October Ensign maintains the charade...

[_subgenius]

The OP is asking whether the October Ensign is fraudulent or disingenuous with its failure to mention the rock in the hat method, which is how all contemporaries of Joseph Smith describe the alleged translation process.

and it was duly answered...."no" to both charges.

The fact that the LDS Church very occasionally, over the course of several decades, mentions the rock in the hat, while almost always making it seem as if Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim, is disingenuous.

still no "fraudulent" activity. The notion that the "seer stones" used for the translation of the Book of Mormon were functionally identical to Urim and Thummim, and were termed as such is not fraudulent nor disingenuous. In fact it is likely the cause of distinction. Seer stones were not uncommon, even to Smith in is previous role of a seer, the stones used in translating the Book of Mormon would likely be confused or incorrectly associated with less divine stones, as might be seen in folk magic. which is recognized by you above by mention of how "contemporaries" might view something.

It proves that the Church is disingenuous, since it obviously knows what is in the historical record.

and now you not only purport to know what the church knows, but what is factual in the "historical record"? besides, you seem to purposely ignore the church's long held doctrine of continuing revelation - how disingenuous of you?

The very, very few times over the last several decades that the Church will admit to the rock and the hat directly addresses the question in the OP about whether the October Ensign is disingenuous.

it is not...it clarifies.
And the one who wanted to start talking about the number of times "seer" and "stone" were mentioned near each other when searching the Church's website was you.

Your clear response was to vastly overstate how often and how frankly the LDS Church will admit that Joseph Smith's purported method for translating the Book of Mormon and his purported method for looking for buried treasure in his folk magic practices were the same.

purported being the operative word. overstated or not, it was clear evidence that, in contrast to the poster's response, the church was not "hiding" information.

Again, the one who brought numbers into this was you. What you mean is that you are perfectly happy to talk about numbers as long as your misleading assertions go unchallenged.

exaggerated, yes...misleading, no. point was still valid whether "seer"stone" appeared on church website 1 time or 1,000 times.

A reasonable person can make a determination when looking at how often the Church talks about the translation of the Book of Mormon versus how often it talks about the rock in the hat and draw a reasonable conclusion about whether the Church is being misleading.

nonsensical. the issue was not misleading, but rather "hiding". And there was no "misleading" either. You are creating that which is not there, how ironic in light of what you accuse the church of doing.

That would be the statements of the people who were around Joseph Smith when he was purporting to translate the Book of Mormon, including David Whitmer and Martin Harris.

Yet you disregard Joseph Smith's account, as well as other. Besides, i have already addressed Whitmer's account. But if i understand you correctly, "statements" are now sufficient cause for fact, especially when they support your position?

That is a religious belief, not a fact.

obviously you mean "fact" in terms of scientific....because it is likely better termed religious knowledge which makes it fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

I am not an atheist, and I have not said anything from which that could be inferred. You seem to be reverting to chat bot mode.

read for comprehension....i did not call you an atheist, you likely have more options than they have.

[_Equality]

When the church starts publishing a visual depiction like this one:


rather than this one:

,

then I will believe the church is not being disingenuous and misleading people intentionally. Until then, it's obvious the church is trying to perpetuate a false portrayal of the means used by Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon. South Park is more accurate than any Ensign article on the matter. How pathetic that the church can't even match a couple of sarcastic comedians for historical accuracy.

[_jon]

I find it interesting that the Church doesn't accurately portray the one method for which there is corroborating accounts from a number of different people.

What's wrong with teaching Primary children and investigators and even members that Joseph pulled, like a magicician's rabbit, the Book of Mormon out of a hat which contained the rock he had used to attempt to find (unsuccessfully) buried treasure for people. That's what the best available evidence tells us happened, so teach that.

Why is the Church keen to downplay or ignore, in special publications like the October Ensign and Teaching Manuals, the most commonly used method for producing God's divine scripture?

[_subgenius]

....That's what the best available evidence tells us happened...

opinion and a highly suspect conclusion.
The best available evidence actually confirms that it was translated by the "gift and power of God".

[_subgenius]

When the church starts publishing a visual depiction like this one:.....

it is art, not a documentary. meant to inspire, not transcribe.

just like it does not matter that everyone may not have sat on the same side of the table at the last supper

[_subgenius]

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1


still not hiding

[_jon]

When the church starts publishing a visual depiction like this one:.....

it is art, not a documentary. meant to inspire, not transcribe.

just like it does not matter that everyone may not have sat on the same side of the table at the last supper

At least in this picture they depict the table.
Where in the October ensign do they show Joseph with his head in a hat?

[_Darth J]

The OP is asking whether the October Ensign is fraudulent or disingenuous with its failure to mention the rock in the hat method, which is how all contemporaries of Joseph Smith describe the alleged translation process.

and it was duly answered...."no" to both charges.

It was asserted contrary to evidence that the Church is frank/forthright (the opposite of "disingenuous") about the rock in the hat. A couple of passing mentions over the course of four decades or so is not frank and honest. Compare how often the Church mentions the rock in the hat to how often it omits that detail, or how often pictures in LDS curricula show Joseph Smith "reading" the golden plates.

The fact that the LDS Church very occasionally, over the course of several decades, mentions the rock in the hat, while almost always making it seem as if Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim, is disingenuous.

still no "fraudulent" activity. The notion that the "seer stones" used for the translation of the Book of Mormon were functionally identical to Urim and Thummim, and were termed as such is not fraudulent nor disingenuous. In fact it is likely the cause of distinction. Seer stones were not uncommon, even to Smith in is previous role of a seer, the stones used in translating the Book of Mormon would likely be confused or incorrectly associated with less divine stones, as might be seen in folk magic. which is recognized by you above by mention of how "contemporaries" might view something.

I guess the green stone from Sally Chase he sometimes looked at was "less divine" than the brown seer stone he found while digging a well.

ETA: And conflating the Nephite Urim and Thummim---which was allegedly taken away after the 116 pages were lost---with the brown rock Joseph Smith put in his hat is disingenuous.

It proves that the Church is disingenuous, since it obviously knows what is in the historical record.

and now you not only purport to know what the church knows, but what is factual in the "historical record"? besides, you seem to purposely ignore the church's long held doctrine of continuing revelation - how disingenuous of you?

Yes, I do purport to know what is in the historical record, because I can read. I also purport to know what the Church knows, because when the Church publishes something, I can fairly infer that the Church was aware of the information it published.

Where might I find continuing revelation that is relevant in any way to the OP?

The very, very few times over the last several decades that the Church will admit to the rock and the hat directly addresses the question in the OP about whether the October Ensign is disingenuous.

it is not...it clarifies.
And the one who wanted to start talking about the number of times "seer" and "stone" were mentioned near each other when searching the Church's website was you.

If the Church had been frank/forthright/honest about the history of Mormonism, there would not be a need to "clarify." And the reason I wanted to start talking about your assertions is because they are demonstrably misleading.

Your clear response was to vastly overstate how often and how frankly the LDS Church will admit that Joseph Smith's purported method for translating the Book of Mormon and his purported method for looking for buried treasure in his folk magic practices were the same.

purported being the operative word. overstated or not, it was clear evidence that, in contrast to the poster's response, the church was not "hiding" information.

The OP does not say anything about "hiding" information. The OP suggests that the Church is disingenuous about the Book of Mormon translation process. The overwhelming amount of the time, the Church is not being honest---by the Church's own standards.

"Chapter 31: Honesty," Gospel Principles, (2009)

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

Again, the one who brought numbers into this was you. What you mean is that you are perfectly happy to talk about numbers as long as your misleading assertions go unchallenged.

exaggerated, yes...misleading, no. point was still valid whether "seer"stone" appeared on church website 1 time or 1,000 times.

Very good. If you make a completely misleading statement in almost every instance in which you speak over the course of several decades, but you tell the truth a couple of times during that same period, you have been completely honest.

A reasonable person can make a determination when looking at how often the Church talks about the translation of the Book of Mormon versus how often it talks about the rock in the hat and draw a reasonable conclusion about whether the Church is being misleading.

nonsensical. the issue was not misleading, but rather "hiding". And there was no "misleading" either. You are creating that which is not there, how ironic in light of what you accuse the church of doing.

The word "hiding" is not in the OP. The word "disingenuous" is in the OP. "Misleading" and "disingenuous" are related words. http://thesaurus.com/browse/disingenuou ... 1&qsrc=121

It is not necessary to absolutely "hide" the truth always in order to be misleading, anyway. The Church teaches that telling only part of the truth, or telling it in a misleading way, is the same as lying. E.g.,

"Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness," October 1994 Ensign

Thus, the ninth commandment is a strong declaration against covenant breaking, oath breaking, and all forms of untruth, including exaggeration, gross understatement, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts. Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give a full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered.

That would be the statements of the people who were around Joseph Smith when he was purporting to translate the Book of Mormon, including David Whitmer and Martin Harris.

Yet you disregard Joseph Smith's account, as well as other. Besides, i have already addressed Whitmer's account. But if i understand you correctly, "statements" are now sufficient cause for fact, especially when they support your position?

Yes, the statements of witnesses who were present are "sufficient cause for fact" (whatever that means).

Where are all these other accounts that refute the accounts indicating that the rock in the hat was what Joseph Smith was doing when he purported to be translating the Book of Mormon?

That is a religious belief, not a fact.

obviously you mean "fact" in terms of scientific....because it is likely better termed religious knowledge which makes it fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Some ancient tribes had religious knowledge that the world was on the back of a giant turtle. Therefore, it was a fact that the world was on the back of a giant turtle.

I am not an atheist, and I have not said anything from which that could be inferred. You seem to be reverting to chat bot mode.

read for comprehension....i did not call you an atheist, you likely have more options than they have.

If you want someone to read for comprehension, then write for comprehension. Don't throw in irrelevant references to atheists when you are responding to me.

[_ludwigm]

That is a religious belief, not a fact.

obviously you mean "fact" in terms of scientific....because it is likely better termed religious knowledge which makes it fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Some ancient tribes had religious knowledge that the world was on the back of a giant turtle. Therefore, it was a fact that the world was on the back of a giant turtle.

Unfortunately, the status of the world we live in is far worse. There are tribes which have this type of religious knowledge.
We are on the back of a giant turtle. Or on the back of a white salamander...

by the way
The internet is a blessing. And it is a damn.
There are people who think that everything can be found on internet are true.
For example, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact says
4 something said to be true or supposed to have happened is fact
and
an actual or alleged event or circumstance is fact

For me, something said or something alleged is not fact.
That internet page is ... (word not celestial)

Maybe I have translation troubles. My seer stones are broken down.

[_jon]

I find it a little bit two faced (disingenuous?) to, on the one hand disparage the accounts of the witnesses to the translation process method involving Joseph, a rock and a hat, whilst on the other hand, accepting at face value the witnesses to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

This lack of consistency is EXACTLY the point of the thread.