Close Topic Options

Joseph Smith - Page 5

There are various versions of the story, depending on how far back your research goes. Most accounts state that the U&T were taken by God after the translation of the book of Lehi, as consequence for not properly protecting that translation. According to Smith, God gave the U&T back to him for revelation of D&C 3, and required him to return it to Moroni promptly thereafter. Moroni was sent to give Smith the U&T once more that same year so that he could complete the translation of the BoM. The only known witness ever to have seen the U&T was Smith's mother, Lucy, who described the stones as two three-cornered diamonds. All other 'witnesses' who were involved in scribing the translation only gave accounts of 'seer' stones being used, and none recall seeing Smith wear or use the U&T. Some (Specifically Harris) said that Smith placed the seer stones in a hat and read the words as God displayed them on the stones; other witnesses describe the stones only, and do not give an account of how Smith used them. All witness accounts agree that Smith generally translated using seer stones and the gift of God, rather than spectacles.

Upon completion, according to Cowdery, Smith and some of his men returned to Hill Cumorah and left the U&T, breastplate, and plates in a cave, where they were to be guarded (With other numerous records and the sword of Laban) until the second coming. The only known account from Smith himself regarding where they went is that he returned the plates and the U&T to Moroni shortly after showing them to the witnesses.

Smith Joseph

The problem is none of the accounts agree with each other. There are just way to many holes in the idea that Joseph Smith had to give up the You & T. The biggest being Oliver Cowdery! Mostly because of our Sections 8 & 9 which happen after Joseph Smith got the plates is when Oliver tried to translate with the You & T. The funny thing is, the main scribe (Oliver) always talks about the translation taking place with the You & T.

There is always going to be a debate of how much any seer stones where used. They could have been used, but probably more after Joseph Smith got the Holy Ghost and Priesthood.

Joseph Smith Studies Doctrine Mormon

Where do you come upon the opinion that there are too many holes in this portion of the 'story'? The concept that the U&T were relinquished to Moroni after the loss of the first 116 pages of the Book of Lehi was taken from Smith's own manuscript republished by the church in 'History of the Church, Vol 1'.

(Goes on to describe the same revelation which is contained in D&C 3)

You can locate a copy of volume 1 of the History of the Church on Google Books here: Source 4. The excerpted quote is located on pages 21-22. If you take a few moments to read the preface of the book, you will find that the HoC Vol 1 is taken from a manuscript written by Smith during his lifetime. I do not see any reason to debate Smith's own words regarding whether the U&T were given up. Notice that I do plainly state that God returned the U&T to Smith for D&C 3 (And took them back again immediately thereafter - see pg23), and again returned them to Smith a few days later (At which time he recorded the revelation found in D&C 10), in order to allow him to finish the translation of the BoM.

Now, I do understand if you meant that the claims of the seer stones are in question, as that claim was never made by Smith himself. I included this account, as it is one of many that was given by witnesses; the account of seer stones was specifically given by Whitmer, with whom the Smiths resided during much of the translation. This account was even included in an article written by one of the twelve apostles in 1992, which was included in the July 1993 issue of the Ensign. As for when Smith began using the stones, most accounts state that he actually *stopped* using them promptly after his baptism and confirmation, as he believed he no longer had use for them - at which time Whitmer states that at least one of the stones was given to Cowdery; this same stone eventually reached the hands of Joseph Fielding Smith, who kept it in his office during his presidency.

No good comes of omitting information - especially information which inquiring converts are bound to find on the internet of their own research. Better to give full accounts, and allow their intellect and the spirit to guide them, rather than causing them to feel mislead. Who would you choose to believe? One who tells you only a part of the story, or one who offers you all truth?

Remember - you have your truth in the Bible - but God chose, also, to bring fullness with the Book of Mormon. To omit is to lead astray, dear friend.

**sections 8&9 also do not specify Cowdery as attempting to use the U&T - they are revelations acknowledging that Cowdery seeks the gift of translation and advise him to understand his own gifts that were given to him.

Page 5 Smith Joseph

Please re-read my original post; I did not say that the U&T was never returned to Smith; I said that the U&T and the plates were permanently returned to God after the translation was completed.... I did say that most witnesses speak of the stones more often than the spectacles - this doesn't mean the U&T did not exist or that they were not used - only that the common accounts not given by Smith are all in regard to the stones. Also - please read section 17 again - the verse, in no way, identifies the use of the U&T... It says that the U&T will be seen by the prophet, along with the plates, sword of Laban, and breastplate... And that the prophet will then testify of the things he had seen...the header of this section does state that this revelation was obtained by use of the U&T, but where are the footnotes showing where Smith says this? I do not deny that the U&T were in use at the time - but I also do not deny that a seer stone could, also, have been in use - being that it was passed to Cowdery and eventually made it's way to J. Fielding Smith, I do not doubt that it may have been a sacred object in some regard or another.

The Smiths lived in the Whitmer home from about the middle of 1829. Smith says that he met Peter & David Whitmer in June of 1829, and moved in with them shortly thereafter, until the translation was complete - this informaiton can also befound in the HoC, vol 1, which I linked earlier. Oliver became Smith's scribe in April of 1829 - only two months prior to the approximate move, and continued as his scribe while the Smiths lived with the Whitmers. As for the Whitmer's assistance, Smith said, 'It was arranged that we should have our board free of charge, and the assistance of one of his brothers to write for me, and also his own assistance when convenient....In the meantime, David, John, and Peter Whitmer, Jun, became our zealous friends and assistants in the work'. I also never said David Whitmer was a scribe; I did say that he claimed to have witnessed bits of the translation. As for time lines, I wouldn't tend to point such fingers, as sections 103 (1834), 105 (1837), 112 (1837), 119 (1838), 124 (1841), 127 (1842), and 128 (1842) were not added to the D&C until after Smith died in 1844 - years after the original revelations... And many of the accounts Smith gave of various experiences were vastly differing, and many not given until years after they happened - yet we still hold his words sacred, regardless. I am not attempting to rip anything down here, I am only presenting historical information - not alluding to the spiritual accuracy thereof.

Did I not make it clear that there are many accounts? That there is no definite answer to the questions asked? I presented all of the perspectives I am aware of that are held, and I also specified particularly Smith's own account. I simply chose not to omit information simply because it isn't what we teach - because the fact is, that in this day and age, those who inquire *will* receive this information - by not offering this information ourselves, it only makes it appear to the outside world that we are attempting to hide or cloak information... And that simply looks terrible. The innocent and true have nothing to hide, my friend.

Are you mistakenly assuming that I hold Whitmer's account to be factual? Again - I am only presenting all available information, not claiming it to be accurate.

No reason? Really? You believe that the best way to teach is by omitting information that has not yet been confirmed? How would we ever manage to learn if we did not address the unknown and allow people to explore all options and information? There is NO STRONGER TESTIMONY than the one that grows from finding fact among the fiction - how can you possibly pretend that a testimony gained without conflict is a testimony at all? If you do not know which way is down, how can you say which way is up? I very strongly disagree with the concept that providing all information available leads to confusion - it leads to enlightenment, sir. If you believe that encountering information contrary to your beliefs could weaken your testimony, I would highly suggest you seek a stronger testimony.

I've never heard of Cowdery attepting to use the U&T - only that he wanted the power to translate.. The headers for these D&C sections don't even claim that he did anything more than yern for the power. The church teaches many things, many true, many assumed, and many not yet fully understood. We do not yet understand the true nature of exaltation or the eternal progression - but we know that, one day, we will. We do not fully understand the precise reasons that polygamy is commanded at times, and not at others - but we do not pretend that it didn't happen. Did God place us here to be tested, as many Christians believe, or were we placed here for something more? Our gospel teaches us that we are here as a part of our eternal progression...what reason would we have for such a journey, if not to learn and decipher? Do you not believe full heartedly that it is our God-given responsibility to learn all that we can, and to teach one another to decipher what is good from bad, rather than to simply seek good blindly? How are we to grow and fully experience our blessings, if we fail to accept all information and still decipher the good from bad? How can our eternal progression possibly benefit by avoiding conflict and resolution?

All I have done is made a point to post all information available; I am gaining the opinion that you've perhaps misread a few of the things I've written.

Smith Joseph

Okay, so Joseph Smith had both the You & T and seer stones at the same time. But we haven't established how much either of them were used?

The point being is you quote from the History of the Church and show me that this is a good enough source. The header for this section is taken from the History of Church vol 1. Why does my section heading need more support to back it up then your quote? Either we can believe what History of Church has in it, or we can't!

The strange thing is there are accounts of Joseph Smith using the You & T to read the bible after the book of mormon translation. Even Willford Woodroof records in his journal in Nauvoo that Joseph Smith showed him the You & T.

This is what I'm trying to point out. The fact that the Seer stone existed isn't a question. The question is when was it used and for how much. This we don't know. Because we don't have enough information, there is no reason to bring it up.

I don't have a good time line of all of these events. But I think this has to be a little off. Joseph Smith with Oliver Cowdrey got the Aaronic Priesthood in May 15 1829, it has been speculated that Joseph Smith got the Melkizedek priesthood probably around the end of May or first of June. As far as I know sometime in June is when Joseph Smith stayed with the whitmers. By the end of june the book of mormon was completed.

Joseph Smith new David Whitmer at least a year before (1828) this is when David whitmer took the book of Lehi and lost it. This is also when Joseph Smith lost the You & T. From Joseph Smith's mother account Joseph Smith got the Plates and the You & T back in September 22 1828. I think maybe he translated some with Emma, but not much until Oliver arrives probably around April. That's when the translation really gets going. By May 15 we know that Joseph and Oliver are in 3 Nephi where Christ is teaching those about Baptism, that's when they go and ask the Lord about it. This is why I say up to this time Most of the book of mormon was translated with the use of the You & T.

I think there is a difference from Joseph Smith (Or others in the church) finding accounts after Joseph Smith is dead, compared to David Whitmer who left the church for a good number of years. David whitmer had his own ideas of how Revelations (And Scripture) should come (That you can't change it at all). This is why David Whitmer wanted to in a way put his spin on things.

But we don't have anything to present. The only thing we have to present is that Joseph Smith owned a seer stone. That's it! We can assume by David Whitmers account that it was used to translate. But we don't know how much it was used. So what do we know! We know from Joseph Smith and Oliver that the You & T was used to translate the Book of Mormon (And I would state Most of the book of mormon). That's the facts that need to be presented. If we want to talk about a seer stone we can, but most of that just leads to speculation of how much was it used for? Not even to bring in the completely different method of Translation the seer stone was suppose to use vs the You & T. I don't see the point of bring up a seer stone when there are more questions then answer about it. I don't see how that helps at all?

Then whats the point of bring it up? How does this help somebody searching for the truth? Help somebody gain a testimony? There is no point bring up statements about things unless you felt there were factual?

If you wanted to point out to the original poster that Joseph Smith had a seer stone and it could have been used as part of the translation then I'm fine with that. But trying to pass off David Whitmers account to somebody who woudn't know any better doesn't sound like much help. What is the searcher for truth suppose to believe?

I have no problem! But when we are talking about somebody that is trying to build a testimony, they aren't strong enough! I'm more then happy to talk about the seer stone if we know there was more information then we had, if we knew the answer would come by going down that path. We don't! Meaning we aren't going to get any better answer then we already have. We aren't going to have any stronger testimony of the seer stone then the knowledge we can gain from it. At this point in time I don't see how presenting some claim by David Withmer helps anybody's testimony (Especially somebody new) Grow? The point is we need to know the audience we are presenting the information too. To much unknown only adds confusion to one with out a foundation.

That could be! But as you have stated you aren't even sure if the David Whitmer account is 100% truthful. Teaching something that not even yourself completely believes doesn't add to anything. That's my view.

Joseph Smith

Oh, another anti. It seems that they like this site. I can never figure out why they write posts that they're so lengthy, with so many words yet they say "nothing". It is ridiculous to say Raveth that ALL information can be for enlightenment when you admit that you don't know the accuracy of it. How foolish that can be?

Tubaloth, you said David Whitmer losing the pages? I think you meant Martin Harris?

Joseph Smith - Page 5

You are correct; I did not specify how much either object was used. I only made the statement that there were claims of him using both.

I do apologize; I had taken the time to cross reference this of my own accord prior my last post - this is accurate.

That is true. I didn't say that we know that the plates and U&T were returned, I said that Smith, Cowdery, Whitmer, and others all stated that these were returned to Moroni shortly after the translation.

There are plenty of things we do not have much information about, which we still teach or hold to be true. We do not know how often Smith used the U&T, either, yet we still teach that it was his primary method of translation. We do not know what means God used to create the world, but we still teach that he did. Your opinion is that we have no reason to explore those things that are not yet understood - and you are welcome to hold your opinion. My opinion is that God has blessed us with the mental and spiritual means to learn and decipher, and that it is our duty to explore every possible idea and concept, and to use our gifts to know what is good and what is not. I will not pressure you to hold that same opinion. We have been set on differing paths, and that is alright.

Smith writes, in the HoC, that he began work with Cowdery in April 1829. The majority of the BoM as it exists today was scribed by Cowdery. The Smiths moved in with the Whitmers in June 1829 (Again, as per the HoC). Now, I do not deny that the Smiths lived with the Whitmers for only a short period of the time that the BoM was being translated, but I don't see that as reason to omit the claims they held (Nor do I see it as reason to take their claims as fact).

Martin Harris, Smith's first scribe, took the book of Lehi; not Whitmer. Smith met Whitmer in June of 1829, as he writes in the HoC.

Can you provide a reference stating that the reason Smith and Cowdery sought baptism was due to the words contained in 3 Nep? Smith's account in the HoC simply states that they sought it out because they had seen references to baptism during the translation of the BoM - references to baptism in the BoM start as early as Mosiah. September 22 was the date of Smith's annual visit to Hill Cumorah; but as he wrote in the HoC, the U&T were returned to him in July 1828 to write his revelation contained within D&C 3 - and the U&T were taken back immediately thereafter; He writes that Moroni once again gave him the U&T 'a few days later' - he does not specify the date - while this could have meant September, it seems that would be more than just a few days, to me. He did have Emma and others scribing for him early on - but this was short lived as the Smiths struggled with finances and family hardships (Pregnancies and lost children).

That is quite a hypocritical statement. Cowdery sent his letter of resignation of his church membership prior to the death of the prophet, was excommunicated for it, and did not return to the church for over a decade.. How can you use this argument to discredit Whitmer but not Cowdery?

Fact? We have no fact, sir. We have accounts; some from Smith and Cowdery, some from the many other people surrounding Smith's life during the time. As I've already stated, I've simply posted all of the accounts that the inquiring individual may happen to come across - not stating them as factual or otherwise - why do you take such offense to my choice to present exactly what the reader is likely to find in their search? I find it more productive to offer all information, and then allow the reader to present their questions - rather than to lead them into feeling decieved when they encounter information which I may have purposefully hidden from them.

I see just as little evidence for the existance of the U&T - but it doesn't damage my beliefs. The reader was seeking answers - I provided them. If the reader chooses to return and ask more questions, I will answer them, as well. Our opinions regarding the best interest if the reader are certainly different, and that is OK.

Faith is not based in facts, sir. That is why we call it faith. I present evidence, claims, theorys, and information - and I allow the reader to utilize the gifts of God (Namely, their God given logic, and the holy spirit who aides those who are seeking) to then be led to the faith God has in store for them. I talk about evolution - I do not know if it is fact. I talk about the six-day creation - I do not know if it is fact. I talk about the second coming - I do not know if it is fact. What I know is that I am here, and I have the ability to think for myself. I believe that ability is a gift from God, presented by Christ, who gave the gift of free agency and knowledge in order to better prepare us for our eternal progression.

Did I miss the post where this poster stated that they want to build a testimony? Testimony comes after learning. Testimony doesn't simply appear because someone hears something that sounds good. I posted the accounts of various people involved in Smith's life during the translation. I did not say 'this is what really happened'. If this reader is, in fact, seeking testimony, then the spirit will guide them to know which accounts are true, and which are important. You appear to have a bit of hostility in your tone. So what if others believe that Smith used a seer stone for parts of the translation? Does it make the book any less true? Does it invalidate those who claim he used the U&T, as well? Is it truly so detrimental to the gospel that the translation may have been performed using multiple media? Why do you respond so defensively?

We aren't going to get any better answer? How can you possibly believe such a thing? What would have happened had Smith thought such a thing about the Bible? Had he thought that God didn't get any better than the local Protetestent or Catholic church? What if scientific researchers just suddenly decide that we won't ever get a better answer about curing cancer or aids? There is always an answer. I'm not telling you that you need to have a testimony of the seer stone.

I did not teach them that anything is or is not true. I provided information. Truth can be revealed only via search, pondering, and prayer. ----

Did you choose not to read my posts simply because they are lengthy, or because you, too, believe that sharing all information available is unnecessary? I'm not asking anyone in this thread to believe the claims made by people other than Smith - I only shared the information available. You may find it foolish to explore the unknown; I find it foolish to assume that the things set before us are the only options. Imagine the gifts Smith would have missed out on had he simply assumed that what his local churches taught was correct. I believe in the glory of everlasting, continuing revelation. I hold a current temple recommend. I have family members who have left the church, and family members who have joined the church. I have learned from all of them. I have learned from the church. I have learned from history. I have learned from prayer. I have learned from study. If you disagree with my choice to share those things I've learned, you are welcome to disagree.

Joseph Smith Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 5

I have read all your posts since you joined.

I have no problem with sharing information as long as it is accurate. You said you do not know the accuracy of it, then what is the purpose of sharing it?

Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. I do not find foolish at all to explore the unknown, as a matter of fact I love to study Church history, it does not mean that I am going to start pulling out from journals and present it as truths or facts and then expect people to "study" them, etc and throw a shadow of doubt over whatever topic is being discussed. That's the main problem I have with antis and trust me, I have discussed issues like this at length with them in the past....to not avail really because they have an agenda to fulfill and wasting time debating a topic that they can never admit they're wrong (In a point or two) is senseless. All they want to do is rant...well let them rant if that's what they wish to do.

Raveth, what evidence you have presented? Most of the things you have written are just theories, and second/third hand information from "he said/she said".