tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post1156498594833856053..comments2024-03-26T10:31:54.453-07:00Comments on Book of Mormon setting: Evolution of seer stone narrative - Benjamin Winchesterjonathan3dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05379975395372054926noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-71044123122377274082020-05-12T08:17:47.449-07:002020-05-12T08:17:47.449-07:00Went through the sources of the article you linked...Went through the sources of the article you linked. One paper by R. Nicholson is called, "The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation" The title alone suggests something that should seem alarming. What changed here? He writes, <br /><br />"In 1956, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith knew of the seer stone, but did not believe that Joseph actually used it during the translation of the Book of Mormon.<br /><br />"SEER STONE NOT USED IN BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION. We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were re-turned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of transla-tions by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. <br /><br />"Like Kirkham, Joseph Fielding Smith simply refused to accept accounts of Joseph having utilized his seer stone for the purpose of translation as having any validity. In his opinion, such accounts were simply erroneous."<br /><br />In effect, the author seems to be trying to discredit a general authority who by this point had been working in the Church history department for 50 years. By saying things like, "In his opinion," and "he did not believe." That's not a good look for somebody trying to present a neutral stance. <br /><br />These kinds of phrases can take their toll on the subconscious of any reader if they read enough of this stuff. They create an image of a man who was merely holding a bias independent from the facts. But let's be real-- a man in Joseph Fielding Smith's position in his time and place could know more by association than anyone now working in Church history presently.<br /><br />It's like we've seen scholars do to Joseph Smith. "It was all his opinion, and he didn't say much. David Whitmer knew what was up. But, at the end of the day, we don't really know." <br /><br />I don't see this rhetoric as helpful. <br /><br />Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464871210618980262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-58060163173328457422020-05-12T08:01:06.788-07:002020-05-12T08:01:06.788-07:00I've read through some of the sourced articles...I've read through some of the sourced articles in that BOMC link. They use a lot of David Whitmer interviews, to support the use of the seer stone, which really just seems to complicate things. None of this is helpful, everything feels only half-substantive. The reasoning is all good and fine with use of quotes and references-- but then an interesting thing happens almost always at the end of the essay or article. It's The Excuse, as I see it, defeats all of the evidence. In their conclusions, they say in effect, "We have all this stuff, and it seems confusing to have conflicting accounts... But what difference does it make? He used interpreters, he used a seer stone, God can do whatever he needs to do to get stuff done." And they end it. At first it seems deep, but these guys are still just wading in the kiddy pool. Can somebody be comfortable with this much cognitive dissonance and un-resolve? <br /><br />Reminds me of when we went to see stonehenge. Everyone could explain what it was used for, how they built it, why it looked the way it did. Then without fail, every explanation would conclude with something like, "But... nobody really knows." So what did I learn? These guys don't know much about stonehenge. In one conversation with an employee there, I said that there are henges and mounds all over North America like this. She looked at me curiously and said, "Oh! I saw that on TV, that man made a stone henge replica out of junk cars, just stood them up and stacked them on top of eachother." Yeah... nevermind. <br /><br />Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464871210618980262noreply@blogger.com