Mormon Infobia...

[_Carton]

The original Urim and Thummim were large and transparent Liz. Since he couldn't read the plates very well when using the U&T, he soon started copying characters to paper to read them through the U&T. When at some point he got tired of that (it was not easy for him for reasons we can only speculate about), and he tried his stone, it became apparent that he could read from the stone without looking at the papers (the stone was not translucent). I think at that point he realized that he didn't need to be looking at either the pages or the gold plates. Eventually, he receives "translations" without even having a source (writings of John the Revelator).

Is there really reliable evidence that supports this historical narrative you've described above? It sounds more like a theory you've developed rather than an accurate narration of history based in evidence. I thought Smith turned to the seer stone because he lost the U&T (assuming, of course, that he ever even had such a thing!)

[_Yoda]

The original Urim and Thummim were large and transparent Liz. Since he couldn't read the plates very well when using the U&T, he soon started copying characters to paper to read them through the U&T. When at some point he got tired of that (it was not easy for him for reasons we can only speculate about), and he tried his stone, it became apparent that he could read from the stone without looking at the papers (the stone was not translucent). I think at that point he realized that he didn't need to be looking at either the pages or the gold plates. Eventually, he receives "translations" without even having a source (writings of John the Revelator).

OK, great! Good to know I'm on the right track with this one! :-)

[_Carton]

I did suggest earlier that faqs is just another study in the aplication of Poe's law.

No kidding!

I love good TBM parody. DarthJ does some great stuff along those lines. But this ldsfaqs guy is so "out there" that it doesn't even work as parody.

[_Yoda]

For example, polygamy, where the church's history and engagement of the material seems almost schizophrenic at times

Ben, since you brought up polygamy, I would like to ask a few questions.

What do you feel the situation with Fanny was? It is very confusing because Joseph had not received the sealing power, and yet, he and Fanny were supposedly "plural husband and wife".

Thoughts?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Is there really reliable evidence that supports this historical narrative you've described above? It sounds more like a theory you've developed rather than an accurate narration of history based in evidence. I thought Smith turned to the seer stone because he lost the U&T (assuming, of course, that he ever even had such a thing!)

Yes, there are a few accounts which discuss how difficult the U&T were for him to use - they were large, didn't fit his face he had to look through only one side (which would mean - if any of the artistic recreations are at all accurate that he had to lean over to one side). So we are told that he stopped using them and switched to his seer stone. At some point, prior to his losing the U&T (which were taken back with the plates when the 116 pages were lost), we have Martin Harris's account of switching the stone in the hat with a similar looking one that he had collected during a break. I provide a few citations above.

[_Runtu]

Yes, there are a few accounts which discuss how difficult the U&T were for him to use - they were large, didn't fit his face he had to look through only one side (which would mean - if any of the artistic recreations are at all accurate that he had to lean over to one side). So we are told that he stopped using them and switched to his seer stone. At some point, prior to his losing the U&T (which were taken back with the plates when the 116 pages were lost), we have Martin Harris's account of switching the stone in the hat with a similar looking one that he had collected during a break. I provide a few citations above.

I guess what bothers me about the seer stone is that I cannot make myself believe that his prior use of the stone (for locating treasures and lost items) was at all legitimate. I know some believing Mormons are convinced that he really could do these things, but I just can't.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Ben, since you brought up polygamy, I would like to ask a few questions.

What do you feel the situation with Fanny was? It is very confusing because Joseph had not received the sealing power, and yet, he and Fanny were supposedly "plural husband and wife".

Thoughts?

My thoughts? I try not to (only partly kidding). I really don't know what I think of the whole polygamy thing. I feel somewhat confident that polygamy was also seen as something that had to be restored (as part of a restoration of all things). I think that we have too many polarizing points of view that make it hard to take a middle ground, and that the truth is probably somewhere in that middle ground. For instance, Joseph, I am reasonably convinced, had intimate relations with some but certainly not all of the women sealed to him.

So what do I think the situation with Fanny was? I am inclined to believe that everyone involved saw it as a real marriage.

When we start talking about sealing power, and sealings, and all of that other stuff, I would add that the historical record doesn't give us something that is orderly or all at once. I think we had some experimental (for lack of a better word) things going on there, some of which worked well and some of which didn't - and over that initial period of time the practice changed a great deal evolving into the practice that later became more main stream for the LDS church until it was halted.

In more general terms, I don't view polygamy as an essentially bad institution, but, like many others, I recognize that it has built in limitations that really prevent it from becoming a normative or sustainable model of human relationships. Further, from my personal perspective, I am not sure I am too keen on giving up the monogamous notion of personal intimacy in marriage with no secrets and so on. Clearly polygamy goes hand in hand with a much more tolerant view of divorce - and requires (if it is to work well) a concerted effort to empower women (education, etc.) If I were to look at the scriptural institution, it was generally mandated in exceptional situations, and from a theological standpoint, I think we ought to see it as an exception and not the rule.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I guess what bothers me about the seer stone is that I cannot make myself believe that his prior use of the stone (for locating treasures and lost items) was at all legitimate. I know some believing Mormons are convinced that he really could do these things, but I just can't.

I think I am mostly agnostic on this issue. I have my own experiences in which remarkable things have occurred that I attribute to divinity. I am also willing to let others have their experiences, even if they are quite foreign to my own. I think this is one of those aspects of God speaking to us individually in ways we are prepared to accept.

Ben M.

[_Runtu]

I think I am mostly agnostic on this issue. I have my own experiences in which remarkable things have occurred that I attribute to divinity. I am also willing to let others have their experiences, even if they are quite foreign to my own. I think this is one of those aspects of God speaking to us individually in ways we are prepared to accept.

Ben M.

I have said precisely the same thing in the past. This seems to be Bushman's approach, as well. But I still struggle with this. Either he could or couldn't see anything in the stone, pre-Book of Mormon. If he couldn't, he had to have known it was fraudulent behavior.

[_Carton]

I think I am mostly agnostic on this issue. I have my own experiences in which remarkable things have occurred that I attribute to divinity. I am also willing to let others have their experiences, even if they are quite foreign to my own. I think this is one of those aspects of God speaking to us individually in ways we are prepared to accept.

Ben M.

I have said precisely the same thing in the past. This seems to be Bushman's approach, as well. But I still struggle with this. Either he could or couldn't see anything in the stone, pre-Book of Mormon. If he couldn't, he had to have known it was fraudulent behavior.

Rough Stone Rolling is literally over-flowing with instances of cog-dis. This is just one example.