DiscussMormonism.com

Bishop Dr. Peterson wrote:I've never understood, incidentally, why some critics think that translating the Book of Mormon with the help of a single seerstone is so much more fantastically bizarre than the more commonly heard notion that the Book of Mormon was translated with the aid of two stones set in a bow.

You either buy it or you don't. One story doesn't seem to me intrinsically more weird or less plausible than the other.

I think he is right about this. Why should the number or the configuration of the power stones matter? Its their translating ability that is important.


He could have even added in a quote from that Dylan song to elucidated on the equality of the stoning process.

moksha wrote:

Bishop Dr. Peterson wrote:I've never understood, incidentally, why some critics think that translating the Book of Mormon with the help of a single seerstone is so much more fantastically bizarre than the more commonly heard notion that the Book of Mormon was translated with the aid of two stones set in a bow.

You either buy it or you don't. One story doesn't seem to me intrinsically more weird or less plausible than the other.

I think he is right about this. Why should the number or the configuration of the power stones matter? Its their translating ability that is important.


He could have even added in a quote from that Dylan song to elucidated on the equality of the stoning process.

I know it's really a matter of degrees, but for some reason, the Mormon part of my mind thinks that using stones set in a bow handed down from ancient prophet to prophet, and dedicated by the Lord for such a purpose is better than using a rock Joseph Smith found in a hole in the ground that he used to find (or not find) buried treasure. I expect that this is not an opinion held exclusively by "critics."

But really, I can't say for sure how I would have felt about this when I was a card carrying member, since I did not learn about the found peep stone until years after I disassociated myself from the church.

moksha wrote:

Bishop Dr. Peterson wrote:I've never understood, incidentally, why some critics think that translating the Book of Mormon with the help of a single seerstone is so much more fantastically bizarre than the more commonly heard notion that the Book of Mormon was translated with the aid of two stones set in a bow.

You either buy it or you don't. One story doesn't seem to me intrinsically more weird or less plausible than the other.

I think he is right about this. Why should the number or the configuration of the power stones matter? Its their translating ability that is important.


He could have even added in a quote from that Dylan song to elucidated on the equality of the stoning process.

Only the church doesn't teach the seer stone version. The issue is the erroneous history, not the choice of supernatural belief. Dan diverts to a strawman.

moksha wrote:

Bishop Dr. Peterson wrote:I've never understood, incidentally, why some critics think that translating the Book of Mormon with the help of a single seerstone is so much more fantastically bizarre than the more commonly heard notion that the Book of Mormon was translated with the aid of two stones set in a bow.

You either buy it or you don't. One story doesn't seem to me intrinsically more weird or less plausible than the other.

I think he is right about this. Why should the number or the configuration of the power stones matter? Its their translating ability that is important.

I think what it boils down to is this. The notion of a Urim and Thummim seems more plausible in terms of magic. The U&T, in other words, really sounds extraordinary. A rock tossed into a hat, on the other hand, is far more banal, and seems much more like what a run-of-the-mill folk magician would do. So, actually, it's not so much that the seer stone is "fantastically bizarre"; rather, it's that the seer stone seems so remarkably disappointing and cheap. To put it another way: the U&T seems much more "fantastic" in the sense that God had given this translation apparatus to Joseph Smith; the use of the rock, though, suggests that Joseph Smith just strolled out into a field, found himself a nice rock, tossed it into his hat and said, "See! I'm a translator!"

That, at heart, is why critics take issue with the Church's failure to better disclose the rock in the hat.

moksha wrote:I think he is right about this. Why should the number or the configuration of the power stones matter? Its their translating ability that is important.

If that were the issue, I think he might have a point. The issue is not whether we are talking about "spectacles" or a stone in a hat. As Scratch observes below, it is a matter of carrying the perception that Joseph Smith translated by means of a specific ancient divining device mentioned in the Holy Bible, and then discovering that he dug up a stone in the ground and stuck it in his hat--like many other treasure diggers of his day. That would be a jarring revelation. I have a hard time believing Peterson is genuinely confused by this issue. It is only confusing if you misrepresent (unwittingly?) the case as he has.

I think that most critics, myself included, would believe that translating golden plates using a peep stone or magic glasses is equally bizarre.

He is correct, however, in pointing out that both methods are bizarre.

For me it's in this order:

1) Church illustrations along with instruction paint this miraculous picture:










On and on the variations go...

2) Then I find out it was this via Institue when I was a young adult:



3) THEN I find out it was a seer stone at the bottom of a hat, the same one he used to treasure hunt:





It's occultish. It's strange. It's a patent fraud (from the failed treasure hunting schemes). And it's weirder than the nice images the Church tends to print in the Ensign and CES manuals.

In other words, the Church deliberately misleads people through the use of erroneous imagery and instruction. I would call it lying, but some here are a little senstive to that reality.

I don't think the number or type of stones matters either. That is immaterial. What matters is that (1) the plates were thus rendered unnecessary. Why have them then? and (2) the fact that none of the witnesses saw the plates. Except with their "spiritual eyes."

But are not the plates and the stones merely what Hitchcock would refer to as the McGuffins of the story? It is the story itself that is of importance.

So basically critics shouldn't be splitting hairs trying to determine degrees of weirdness. Okay. Where's my GameBoy.