From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

karl61, I hope you don't mind, there were a couple of ideas in your initial post that I was hoping to discuss, so I started a new thread. Excerpted from your OP:
karl61 wrote:http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/Rel121 ... 20BofM.pdf
Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon, according to Mr. Whitmer, was translated by placing the chocolate stone in a hat into which Joseph would bury his head as to close out the light. While doing so he could see 'an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear,' and below the ancient writing, the translation would would be given in English. Joseph would then read this to Oliver Cowdery, who in turn would write it. If he did so correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear and be replaced by other characters with their interpretation".

"Such an explanation is, in our judgement, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon. We invite the read to consider the following"

They then go into discrediting Whitmer.

Your excerpts are from an article in a book published by Deseret. The book is titled:
Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations.

The authors and their position held then:
--Joseph Fielding McConkie (Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU)
and
--Craig J. Ostler (Assistant Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU)

The response to the rock story by the two professors quoted above captures a response that I think represents a very normal reaction by most people--using a rock like that is silly and unbelievable, and it does demean credibility.

So how did the church go from publishing articles like the above to releasing pictures of the rock, if its story could so easily be considered demeaning and unbelievable? Why risk that additional problem? Why not just leave images of the stone out of the mix?

My hypothesis on why they did this goes back to the discussion on the other thread regarding why the plates were necessary.

Quote after quote in the other thread about this article shows that church leaders see the plates, not as "essential to the translation," but as essential to establishing credibility. This same idea came up recently in Holland's wrong roads story; god sent them down the wrong road so that they could have concrete evidence, rather than just have them rely on revelation from the spirit.

So I could easily see church leaders rather naïvely thinking that the rock would qualify as physical "evidence," without thinking through what it would actually look like: a silly, non-provenanced, largely irrelevant, magical rock that further demeans the Book of Mormon translation story. (As if South Park didn't do a good enough job at that already.)

They couldn't produce the plates, so instead they produced the rock, hoping to supplement its validity by arguing that of course we've always known that the rock was used, not the plates.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Well the answer is obvious, one does not need "spiritual eyes" to see a rock.

:lol:
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

Fence Sitter wrote:Well the answer is obvious, one does not need "spiritual eyes" to see a rock.

:lol:

:lol: Right. I hear if you match it up with a hat, it's better than an I-pad with a sun-glare feature. :cool:
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Other things that suddenly the church has always known, come to mind.

The church has always known that Joseph Smith was engaged in treasure hunting before he became a prophet.
The church has always known the papyri do not contain any writings of Abraham and Joseph.
The church has always known that the native Americans were not the principal descendants of Lehi.
The church has always known the the American continent was empty of people when Jared and Lehi arrived here.
The church has always known there are two hill Cumorrahs.
The church has always known that Joseph Smith did not intend to exclude black people from the priesthood.
The church has always known that we don't believe in apotheosis.
The church has always known that Joseph Smith had over 40 wives.


I guess I must have been raised in a different church.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _karl61 »

I think the issue with the Church is fear. Fear is normal. The leaders did everything they could to control the information about the church that didn't cast the church in a good light.

A quote from Oaks on fairmormon:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Dallin_H._Oaks

"[W]e’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.


On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn't exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn't."


I would refer Oaks to a small book written by Sam Harris called Lying. I remember reading it and just agreeing with everything he said. It was so simple. If I remember correctly he starts by writing about coming through customs and being asked by the officer if he used illegal drugs while traveling. He thought about it and then admitted he did which resulted in a very good and productive conversation between him and the officer. He goes on to say that there are very few to almost no reasons for lying. If someone comes around a corner bleeding and crying and hides right next to you and then another person comes around the corner asking where the person went do you lie or tell the truth. Sam says neither. You knock the second guy out. Some truths are not useful is something Sam Harris would not have agreed with, especially when it comes to a proselytizing religious group.

I wish that LDS leaders would have told the truth to tithe paying Baby-boomers about the rock in the hat and extra legal marriages. They could have moved past the issue decades ago without the righteous accusations of withholding information a.k.a. ______. The church became a financial power house from withholding information from the Baby-boomers but you can't serve God and money.

I think the issue for Joseph Smith was he said what ever he needed to say to get through the moment and that is why you have two translation stories. The Urim and Thummim story was told at certain times and the rock and the hat was observed.

A few years ago, I sold a vintage Interceptor (motorcycle) on Craigslist. I wrote into the description everything I knew that was wrong or would possibly need to be addressed in the near future. There were about ten things. The first email response I got was three letters "TMI" - too much information. You see my motto was No Surprises when selling something mechanical. I had one person who was really interested in buying it after reading the description. He had to drive two hours one way and showed up one day with money and a trailer. After riding it he said he didn't exactly like the riding position and declined to buy it. He said it was worth the price and exactly like I described but declined. Another guy bought it a few weeks later.
I want to fly!
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Fence Sitter »

karl61 wrote:A quote from Oaks on fairmormon:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Dallin_H._Oaks
On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn't exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn't."


Wait, is he defending an organization claiming to represent God or used car salesmen?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

karl61 wrote:I think the issue with the Church is fear. Fear is normal. The leaders did everything they could to control the information about the church that didn't cast the church in a good light.

A quote from Oaks on fairmormon:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Dallin_H._Oaks

"[W]e’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.


On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn't exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn't."


I would refer Oaks to a small book written by Sam Harris called Lying. I remember reading it and just agreeing with everything he said. It was so simple. If I remember correctly he starts by writing about coming through customs and being asked by the officer if he used illegal drugs while traveling. He thought about it and then admitted he did which resulted in a very good and productive conversation between him and the officer. He goes on to say that there are very few to almost no reasons for lying. If someone comes around a corner bleeding and crying and hides right next to you and then another person comes around the corner asking where the person went do you lie or tell the truth. Sam says neither. You knock the second guy out. Some truths are not useful is something Sam Harris would not have agreed with, especially when it comes to a proselytizing religious group.

I wish that LDS leaders would have told the truth to tithe paying Baby-boomers about the rock in the hat and extra legal marriages. They could have moved past the issue decades ago without the righteous accusations of withholding information a.k.a. ______. The church became a financial power house from withholding information from the Baby-boomers but you can't serve God and money.

I think the issue for Joseph Smith was he said what ever he needed to say to get through the moment and that is why you have two translation stories. The Urim and Thummim story was told at certain times and the rock and the hat was observed.

A few years ago, I sold a vintage Interceptor (motorcycle) on Craigslist. I wrote into the description everything I knew that was wrong or would possibly need to be addressed in the near future. There were about ten things. The first email response I got was three letters "TMI" - too much information. You see my motto was No Surprises when selling something mechanical. I had one person who was really interested in buying it after reading the description. He had to drive two hours one way and showed up one day with money and a trailer. After riding it he said he didn't exactly like the riding position and declined to buy it. He said it was worth the price and exactly like I described but declined. Another guy bought it a few weeks later.

Thanks, karl61. Excellent points on the effects of fear and "expedient" lying.
On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn't exist in the first place.
Is he talking about adults or children?
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _karl61 »

Here is Oaks again:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Dall ... sm_is_true

DHO: The talk where I gave that was a talk on “Reading Church History” — that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]

I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.

But not everything that’s true is useful. I am a lawyer, and I hear something from a client. It’s true, but I’ll be disciplined professionally if I share it because it’s part of the attorney-client privilege. There’s a husband-wife privilege, there’s a priest-penitent privilege, and so on. That’s an illustration of the fact that not everything that’s true is useful to be shared.

In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation. (See "Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary" on mormonnewsroom.org) "





My belief is that when a person is going to give ten percent of their income over 50 + years which would be a very huge sum if invested just in bonds, that they have the right to know everything about the institution: warts and all; there is no "But not everything that's true is useful" when it comes to 10 to 20 hours a week and ten percent of your income for half a century. You have a right to make the call about joining after reviewing all sides and then being in a neutral environment to make the call; no pressure, no invitation to join after meeting with the missionaries for 3 hours, not with that type of commitment.

And I would like to say something about President Washington since he mentions him. I really like Washington and Lincoln and try to read books about them. The last Washington biography I read spoke about Washington and other females, especially Sally Fairfax and the author basically wrote this: that Washington loved to flirt and dance with females but then the author said this: that Washington new that he had a special mission from Providence in his future and he also knew that any affair with someone like Sally Fairfax would end that special mission. Adultery would put a stop to his mission. Further, since Washington knew he had a special mission he started saving everything he wrote beginning when he was a teenager. We have his arithmetic books and journals. The national archives have all that and it's all open for public inspection.
I want to fly!
_GameOver
_Emeritus
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:43 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _GameOver »

If it wasn't for the well-researched, internet savvy, vocal critics of the Church, they'd still be lying their a$$e$ off.

I suppose I should give them credit for trying to correct their wrongs, but I don't feel like it yet. :mrgreen:
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: From karl61's topic: BYU Faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

GameOver wrote:If it wasn't for the well-researched, internet savvy, vocal critics of the Church, they'd still be lying their a$$e$ off.

I suppose I should give them credit for trying to correct their wrongs, but I don't feel like it yet. :mrgreen:

That's what I suspect. In looking into the seer stone idea a little more, I found a 2009 video of a Sandra Tanner presentation, where she states that she has evidence that the lds church has possession of the seer stones. I'm curious if things like that influenced the church in making their unprecedented decision to release photos of the stone in 2015 as part of their campaign of "we've always known that...."
Post Reply