Guardiands wrote:MormonMendacity, I must admit I find the "props" undisturbing. Why use a seer stone? Well, Joseph was raised to believe that God spoke to people through such tools. Why use Golden Plates? Because the presence of them (even if it was just random scribblings with no meaning) provided Joseph with some physical evidence.
So why should these things matter? I mean, later Joseph received revelations and translated without these "props". So it would seem he had the ability to translate/receive revelation on his own all along.
So my answer to this is that revelation has always been explained as something that takes a great amount of faith. If I may be so cheesy, Dumbo could always fly, the feather didn't suddenly endow him with this power, but the feather gave him the faith that was needed for him to fly. These "props" would give Joseph the faith needed to receive the revelations.
At least that's one way of looking at it.
Thanks, Guardiands. Good thoughts and an interesting perspective.
Now imagine, if you will, that Joseph Smith is being dishonest about his stories and he is making them up. Do any of those things I called "props" disturb you?
I don't think it is very safe ground for humans to believe that faith is required of by God. Oh, I know all the religious arguments supporting the notion but they also all come from the same self-testifying theologies. But IF I have to have faith, then why exert all the work to get 11 people to confirm that they saw the plates? I see a mixture of an attempt at evidence and an ultimate reliance on believing...but now I have even MORE people I can believe.
If the proof of the Book of Mormon, the divine mission of Joseph Smith and the truthfulness of the Church is delivered to the seeker of truth by the promptings of the Holy Ghost then I think the props detract from that message. We are constantly shown all the facts, proofs, reasons that support the authenticity of the Restoration and then, when we begin to question the authenticity by finding discordant accounts, unpleasant historical evidence, lack of evidence (DNA, steel, horses, etc.) we are told that the only important proof is the testimony we get from the Holy Ghost. When we then redirect our attention to the HG and question the reliability of that story, the blame (or fault) for not getting the LDS answer is placed squarely on us.
It sounds like a game of Five Card Monty to me. And that's why I challenge the props. There would be a whole lot less holes in the dike if we didn't have questionable claims of translations surrounded by Smith's claims to divine instruction.
Just my opinion, of course.