*Update: The title of this post--about the old news--comes off a bit snarky, which was not my intent. I'm bad at titles, and was trying to sum up my post in a few words. A better title would be: "Not Quite a Secret." I would change it, but that can mess up URLs and stuff.
Yesterday, the Church released the pictures of Joseph Smith's seer stone and there has been a great deal of furor, with some people saying that they felt lied to, or at least that the truth was kept from them.
I don't mean to minimize these concerns, and I'm sorry that some people feel so troubled by this news. I am not trying to argue with anyone's feelings, nor address larger issues. But a lot of the discussion I've seen seems based on the premise that the Church has been covering this story up, and that's the idea to which I want to respond, because it's a fairly factual sort of thing.
This seer stone/hat thing has been public knowledge, at least since at least 1993 when then-Elder Nelson's talk to the Mission Presidents was printed in The Ensign. It may well have been out there before that, but I started paying attention to stuff like this in 1993.
In the talk, "A Treasured Testament," Elder Nelson acknowledged, "The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote: 'Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.'(David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)"
The Ensign is a pretty public forum, so this doesn't seem like the Church was hiding much to me.
Beyond that, the account published in the text of The Book of Mormon talked about the Urim and Thummim. It is the account I learned in Primary and Seminary. Is a seer stone all that much more unusual than the old account, which basically amounts to two seer stones attached to an ancient breastplate?
In other words, it's not like the Church has been putting forth a rational, logical explanation for years and was suddenly caught suppressing the bizarre truth. Now, if Joseph had claimed to have translated this according to his own knowledge of ancient languages, or to have written it himself, this would be shattering to those claims.
But Joseph claimed to translate this by the gift and power of God, including various seeric objects (the presence of which are mentioned in The Book of Mormon) Is the specific method or instrument really that important?
The coming forth of The Book of Mormon has always required a degree of faith and suspension of disbelief. It required believing in angels, visions, and the translation of an ancient record by an uneducated boy on America's frontier. It required faith to believe yesterday. It requires faith to believe today*.
I sincerely believe it to be the word of God. It's power in my life is beyond dispute. I feel closer to God when I read. It feeds my soul and convinces me that I want to be more like the Savior, Jesus Christ. It teaches of grace and love and mercy, of the hope for redemption, and of the physical reality of Jesus in persistent and profound ways. But these feelings have always had to be arrived at in a way that had nothing to do with the physical creation of the book.
**Update: Based on a comment, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying this doesn't matter at all, nor do I mean to imply that if someone is struggling they simply need to have more faith (in a glib sort of way. All of us need more faith, I suppose). But I did want to point out that this account has been published in an official, very public Church source and is, technically, not something new. And, that accepting The Book of Mormon has really never been a strictly rational proposition.
I've been puzzled by the reactions to the essays & other documents put up on the Church site over the last few years. But then I hear the reactions & realize that maybe I was fortunate/blessed in the people who taught me, from my parents to my Primary teachers to friends & seminary teachers. It's sad that so many people have been unaware of various things, so I think it's a very good thing for the Church to be openly talking about it & in a way guiding the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAnd those struggling with faith need messages of strength & faith just like this one. More voices like yours are needed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks, Annette. I appreciate you stopping by. I agree that this openness is a very good thing.
DeleteI was not raised in the church . . . never had the early childhood lessons . . . seminary . . . or institute . . . that would teach me of the seer stone, the urim and thummim, spectacles or the liahona.
DeleteI joined the church at the age of 27 and as I grew . . . line upon line . . . precept upon precept . . . I never questioned . . . never mocked or derided the way in which the Book of Mormon came to Joseph. God works in mysterious ways . . . His wonders to perform. Right? I thought so.
I was actually excited. Recognizing how Joseph received the entire book . . . gave credence to every "odd" story I'd heard in my protestant Sunday School classes. "Moses made a snake out of bronze and attached it to a pole" . . . Jesus annointing a man's eyes with MUD?! . . . Jonah in the belly of the whale . . . three guys surviving a fiery furnace . . . Little David takes down big Goliath . . . Need I list more? These stories were SO fantastical . . . they required faith to believe.
Without faith . . . . there is no room for God to do a mighty work in us and no way for us to return to His presence.
Sharon, that was beautifully expressed. Thank you. It made me happy to hear your experience and lifted my spirit.
DeleteNeither you nor the citation from Elder Nelson addresses the fact that we were told/taught that the BOM was translated by the gift and power of God through the UT not a seer stone in a hat. Yes, there has been an acknowledgment that he did the translation work in his hat before, but it seems new that they are acknowledging that the instrument he used in the hat was a stone he used before receiving the plates. The fact that he used the stone prior to his visions and obtaining the plates was not generally known and is not taught in the Church. It is entirely new information that most members of the Church are unaware of. That is what gets people. To simply pass these issues off as a matter of simply not having faith or disbelieving is too simplistic and not how it works, especially on a Church that prides itself on truth seeking. We ask non-members all of the time to look at evidence and seek the truth by study and by faith. Learning these new things the Church is revealing about Church history should be applauded and when hard questions are asked we should be unafraid of where they might lead as long is it is on the path to truth, not just the answer we want.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI see your point, Anonymous, and I appreciate you stopping by. I agree that this should be applauded, and I agree that the path of truth and the questions along the way are important. I hope I didn't imply that someone who has struggles, questions, or concerns simply needs more faith. That was not my intent at all. I understand how and why people get troubled; I've been through my own rough patches. My intent was to simply point out that this is not, as I've seen in some place, something that was hidden.
DeleteI'm curious. Is there proof that Joseph used the stone before obtaining the plates? Not that it really matters as far as I'm concerned. I understand that such stones were accepted by many people in those days as a way to get direction (a bit like divining water using wooden sticks). And of course, if someone hands us a comparable object today, it's no surprise if it has plenty of writing appearing, together with maps any other information we might need.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem odd to me that God would use something like a stone, which was familiar to Joseph and others around him, to convey words that were vital for mankind. Something solid was necessary. Same with the Liahona in the Book of Mormon. Objects have been used for meeting spiritual needs through faith throughout history--i.e. healing with a handkerchief and aprons (Paul in the Bible, New Testament). That which seems odd to one generation seems normal to another. Maybe whoever recorded the account at the time didn't think it worth mentioning that young Joseph knew how to use a stone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Anne! Nice to see you here. I don't pretend to be terribly knowledgeable about Church history, so I give that caveat. I believe that one of the recent essays posted on the Church's website cited the fact that Joseph had the stone before he got the plates. And I do agree with you that much of what seems odd to one generation may be very normal in another. I've always felt like seeing through haze of a hundred plus years of history requires a great deal of patience, presumption of good faith, and giving a benefit of the doubt. You make a very interesting point about physical objects. I have not thought about that before in those terms. Hope you are well!
Delete