Transparency — positives and negatives

[Anonymous]

DA,

Great points. I do think there is value in trying to understand the Church’s perspective, but as I said earlier, I’m way more interested in results. With that in mind, let me ask this: What would you like the Church to say in the seerstone article that it did not say?

The article mentioned the Urim and Thummim, the head-in-the-hat, the seerstone (with photo), that there were other stones, that JS used seerstones to find lost or hidden objects, that JS’s acceptance of seerstone-type objects was derived from the “folk culture” of his day, that JS’s translation methods evolved, and commented on past paintings that represented the translation process in fast-n-loose ways in order to correct the record.

To me, the only thing I would say is missing from the article is that JS used the stone to search for hidden treasure. However, I will point out that the essay on the BofM translation, specifically does mention that, so it’s not like the Church is trying to hide that fact. From the essay:

Quote:

As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.

I also think the seerstone article was incredibly interesting in that it implies that even JS’s published and canonized revelations were influenced by what he derived from folk culture. It’s something that I think people like us have long recognized, and it’s monumental that the Church would make that connection, even in subtle ways.

For me, here is the bottom line: the seerstone article represents an admirable attempt by the Church to release its history from the tight grasp that was once held on it. In our wildest dreams only five years back, we couldn’t have seen that the Church would be this open. I believe we should acknowledge and openly thank the Church for its efforts in this area.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

What would you like the Church to say in the seerstone article that it did not say?

I would have liked a comment to go along with the point about being influenced by his day to include something like your sentence you wrote plus…

Quote:

JS’s published and canonized revelations were influenced by the world and culture around him…

…as evident by King James version scripture quoted word for word in the Book of Mormon text.

Lifetime members of the church should be given the lessons that help them think through some of these issues, to avoid “Oh ya…I never thought about that before.”

If the scripture was being written today, as Bushman stated, iPads would be tools for bringing forth light and knowledge instead of stones, but the prophet would still only be able to process what he sees though his level of understanding influenced by the world he lives in, seasoned by the inspiration of God.

[Anonymous]

There always will be room to finesse wording in a way that resonates with us individually – but this essay is about as close to perfect for me as it could have been.

DA, I understand and agree with much of your last comment, but, again, it doesn’t invalidate my central point. Why certain wording and framing is chosen in one question; why certain things are published at all is another question; how publications came to be decided is another question; etc. Unless each aspect is tackled individually and separately, to the extent possible and knowing there are overlapping issues, conclusions get wonky in a hurry – especially when people bring a fundamental paradigm and perspective into the conclusions right from the start.

Our reactions say a lot about us, and those reactions need to be examined every bit as much as the actions to which they are responding.

That is all I’m saying.

[Anonymous]

Everything can be defined as a reaction to a reaction. The church’s article is a reaction, we in turn react to the article. There’s entertainment value to be had in guessing the motives of others as well as our own.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Everything can be defined as a reaction to a reaction. The church’s article is a reaction, we in turn react to the article. There’s entertainment value to be had in guessing the motives of others as well as our own.

I’m not sure how to react to that?? :eh:

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

nibbler wrote:

Everything can be defined as a reaction to a reaction. The church’s article is a reaction, we in turn react to the article. There’s entertainment value to be had in guessing the motives of others as well as our own.

I’m not sure how to react to that?? :eh:

My work here is finished.

[Anonymous]

Good example of why I love this site.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

DA,…Great points. I do think there is value in trying to understand the Church’s perspective, but as I said earlier, I’m way more interested in results. With that in mind, let me ask this: What would you like the Church to say in the seerstone article that it did not say?…The article mentioned the Urim and Thummim, the head-in-the-hat, the seerstone (with photo), that there were other stones, that JS used seerstones to find lost or hidden objects, that JS’s acceptance of seerstone-type objects was derived from the “folk culture” of his day, that JS’s translation methods evolved, and commented on past paintings that represented the translation process in fast-n-loose ways in order to correct the record…To me, the only thing I would say is missing from the article is that JS used the stone to search for hidden treasure…

If the goal was full disclosure, transparency, honesty, etc. then I think they should have shown a picture of JS with his face in a hat and no gold plates in sight to set the record straight compared to all the previously published misleading illustrations that don’t match the first-hand accounts of the actual “translation” process. Also, like you said, even though the article actually does vaguely and briefly mention that JS used seer stones to try to see “lost or hidden objects” that doesn’t really give a full and clear picture of JS basically getting paid to find buried treasure when he didn’t actually find any treasure to speak of based on the existing historical accounts. In fact, there are records of him actually going on trial in 1826 for this fraudulent-sounding treasure hunting scheme.

Also, I don’t remember where I read it but it sounded like one of the reasons Emma’s father wasn’t too keen on the idea of JS marrying his daughter was precisely because of his involvement in these treasure hunting antics. Once again, why didn’t the Church tell the full story based on the existing available information? My guess is that the main reason why is simply because some of this information clearly undermines Joseph Smith’s credibility in a significant way for average people that hear about it. On the other hand, if the primary goal of the essay was mostly intended inoculation and apologetics then I wouldn’t expect it to be any different than what we actually see because as far as I can tell it is basically trying to say that these seer stones are supposedly not as weird and superstitious as they sound to many people nowadays because folk magic was fairly popular back then and the Bible also talks about using physical objects for the sake of legitimate spiritual purposes.

On Own Now wrote:

To me, the only thing I would say is missing from the article is that JS used the stone to search for hidden treasure. However, I will point out that the essay on the BofM translation, specifically does mention that, so it’s not like the Church is trying to hide that fact. From the essay:

One important difference between the essays and Ensign is that many chapel Mormons that have never read any of the essays actually do read some of the Ensign articles. Even many of the Ensign articles will probably be completely ignored by many active members. So if they really wanted as many Church members as possible to know about some of this then it seems like they would put more of it in the lesson manuals, talk about it in General Conference, etc. to get the word out. Quietly publishing some of this in some obscure corner of their website is just as good as hiding it in many cases for practical purposes as far as the number of active Church members that are actually going to read these essays anytime soon.

[Author]

Posts