Yes, I know, I know. I should find a more useful past-time. But I just can't help myself. This is missionaries number 11 and 12, if I've counted correctly, that I've met with during the past roughly 12 months.

As we got started on the JS story and came to the translation of the BOM, I thought I would live dangerously and try out the rock in the hat story on them. The lead sister assured me that the rock in the hat story was not true while her companion nodded in agreement.

Treading very lightly so as not to risk losing the conversation altogether, I explored that with them -- referring to the essays on LDS.ORG, although I didn't have access to them at the moment -- but they stood their ground. With just a little more gentle prodding I discovered their source of confidence in their position. The mission president had told them (and all the missionaries, I would presume) that it was not so.

The conversation went on to other things, but I kept wondering if I had gotten it wrong. I was so sure that the church had acknowledged the rock in the hat in the translation essay. Afterwards I looked it up and sure enough, it's there.

Now what do I do? We have tentatively set the next meeting for sometime on Monday. I want to keep the conversation going for as long as I can. Consider it like a perverse and goofy teenaged challenge, like seeing how long you can keep your hand in a bucket of ice.

Do I show them the essay and directly contradict their mission president, just to be contrary? Or do I save this for later when it might tie in with something else? Or just drop it?

I want to plant seeds of doubt, but carefully, gently, subtly.

And what do you guys think? Does the mission president not know about the essays, and he is simply passing along his ignorance? Or does he know the truth (about rock in hat) but thinks it best to protect the testimonies of his charges?

JAR

I would definitely bring it up and show them the evidence of the church admission.

Theyll be forced to either believe the church or a church leader... a situation most missionaries dont even dream possible.

You may initially be labelled as an antichrist, but that will be one hell of a seed. Plus its straight off a church approved website.

And I would ask them why church leaders say one thing and the church website says another.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2015 11:28PM by nonsequiter.

I would continue the flow and tie up that end before you go onto something else.

It's also in an old Ensign article by Russell M. Nelson.

Greyfort,

Don't strain yourself, but if you can get me a link to the article, or some kind of head start toward finding it myself, that would be great.

JAR

How about printing out the "rock in the hat" portion of the essay and asking them for help in understanding why they say one thingr, but LDS(dot)org says something else? Show them your confused, but wants an answer face. Be humble, but curious...

This will forever give you a reference point... "Oh, could this be like that time you were totally wrong?"

I agree with elderolddog.

Approach this from the position that you are confused and curious. You show and give them a copy of the "hat and seer stone" from the essays with that portion highlighted, and exclaim, "Please help me with this. I want to understand why the two differing accounts exist in the church."

Lay out the evidence before them and again state, "Please, help me with this"
Missionaries are all about helping others, its part of their training.

I wish someone would have told me the truth years ago.

Print out "a treasured testament" by Russell m Nelson. He admits to the rock in the hat and says the BofM is not historically accurate.

The DNA essay in the first main paragraph says the "primary purpose of the BofM is spiritual rather than historical".

Ask them why no GA has testified to the truthfulness to the BofM since April 2007?

Re: Daledobach's statement: " . . . no GA has testified to the truthfulness to the BofM since April 2007".

It seems like that would be difficult to prove as you'd have to have a record of every speech or conversation involving a GA.

Are you referring specifically to General Conferences?

Yes in GC.

Thank you.

Well, since the BoM is the central piece of the church (or was),you'd think that'd be a regular part of their testimonies.
Interesting.

Greyfort is right. Nelson's talk is "A Treasured Testament" in the July 1993 Ensign, pp. 61-65 (the rock in hat quote is on p. 62). An apostle trumps an MP. As far as I know, the online article is intact, but you just might want to double-check before the sisters return.

No problem:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&query=Ensign+archives+A+Treasured+Testament

July 1993 Ensign
page 62
Lowe left corner of page with a drawing of JS gazing at Gold Plates.
"A treasured testament " is the title.
cam email pics if you needed.

Wow. So many great ideas, and in such a short period of time. Thanks everyone. I'm beginning to develop a plan of action, but I'm still open to further thoughts, so keep them coming.

JAR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 12:02AM by justarelative.

Awesome that you're doing this!

Show them!

Catch them in their lies and ignorance. Show them the link but also print it off.

It sounds like you don't have your ducks in row though. Make sure you know how and where to back up EVERYTHING you say. And make sure you can back it up by an LDS or church source.

Hi Justarelative---Before you meet with the sisters again, get real clear and honest with yourself. Are you baiting them or trying to help them? I have found Mormon baiting to be a most amusing activity, because it's so easy. I have done it myself and it's one slam dunk after another. Great for the ego, but not great for your integrity. But really if you care about these people, show them your evidence with love and kindness. It will take a while for it to sink in, so be patient.

+1

Some people on this site seem to relish the opportunity to ridicule and belittle the missionaries. They don't stop to figure out why they feel the need to do that.

The only motive should be to help them. When that's your motive, the action plan becomes clearer.

leftfield Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They don't stop to figure out why
> they feel the need to do that.

How the hell do you know what we've started or stopped to figure out? I was a legal adult bothering hundreds of people a day for a stupid religion. In retrospect, I deserved and learned from the ridicule I received.

Bullying and ridiculing others is not the effective way to go about changing another person's point of view, but feel free to rationalize your behavior if it makes you feel better.

If a missionary is being rude, condescending, or otherwise misbehaving, fine. Call him or her on that.

But if this is the missionary's first exposure to the real world, then the approach advocated by istandallamazed makes much more sense than your immature take.

It depends on what you want to get out of it.

Do you want to change hearts and minds and help a fellow victim out of a cult? Or do you want to work out your anger on said victim because he/she happens to be wearing a church badge.

Even as an agnostic, I think the quote attributed to Christ that says, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" makes sense and applies to every young and naive missionary—legal adult status notwithstanding.

I'd rather pity them and try to help them than mock and attack them.

It worked for me. It let me know in no uncertain terms that people saw me and what I was doing as wrong and rude.

I was a big boy doing big boy things, so I needed to put on big boy pants. The opposite of immature.

While your way may work for some, it is not universal. Hence my question, which btw, you didn't answer. Please don't assume, (including global statements), that others haven't "thought things through" because they don't agree with you.

Point taken...I have no idea what you're thinking or why you'd believe ridiculing people is a better persuasive technique than sincerely trying to help a fellow victim.

Their approach assumes the nonmo is wrong and inadequate in the eyes of God. Missionaries tell whoever they meet that they need to go to the Mormon church or they can't enter the celestial kingdom or see their loved ones in heaven.

That is rude and judgmental. There's no need to put the needs of missionaries above the needs of non-mormons who are minding their business in their homes or on the street.

Pretending that missionaries are not rude and judgmental is lying to them. They have a right to know they are rude, so they will be able to improve.

Hey Justarelative: Ask them to bring 'their' copy of the official "Preach My Gospel" manual to your next appointment. After you have shown them the evidence of the Rock and Hat method in the official essay AND in the 1993 Ensign article by Apostle Nelson, then have them turn to pages 7 and 38. In those pages is the LDS official artwork of JS sitting at a table touching the plates in the translation process. Ask the missionaries, "Is this a honest representation?"

Next, have them also bring the Sunday School manual they use in the investigators Sunday School class, "Gospel Principles." Have them turn to chapter 31, "Honesty."

Here's the LDS link: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

Here are quotes from that lesson:

"Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. President Brigham Young said, “If we accept salvation on the terms it is offered to us, we have got to be honest in every thought, in our reflections, in our meditations, in our private circles, in our deals, in our declarations, and in every act of our lives” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 293)."

"Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest."

Then ask the missionaries: Is the LDS Church being honest when it uses artwork to lead people to believe in a faith promoting image rather than a truthful rendition of Joseph Smith bent over looking at his magic seer stone in his hat?

Ask: How many investigators would get excited about the Book of Mormon IF they knew this was the way the scribes reported that the translation process occurred and is now being acknowledged in an official LDS essay?

Ask: How many missionaries would get excited to tell the REAL TRUTH as Elder Nelson stated in the Ensign 1993 article? Would they be embarrassed? Would they feel uncomfortable and silly trying to pass off a picture of Joe Smith bent over looking in his hat? If so, that is exactly the reason why the LDS church does not TELL THE TRUTH in its artwork.

And finally, this paragraph from chapter 31 on Honesty:

"The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their DISADVANTAGE."

****EDITED TO ADD****

The OP states: "The mission president had told them (and all the missionaries, I would presume) that it [the rock and hat translation method] was not so."

NOTE: In the official July 1993 Ensign article, "A Treasured Testament", the sub heading states: "Adapted from an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah." From: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&query=Ensign+archives+A+Treasured+Testament

So have the missionaries ask their mission president, "Was Elder Nelson of the Twelve Apostles lying in this seminar for new mission presidents?"

You might think of telling the missionaries, "Now that you know the truth as verified in the Ensign article and the official essay, are you going to tell the truth from now on, or are you going to bear false witness?"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 03:18AM by jiminycricket.

Nice work, JC.

Loved the step by step.

Reminded me of the lesson guides published by TSCC that I used on my mission or teaching weekly classes. Especially like how it rounds out with the suggested questions for discussion, only this time the inevitable answers should stir up some long buried cognitive dissonance.

Nice! I'm thinking there ought to be a 1 page discussion guide like this for other "gospel topics". Haha!

do you not have a TV or a netflix subscription or something? Lots of great TV shows out there to watch.

THIS kind of thing drives me nuts. The sisters tell you it's absolutely not true. They are sure of it, their MS said so.

Yet the church admits it. So once they find out its true what do they say? "Oh we always new that." or some crap.

My wife got into my emails when I said I didn't believe. And found some of the things I had been researching. One was rock in the hat. Later she sent an email with very poor apologetics about all my information. Her answer for rock in the hat?

"Rock in a hat? That sounds made up to me."

So I being a good husband sent her the link on lds.org to the apostle talking about the how JS used a rock in a hat. And how did she respond?

She didn't. Hasn't brought it up in almost a year. I haven't even mentioned the essay on it yet. But I am sure that one day she will either say "It doesn't matter." Or "she already knew that."


I just feel like we can NEVER win. They always have an excuse.

...which is on the church's website:

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation

Highlight these passages:

"the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument...Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”

Also, here are some more quotes from Smith's wife and closest associates which affirm the "stone in the hat" method:

http://mit.irr.org/translation-or-divination

You could copy those quotes and print them out for the missionaries too. In fact, you could teach them a "missionary discussion" just by reading those passages. If you want to be really evil, you could suggest that the missionaries show those printed-out quotes to their mission president, and see if he would like to revise his opinion on the matter.

Also, it goes without saying that if a mission president is unaware of these issues, that illustrates how well the church has censored the information all these years. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was the church historian back in the 1940s, vehemently denied that Smith used a "seer stone" in the BOM translation. The church is only just now admitting to it because they're being forced to.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph Fielding
> Smith, who was the church historian back in the
> 1940s, vehemently denied that Smith used a "seer
> stone" in the BOM translation.

Can you get me a source on this?

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone 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 this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.

"These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes" (Doctrines of Salvation 3:225-226).

Note JFS' deceitful qualifier: "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." JFS knew very well that such statements were omitted from the "History of the Church" because

a) those statements contradicted Joseph Smith's "official history" version of the "two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate", and

b) the stone-in-the-hat version ties the BOM translation story directly to Smith's prior peepstoning-for-money practice.

But the fact that those accounts were not included in the HoC does not wash away the fact that they were made by Joseph Smith's wife and closest associates.

JFS also wrote:

"He was called a 'money digger,' and many other contemptuous things. If you will look at his history, and at the character of his parents, and surroundings, and consider the object of his life, you can discover how much consistency there was in the charges brought against him. All this was done to injure him. He was neither old nor a 'money digger,' nor an impostor, nor in any manner deserving of the epithets which they applied to him."

Such statements illustrate how church leaders, historians, and apologists used to categorically deny that Smith was ever involved in activities that were unseemly, illegal, or occultic. But because of the overwhelming level of documentation in recent years, the church now has to admit to it.

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.

It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the prophet would substitute something evidently inferior [to the U&T] under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the prophet did possess a seerstone, which he may have used for some other purposes.

Doctrines of Salvation vol.3 pg 225-226

Tell them you have a JW friend who has been chatting to you at work and wants you to meet with his missionaries. It places you caught in the middle of a battle for your soul. He can tell you lds facts from the church website talk about Christ being hung on a tree on whether the bible is translated correctly that shoukd be enough to throw them off your exmo scent. Then you can introduce polyandry.

As a history major at BYU in 1966 I began to collect historical
facts that did not jive with the cults propaganda. I knew their were problems but it took me years to finally discover the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the fact that Zina Huntington Jacobs, wife of Henry Jacobs, married both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, while married to her real husband, Henry Jacobs, who was sent away on a mission, while they had sex with her. This so outraged me that at that moment I knew the church was not true. The lady missionaries I am sure will eventually come to the same realization. Copy the original sources and let them have it. In Zina's journal she relates how horrible plural marriage was. To read Henry Jacobs account of the experience is heartbreaking.