subscribe to the Book of Abraham translation was only a spiritucal catalyst for JS and the scroll didn’t actually contain the Book of Abraham, JS clearly thought he was translating the book of abraham, he referred to images within the scroll and misinterpreted those images, incorrectly “restoring/making up” lost parts of those images, etc. Since JS didn’t even seem to look at the gold plates for the translation process, I don’t think the presence of the gold plates would support his translation, in fact it would probably turn out to be a very similar story for the book of abraham.
This is an interesting topic. I agree with you MisterC, and so does Bushman. We would be in a better place overall if our everyday discussions (in church) were more closely in line with what the historical record supports. The problem is simply that people have had a different version in their heads for so long.
I also think there is much evidence in the book of Mormon itself to support the idea that Joseph “searched for words” to express the images in his head during translation — but this topic has recently gained new life for me again.
I just got Royal Skousen’s BoM “The Earliest Text”, and the picture that his introduction paints is much closer to what David Whitmer and other witnesses describe. To them Joseph seemed to be reading written text. He would spell out names (BTW, some of our accepted spellings are not the original as it turns out) and words that he had difficulty pronouncing, he would continue after breaks (as from a ‘marked spot’?) without having anything read back to him. Several little indicators like this seem to point to him reading text during the dictation.
As I said, I find it an interesting topic.
Oooh, Orson, I just ordered Skousen’s book today! Can’t wait. I also ordered Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible. Yay! (Not sure if this makes me a nerd or not) Anyway, there are certainly lots of possibilities for how the BoM came to be.
I find the myth of how it came to be just as fascinating as what the more historically correct version is (as far as we know). I do think there is something we are supposed to learn in the myth.
I do think it is inspired and that it points to Christ.
I’ve enjoyed all the comments in this thread. Thanks!
One issue to be address is provenance. Provenance is always used by museum curators and archaeologists to authenticate a piece of art, archaeology artifact, ancient records etc. Some have called provenance the equivalent of “Chain of custody” which is a legal term for how evidence is handled and authenticated.
You will notice that the BOM follows exacting guideline for ancient provenance such as “chain of custody”. (Modern chain of custody involves keeping item in a very safe, secure place and only allowing authorized persons to handle evidence). An example would be that only one or two people are actually allowed to see and handle cocaine seized as evidence for a drug-crime trial. Those that actually test for the cocaine are the courts witnesses. Having excessive numbers of people handle a specimen could corrupt the the specimen. The specimen could also be lost, stolen, mislabeled or otherwise mishandled, rendering it useless.
The BOM spanned a total of 1000 years (600 BC – 400 AD). The sacred record was likely handled by very few persons in a chain of custody manner. Angel Moroni had custody of the plates and eventually relinquished custody to JS. Chain of custody records must be delivered directly from one person to another person with only one person in charge and accountable at a time.
According to practices of provenance, all records received must be authenticated, usually by using a secret, encrypted code. It is not unusual to use some sort of a device to decipher the encrypted code. Today, archeologists use microscopes and fluorescent markers. The use of the “seer stones” may have been the ancient equivalent of microscopic lenses (modern microscopes use two lenses). The use of a hat, to provide a dark field, may have aided in deciphering and luminescent or fluorescent markers (this is also done in modern provenance and modern microscopy). JS translation technique may have just been a crude version of what is used today by scientists.
I just wanted to add that one can take a “virtual tour” of Ancient American Artifacts: http://artmuseum.arizona.edu/exhibitions/exhibitions_slideshow/ritual_beauty/ Much of the gold in ancient America was looted or taken by the Spanish and British. Some lovely artifacts remain. One thing is certain, the ancient Americans were experts at their craft.
Wow, lots of good stuff, thanks. I would point out that the seer stone use in my mind actually solidifies the over all story of the Smith family as “treasure hunters”. In many ways I think that Joseph’s early training in folk magic of the time allowed him to develop the spiritual sensitivity he would need in order to be ready for the Book of Mormon.
This is an excellent article on gold. The article states that gold is exceptionally resistant to corrosion and remains virtually unchanged and intact over hundreds of years. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=k21483r2226m2376&size=largest I also firmly believe that the ancient Americans practiced very strict provenance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance My assertion that they practiced strict provenance with sacred records comes from the uniform “chain of custody” described in the BOM and by JS.
Anciently, the Hebrew people were subjected to “calendar fraud” brought about by the Samaritans. (please see my post entitled, “We each must have our own witness”).
The ancient Americans were almost obsessive-compulsive with respect to their calendars and I would assume that they used great care in their records as well.
(A Jewish friend, whom I commiserate with about religion, will sometimes (out of the blue) say “what have they done to you?”) So let me ask, if everything that everyone has pointed out so far, is true, and I’m not saying that it’s not:
The obvious question is: did Joseph Smith even need the plates? Did he need to be within so many feet of them for the seer stone to work? Two feet, three? six feet?
If he just needed to be next to them, then conceivably he could have translated them while they were still in the ground. (That’s right, why not JS sitting on the hill Cumorrah?).
Out of the blue I hear my friend’s voice, “what have they done to you?”
Honest question: Quote:Why does it matter?
I’m not saying it does or doesn’t. I’m just asking the question to provoke the thought.
Orson wrote:
I just got Royal Skousen’s BoM “The Earliest Text”, and the picture that his introduction paints is much closer to what David Whitmer and other witnesses describe. To them Joseph seemed to be reading written text.While I like the thought of JS finding words to describe the impressions he got from the seer stone, and I think that it would explain a lot of things, but you are absolutely right, the quotes from those who saw JS translate say that he was reading it off of the stone. And it sounds like the original text supports that. Could be very interesting to see that. I’d be interested in hearing highlights from you, Orson, on what you find most interesting.
Based on Book of Abraham, I question whether the gold plates were actually needed for the translation, and whether a modern translation by academics would yield anything resembling the Book of Mormon (not that what we have wasn’t inspired . . .). But it also seems that the translation process was quite different between the book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, with the Book of Mormon text appearing on the seer stone and the Book of Abraham being the result of much study of the text.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.