Contradiction in the Book of Mormon?

[_Drifting]

No, I mean exactly what I stated on my post.

Which seems to be you advocating we take what Whitmer wrote with a pinch of salt.

[_jo1952]

No, I mean exactly what I stated on my post.

Which seems to be you advocating we take what Whitmer wrote with a pinch of salt.

Drifting,

I can't help but ask this question: How old are you?

FYI, and for others who may be interested, here is some historical information on both the Urim and Thummim, as well as the practice of casting lots - which was basically a way for using "chance" to settle disputes, get answers from God, etc.

On the high priest's *ephod (an apron-like garment) lay a breastpiece (חֹשֶׁן) – a pouch inlaid with 12 precious stones engraved with the names of the 12 tribes of Israel – that held the Urim and Thummim (Ex. 28:15–30; Lev. 8:8).

Only the High Priests were allowed to use the Urim and Thummim. Joshua and his successors could speak to the Lord only through the mediation of the high priest and by means of the Urim and Thummim.

Concerning the Urim and Thummim as found in the Aggadah:

To the names of the 12 tribes engraved on the breastpiece were added those of the three Patriarchs, together with the word shevet ("tribe") so as to encompass the whole alphabet (Yoma 73b). (This is part of the Ephod....the Interpreting Urim to mean "those whose words give light" and Thummim as "those whose words are fulfilled," the rabbis explain that the oracle was effected by rays of light shining on the letters, or protruding from them and forming themselves into groups (Yoma 73b), so that the high priest could read them. Only priests speaking by means of the holy spirit and upon whom the Shekhinah rested could invoke them. The inquirer had his face directed toward the high priest, who directed himself to the Shekhinah. One did not inquire either in a loud voice or silently in his heart, but like Hannah, who muttered her prayer (I Sam 1:13). Only one question was to be put at a time, and if two were asked, only the first was answered. However, if the occasion required two questions, both were answered. Unlike the decrees of a prophet, those of the Urim and Thummim could not be revoked. Only a king or a head of the Sanhedrin could inquire from the Urim and Thummim (Yoma 73a–b). The division of the land was effected by means of the Urim and Thummim (Rosebud 122a). Saul and David consulted them (Mid. Ps. 27:2). The Urim and Thummim ceased to give oracular answers immediately after the death of the first prophets (Sot. 9:12), i.e., the destruction of the First Temple (Sot. 48b). However according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sot. 9:14, 24b), the "first prophets" refers to Samuel and David and according to this view the Urim and Thummim did not function in the First Temple period either.


Casting lots for divination

The Hebrew Bible makes a number of references to lots. For example, Jonah declared “Let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us”; and the whole book of Esther is the story of Purim, which means ‘lots’. Although the masses were forbidden by Jewish law to cast lots for divination – which was the prerogative of the priests - God's authorities on earth were allowed to use lottery devices to guide judgements. [i]Thus the chief priest carried sacred stones inside his breastplate (the Urim and Thummim), through which he sensed divine intentions. The stones gave God's answer, determined when the 'Yes' or the 'No' stone was drawn out. King David consulted this oracular medium before going into battle: when the 'Yes' stone appeared, forecasting his victory over the Philistines, he set off on the warpath.

Although the early fathers of the Christian church were vigorously opposed to divination by lots, sometimes excommunicating those who practised it, this did not stop the Church [the RCC] itself using this method for decision-making. For example, in 782 CE, when the bishops of Poitiers, Autun, and Arras all claimed the body of St. Leger, lots were cast, with the result that the saintly remains were handed over to the Bishop of Poitiers.

Some devout Christians continued to use lottery when faced with some of life's most difficult decisions. Benjamin Franklin records in his autobiography:

John Wesley‘I enquired concerning Moravian marriages, whether the report was true that they were by lot. I was told that lots were used only in particular cases;…if, for example, it should happen that two or three young women were found to be equally proper for the young man, the lot was then recurred to. I objected, ‘If the matches are not made by the mutual choice of the parties, some of them may chance to be very unhappy’. ‘And so they may’ answered my informer ‘if you let the parties decide for themselves.’ Which indeed I could not deny.’

When John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was faced with the problem of choosing a wife, he consulted his friend Mr Delamotte about the woman under consideration.

'... both of us sought God by deep consideration, fasting and prayer...but could not come to any decision. At length we agreed to appeal to the Searcher of Hearts. I accordingly made three lots. In one was writ, "Marry;" in the second "Think not of it this year." After we prayed to God to give us a "perfect lot", Mr. Delamotte drew the third, in which were the words, "Think of it no more." Instead of the agony I had reason to expect, I was enabled to say cheerfully, "Thy will be done." We cast lots again to know whether I ought to converse with her anymore, and the direction I received from God was "Only in the presence of Mr. Delamotte".' (Wesley 4 March 1737, cited in David 1962)

Panchen LamaThere are many examples of lottery used for divination outside Judeo-Christian monotheism. Not long ago, for example, the Dalai Lama drew lots to choose the name of his successor. Slips of paper bearing the names of candidates were introduced into identical balls of barley meal, and placed in a bowl. The bowl was then rotated until one of the balls 'jumped out', thus identifying the Panchen Lama.

Drawing lots to ensure fairness

The land of Canaan was distributed among the tribes of Israel by lots (“And ye shall inherit the land by lot according to your families.” Numbers 33.54). [/i]

As we can see, it is not odd or strange or unreasonable for Joseph Smith to have kept the stones, a.k.a. the Urim and Thummim, hidden from the eyes of others. It certainly was not out of line for him to use the Urim and Thummim in order to translate from the plates. If Joseph Smith had been doing this work in Biblical days, no questions or suspicions would even have arisen.

Blessings,

jo

[_gdemetz]

That was a good question Jo! Maybe Drifting is much younger than I realized. That would explain a lot of things!

[_Drifting]

The eyewitness accounts state that Joseph used a stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon. This stone is verified as being the one Joseph discovered when digging a well and the same one as he used for treasure seeking earlier in his life.

The Urim & Thummim (which is described as being far more than just a couple of stones) was found with the plates and must, therefore, be considered as something distinctly spearate and different to the stone used for translating witnessed by people like Whitmer.

The questions seem to remain unanswered.

1. Why doesn't the Church teach what the eye witnesses saw, instead of completely favouring the Urim & Thummim method?
2. Are we to take Whitmers words with a pinch of salt?

Come on gdemetz, answer the questions!

[_gdemetz]

Read the JSH Drifting. It describes the stones.

[_Drifting]

Read the JSH Drifting. It describes the stones.

Which doesn't answer either question, well done!

The questions, still remaining unanswered by gdemetz:

1. Why doesn't the Church teach what the eye witnesses saw; instead of completely favouring the Urim & Thummim method?
2. Are we to take Whitmers words with a pinch of salt?

Now look gdemetz, I have sympathy with you because the factual answers to these questions don't seem to support your belief that 'the Church is true'. But hey, that's your problem, not mine.

[_gdemetz]

Yes, I think it was fair to state that we could take Whitmers statement with at least a little grain of salt being that he was an apostate. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I think it is possible that he saw Joseph looking at the stones in a hat.

[_Drifting]

Yes, I think it was fair to state that we could take Whitmers statement with at least a little grain of salt being that he was an apostate. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I think it is possible that he saw Joseph looking at the stones in a hat.

Okay.

But we still have a couple of problems to deal with.

Why doesn't the Church teach that method, as it clearly was the predominant method used to produce the Book of Mormon?

If Whitmer is unreliable in his statement, we can't really rely on the claims made in the witness statement it is alleged he signed and stuck to until death, that is published in the Book of Mormon.

[_gdemetz]

From what I remember from the history regarding the translations. Joseph used a cloth to hide the stones, however, it's possible that he may have used a hat also, but I really don't know whether he did or not.

[_Drifting]

From what I remember from the history regarding the translations. Joseph used a cloth to hide the stones, however, it's possible that he may have used a hat also, but I really don't know whether he did or not.

Read "A Treasured Testament" from Elder Nelson on LDS.org
It is the only account in recent history (I'm talking decades) where Whitmers version of events (the hat) is officially accepted.

The question is, if it happened and the Church accepts it happened, why don't they teach that it happened that way during Seminary, Institute, Sunday School etc?