Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 09:55PM

Or not.

Was shoving one's face in a hat commonplace in Joe's time, or was that the one original weird thing he did?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2017 09:56PM by Beth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:12PM

On the same subject, I remember, from long ago (1970s?) seeing LDS church art with JS, book of gold plates before him, wearing exotic spectacles, the Urim and the Thummin as lenses. The impression I got was that these were some kind of magical or mystical crystals, and the images of the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs, purportedly, were somehow altered to English characters and words.

I've asked this before without getting a response. Does anybody else remember the translation device once being the Urim and Thummin, and when did that change to the peepstone in the hat?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:15PM

And now I have Uma Thurman earworm.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:22PM

The Mormons was broadcast on PBS's FRONTLINE/American Experience. Don't laugh, but South Park might have had something to do with it as well.

You know how folks are like, "How could anyone convert/stay in/whatever when we have the internet?"

What I think has been happening is that TSCC is being forced to admit some things, like the rock in the hat, because of the internet. There's a heavy dose of spin, but yeah.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 06:14AM

. . . on the Urim and Thummim that was backfilled into LDS scripture to make Mormon "revelation" history far more glorious than what it actually was.

What, in reality, it was, was a smirk-in-progress revised fairy tale that was undergoing constant revamping and reinvention:

"The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, H. Michael Marquardt examines the earliest manuscripts of Joseph Smith’s revelations, reaching back into history to preserve the revelations in their original form. In so doing, he returns to the very roots of the Mormon Church, re-establishing ties to a past history of Mormon religion long-lost to some, and never known by others.

"The JS Revelations is an exceptional tool, for it supplies the text of the original manuscripts of Joseph’s revelations, coupled with the current version of those same revelations. Marquardt carefully details what changes have been made to the revelations, where they occur in the text, and, in so far as is possible, when the changes were introduced. As Joseph Smith revised and republished his revelations, these changes were noted by others both inside and outside the Mormon community. Marquardt includes the reactions of these people in a commentary section included with each revelation, and adds his own understanding of the context and significance of the changes. . . .

"As various LDS and non-LDS historians indicate, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and other church leaders added terms and concepts to the evolving rituals and theology of early Mormonism (eg. Bushman, VanWagonner, Marquardt, Quinn). On several occasions, these were added retroactively into older revelations. This gave the appearance that the newer concepts were a part of divinely-given revelation and had been a part of church doctrine all along. Marquardt’s analysis and commentary highlight a number of these retroactive insertions, helping the reader obtain fuller understanding of when and how Mormon doctrine developed.

"For example two revelations published in the1835 D&C (D&C 36 and 42) carry an 1829 date and both mention the term 'Urim and Thummim.' However, Marquardt points out that 'Urim and Thummim' are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and do not appear in LDS church literature until 1832, over two years after the revelation. One of these revelations was previously published as BC 9 dated to May 1829. The opening sentence of this revelations reads:

"'Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and you have also lost your gift at the same time' (BC 9).

"When the revelation was republished as D&C 36 in 1835, the opening sentence was changed to:

"'Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many those writings, which you had power given unto you to translate, by means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and you have also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened' (D&C 36; cf. LDS D&C 10:1-2; RLDS D&C 3:1).

"In his commentary, Marquardt notes:

"'In the Evening and the Morning Star, January 1833, is a brief tentative allusion to two biblical objects, Teraphim and Urim and Thummim: 'It [the Book of Mormon] was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles — (known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) [.]'

"Teraphim, it should be noted, were probably some sort of figurines or statues representing the image of idols. Worship of the Teraphim was forbidden by the ten commandments. When mentioned in Israelite context, they are almost always condemned. Teraphim were used for divination by opening up the liver and examining it. It would be an odd quirk of historical fate for someone to suggest that the Teraphim would be used as a means for translating the Book of Mormon. One also wonders if the writer of the Evening and the Morning Star article knew the nature of the biblical Urim and Thummim. There is no evidence that these were used for translation, as the term is presently understood. They were to obtain answers to specific questions which could be answered with a simple yes or no.

"The use of the Urim and Thummim in connection with translating the Book of Mormon became a fact by the end of 1834. Oliver Cowdery wrote: '[H]e [Joseph Smith] translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephite whould [would] have said, "Interpreters," the history, or record, called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

"That 'Urim and Thummim' was an addition to the text is evident since it was a development in early church history and culminated in its inclusion in the 1835 D&C. Primary sources tell us that a seer stone was used in the translation process" (pp. 51-52).

"So, by studying the original revelations we discover that 'Urim and Thummim' is a later addition to the text whose retroactive insertion gives the appearance that Joseph used a biblical means to translate the Book of Mormon, and that this means was known since 1829, before the Mormon church was organized.

"In reality Joseph placed a magical seer stone into his hat--a process that much more resembled pagan divination."

{"Joseph’s Original Revelations: True Roots of Restoration Religion." book review by Joel B. Groat of H. Michael Marquardt's"The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary," Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1999, 410 pp, ISBN 1-56085-126-0, http://mit.irr.org/josephs-original-revelations-true-roots-of-restoration-religion)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2017 06:17AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chicken N. Backpacks ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:14PM

The Cat in the Hat is much more fun.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:17PM

I love that there is such depth and breadth of knowledge and experience on the board. Screw Google. Someone knows.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: badassadam ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 05:59AM

Exactly this is my google, most people here know more than i do and its awesome.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:18PM

My understanding is that Joseph used the "spectacles" to translate the 116 lost pages and lost them when Moroni took the plates.

The Book of Mormon as we know it was translated/received by the seer stone.

The real question......

If Moroni could take the plates and bring them back, why lug them all over when he was alive. Why not just deliver them?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: [|] ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:24PM

That is what I was taught in SS and Seminary.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: American Liberty ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:19PM

Hi Caffiend, If I recall right it was from Quinns book the Magical World View which came out when I was a kid back in the 80s that the old historical version was resurrected. These legends were documented in Howes book Mormonism Unveiled which was thought for generations to be anti mormon lies, but now verified to be mostly accurate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: September 05, 2017 11:25PM

What was "the old historical version" -- the peepstone?

If so, the original "translation" was the peepstone in the hat. Then at some point, it was the Urim and the Thummin spectacles, (which correlates with my 1970s-dated recollections of LDS artwork), and then, in the 1980s, they went back to the peepstone?

(Off topic, I occasionally get a fresh chuckle seeing the username "Poopstone.")

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 06:22AM

Poopstone hasn't posted in a long while. Did he quit RfM?

He brought some lively discussions to the board.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: badassadam ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 11:47AM

Yes he did i do remember him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slskipper ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:03AM

Captain Obvious here. He didn't use a rock in a hat. That was just a cheap stunt when he wanted to dupe some outsider. The rest of the time he and his cohorts simply wrote at a desk like anybody else writing a book.

Thank you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:07AM

bubble. burst.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:26AM

This issue here is whether the LDS church changed its story about the (PURPORTED!!) translation process, and when. If this can be proven, it establishes that the LDS church is internally inconsistent with its history.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:20AM

I remem using the table/spectacles poster on my mish; (open houses, etc)
I definitely feel betrayed / lied to by tscc, They knew the Truth all along...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:24AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:31AM

In the early 19th century the western edge of the US was home to a lot of "marginal" Christianities informed by the occult and other strange things. The Smith family and others who would form Mormonism (and other curious new religions) were part of this tradition. And yes, scrying--looking into stones or crystals to find lost objects or buried treasure or to see into the future was pretty common. The hat was a means of reducing ambient light so that the rocks could be read more accurately.

In answer to Caffiend's question, I don't think the church admits that the BoM was translated through a peepstone even today. In the earliest Mormon communities the truth was known--Brigham Young, for instance, knew about it--but to those people there was nothing unChristian in scrying. As I understand it, the U&T stories were Joseph's way of claiming ancient Hebrew precedent for seerstones.

By the end of his life, though, JS had move away from the occult and was trying to portray Mormonism as the correct form of traditional Christianity. That was the point that the Tanners understood and why they did not believe Mark Hoffman's salamander letter was genuine: it was dated to the later period, when JS was trying to bury his old treasure-seeking and occult practices. So I'd bet that it was in the late 1830s or early 1840s when the U&T became the standard Mormon story. It may even have been a bit earlier than that.

I remember seeing those Mormon drawings and paintings of JS using a breastplate and eyeglasses, designed much like 1970s spectacles, to read the plates. I suspect the church realized those images looked stupid and retired them in the early 1980s although it stuck with the U&T history for a long time after that.

It probably was Quinn who refocused attention on the seerstone, although the Tanners (and Fawn Brodie?) had long been writing about it. The first modern crack in the U&T story, I believe, was in 1993, when Holland referred briefly to the seerstone in either a conference talk or an Ensign article. But that was probably just inoculation, putting the idea in the record lest the church need it later. But I know that in the early 2000s the church was still teaching the U&T story and not speaking openly of the seerstone; and I suspect that even today, after the publication of the Essays, the church does not teach that the BoM was translated through Joseph's little brown rock.

We may today be seeing the transition to a seerstone orthodoxy, but I think it is still the early stages of that process. Too sudden a shift would disturb a lot of TBMs, so the church will go very slowly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: caffiend ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 12:37AM

What you're describing seems to be the conflict between folk religion and an ecclesiastical desire for consistent doctrine with some degree of consistency and credibility--surely, a daunting task!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dp ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 02:26AM

Here's some tripe that plays into their changing story: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 04:14AM

Even on the outside chance that scrying could be made to work, crystals were used. Joe's rock was just an opaque rock. He could only pretend to use it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Joseph Smith ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 06:02AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 10:15AM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand it, the U&T stories were Joseph's
> way of claiming ancient Hebrew precedent for
> seerstones.

...which actually shows clearly that Joseph didn't know squat about Hebrew practices.

The U&T weren't "translators." They were, essentially, dice. Or a coin to flip.

One was black and one was white.
A Hebrew priest would put both in a bag/container, ask "god" a question, and then pull one out. White meant "yes," black meant "no." The idea being that "god" would decide which one came out of the bag/container. They were apparently most often used to decide "guilty/not guilty" in a trial of an accused person, with the idea that "god" would decide the person's guilt.

More info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim

So while they were, essentially, cleromancy tools, they were never "seer stones" or "translators." Smith using the somewhat obscure bible reference to them AS "seer stones" or "translators" was simply flat-out wrong.
Again.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: September 07, 2017 03:18AM

Yup. This is right.

Ironically, virtually the same method is still employed in parts of East Asia. In temples there are pairs of wooden objects, each shaped differently on one side. The client asks the gods a question, then tosses the two objects. If both land the same face up, the gods have answered in the affirmative; if one lands heads up and the other heads down, the answer is negative.

It's a common magical practice, way less interesting than looking through 1970s spectacles connected to a funky breastplate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beth ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 04:46AM

Thanks, steve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 04:45AM

There were never any "magic spectacles" that were used in
translation. The claim (based on a statement by Emma) was that
the 116 pages were done with the "magic spectacles" but when they
got lost the angel took back the "magic spectacles" and Joseph
then had to go to plan B: the rock in the hat.

However Martin Harris tells of when they were translating the 116
pages about how he found a similar stone to the one Joseph was
using in the hat and "secretly" switched them, and how Joseph was
confused as to why he wasn't getting any thing through the stone.

There were no "magic spectacles."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 05:56AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: badassadam ( )
Date: September 06, 2017 08:07AM

The history of the rock -it was sitting on the ground- the end.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smirkorama ( )
Date: September 07, 2017 04:53AM

due to their keen prophetic skills and sharp revelatory ability, MORmON prophets can readily translate obscure languages like reformed egyptian...... but that does NOT mean that they can speak spanish!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UncZBWcIPL8

What if Joes seer stone actually worked !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P35yb8oYjXc

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  ********  **         **     **  ******** 
 **   **   **        **    **    **   **      **    
 **  **    **        **    **     ** **       **    
 *****     ******    **    **      ***        **    
 **  **    **        *********    ** **       **    
 **   **   **              **    **   **      **    
 **    **  ********        **   **     **     **