The LDS Church made a big splash this week when they released several documents associated with the Joseph Smith Papers Project. But what REALLY made news was the photo of the seer stone. It’s been out a few days now. Here are some questions:
[poll id = 506]
[poll id = 507]
Wheat & Tares 
What else is in the church closet they haven’t brought out yet? I don’t care about a silly rock, unless someone knows how to turn it on and make it work.
Do we have the Liahona, or the Sword of Laban in there?
I want to see all the other cool stuff the church hasn’t bothered to show us.
I am very curious how people had their testimony strengthened by this.
My first response was that doesn’t look like a stone, it looks like a piece of wood! And for some reason I found I had expected it would be flatter with a hole in it… Been reading too many fantasy novels perhaps.
I appreciate the honesty and openness the Church showed in releasing the photographs of the seer stone. How wonderful is our God, and how wonderful is His solicitous watchcare over the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I regret the mocking and laughing and pointing of the finger by those who choose that course, and appreciate the faith and sustaining and continual patience of those who choose that course.
With the release of the photographs, I tend to wish that the seer stone be put back in its basement location — I hope it isn’t put on public display. I wouldn’t want to see it venerated by the faithful or mocked by the unfaithful. I hope the Church and the museum exercise careful judgment in considering what to put on display, and what to keep hidden.
To me, it is so very easy to see the truth and the hand of our God in the story — how God uses simple things to bring great things to pass, and how He provided a simple tool to help the Prophet Joseph Smith accomplish his assignment. How wonderful is our God!
I thank the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the photographs of the seer stone.
…unless someone knows how to turn it on and make it work.
A seer stone is used for scrying, it has contains no supernatural powers, it’s value lies in it’s physical properties having a surface that is not to matte and not too reflective and a color that contrasts with the vision image. It is used to give the seer’s eyes a focal point so he isn’t searching for the image from near focus through infinity focus. It is used as an aid for beginners, Joseph stopped using them after he gained more experience. The reason it was placed in a hat was to control the amount of light in the viewing environment, visions are easier to see in dim light.
the fact that they released it in and of itself does nothing to my testimony. I do feel that it is a bit that they are admitting to covering this up and makes me wonder what else they have / what information they still have NOT released.
Covering up? No. The fact of a brown egg-shaped seer stone was mentioned in the Children’s Friend magazine in 1974, for example, and has not been a secret.
oh, it’s all my fault and all my husband’s fault and we’re just idiots of course because we were instructed to never read anything other than official publications and approved curricula and in the past 50 years there were 2-4 off handed remarks on a seer stone (which has been interpreted as the U&T – the one with a breastplate – usually) in church magazines.
I see you agree with Turley – our members are ignorant idiots about church history and it’s all their own fault. pffft.
That’s why Elder Andersen came out last GC and skeered everyone off from reading on the interwebz those lies about his man Joseph. My husband refused to believe my sources on the seer stone until they came out this week.
I’m a convert from 1980 who has never lived in Utah, never had any special access, never spoke or even said a prayer in stake conference, never attended general conference in Salt Lake City, nothing special in any way — just an ordinary member — and I never read any forbidden books (I didn’t know there were any), and yet I knew about the existence of a seer stone. Nothing has been hidden. No one has been duped. There is no reason for anyone to pretend to be outraged at the church’s conduct. I thank the church for sharing the photographs and the story.
Ji-been a member forty six years and this is the first I’ve heard of this as a reality rather than a piece of anti-mormon pamphleteering. Please don’t make me responsible for accessing resources that have never been made available to me. And yes, because I have only heard of this from anti-mormon sources, it does unsettle me. I just have to remind myself that we have leaders not too much brighter than ourselves. Thirty years ago the idea of any history other than the authorised version written by Roberts was seen as heretical. None of that was my fault.You may think your un-alloyed witness of the truth works. For some of us it’s damaging. Think a little.
And Howard, that was useful because it gave me some kind of account of how this might fit together. But I’d love to know how you know such things.
When the truth is rarely revealed but folklore is frequently widely advertized I think it’s more than fair to call the truth hidden. Clearly the folklore was intended to overshadow the truth. To argue against the relative weight of these opposing presentations is simply appologetics, a defensive rationalization ji.
handlewithcare,
You might want to cover your eyes.
I was taught many forms of receiving revelation and visions by the Spirit during a 7 year long spiritual awakening.
Ji said:
“Nothing has been hidden. No one has been duped. There is no reason for anyone to pretend to be outraged at the church’s conduct.”
I think that’s up to each individual, Ji.
A forty-year-old man visits his old grandmother. She takes him to the attic and shows him something she hasn’t shown anyone in many, many years — something precious to her. He asks why she keeps it in the attic. She says she hasn’t kept it a secret, and when the subject came up over the years with children or other grandchildren she never lied about it but she didn’t draw attention to the subject, but at this point in time she wanted to share it with her grandson as part of telling a story.
I think it is kind of her to share.
ji your example omits the PR job she (or his grandfather) did all his life to spin an alternate story (actually a lie).
Lying for the Lord is still lying! How either self deluded or discetful many LDS become due to the poor example set at the top!
https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng
Perhaps this article from the FRIEND children’s magazine in 1974 will be helpful to some. That was 41 years ago.
I’ll sign off this thread now. I choose to take the most charitable view I can in whatever circumstance I’m in; at least, that is my aspiration — I recommend that approach to others.
I knew about seer stones, so it was not a big surprise, what is troubling is 1) how members are reacting to the “new” information and 2) the rewriting of history. I have been a member all of my life, I have been to Primary, graduated from seminary, served in all the callings I am eligible to as a woman and have taught seminary for many years. I grew up in Utah and have lived outside the U.S and in other states. I feel I have a diverse background. What bothers me most about the new narrative is that the one I was taught all my life is now being changed with no explanation or apology, just, “Look, we have the seer stone”. All the correlated lessons and approved materials we were told to use with the “official” translation story are now What?…. We have a new history, one that has members comparing a rock to Ipads. In what universe is a rock remotely like an Ipad? There is no comparison. It seems as if some members are really reaching in order to even wrap their minds around the change in history and the idea of a rock being responsible for translation. And that doesn’t even address the authenticity of the seer stone. How the church came to be in procession of the stone leaves a lot of doubt about it being the one JS really used.
I would like to see a poll asking how/when people first found out about the seer stone. I first found out from South Park.
#4 “I regret the mocking and laughing and pointing of the finger by those who choose (my emphasis) that course, and appreciate the faith and sustaining and continual patience of those who choose that course.”
I strongly suspect that there are precious few who will have “chosen that course”. I think, where you perceive that, it will be a case of wounded people who feel the rug has been pulled out from under their feet by the “hokus pokus” aspect of this seen in the light of the 21st century. Or, no doubt, there are people who willl felt willfully deceived by the organizational church’s choice to keep them in the darkness concerning it or used to have been sent out to deny this “anti” historical fact — even to the extent of alienating their own loved ones who have stumbled across the information — to protect the church from its own truth.
[PS Here’s hoping I inserted the coding in the right places. If I didn’t I apologize in advance for the irritation of having to intuit it and make the mental corrections yourself. I freely confess to being a geriatric luddite.]
I frequently hear members and ex members say they were always instructed to read ONLY church curricula, church books and other church sources…..and nothing else. I am a life long member and never was taught this, never heard this. It is troubling to me. The only conclusion I can come to is these people had local leaders and members who were zealots and forced this view on unsuspecting members. I have dealt with zealot members (among other types) and it is challenging.
I was taught about the Urim and Thummim and seer stones in Seminary. As I grew up the U&T and seer stones were taught at one time or another.
It is sad that some members and leaders who know certain information keep it quiet and won’t allow it to be taught.
Another thing that is irksome is rumors that start and members believe it without checking if it is true.
Unfortunately we moved to my husband’s hometown to care for his parents. In this town the Urim and Thummim and seer stones was never taught to my kids, so I made sure they knew this and other things.
The church makes a big deal about the curriculum being the same the world over evey Sunday and in Seminary and Institute. Well, to a degree. Depends on where one lives, and how much more a teacher is going to expound on the lesson with extra information or if the teacher just sticks to what the manual teaches, among other things.
EG,
Local leaders and members are not responsible for lesson manual pictures portraying Joseph translating in a schoary manner with the plates but without the hat or seer stone. This is obviously Salt Lake propaganda approved by someone, perhaps many in Q15.
EG: There is certainly an aspect of leader roulette to injunctions against non-approved materials. This, coupled with the manuals omitting information that is accurate but hard for non-scholars to put into context is an underlying factor in people feeling duped.
I’d be interested to hear from a geologist? That is an odd looking stone.
And I’d like some authentication, or at least an attempt.
Ben S wrote a blogpost at the Times & Seasons where he posited that the deemphasis of the seerstone may have been due to Joseph Fielding Smith. The one-time Church Historian turned prophet was apparently unconvinced that Joseph would have used his own seerstone to translate when he had access to the Urim and Thummim (I’m on my mobile, otherwise I’d include the link. It’s called “Another View of the Seer Stone.”) I thought it was a really good point. If many of the church leaders really did feel the concept of Joseph looking into a hat was incorrect, there would have been specific instructions not to depict it in church artwork.
The proof of the theory will be if the church now commissions artwork that includes (somewhere, anywhere) a seerstone, a hat, and Joseph Smith in the same room. I’m happy that the worldwide October Ensign/Liahona article will include an accurate description of the translation process, but I don’t really feel satisfied by the church saying, “We realize that these depictions don’t really show how eyewitnesses tell it happened, but they sure do look prettier.”
I was born in 1974 and not a member of the church until my twenties. It never occurred to me that I needed to read old Friend magazines to learn the truth about church history. Silly me assumed what the missionaries taught me was the truth. Not to mention I was warned and publicly chastised for wanting to read anti literature like Rough Stone Rolling.
Arguments like Ji’s are disingenuous and victim blaming. And they sure as hell don’t encourage people struggling to work through their concerns and stay.
I’m not blaming anyone for anything. All I have said is that no one should use the release of the seer stone photographs as an excuse to point the finger at the leaders of the Church.
m, I don’t know exactly what your missionaries taught you, but if they taught that our God called Joseph Smith as a prophet and that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, then they taught you the truth — honestly and as best they could. No one on earth today knows the particulars of how it happened, but we give thanks and bear testimony that it did happen.
The only thing I knew about the seer stone is that it existed. I didn’t know that it was in Salt Lake City. Now, I know. Now, you also know. Isn’t it wonderful? How wonderful is our God! I am so sad that the release of the photographs is causing discontent.
Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little — and good people in Salt Lake City who are trying to be helpful to fellow Saints — that’s what I see. The Joseph Smith papers project was a perfect opportunity to release the photographs. But the seer stone is not an article of faith and should not be a stumbling block — the photographs were released by the Church historian in a history context for the purpose of history.
Someone wondered if the stone was a hoffman fraud.
Reminds me of the Shankara stones from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Maybe like when they were placed together in that stone skull carving thingy, they’d exhibit their ‘special’ properties.
I’ve always believed that the ‘seer’ stones, if they indeed had magical properties, really functioned more like Dumbo’s magic feather. Else it’d be hard to figure out what minerals are in them that would facilitate some sort of ESP, but that’s more the “Ancient Aliens” line of reasoning…and I can’t get my hair to frizz out like that Greek guy.
I too learned about the “stone in the hat” process from South Park. Matt and Trey seem to have Mormonism figured out, a lot better than most Mormons do.
I completely agree with ji on this and feel that the outrage expressed by many on here is unjustified. What was or was not taught in the past is irrelevant – the past is in the past, get over it. The church is now coming out with facts and truth relating to the translation of the BoM and rather than being grateful that these truths and facts are now coming out, people are just getting upset. Would you rather they didn’t release any of this information? Would you rather they just kept it hidden in the church history department attic? I, for one, am grateful that this information is being shared.
DB,
ji has been arguing nothing has been hidden but fails to a knowledge the long running church’s PR effort to spin a misleading impression. Are you saying you agree with ji’s position here?
DB, am I glad they are being more public with stuff like polyandry and seer stones? Yes. But the past is not irrelevant; it’s what the church is built upon. How often have you heard leaders state the church’s truth claims are all or nothing? that “all” is based on it’s history. That “all” rest on the claim, now acknowledged, that Joseph translated plates left by a people with no archeological evidence of existing without looking at them, but rather by looking at words that appeared on a stone in a hat. Some people, both BIC and converts, may find that a little difficult to swallow.
The seer stone, scyring, talismans, and other such items deal in the occult. Members generally are not familiar with occult subjects and do not understand them. It makes them uneasy. However, our early church history is full of occult topics, objects, and events. So is the BOM. I believe the reason we don’t hear about the other versions of history using occult objects is b/c our leaders don’t understand them either. They are not easily discussed to the uninitiated.
Bushman recently stated most of the GAs were not familiar with these topics either. It has taken church historians teaching the GAs what they didn’t know about our history. So you cannot learn something about a topic from someone who also doesn’t understand.
Unlike most of my Mormon friends, I do not discount the occult. Despite his weaknesses, mistakes, and in some cases, even intentional errors IMO, I do not think JS was an idiot; neither were the other brethren with him. If you throw out the occult you also have to throw out JS. Like it or not, you cannot separate him from those practices.
I have tried to understand these practices but have had to go outside of Mormon circles to get a perspective on them. So I go to my pagan friends. They are quite comfortable with occult topics.
What bothers me is how Mormons try and distance themselves from their occult past. IMO, we have got very far away from the original recipe. The correlated lessons and corporatism bother me way more than the occult topics.
#20 – (Moss) Re: Getting your info on Mormonism from ‘South Park’…”Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb!!!”
Seriously, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone, though they lampoon the precepts of the LDS faith, do in fact treat LDS folk fairly, especially at the end with the expression that the LDS kid, Gary, uses to tell Stan off (sorry, can’t be quoted here…)
boB,
Good comment. I’d like to add if the “prophets seers and revelators” who manage this church would like to understand things of the occult perhaps they should magnify their callings by asking God to reveal them instead of stumbling around in the wilderness for several generations while teaching corrolated folklore.
Howard, could it be possible it has been calculated moves by the prophets, seers, and revelators?
Step 1: Downplay the folk magic and things that look like cult-like stuff to get more traction with mainstream religion and validity.
Step 2: Once established as a major religion, open the archives a bit more, slowly, when it can be tolerated a bit more.
Maybe this was how it needed to be done. Wouldn’t be the first time church leaders had to get clever. Right?
Heber13,
Sure, Step 1 was probably good (short term) MARKETING (at least at the time). But Step 2 only arrived after the bloggers started looking into things the church had long ago buried with correlation. Packer’s demise may have brought some reasonableness to the quorum as well.
But that leaves “prophets seers and revelators” who don’t appear to know how a seer stones Vision training wheels) are used! Seems pretty in-congruent with divine counsel.
Shame on your dishonesty, Ji. If you choose to retain your faith after hearing of everything in the church’s history, that’s wonderful. No one should judge you for that. But for anyone to act like the church has not been deliberately duplicitous, has not hidden the ball and obfuscated for the purposes of “edifying” and “promoting testimony” is simply either ignorant or a liar. How dare you blame members whose testimonies are shaken after having grown up in an era of church education which was led by a man who saw the purging from CES and church educational institutions of teachers for teaching things he readily admitted were not false? Did or did not boyd k packer tell an audience of CES instructors that they should proactively exclude true incidents from church history and stop talking about them because “some things that are true are not very useful” and that church educators should teach church history in a way that the students would “see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now”? Please tell me where students in THOSE seminary or institute classes were supposed to go to so easily discover the more troubling facts surrounding church history when their leaders were specifically told to omit those facts from their classrooms. Your attitude is nothing more than victim blaming, and it’s despicable. If your goal is to help people understand the things they’re only now learning about their church while maintaining their faith, then do that, and stop trying to make people feel embarrassed or faithless because they have questions. Despite your baseless declarations, you’re the one in the minority on this issue, at least among those in this forum.
Yes, I’m in the minority in this forum. I want to be on the side of kindness and charity, and more often than not, that is in the minority. Yes, I choose to retain my faith.
I think it’s great that you’ve retained your faith. For the record, I don’t think telling people who are having crises of faith that it’s a) their fault and b) all in their heads is particularly kind or charitable. Your priority seems to be to defend the church at all costs, and you’re coming down pretty hard on people who are genuinely struggling to deal with what, to them, are seriously disconcerting issues. I don’t think a touch of empathy is asking too much.
Ji, you haven’t been on the side of kindness and charity.
ji,
Sometimes kindness and charity is just a cover for willful blindness, apologetics or denial.
Regarding the artwork, I doubt the church will make a habit of publishing depictions of the translation process with Joseph Smith’s face hidden in a hat, partly because if you can’t see his eyes you are less likely to feel the faith affirming feelings.
Make of that what you will.
The “being comfortable with the occult” angle is problematic in itself, as Mormons have been taught for decades to avoid such things (tarot cards, fortune telling, Ouija boards, hypnotism, ghost whispering, parlor games that invoke the supernatural, etc.) as representing the powers of Satan. I grew up hearing several unconfirmed rumors about BYU students getting expelled for playing with Ouija boards. So discovering that early church history has deep connections in folk magic can be troubling, understandably.
On the other hand, we believe in the power of the priesthood to be able to cast out evil spirits (exorcism), as anyone who has served a mission in Latin America can attest. That alone has a very occult vibe to it.
Jack, I agree with your first paragraph.
But please just stick to what you think or what you experienced. You can’t speak for everyone who served a mission in Latin America.
And further, even if the priesthood can do that, it still doesn’t make sense that early church history had strong ties to the occult but then it became anathema.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to speak beyond my own experience, but I understand its a fairly common occurrence for missionaries to have firsthand experience with that in certain parts of the world, but pretty much unheard of for stateside missionaries.
But it also illustrates the point of cultural context. Superstitious connections to the supernatural are deeply rooted into some cultures more than others. Just as folk magic and divining rods were not uncommon in early 19th century America, but mostly the subject of mockery in 21st century America. Context matters.
“Superstitious connections to the supernatural are deeply rooted into some cultures more than others.”
Yes. I grew up being told that one of our ward members practiced water divining, and was successful at it. He was the patriarch when I received my patriarchal blessing. He’s still living, though very old now. My father’s parents believed in supernatural things, and my grandmother was said to be psychic, and had had various experiences. There are various family stories.
So for me, the folk magic element isn’t actually too strange, because those things were always side by side with a strong repsect for maths and science at home.
To those who are claiming that they were instructed by the church to only read church published materials, please provide some example or evidence of this. To those who claim that the church has actively attempted to hide any information about the seer stone, please provide some example or evidence of that as well. In all the years I’ve been a member, I’ve never heard or read anything resembling either of those claims. Also, I’ve always understood that JS used the U&T and a seer stone to translate the BoM. Now, since the church and its teachings and instructions are common to all of us, we cannot fault the church for some of us not understanding these things when others of us clearly did. We can only fault our own interpretations of what the church has taught and instructed.
Regarding the artwork – the church and the scriptures have clearly taught that the translation process involved the U&T and yet very few of the illustrations depicting JS translating the plates show him using the U&T or any other device. Therefore, it should have always been clear to everyone that those illustrations were not correct. Why they were incorrect, I have no idea, but there has never been any reason to believe that the illustrations painted by common members were more accurate than the scriptures, Joseph’s own written account, or the published history of the church.
#50 DB,
I can comprehend that some have not heard the “don’t go read uncorrelated material”, but for me it was constant – even if mostly from local leaders.
Most of the Bishops I remember mentioning this growing up.
My mission president told us (not just the missionaries).
My institute teacher told me that.
Elder Oaks gave what most assumed was Sunstone/Dialog in his talk at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng when he mentioned “alternate voices”.
The consistent theme I heard was that you will run into people that tell untruth and often will be anti-Mormon and satan will have a hold on you.
It is terribly condescending to say that just because you had some that made you feel comfortable going outside LDS material that everyone else has had the same experience and are all stupid (that is the feeling I get when I read such statements – even though it is not explicit).
And if enough people are saying this (and I do think they are) it is an issue. An issue that leadership should have been inspired to give some correction in something like general conference.
Even today, I assume the majority of members don’t know and certainly most have not read them. So in my opinion the problem is still existing and being perpetuated. The “stone” article coming up is probably the first time that there is an attempt for mainstream membership to be given any hints since one comment back in like the 1970’s.
Church members, in general, are clearly uncomfortable with occult objects and subjects. The occult prohibitions in Christianity in the 21st century stem from the Protestant reformation; many aspects of which the church in the years after JS, adopted. Unfortunately, we are not investigating the claims to see if they are accurate. We have adopted the cultural line of thinking. Like it or not, many of the practices we have in the church – such as the laying on of hands for the sick – stem from occult practices. Jesus put his spittle in the ground to create a salve to heal a blind man; an occult practice if I ever saw one.
I am sure I am in the minority in that I wish to get back to the Mormonism that JS established. The corporate, correlated, church does not speak to me. It feels hollow. It is just my opinion, but if you wonder why Christianity is dying and paganism is growing by leaps and bounds, then this is one of the reasons. We need to get back to our occult roots – or at least try to understand them. The occult teachings are what gave Mormonism is “mojo.” I maintain it still does if we will investigate it.
DB – I am glad you had lessons that discussed the topic of the seer stone. I am a convert of 35 years. I never once had a lesson like that. And I think I can confidently say, if anyone tried to teach such things in the wards and stakes I’ve been in they would be asked to stop. This would certainly be a “no-no” in seminary, which I taught for several years. But again, this is only my opinion.
DB,
I used to teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward. I taught on Isaiah, and asked someone to read a verse from Isaiah. I asked them what the verse meant. They didn’t know. So I pulled out a NLT Bible and read the same verse. I was hauled into the bishop’s office and told to stick to the KJV Bible and no others. I explained the situation, but it didn’t matter. KJV or nothing. The church doesn’t want people reading uncorrelated NIV, NLT, or any other bibles.
My mom told me she didn’t like reading Rough Stone Rolling because it felt anti-Mormon to her.
Someone here mentioned that they printed out a priesthood manual lesson to teach their lesson. Someone thought it was simply an internet article, and told them that they should only use the manual.
I’m glad you read uncorrelated stuff, but here in (multiple counties) Utah, it is highly discouraged. I read it too, but based on personal experience, I hide it like I would porn because some Mormons think that reading non-Church materials is just as bad.
Thanks, Jack.
I appreciate your reasonableness.
Regarding the occult, if it is common in Bolivia but very uncommon in the USA, doesn’t that suggest that it is tied to a culture, instead of real? If demons were truly trying to possess people all over the world, why is it prevalent in some cultures and non-existent in others?
DB:
From Dallin H. Oaks, General Conference, October 1999:
“A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord’s revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/gospel-teaching?lang=eng
From The Church News, January 9, 2010:
“The Church — through its inspired correlation program — has given us official sources of information to help us prepare lessons and plan activities. Instead of turning to unofficial books and Web sites, let’s use those sources.”
and:
“leaders and teachers in the Church do themselves and the people they serve a disservice when they turn to unofficial — not correlated — materials in the planning of lessons and activities.”
http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/58411/Use-proper-sources.html
From the teacher’s resource guide on lds.org:
“To help us teach from the scriptures and the words of latter-day prophets, the Church has produced lesson manuals and other materials. There is little need for commentaries or other reference material.”
https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-11-keeping-the-doctrine-pure?lang=eng
Would you like more examples? I’m guessing I could probably only scrape together a couple hundred more.
My mother also dislikes Rough Stone Rolling, so you can imagine her views on what was acceptable reading and what wasn’t when I was growing up. And I mention this because she was not some kind of outlier, it is extremely common in the LDS faith to be told to be careful to only read material about the church that is safe.
And I did not grow up in Utah, I grew up on the east coast.
DB #50,
If you never heard any of those claims, then you weren’t listening.
DB it is serious because I made covenants based on a lie. If I had been told the truth I may not have chosen to make those same covenants.
I was instructed by bishops, stake presidents, institute instructor, bishop’s wife, visiting teacher, etc to only read manuals, scriptures, conference talks and ensign.
To clarify, I’m not upset with the church coming out with more transparency. I’m upset with the victim-blaming of people not knowing (ahem, Turley). I’m excited about this time of church history and continuing progress we’ll all make together.
But as someone who is rather smart, if I do say so myself, all it would take is a little training in critical thinking (which I didn’t receive) for me to handle it at a young age. Kids/teens are capable of much more than we give them credit for.
But up until now, everything that has been true has not been useful.
The church is against critical thinking.
Does everyone have this out of their systems yet?
As usual, a charitable interpretation can be found in the middle ground. Yes, Church leaders have downplayed (not necessarily “covered up” or “hidden”) Joseph’s use of the stone in translation and early revelation. But those facts have also been available in “authorized” and readily-available sources for many decades. Both of those things are true.
Boyd K. Packer was a bit paranoid and deeply concerned about the vulnerability of Church members to “too much information” from sources he deemed harmful or faith-challenging. This arguably damaged the Church and its members. He was also an apostle, and rightfully sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Both of those things are true. (They are also not necessarily connected.)
We have an unfortunate tendency as a people, encouraged by our leaders at every level, to assume that every word that falls from the mouth of the prophets is The Word of The Lord and The Will of God, which simply is not true. It makes for an uncomfortably bipolar world, in which someone’s lifelong faith can be shattered by a picture of a rock (a rock, for Heaven’s sake) in a news release, simply because no prophet saw fit to tell them about it since 1974.
In my opinion, what we’re seeing is the fallout of the Mushroom Member Policy (kept in the dark and covered in, well, you get the idea). I would urge all of us to gain a little perspective. The notion that an ignorant 19th-century American would need a little bit of help in discerning the will of God, in a way that was familiar and comprehensible to him, shouldn’t be a huge shock to us. On what is our testimony based? Is our view of Joseph as Prophet of the Restoration contingent upon his NOT having used a stone? On his ONLY having used the Urim and Thummim, “magic seer stones” only dignified by Biblical mention? Or do we insist that the only legit way for him to have received revelation is to have had a PPI with the Savior, as so many of my mission companions seemed to think?
How many of us indulge in our own forms of folk magic? Do you throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it? My grandfather (1910-1976) dowsed for water and believed in it firmly, although he was a scientifically curious man. Do you ever say “Bless you!” when someone sneezes? Knock on wood? Avoid walking under a ladder? Get a twinge when you step on a sidewalk crack? (Poor Mom!) More to the point, do you kneel when you pray, fold your arms, bow your head, close your eyes?
Like Joseph, you are invoking familiar things, forms, and postures to facilitate your communication with God. We are magical beings; we instinctively use ritual, form, and talismans to root ourselves in our physical and metaphysical worlds. It should be no surprise, either that Joseph did likewise, or that God answered him as He does us.
New Iconoclast,
Good post and I agree with much of it. I think some of the angst is bigger than just a stone. It is the breath of the “mushroom member policy” painting things SO bright white and saying things are perfect, then seeing the paint flick off in some areas and seeing such gunk.
And I don’t do any of those “magic” actions. I do say “bless you” as a custom in our culture. I do pray as you mention, but only for family prayers as my wife gets upset if I don’t. In my personal prayers I don’t. But I am often called “Mr. Spock” and too focused on logic above all else.
New Iconoclast: “Does everyone have this out of their systems yet?”
Apparently not judging members reactions. You would think the entire printers manuscript of the BOM would be a more interesting event. But the pictures of the seer stone has taken center stage b/c nobody has seen it before. And it isn’t like a Urim and Thumim either. It is a stone JS found in a well. For most people, that makes it appear just a little more common, rather than delivered by an angel like the Urim and Thummim. It also demonstrates you can receive revelation by common, albeit perhaps, unique objects. Members don’t like to hear that. It’s out of their comfort zone.
As an aside, I find the whole folk magic aspect of the church fascinating; especially the significance of the hands. For example, we baptize with our right arm raised to the square. Why? Is there some special power in that? What about healing of the sick by the laying on of the hands. Can you heal w/o the hands? Do you have a better effect for some reason with the hands? What about washing and annointings? Areas of our bodies are touched with the hands after being dipped in magical water or “consecrated” olive oil. Pagans are taught if you don’t have a magical wand to perform an act, you use your outstretched finger instead; just like the Lord touching the Brother of Jared’s stones to light the ship. I find the parallels interesting.
Members don’t like to call our practices magical, but that’s exactly what they are. They don’t want to hear the word “magic.” It scares them.
New Iconoclast: ” Is our view of Joseph as Prophet of the Restoration contingent upon his NOT having used a stone?”
No it is not. My testimony is based on using the same means and following the same pattern as JS did – which has been repeatedly denied and discouraged by the GAs. They don’t want me investigating revelation using my own objects; they don’t want me looking into techniques such as scrying, and they don’t want me setting up an altar in my home using rituals that are not “authorized” by them. When it finally comes down to it, members – including the GAs – don’t believe JS and what he did. So they downplay everything they don’t understand instead of investigating it and seeing if there’s something to it.
Unfortunately many Mormons, IMO, have become something like fundamentalist Evangelical Christians covered with a veneer of Mormonism: steeped in little else but rules, dress standards, and morality prohibitions. Boring! They can’t handle the occult JS. They don’t want to see an occult Oliver Cowdery or David Whitmer either. They don’t want to admit how occult their practices really are. They don’t like it or accept it. But they will certainly live off the dead carcass of JS and make him into an idol of their own image. This is my “beef” with the GAs. They have caricatured JS to the general Mormon populace to such an extent that we don’t recognize him. And that is why I think you’re seeing such a reaction in the church and media. They want the dumbed-down version!
Bow your head and say “yes.”
#52 A Happy Hubby,
Actually, this is the church’s first major article on the seer stone since the 2013 Book of Mormon Translation article from the Gospel Topics Essays. The seer stone has also been mentioned in a few recent church manuals and talks. This is hardly new stuff.
If you think I’m implying that you or anyone else is stupid, that is coming from you and not me. What I am saying is that the church sends the same message out to everyone, how we choose to interpret that is up to us individually.
#53 brother of Bared,
I never had lessons that discussed the seer stone nor did I ever claim that. One does not need to rely on Sunday lessons to learn about church doctrine or history.
#54 MH,
When members of the church try to teach that crap about unauthorized sources not being allowed, I prefer to follow the Lord’s guidance in D&C 91.
#56 brjones,
Those references all refer to preparing and teaching lessons in church. None of those refer to personal study or even what to study to prepare for talks. Think of how often non-correlated materials are quoted in talks including General Conference talks (C.S. Lewis anyone?). I understand that some people will confuse the two and try to teach that the church’s statements also refer to personal study. They don’t. Also, those statements about what to use for church lessons exclude everything, except scriptures, manuals, and maybe the current Ensign, to include books and articles written by GA’s, official publications not intended for lessons, non General Conference talks by GA’s, BYU publications, etc.
#58 Dexter & #60 m,
I’ve heard those claims, but only from local members and not from church HQ. Local members say a lot of things, including a lot of folk doctrine, which means absolutely nothing unless it can be backed up by official statements or scripture (no matter how right they think they are). The next time someone in the church says something like that to you, ask them to back it up with an official statement. Let’s not forget that no matter what anyone in the church says or teaches, we all have our agency and can choose what we read and study. If I’m told to not read something and I don’t, that’s my choice. If I’m told not to read something and I do anyway, that’s also my choice. Let’s not blame anyone else for our choices.
#63 New Iconoclast,
Amen.
Here is an interesting take on this disclosure that is life-giving for LGBT people and other people who don’t fit in. The seer stone can be seen as the technology of the powerless.
My bishop warned me that if I read unauthorized church materials he would take my temple recommend away. I was also taught that local leaders have the right to receive revelation for ward/stake. Disobeying direct instruction from bishop and stake president can result in ecclesiastical discipline. We have seen in the past year how this has turned out for some memebers.
DB,
There are countless quotes from church leaders about only reading safe materials. And further, even the things I only heard from local leaders and MY PARENTS cannot be simply disregarded. The culture of the church is tied to the doctrine. I’m so sorry I didn’t just ignore my parents at age 11 and read all this stuff on my own. Thank you for clarifying that that is my fault and I should have used my agency to know I can read anything I want! And I should have told my seminary teacher, and my teacher’s quorum advisor, and my bishop to back up whatever they said with an official statement. Give me a break.
#54 MH,
When members of the church try to teach that crap about unauthorized sources not being allowed, I prefer to follow the Lord’s guidance in D&C 91.
When the KJV uses language so archaic that the average member can’t understand it, how is that useful? You consider the Bible as crap?
I see it now. You were never interested to hear the answer to your challenge “To those who are claiming that they were instructed by the church to only read church published materials, please provide some example or evidence of this.”
You’re full of crap. You asked for examples, you got them. You simply justify them away. You’re a moron, and your justifications are complete crap.
Whoa there MH, no need for the name calling. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was siding with you, not against you. What I wrote wasn’t about you, it was about those types of members that disagreed with your use of materials in post #54. What I consider crap is the idea that members are not allowed to read unauthorized sources. Here, let me rewrite my statement:
“MH, I understand your frustration. When other members try to teach that we’re not allowed to read unauthorized sources, I prefer to just follow the Lord’s guidance in D&C 91.”
And no, I still have not gotten any examples that I asked for. I asked for examples that the church has instructed members to only read church published materials. By the church, I mean an official statement by the institution or at least from a GA. A bishop is not the church. A stake president is not the church. Local members are not the church. If there are instructions to this effect from the church, I’d like to know about them. I know that people have been told this by local members, including local leadership, but that’s not what I asked for. I know the church has provided instructions about what materials are appropriate for lessons given in church, but that’s not what I asked for.
No need to call me a moron that’s full of crap. I’m simply putting forth a challenge to widely held beliefs. It’s really not surprising that my challenge is being met by negative emotional responses but it is surprising that it came from you.
Ok DB, I guess I did misunderstand. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
“A bishop is not the church. A stake president is not the church. Local members are not the church.”
That’s where most members practice, so if local leaders are annoyingly stupid about bibles, for example, well why can’t we refer to that as “the church”, since that is our lived experience?
“By the church, I mean an official statement by the institution or at least from a GA.”
I think #1, brjones #56 has already provided lots of pertinent quotes from several GA’s. #2 If you read the Sunday School or priesthood manuals, the current ETB manual says “If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare a lesson from other materials.” (I will add, “even if you think the lesson is poor or hard to generate a discussion.”) Now this isn’t necessarily a prohibition, but when some people read this, some locals will get offended if you use outside sources. I have a hard time not calling locals “the church” when that’s who you have to interact with, and they tattle to the bishop if they don’t like your preparation. (Been tattled on, it ain’t fun. Haven’t taught a lesson since, and we’re talking about a half dozen years or so. On the other hand, I do like my calling as family history consultant–almost beats gospel doctrine because I can use my computer during the whole Sunday School hour, or help others use their computers.)
(I wrote something similar on another post, also applicable here.)
Dear DB,
Defining “the church” as only the general authorities or official proclamations is ridiculous. 99% of “the church” is local leaders. So everyone should just ignore their Sunday school teachers, seminary teachers, parents, institute teachers, young men’s advisors, young women’s advisors, elder’s quorum presidents, relief society presidents, bishops, bishoprics, stake presidents, mission presidents and patriarchs? I guess we should just read the ensign and wait for conference then, right? Nothing matters except what the general authorities say, right DB? And members have such easy access to the general authorities, so why would they let what their bishop says affect them? I wonder.
By the way, does my mission president count as “the church”. He told us what to read and what not to read, and he said the same to us when we were released as when we were serving as missionaries. He warned us to be careful what we read after our missions and to only trust church sources. He became a general authority after serving as my mission president. But I suppose what he said is irrelevant too?
@ Howard and Hawkgrrl: I understand what you are saying. Thank you.
I could be wrong, but I think the occult meant something totally different in Smith’s day than what it means today. Words meanings and usage changes.
The Bible is full of occult. Scrying and seer stones use by Prophets. Using spit and mud to heal. Looking at a brass serpant, talking donkey ( actually I wish God would give animals the gift of speech today in many situations), talking serpent, walking on water, raising the dead, the Resurrection, burning bush that does not burn up, Ark of the Covenant, visions. The Atheists use arguments of occult, fairy tales, magic tricks, lies, myths, etc to attack the Bible and Christian beliefs.
I was a skeptic of water dousing. We bought property when we moved to my husband’s hometown, 18 years ago. We had to get water well established first in order to know where septic, electric, etc should go. My father-in-law knew a water douser to help us. We humored him, and what did we have to lose. I thought it would be fun, my husband was not thrilled at all. The other option was for the well driller to drill all over the property until a good water source was found and we did not have that kind of money. The douser came and walked every inch of our property. If he found a good water source we would pay him, if not then no pay. Fair enough. He had two wires, I don’t remember what type of metal the wires were. Some spots the wires did not move, other spots the wires would move a little. When the douser came on one spot the wires crossed one another, and it was a strong pull. The douser let each one of us try. ( The kids had fun and still remember doing the dousing.)
Where the wires crossed one another is where we drilled the well. We hit the mother lode. We could hear the water rushing. With severe drought and more people moving in and drilling wells the water table has dropped about four feet. That is a lot. But we can still hear it running when we have to pull the pump to fix it.
That experience converted us to the validity of water dousing.
@DB – Here is where I wish I didn’t have a job keeping me busy 60+ hours a week (and two callings) as I would be SHOCKED if I couldn’t find some references at least strongly insinuating “stick to the correlated material.” I do recall I think it was Elder Oaks stating in conference https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices not to listen to alternative voices or some words that clearly meant, “Don’t read Sunstone or Dialog” as those were rising in popularity at that time. At least that is the way many took it and right after that, both groups shrunk considerably in members/participation (and were then left far more liberal than they had previously been).
@ A Happy Hubby – You’ve referenced that talk a couple of times as an example of the church instructing members to only read church published materials and this is the only reference anyone has given that isn’t strictly about what materials are allowed for church lessons, so I’ll give you that. However, this talk doesn’t instruct members to not listen to “alternate voices” at all. Rather, Elder Oaks is explaining the difference between official church publications and non-church publications which have the appearance of either official church publications or association with or endorsement by the church. Here are a couple of quotes from the talk that support what I’m saying:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not attempt to isolate its members from alternate voices. Its approach, as counseled by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is to teach correct principles and then leave its members to govern themselves by personal choices.”
“Members of the Church are free to participate or to listen to any alternate voices they choose, but Church leaders should avoid official involvement, directly or indirectly.”
Yes, Elder Oaks warned members against reading or listening to “alternate voices” but he makes a point to not forbid it. What we read or listen to is our choice.