FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?

2015-05-18T19:38:02Z

JordanLatimer: /* Question: what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas? */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?
|category=Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Compared to the Bible
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?==
===Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World only the Mayan language can be fully read===

Understanding that a written record (epigraphic or iconographic) is necessary for building archaeological context, what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?

Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World (all of which are located in Mesoamerica), only the Mayan language can be fully read with confidence. Scholars can understand some basic structure of some of the other languages, but they cannot fully understand what the ancients were saying. In other words, there is a problem with deciphering the epigraphic record. According to the experts, “the pronunciation of the actual names of the earliest Maya kings and other name-glyphs from other writing systems is not known with certainty.”<ref>Hamblin citing Joyce Marcus, ''Mesoamerican Writing Systems'' (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), 212–220 and Linda Schele and David Freidel, ''A Forest of Kings'' (New York: William Marrow & Company, 1990), 440, n28.</ref>

For the time period in which the Nephites lived, scholars are aware of only a very limited number of inscriptions from the entire ancient New World that can be read with any degree of certainty. Even with these fragments, however, scholars are still uncertain from these inscriptions just how the ancients pronounced the proper names and place names (toponyms). Four of these readable inscriptions merely give dates or a king’s name—a very limited cultural context. Another five inscriptions contain historical information and proper names—the mention of the cities Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain) and five kings from these two cities (whom we know by iconographic symbols and whose ancient pronunciation remains uncertain).<ref> See Hamblin, posted 29 January 2004 in thread, “What Would Be Proof of the Book of Mormon,” on Zion’s Lighthouse Bulletin Board (ZLMB){{link|url=http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm67.showMessage?topicID=213.topic}}(accessed 10 April 2005).</ref>

With such sparse epigraphic information, how could we possibly recognize—even if they we discovered archaeologically—that we had found the location of cities we know as Bountiful and Zarahemla, or if the religious rulers were actually named Nephi or Moroni? The critics like to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the truth is that there is scant archaeological data to tell us anything about the names of ancient New World inhabitants or locations—and names are the only means by which we could archaeologically identify whether there were Nephites in ancient America.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]

Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?

2015-05-18T19:36:59Z

JordanLatimer: /* Question: what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas? */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?
|category=Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Compared to the Bible
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?==
===Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World only the Mayan language can be fully read===

Understanding that a written record (epigraphic or iconographic) is necessary for building archaeological context, what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?

Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World (all of which are located in Mesoamerica), only the Mayan language can be fully read with confidence. Scholars can understand some basic structure of some of the other languages, but they cannot fully understand what the ancients were saying. In other words, there is a problem with deciphering the epigraphic record. According to the experts, “the pronunciation of the actual names of the earliest Maya kings and other name-glyphs from other writing systems is not known with certainty.”<ref>Hamblin citing Joyce Marcus, ''Mesoamerican Writing Systems'' (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), 212–220 and Linda Schele and David Freidel, ''A Forest of Kings'' (New York: William Marrow & Company, 1990), 440, n28.</ref>

For the time period in which the Nephites lived, scholars are aware of only a very limited number of inscriptions from the entire ancient New World that can be read with any degree of certainty. Even with these fragments, however, scholars are still uncertain from these inscriptions just how the ancients pronounced the proper names and place names (toponyms). Four of these readable inscriptions merely give dates or a king’s name—a very limited cultural context. Another five inscriptions contain historical information and proper names—the mention of the cities Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain) and five kings from these two cities (whom we know by iconographic symbols and whose ancient pronunciation remains uncertain).<ref> See Hamblin, posted 29 January 2004 in thread, “What Would Be Proof of the Book of Mormon,” on Zion’s Lighthouse Bulletin Board (ZLMB){{link|url=http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm67.showMessage?topicID=213.topic}}(accessed 10 April 2005).</ref>

With such sparse epigraphic information, how could we possibly recognize—even if they we discovered archaeologically—that we had found the location of cities we know as Bountiful and Zarahemla, or if the religious rulers were actually named Nephi or Moroni? The critics like to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the truth is that there is scant archaeological data to tell us anything about the names of ancient New World inhabitants or locations—and names are the only means by which we could archaeologically identify whether there were Nephites in ancient America.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]

Question: What did David Whitmer's associates say about his character?

2015-05-04T01:13:56Z

JordanLatimer: /* Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: What did David Whitmer's associates say about his character?
|category=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Three witnesses
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What did David Whitmer's associates say about his character?==
===Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen===

Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David’s hometown and branded David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with “a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on ‘the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.’” <ref>{{InvestigatingWitnesses1|start=74}}</ref>

<blockquote>
...The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who “with no regrets for the past” still “reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel.”
This is the critical issue of the life of David Whitmer. During fifty years in non-Mormon society, he insisted with the fervor of his youth that he knew that the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept such testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty. <ref>{{InvestigatingWitnesses1|start=74}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Another newspaper declared:

:And no man can look at David Whitmer's face for a half-hour, while he charit[abl]y and modestly speaks of what he has seen, and then bodldly and earnestly confesses the faith that is in him, and say that he is a bigot or an enthusiast.<ref>David Whitmer, interview with ''Chicago Times'' (August 1875); cited in {{EMD|vol=5|pages=23}}</ref>

Twenty two non-Mormon citizens signed the following statement, including, Mayor, county clerk, county treasurer, postmaster, revenue collector, county sheriff, two judges, two medical doctors, four bankers, two merchants, and two lawyers:

:We the undersigned citizens of Richmond Ray CO Mo where David Whitmer Sr has resided since the year AD 1838, Certify that we have been long and intimately acquainted with him, and know him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of undoubted truth and veracity....<ref>David Whitmer, Proclamation, 19 March 1881; cited in {{EMD|vol=5|pages=69}}</ref>

Another said:

: Mr. Whitmer is an old citizen of this town, and is known by every one here as a man of the highest honor, having resided here since the year 1838.<ref>David Whitmer, Interview with ''Chicago Tribune'', 23 January 1888, printed in "An Old Mormon's Closing Hours," ''Chicago Tribune'' (24 January 1888); cited in {{EMD|vol=5|pages=209}}</ref>

Upon Whitmer's death, the local newspaper wrote:

:He lived in Richmond about half a century, and we can say that no man ever lived here, who had among our people, more friends and fewer enemies. Honest, conscientious and upright in all his dealings, just in his estimate of men, and open, manly and frank in his treatment of all, he made lasting friends who loved him to the end.<ref>David Whitmer, Interview, "The Last Witness Dead! David Whitmer, the aged Patria[r]ch, Gone to His Rest. His Parting Injunction to His Family and Friends. He Departs in Peace," ''Richmond'' (MO) ''Democrat'' (26 January 1888); cited in {{EMD|vol=5|pages=211}}</ref>

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:No Man Knows My History]]
[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]

Question: Did the Witnesses who left the Church continue to maintain their witness of the Book of Mormon?

2015-05-03T22:09:31Z

JordanLatimer: /* David Whitmer */

Question: Did the Witnesses who left the Church continue to maintain their witness of the Book of Mormon?

2015-05-03T22:08:18Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?

2015-05-03T22:04:49Z

JordanLatimer: /* Proves that Mormons are vain? */

Question: What is the distinction between belief in "folk magic" and a religious belief in the supernatural?

2015-04-09T00:09:49Z

JordanLatimer: /* The use of the term "magic" is a negative label for modern Chritians */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: What is the distinction between belief in "folk magic" and a religious belief in the supernatural?
|category=Joseph Smith/Magic
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What is the distinction between belief in "folk magic" and a religious belief in the supernatural?==
===The use of the terms "magic" and "occult" are prejudicial, loaded terminology===

When critics use the term "magic" or "occult," they are using prejudicial, loaded terminology. Used in a neutral sense, magic might mean only that a person believes in the supernatural, and believes that supernatural can be influenced for the believer's benefit.

However, critics are generally not clear about what definition of magic they are using, and how to distinguish a "magical" belief in the supernatural from a "religious" belief in the supernatural.<ref>See discussions of this issue in: {{FR-12-2-15}}; {{FR-12-2-16}}; {{FR-12-2-16}}</ref> Scholars of magic and religion have, in fact, come to realize that defining "magic" is probably a hopeless task. John Gee noted:

===Defining "magic" as "religious beliefs other than their own"===

<blockquote>
In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own. In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was. The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions:

<blockquote>
I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain.<ref>{{FR-12-2-15}}; citing Stanley J. Tambiah, ''Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and Jonathan Z. Smith, "Trading Places," in ''Ancient Magic and Ritual Power'', ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 16.</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

===The use of the term "magic" is a negative label for modern Christians===

The use of the term "magic" imposes, especially for modern Christians, a negative label at the outset, which explains its popularity for critics. As Professor of Egyptology Robert K. Ritner explained:

<blockquote>
Modern Western terms for 'magic' function primarily as designations for that which we as a society do not accept, and which has overtones of the supernatural or the demonic (but not of the divine). It is important to stress that this pejorative connotation has not been grafted onto the notion of magic as the result of any recent theoretical fancy but is inherent in Western terminology virtually from its beginning. It constitutes ''the essential core'' of the Western concept of magic.<ref>Robert K. Ritner, "Egyptian Magic: Questions of Legitimacy, Religious Orthodoxy and Social Deviance," in ''Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths'' , ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992), 190; cited in {{FR-12-2-15}} {{eo}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

===The Book of Mormon condemns "magic"===

Moroni's visit was a turning point for Joseph, for it is important to note that the Book of Mormon itself condemns "magic" whenever it is mentioned:
<blockquote>
And it came to pass that there were sorceries, and witchcrafts, and magics; and the power of the evil one was wrought upon all the face of the land, even unto the fulfilling of all the words of Abinadi, and also Samuel the Lamanite. {{s||Mormon|1|19}}
</blockquote>

Regardless of Joseph's or his family's previous opinions regarding folk magic prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, they clearly always believed in and had faith in God. Joseph believed that instruments such as the Urim and Thummim and his seer stone were consecrated by God for their intended use.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]

Reference templates/Journal of Discourses

2015-03-26T01:12:08Z

JordanLatimer:

Question: Why don't Mormons use the "Joseph Smith Translation" as its official Bible?

2015-03-24T05:30:18Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Question: Why don't Mormons use the "Joseph Smith Translation" as its official Bible?

2015-03-24T05:28:33Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?

2015-03-24T02:59:09Z

JordanLatimer: /* An Example: The Lord's Prayer */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?
|category=Bible/Joseph Smith translation
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?==
===The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is better thought of as an "inspired commentary" rather than a "translation"===

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary"--Joseph was not usually restoring 'lost text' (though in some few cases he may have). The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader.

Some aspects of the JST may reflect a restoration of lost Biblical text. But, such restoration is likely in the minority. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

===Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"===

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/36#39 Joseph Smith History 1:36–39]). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

<blockquote>
I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead({{s||DC|128|18}}). {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible mortals]]. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.

===An Example: The Lord's Prayer===

There is a great example of this kind of difference in the Lord's prayer. Compare the following:

:And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Book of Mormon).
:And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV Bible).
:And ''suffer us not to be led into'' temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST Bible).

The JST changes the statement to passive voice whereas the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon are in active voice. According to E. W. Bullinger, this particular scripture contains a Hebraism, namely, "active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said do." Consequently, Bullinger interprets the passage this way: "Lead us not (i.e., suffer us not to be led) into temptation."<ref>See E. W. Bullinger, ''Figures of Speech used In the Bible: Explained and Illustrated'' (London: Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898), 819-824.</ref>

Adam Clarke agrees with Bullinger. He wrote this scripture means "'Bring not in,' or 'lead us not into.' (This is a mere Hebraism. God is said to do a thing which He only permits or suffers to be done)."<ref>Adam Clark, ''Commentary an the Bible'', abridged by Ralph Earle, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1979), 778.</ref>

In ''Barnes' Notes on the New Testament'' we read the same interpretation. "This phrase then must be used in the sense of permitting. Do not suffer us or permit us, to be tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God 'has such control over us and the tempter, as to save us from it if we call on him."<ref>''Barnes' Notes on the New Testament'', edited by Ingram Cobbin, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1980), 30.</ref>

When properly considered, this passage is an example of where the JST reading and the KJV/Book of Mormon are both correct. The KJV and Book of Mormon are literal interpretations while the JST is an interpretive translation that is also correct. Given Joseph's relative inexperience in prophetic interpretation in 1829, he would be far more likely to render a verse literally than engage in interpretation.

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]

Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?

2015-03-24T02:54:44Z

JordanLatimer: /* The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is better thought of as an "inspired commentary" rather than a "translation" */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?
|category=Bible/Joseph Smith translation
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?==
===The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is better thought of as an "inspired commentary" rather than a "translation"===

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary"--Joseph was not usually restoring 'lost text' (though in some few cases he may have). The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader.

Some aspects of the JST may reflect a restoration of lost Biblical text. But, such restoration is likely in the minority. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

===Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"===

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/36#39 Joseph Smith History 1:36–39]). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

<blockquote>
I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead({{s||DC|128|18}}). {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible mortals]]. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.

===An Example: The Lord's Prayer===

There is a great example of this kind of difference in the Lord's prayer. Compare the following:

:And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Book of Mormon).
:And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV Bible).
:And ''suffer us not to be led into'' temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST Bible).

The JST changes the statement to passive voice whereas the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon are in active voice. According to E. W. Bullinger, this particular scripture contains a Hebraism, namely, "active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said do." Consequently, Bullinger interprets the passage this way: "Lead us not (i.e., suffer us not to be led) into temptation."<ref>See E. W. Bullinger, ''Figures of Speech used In the Bible: Explained and Illustrated'' (London: Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898), 819-824.</ref>

Adam Clarke agrees with Bullinger. He wrote this scripture means "'Bring not in,' or 'lead us not into.' (This is a mere Hebraism. God is said to do a thing which He only permits or suffers to be done)."<ref>Adam Clark, ''Commentary an the Bible'', abridged by Ralph Earle, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1979), 778.</ref>

In ''Barnes' Notes on the New Testament'' we read the same interpretation. "This phrase then must be used in the sense of permitting. Do not suffer us or permit us, to be tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God 'has such control over us and the tempter, as to save us from it if we call on him."<ref>''Barnes' Notes on the New Testament'', edited by Ingram Cobbin, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1980), 30.</ref>

When properly considered, this passage is an example of where the JST reading and the KJV/Book of Mormon are both correct. The KJV and Book of Mormon are literal interpretations while the JST is an interpretive translation that is also correct. Given Joseph's relative inexperience in prophetic interpretation in 1829, he would be far more likely to render a verse literally than engage in interpretation.

(And, as discussed [[Joseph_Smith_Translation_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Why_then_the_KJV_and_Book_of_Mormon_similarities.3F|above]], the Book of Mormon translation may well have differed from the KJV only to indicate ''significant'' deviations in the base text, so the intent for each translation differed.)

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]

Question: Was the Joseph Smith Translation intended to be a restoration of original Bible text?

2015-03-24T02:48:37Z

JordanLatimer: /* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: Was the Joseph Smith Translation intended to be a restoration of original Bible text?
|category=Bible/Joseph Smith Translation
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Was the Joseph Smith Translation intended to be a restoration of original Bible text?==
===The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text===

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

First, the JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Unimpeachably orthodox LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of the JST and the Book of Mormon translation.

Second, one of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. You may be aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another, which is what your example does. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If indeed there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves in a particular way.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:No Man Knows My History]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

Question: Is there a contradiction between the Old Testament concept of "cursing" enemies and Latter-day Saint scriptures stating that we should "bless" our enemies?

2015-03-24T02:39:09Z

JordanLatimer: /* Some Christians argue that restoration scriptures or remarks by Church leaders are inconsistent with the Christian command to "bless, not curse" */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: Is there a contradiction between the Old Testament concept of "cursing" enemies and Latter-day Saint scriptures stating that we should "bless" our enemies?
|category=Old Testament practices
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Is there a contradiction between the Old Testament concept of "cursing" enemies and Latter-day Saint scriptures stating that we should "bless" our enemies?==
===Some Christians argue that restoration scriptures or remarks by Church leaders are inconsistent with the Christian command to "bless, not curse"===

Some Christians claim that Joseph Smith focused on Old Testament ideas and concepts, such as the "cursing of enemies." They appeal to New Testament prohibitions of cursing enemies (e.g., {{b||Romans|12|14}}, and then argue that restoration scriptures or remarks by Church leaders are inconsistent with the Christian command to "bless, not curse." However, if one wishes to condemn anyone who calls God's judgment down on the wicked, they will also condemn every prophet in the Old and New Testament, and a large proportion of the Christian preachers, missionaries, and ministers throughout history.

Such a stance is hypocritical—they condemn Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, Joseph Smith, and others not because they pray that God's judgment will come upon the wicked and vindicate the righteous, and not because they (the critics) believe such actions to be always and everywhere wrong. They condemn LDS prophets because have decided already that these men are neither righteous nor prophets.

===Jesus cursed a fig tree that had leaves but no fruit===

The New Testament command not to curse has some marked exceptions. For example, Jesus cursed a fig tree that had leaves (implying that its fruit would be present, since figs appear ''before'' the leaves) but no fruit.

:Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! ({{b||Matthew|21|18-20}})

Jesus was pronouncing a curse, then, on hypocrites—those who "claim" to have worthy characteristics, but this is only a facade.

===Peter described a sinful group whom he declared to be "cursed"===

<blockquote>
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children. ({{b|2|Peter|2|14}})
</blockquote>

===Paul too was emphatic that false teachers were "accursed"===

<blockquote>
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. ({{b||Galatians|1|8-9}})
</blockquote>

===Paul's use of the word "anathema" means "a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction"===

Paul likewise told the Corinthians:

<blockquote>
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema ({{b|1|Corinthians|16|22}}).
</blockquote>

Anathema means "a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction," "any imprecation of divine punishment," or "a curse; execration."<ref>''Dictionary.com'' Unabridged, based on the ''Random House Dictionary'' (Random House, Inc. 2009), s.v. "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anathema anathema]."</ref> (The Greek word is "anathema" (Ανάθεμα)—"bind under a great curse.")<ref>Strong's number G331.</ref>

==The Doctrine and Covenants contains a cursing—but, significantly, the command comes from God===

The critics are, to be sure, not willing to grant that the Doctrine and Covenants is divine scripture. They must, however, concede that Joseph and other members believed they were obeying ''God's'' command to curse; they did not take that right upon themselves:

<blockquote>
And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me against them, ye shall curse them; And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies ({{s||DC|103|24-25}}).
</blockquote>

Significantly, this instruction was given after mobs drove the Saints from their homes and lands in Missouri with scenes of arson, rape, and murder. Ostensibly committed to justice, religious freedom, and the rule of law, their enemies demonstrated that they had only the hypocrisy of fig leaves—but no fruit.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

Question: Does the biblical story of Peleg describe the separation of the continents?

2015-03-24T02:26:26Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Question: Was the Gospel of Christ a mystery that was unknown until the advent of Christ?

2015-03-23T07:02:18Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Question: Was the Gospel of Christ a mystery that was unknown until the advent of Christ?

2015-03-23T06:59:13Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

The Bible/Born again translation

2015-03-23T06:57:55Z

JordanLatimer: /* 2. A "born again" experience? */

The Bible/Insufficient

2015-03-23T06:08:43Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

The Bible/Insufficient

2015-03-23T05:40:41Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

The Bible/Translations

2015-03-23T05:30:46Z

JordanLatimer: /* */ I removed a statement that could be taken the wrong way. Revert if in disagreement.

The Bible/"Adding to" or "taking away from"

2015-03-23T05:21:58Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

The Bible/Lost scripture

2015-03-23T05:12:03Z

JordanLatimer: /* Examples of "lost scripture" */

The Bible/Completeness

2015-03-23T05:10:13Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

The Bible/Completeness

2015-03-23T05:07:22Z

JordanLatimer: /* */ Whoops, should be right this time.

The Bible/Completeness

2015-03-23T05:05:33Z

JordanLatimer: /* */ Corrected source.

The Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon

2015-03-23T04:50:31Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Mormonism and priesthood/Restoration

2015-03-18T03:04:50Z

JordanLatimer: /* */ Removed empty link.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon

2015-03-16T01:28:00Z

JordanLatimer: /* Response to claim: "it would make the whole story sound unbelievable" */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Response to ''MormonThink'' page "Translation of the Book of Mormon"}}
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=Translation of the Book of Mormon
|previous=
|next=[[../Book of Mormon Problems|Book of Mormon Problems]]
|notes=
}}
{{ChartMormonThinkTranslationOfTheBookOfMormon}}
==Quick Navigation==
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at the same table with the plates in full view of both of them"|Response to claim: "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at the same table with the plates in full view of both of them"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "he only said that he did it by the 'gift and power of God'"|Response to claim: "he only said that he did it by the 'gift and power of God'"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "Was Joseph Smith not a money digger? Yes, but it was not a very profitable job for him"|Response to claim: "Was Joseph Smith not a money digger? Yes, but it was not a very profitable job for him"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "In March 1826, the twenty-year-old Joseph Smith was arrested and brought before South Bainbridge justice of the peace"|Response to claim: "In March 1826, the twenty-year-old Joseph Smith was arrested and brought before South Bainbridge justice of the peace"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "Joseph never found any treasure for the men that hired him to find treasure using his seer stones"|Response to claim: "Joseph never found any treasure for the men that hired him to find treasure using his seer stones"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "there is evidence that he found the plates using a seer stone"|Response to claim: "there is evidence that he found the plates using a seer stone"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "It is troublesome that a common stone found some 24 feet beneath the ground on Mr. Chase's property had the exact same seering ability as the sacred Urim and Thummim"|Response to claim: "It is troublesome that a common stone found some 24 feet beneath the ground on Mr. Chase's property had the exact same seering ability as the sacred Urim and Thummim"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "Why doesn't the Church openly talk about this stone today?"|Response to claim: "Why doesn't the Church openly talk about this stone today?"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "why did Joseph say they were only for beginners?"|Response to claim: "why did Joseph say they were only for beginners?"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "the 10th president of the Church thinks that using a stone to translate the Book of Mormon with 'hardly seems reasonable'"|Response to claim: "the 10th president of the Church thinks that using a stone to translate the Book of Mormon with 'hardly seems reasonable'"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "it would make the whole story sound unbelievable"|Response to claim: "it would make the whole story sound unbelievable"]]
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon#Response to claim: "That is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used"|Response to claim: "That is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used"]]

==Response to claim: "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at the same table with the plates in full view of both of them"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=This image below was in the Oct 2006 issue of the Ensign which shows both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at the same table with the plates in full view of both of them, which is not what is generally taught in the Church.
|information=This is correct. Some of the Church artwork does not reflect what is generally taught in Church. This is not limited the Church. There is much artwork that does not reflect reality, but rather the thoughts of the artist.
}}
{{:Question:Question: Does Church art always reflect reality?}}
{{:Question: Why are people concerned about Church artwork?}}
{{:Question: Is the Church trying to hide something through its use of artwork?}}
{{:Question: Why doesn't the art match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in Church publications?}}
{{:Question: How do non-Mormon artists treat the Nativity?}}
{{:Question: What message does the Book of Mormon translation painting convey?}}

==Response to claim: "he only said that he did it by the 'gift and power of God'"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=When Joseph was asked how exactly he translated the Book of Mormon, he never gave any details, he only said that he did it by the "gift and power of God." In a general conference of the Church in October 1831, in Orange, Ohio, Hyrum Smith asked his brother, Joseph, to give details of the BOM translation method. Joseph replied that "it was not expedient for him to tell more than had already been told about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and it was not well that any greater details be provided."
|information=This is correct. Joseph never talked of the details of the translation process. We only have this information second-hand through witnesses to the translation process.
}}
{{:Question: How exactly did Joseph Smith translate the gold plates?}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Book of Mormon Translation:According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat}}
{{:Source:Nelson:A Treasured Testament:Ensign:July 1993:The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights}}
{{:Source:Marcus B. Nash:Joseph Smith Memorial Devotional:June 2013:This was dictated, word by word, as he looked into instruments the Lord prepared for him, using a hat to shield his eyes from extraneous light}}
{{:Source:Nicholson:The Spectacles, The Stone:This essay focuses primarily on the methods and instruments used in the translation process}}
{{:Source:Gardner:The Gift and the Power:it’s stone that becomes the trigger that allows the seer to do what the seer does}}

==Response to claim: "Was Joseph Smith not a money digger? Yes, but it was not a very profitable job for him"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Most LDS are somewhat aware that Joseph Smith did some treasure seeking in his younger days. A following statement is sometimes quoted in church. This comes from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.120: "Q: 'Was Joseph Smith not a money digger?' 'Yes, but it was not a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.'" This is usually the only thing said at church regarding his treasure-seeking past. .... 
What is particularly noteworthy about this incident is the timing of the charges. These documents indicate that Joseph was involved in treasure seeking with a seer stone for profit after he received the First Vision but before he translated the Book of Mormon. How likely is it that the chosen prophet of the restoration would engage in such activities after conversing with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as well as the Angel Moroni? Would he really be doing such activities a year before he dug up the golden plates, after he had met with the angel Moroni for each of the prior three years?
|propaganda=Joseph did perform treasure seeking after receiving the First Vision. In fact, there is one account that indicates that the First Vision was the even during which Joseph Smith received the ability to "see" after Jesus Christ touched his eyes. However, the authors try to influence the reader after presenting this fact by asking "how likely" it was that one who had seen God would perform such an activity, implying that the activity was somehow performed fraudulently.
}}
{{:Question: Was Joseph Smith's participation in "money digging" as a youth a blot on his character?}}
{{:Source:Joseph Smith:Elders Journal:1:43:Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?}}
{{:Question: Did Joseph Smith "retrofit" his "treasure seeking" to have a religious explanation?}}
{{:Source:Appleby:Mormonism Consistent:If Mr. Smith dug for money he considered it was a more honorable way of getting it than taking it from the widow and orphan}}

==Response to claim: "In March 1826, the twenty-year-old Joseph Smith was arrested and brought before South Bainbridge justice of the peace"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=In March 1826, the twenty-year-old Joseph Smith was arrested and brought before South Bainbridge justice of the peace Albert Neely under the charge of being a "disorderly person and an impostor." This event stemmed from his employment as a treasure seer (or scryer) for Josiah Stowell and others the previous five months. Joseph was employed by Josiah Stowel to find hidden treasures in the ground by gazing into a stone. He led his employer to believe that he could find buried treasure by looking into a stone placed in a hat. Joseph paid $2.68 for the offense. The judge may have let him go if he agreed to leave the state because of his age.
|propaganda=It is a fact that relatives of Josiah Stowell had Joseph brought before a judge and accused him of being a disorderly person and an imposter. However, the authors stated that Joseph "paid $2.68 for the offense," implying that this was a fine imposed by the judge. It was not a fine, and Joseph was not convicted of anything during this hearing. The $2.68 bill from the judge was simply a fee for the work he performed. The authors then speculate that the judge "may have let him go if he agreed to leave the state because of his age," without acknowledging that the judge did not find reason to detain him and simply released him.
}}
{{:Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?}}
{{:Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in Bainbridge?}}
{{:Source:Highlights in the Prophet's Life:Ensign:June 1994:Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a "disorderly person"}}
{{:Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?}}
{{:Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty?}}

==Response to claim: "Joseph never found any treasure for the men that hired him to find treasure using his seer stones"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Critic's Comment: Joseph never found any treasure for the men that hired him to find treasure using his seer stones. However, he was able to convince them he had the ability by describing things on Josiah Stowel's property such as his house, outhouses and a painted tree. Obviously, he could have found out about these things without having special abilities. Also, it's very easy to plant a tail feather to prove he could 'see' distant things in his stone. When it came to treasure, he would always seem to have an excuse as to why they couldn't find the treasure even though he saw it in his stone. Often Joseph would say that the treasure kept sinking further into the ground as they dug or that the spirits of dead Indians were guarding the treasure and wouldn't let anyone have it.
|propaganda=This is speculation. If Joseph never found anything, then why did people keep wanting to hire him?
}}
{{:Question: How did Joseph use his seer stones as a youth?}}
{{:Source:Gardner:Joseph the Seer:2009 FAIR Conference:long before golden plates complicated his position as a local seer}}
{{:Question: Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while looking for lost objects?}}

==Response to claim: "there is evidence that he found the plates using a seer stone"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Although Moroni is commonly believed to have instructed young Joseph on where the plates were in Hill Cumorah, there is evidence that he found the plates using a seer stone that he had previously used for treasure-seeking
|information=It is true that there is an account that states that after the angel Moroni told Joseph of the plates' location, that he looked into his seer stone and saw the location at the hill.
}}

==Response to claim: "It is troublesome that a common stone found some 24 feet beneath the ground on Mr. Chase's property had the exact same seering ability as the sacred Urim and Thummim"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Critic's comment: It is troublesome that a common stone found some 24 feet beneath the ground on Mr. Chase's property had the exact same seering ability as the sacred Urim and Thummim that was preserved in a stone box for 1,500 years. If the stones were so common, why the need to preserve the Urim and Thummim? Why punish Joseph with taking away the Urim and Thummim when he all along had a seer stone capable of the same function? Had the seer stone Joseph used been given to him by an angel, or had directed him to this stone, then this would make more sense. However, there is nothing to indicate why the stone found on Mr. Chase's property had the same ability as the sacred Urim and Thummim.
|propaganda=Why is this troubling? God could grant Joseph any ability or make any stone work for Joseph that He wanted. There is an account that indicates that Joseph received his ability to "see" during the First Vision after Jesus Christ touched his eyes.
}}
{{:Question: How were Joseph Smith's seer stones involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon?}}

==Response to claim: "Why doesn't the Church openly talk about this stone today?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Critic's Comment: Why doesn't the Church openly talk about this stone today? How many members know about it? This is the stone Joseph put in a hat and looked at to bring forth the Book of Mormon! In 2006, the LDS Church had a special display at their Church Museum of different Joseph Smith artifacts. They had a mock-up of the gold plates but they chose not to display any of Joseph Smith's seer stones. Since one of these stones was used to translate all of the published Book of Mormon, one wonders why it wasn't included in the display. There is no prohibition known to not show these stones. In fact, several authors and historians have seen the stones in the Church's vaults. Is there something embarrassing about having the Book of Mormon translated through the use of this stone?
|propaganda=The authors are implying that the Church is embarrassed about the use of the stone simply because it is not on display, but they have no evidence to support this in the face of its mention in multiple Church publications, and now in a Gospel Topics essay.
}}
{{:Question: Has the Church tried to hide Joseph's use of a seer stone?}}
{{:Question: Did Joseph Smith use the Nephite interpreters to translate? Or did he use his own seer stone?}}
{{:Question: What are the Nephite interpreters?}}
{{:Question: Did Joseph Smith use his own seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters}}
{{:Source:Dirkmaat:Ensign:January 2013:He...referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim...He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed}}
{{:Source:Phelps:The Evening and The Morning Star 1:58:through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)}}

==Response to claim: "why did Joseph say they were only for beginners?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Many LDS defenders say that the Urim and Thummim, or seer stone, was used by Joseph Smith to primarily translate the Book of Mormon and for a few revelations, but that it was not needed later on.....The Urim and Thummim and seer stones weren't just temporary devices Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon, but rather something of eternal significance—so important that everyone who makes it to the Celestial Kingdom will receive one.
Critic's comments: If seer stones, whether in the form of the Urim and Thummim or a peepstone, are so important that perfect, celestial beings would receive one, why did Joseph say they were only for beginners? Traditionally, do verses 10 and 11 mention two separate white stones, one that becomes a personal Urim and Thummim and one that has a new name written on it? Or is it just one stone? Why is something so important as personal Urim and Thummims and seer stones so rarely talked about openly at church when it's plainly in our modern-day scriptures?
|misinformation=Joseph seemed to regard his own seer stone as a "stepping-stone" to greater knowledge and revelatory experience. This is exactly what D&C 130 says the "white stone" given to the exalted will do: "things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known."
}}
{{:Question: Why is the "white stone" that we are to receive upon entry to the Celestial kingdom not discussed extensively in Sunday School?}}

==Response to claim: "the 10th president of the Church thinks that using a stone to translate the Book of Mormon with 'hardly seems reasonable'"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=The 10th president of the church, Joseph Fielding Smith, said the following:
While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet JS used a seerstone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that the stone was used for this purpose.
It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the prophet would substitute something evidently inferior [to the U&T] under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the prophet did possess a seerstone, which he may have used for some other purposes.
Doctrines of Salvation vol.3 pg 225-226

So apparently even the 10th president of the Church thinks that using a stone to translate the Book of Mormon with "hardly seems reasonable."
|misinformation=The authors misrepresent their source. Joseph Fielding Smith said "It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would ''substitute something evidently inferior'' under these circumstances"
}}
{{:Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith say that it was not reasonable for Joseph Smith to use a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?}}

==Response to claim: "it would make the whole story sound unbelievable"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Why doesn't the church be honest when teaching the method to investigators or even its own members?
The short answer of course is that it would make the whole story sound unbelievable. Very few people in the 21st Century would likely join the church if the missionaries plainly taught that Joseph put his face in a hat with a common stone in it and translated the Book of Mormon when the plates were either covered so no one, including Joseph could see them or that the plates were hidden in the woods when he translated them. But that doesn't make it right to deceive innocent truthseekers.
|propaganda=The author was perfectly fine as a 21st century Mormon when he believed that Joseph used two seer stones mounted in a frame shaped like a "figure eight" to convert "reformed Egyptian" characters into English, but translation by the stone and the hat is "unbelievable"?
}}
{{:Question: Which method of translation was more "believable": seer stone or Nephite interpreters?}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Book of Mormon Translation:These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable}}
{{:Question: What does the Church teach investigators and members regarding the method by which the Book of Mormon was produced?}}
{{:Question: What are the Nephite interpreters?}}

==Response to claim: "That is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Editor comment: On the PBS Special, LDS apologist Daniel Peterson says that the stone Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon with is something we don't know much about except that it was found in the vicinity of Cumorah. That is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used or something anciently divine. In reality, Peterson is undoubtedly aware that the stone was found some 24 feet underground on Mason Chase's property when Joseph and his brother Hyrum were digging a well for Mr. Chase years before the gold plates were even given to Joseph. He also neglected to say that the church still has this stone in their possession.
|disinformation=The idea that Daniel C. Peterson was trying to "make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites used" is total nonsense.
}}
This is what Daniel Peterson ''actually'' said in the interview:
<blockquote>
There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was that he used an instrument that was found with the plates that was called the Urim and Thummim. This is kind of a divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. The seer stone is obviously something like the Urim and Thummim. It seems to be a stone that was found in the vicinity, and I can't say exactly how it would have worked. It may have been a kind of a concentrating device or a device to facilitate concentration. He would put the stone for most of the concentration period in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. Then he would put his face into the hat. It's kind of a strange image for us today, but it sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen, I suppose: You don't want to be looking at [anything] against a bright background; it hurts your eyes. ... He would read off what he saw in the stone, apparently in passages of about 25 to 35 words. ...
</blockquote>

If MormonThink wants to claim that Dan Peterson was attempting to "make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used or something anciently divine," they should at least be truthful in the sources they use as examples. Note that Dr. Peterson did ''not'' say that the stone "was found in the vicinity of Cumorah"—The ''critics'' said that, then they responded to their own misleading assertion by assigning a motive that this "is Peterson's attempt to make it sound as if the stone was something that the Nephites had used or something anciently divine." Dr. Peterson never mentioned any relationship between the stone and the Nephites, nor did he imply that the stone had an ancient origin or purpose.

== ==
{{further information label}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon/Sources and links
|subject=Source and link analysis
|summary=A examination of the sources and links used on the critical webpage.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if ''only'' the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

{{Articles Footer 1}}

[[es:La crítica del Mormonismo/Sitios web/PiensaMormón/Traducción del Libro de Mormón]]

Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?

2015-03-11T06:04:01Z

JordanLatimer: /* */ I assume this is closer to what it was meant to be. If not, please revert.

Question: What happens when a Mormon criticizes Church leaders?

2015-03-11T05:59:09Z

JordanLatimer: /* False and self-contradictory claims */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|What happens when a member criticizes Church leaders?}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Epigraph|I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough! — Denver Snuffer <ref name="mesa">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|31}}}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|To the extent I have ever spoken about living church leaders I have praised them. — Denver Snuffer<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|42}}}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Murder was allowed [in Utah] but only when President Young thought it was needed for the salvation of the victim. — Denver Snuffer<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|223}}}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|It is not the responsibility of church members to judge church authorities. 
— Denver Snuffer<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|28–29, 422}}}}
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

Once critic of the Church, Denver Snuffer, told his stake president and the First Presidency::
<blockquote>
I was shown a section of the Church Handbook of Instructions that mandated discipline for criticizing the church’s leaders. I explained I hadn’t done that. I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize.<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|42}}
</blockquote>

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

Snuffer's account is not accurate. He has repeatedly criticized and attacked Church leaders.

Snuffer claims that his stake president agree with this after he 'explained' it to him:

:I denied this accusation and after giving the explanation President Hunt agreed.<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa|pages=42}}</ref>

However, his stake president seems to see the matter very differently, as revealed in a letter he wrote to Snuffer which Snuffer made public:

:You [Denver Snuffer] have mischaracterized doctrine, '''denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith''', and placed the church in a negative light....<ref name="disc council notice">M. Truman Hunt to Denver Snuffer, “Notice of Disciplinary Council,” letter (21 August 2013), 1–2. Online at Denver Snuffer, “Don’t call me. (Yes, that means you too!),” from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 23 August 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dont-call-me-yes-that-means-you-too_23.html}}</ref>

Snuffer reports that:

:I asserted [to the stake president] that if he believed I was really "apostate" he would never have stood down. For that reason it was him merely following commands from higher up, and not a local matter.<ref name="don't know blog">Denver Snuffer, "Don't Know," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/dont-know.html}}</ref>

Yet, the Stake President clearly did not agree with this view:

:[A]s you know, a stake disciplinary council was held on your behalf on September 8, 2013. The council's conclusion was that several of the claims that you make in ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'' constitute clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders. Consequently, the council determined that you should be excommunicated from the Church for apostasy.<ref name="notice of excom">Truman Hunt, letter to Denver Snuffer (18 September 2013), posted on Denver Snuffer, "No Title," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 20 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/no-title.html}}</ref>

It seems more likely, then, that Snuffer's stake president concluded that further attempts to reason with Snuffer on this issue was pointless. Anyone who can make so many criticisms and complaints, and then insist with a straight face that they've ''never'' criticized Church leaders is either dishonest, or not open to reasoned discussion.

== ==
{{Response label}}

__TOC__

===False and self-contradictory claims===

This claim is blatantly false. Snuffer's book and other pre-excommunication writing<ref>His post-excommunication writing is little different. We will not review those examples here, since they could not have had a bearing on his excommunication. Readers will note, however, that not much has changed before and after.</ref> is filled with criticism of the Church's leaders.

Snuffer's book is also self-contradictory. He declares that "It is not the responsibility of church members to judge church authorities."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|28–29, 422}}

But, he judges them repeatedly. By his own standards, his behavior is inappropriate.

He is not speaking the truth when he says that he does not criticize, and he judges despite claiming he should not.

===LDS leaders = Popes===
Snuffer compares modern leaders to the Popes, making false claims:

* "The proud descendants of Nauvoo who have always retained control of the church’s top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. They teach that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They are the ‘new Popes’ having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess."<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|303, see also 66, 263}}

If this is not a criticism, what is it?

===LDS leaders foster "cult of personality"===

Snuffer repeatedly claims that leaders of the Church foster a "cult of personality."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|241, 264, 352, 359–360}}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders believe they should be "adored"===

Snuffer claims that prophets believe

:they are entitled to the adoration of followers.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|359–360}}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders guilty of spiritual "murder" and "priestcrafts"===

Snuffer claims:

:We [the Latter-day Saints] claim to hold keys that would allow men filled with sin to forgive sins on earth and in heaven, to grant eternal life, or to bar from the kingdom of God. Using that false and useless claim, we slay the souls of men, thereby committing murder. We are riddled with priestcrafts.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|414}}

Snuffer ignores that the claim to hold keys derives not from "Latter-day Saints," but from both the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants:

:'''Bible''': And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ({{b||Matthew|16|19}}).
: '''Doctrine and Covenants''': That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ({{b||D&C|124|93}}).
: '''Doctrine and Covenants''':hatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and '''whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven''' ({{s||D&C|132|46}}, emphasis added).

Does Snuffer imagine that these men were any less fallible, any less sinful that modern leaders? Yet, God declared that they had priesthood keys of blessing and cursing, binding and loosing, of remitting or retaining sins.

Joseph Smith could have been speaking directly to Snuffer's complaint when he wrote:

:It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it? ({{s||D&C|128|9}}). [Joseph then quotes Matthew 16 as above.]

Snuffer's quarrel, then, is not with the Church leaders, but with ancient and modern scripture, as well as Joseph Smith whom he claims to sustain.

These claims are criticisms. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===David O. McKay liked to be 'lionized'===

Snuffer makes a false claim relying on a misrepresented text to claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|349}}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

{{:Mormonism and prophets/David O. McKay liked to be lionized}}

===LDS leaders = Proud===

He repeatedly labels all general leaders since Nauvoo as "proud":

* “Ever since the expulsion of church members from Nauvoo, the highest leadership positions in the church have been held by Nauvoo’s proud descendants.”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|113}}
* “The proud refugees from Nauvoo and their descendants have always claimed they succeeded in doing all that was required.”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|381}}
* “If [my] new view of history is more correct than the narrative offered by the proud descendants of Nauvoo…”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|420}}
* “The Nauvoo saints and their proud descendants would necessarily diminish. This view is unlikely to ever be accepted by a church whose leadership is filled overwhelmingly by those same proud descendants of Nauvoo. There hasn’t been a single church president without Nauvoo ancestors.”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|119}}

It is clear that he intends the term "proud" in its negative sense, since he elsewhere accuses the leaders of great arrogance:

:I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough!<ref name="mesa">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|31}}

This is a gross misrepresentation of how LDS members see their leaders, or what the leaders claim. But, it is the attitude that Snuffer imputes to them—clearly stuffed with pride and arrogance.

To be "proud" is to be guilty of great sin.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders only "administrative apostles"===

Snuffer's attitude toward modern Church leaders is displayed in his chapter title, "Prophets, Profits and Priestcraft."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|185}} The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are said to be "modern administrative Apostles,"<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|61}} who cannot bear the proper Apostolic witness that Snuffer can: there are “two different kinds of Apostles”—”one is an administrative office in the church. The other is a witness of the resurrection, who has met with Christ”.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|34}}

To accuse others of priestcraft and valuing "profits" over prophecy is not a compliment. It is not praise to say that the Twelve Apostles are only "administrators" instead of witnesses of the resurrection.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===Church leaders use "Babylonian methods"===

Snuffer accuses Church leaders of changing the Church, and using "[B]abylonian methods":

* "The book brings to light the [B]abylonian methods church leadership uses to make rapid and dramatic changes. We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith....."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders = not true messengers===

Snuffer writes:

:Part of the ceremony [made] it...clear to those who participated that there were no mortal sources who could claim they were ‘true messengers.’ Mortal men were universally depicted as false ministers in the ceremony Joseph restored. The only source of true messengers was God or angels sent by Him.<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|276}}

LDS prophets and apostles claim to be true messengers from God. Snuffer says that they are not.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

==="Instructions from above" are not from Salt Lake City===

Snuffer tells his followers:

* instruction from above...for me...has little to do with 47 East South Temple.<ref>Denver Snuffer, “Current Events,” from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 26 August 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/current-events.html}}</ref>

Snuffer claims that instructions from Church leaders (at the Church Office Building at 47 East South Temple) are not from above, while claiming that he ''does'' get instruction from God above.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders wish to hide the Church's desire to accommodate the homosexual agenda===

Snuffer tells his audience that the Church is easing "toward open acceptance of socially progressive mormonism. This is the product of social, political and legal pressure," as evidenced by the Church's support of anti-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals.<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

*"This accounts for the difference between the reaction of the church to socially progressive Mormons (who are tolerated) and me. Those who advocate for the place the church has already decided to go are not a threat to their plans. What I write can create a good deal of difficultly in arriving there."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>
*"The church needs not only to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men," the church must be able to teach AS doctrine the commandments of men. Meaning that the church must have those aboard who will do, believe and accept whatever the leaders tell the members. Unquestionably. Unhesitatingly."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>
*"I will state for all you blog readers: ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'' contains content that will make your appreciation and acceptance of the efforts of the institution now and in the future to bend its teachings to conform to social, political and legal trends much more difficult to achieve. You will be happier if you don't read the book. You will be more inclined to sleepwalk along with what is progressively distant from the original restoration. You will not detect that these changes mark the downfall predicted in the prophecies of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

Snuffer claims Church leaders are caving to social and legal pressure on homosexuality, and not following God's will.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders wink at homosexual lust===

* The church introduced a web page on same sex attraction. Two of the twelve contributed to the page. One of them asserted that same sex attraction is not a sin, but only acting on the impulse would be. This is an interesting accommodation which contradicts the Lord's statement that "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Or, adds to it: "but if you burn in lust for the same sex that isn't adultery in your heart."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

Snuffer here accuses two of the twelve apostles:
# of teaching contrary to Jesus' words
# of declaring that "burning in lust" isn't a sin.

Snuffer is clearly misrepresenting the apostles. Snuffer's "opposite sex attraction" is not a sin in and of itself, and someone else's "same sex attraction" is not a sin. Snuffer could sin by burning in lust toward someone, just as a homosexual member could sin by encouraging fantasies of same sex acts. But, there mere fact that Snuffer, or the homosexual member, have an attraction to one gender or the other is not a sin.

It appears that Snuffer is going out of his way to find fault, and reading Church leaders with the least charitable interpretation possible.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

{{More|Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Denver_Snuffer/Excommunication/Sustaining_Church_leaders|l1=Even further examples of Snuffer's criticism of his leaders are discussed elsewhere.}}

=LDS leaders cannot bear proper testimony of the resurrection=

Snuffer claims:

:Today, testimonies of the presiding authorities, including the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, assert only vaguely they are “special witnesses” of the Lord…. A great number of active Latter-day Saints do not notice the careful parsing [sic] of words used by modern administrative Apostles. They presume a “witness of the name” of Christ is the same as the New Testament witness of His resurrection. The apostolic witness was always intended to be based upon the dramatic, the extraordinary…. Without such visionary encounters with the Lord, they are unable to witness about Him, but only of His name.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|62}}

It is not a compliment to claim that the Twelve Apostles "are unable to witness about" Christ.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Snuffer also misrepresents the content of many modern apostles' witness:
{{:Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Passing_the_Heavenly_Gift/Brigham_Young_and_apostles_not_witnesses_of_Christ}}

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>

{{Articles Footer 1}}
[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]

Question: What happens when a Mormon criticizes Church leaders?

2015-03-11T05:58:00Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|What happens when a member criticizes Church leaders?}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Epigraph|I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough! — Denver Snuffer <ref name="mesa">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|31}}}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|To the extent I have ever spoken about living church leaders I have praised them. — Denver Snuffer<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|42}}}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Murder was allowed [in Utah] but only when President Young thought it was needed for the salvation of the victim. — Denver Snuffer<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|223}}}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|It is not the responsibility of church members to judge church authorities. 
— Denver Snuffer<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|28–29, 422}}}}
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

Once critic of the Church, Denver Snuffer, told his stake president and the First Presidency::
<blockquote>
I was shown a section of the Church Handbook of Instructions that mandated discipline for criticizing the church’s leaders. I explained I hadn’t done that. I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize.<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|42}}
</blockquote>

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

Snuffer's account is not accurate. He has repeatedly criticized and attacked Church leaders.

Snuffer claims that his stake president agree with this after he 'explained' it to him:

:I denied this accusation and after giving the explanation President Hunt agreed.<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa|pages=42}}</ref>

However, his stake president seems to see the matter very differently, as revealed in a letter he wrote to Snuffer which Snuffer made public:

:You [Denver Snuffer] have mischaracterized doctrine, '''denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith''', and placed the church in a negative light....<ref name="disc council notice">M. Truman Hunt to Denver Snuffer, “Notice of Disciplinary Council,” letter (21 August 2013), 1–2. Online at Denver Snuffer, “Don’t call me. (Yes, that means you too!),” from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 23 August 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dont-call-me-yes-that-means-you-too_23.html}}</ref>

Snuffer reports that:

:I asserted [to the stake president] that if he believed I was really "apostate" he would never have stood down. For that reason it was him merely following commands from higher up, and not a local matter.<ref name="don't know blog">Denver Snuffer, "Don't Know," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/dont-know.html}}</ref>

Yet, the Stake President clearly did not agree with this view:

:[A]s you know, a stake disciplinary council was held on your behalf on September 8, 2013. The council's conclusion was that several of the claims that you make in ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'' constitute clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders. Consequently, the council determined that you should be excommunicated from the Church for apostasy.<ref name="notice of excom">Truman Hunt, letter to Denver Snuffer (18 September 2013), posted on Denver Snuffer, "No Title," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 20 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/no-title.html}}</ref>

It seems more likely, then, that Snuffer's stake president concluded that further attempts to reason with Snuffer on this issue was pointless. Anyone who can make so many criticisms and complaints, and then insist with a straight face that they've ''never'' criticized Church leaders is either dishonest, or not open to reasoned discussion.

== ==
{{Response label}}

__TOC__

===False and self-contradictory claims===

This claim is blatantly false. Snuffer's book and other pre-excommunication writing<ref>His post-excommunication writing is little different. We will not review those examples here, since they could not have had a bearing on his excommunication. Readers will note, however, that not much has changed before and after.</ref> is filled with criticism of the Church's leaders.

Snuffer's book is also self-contradictory. He declares that "It is not the responsibility of church members to judge church authorities."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|28–29, 422}}

But, he judges them repeatedly. By his own argument, his behavior is inappropriate.

He is not speaking the truth when he says that he does not criticize, and he judges despite claiming he should not.

===LDS leaders = Popes===
Snuffer compares modern leaders to the Popes, making false claims:

* "The proud descendants of Nauvoo who have always retained control of the church’s top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. They teach that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They are the ‘new Popes’ having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess."<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|303, see also 66, 263}}

If this is not a criticism, what is it?

===LDS leaders foster "cult of personality"===

Snuffer repeatedly claims that leaders of the Church foster a "cult of personality."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|241, 264, 352, 359–360}}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders believe they should be "adored"===

Snuffer claims that prophets believe

:they are entitled to the adoration of followers.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|359–360}}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders guilty of spiritual "murder" and "priestcrafts"===

Snuffer claims:

:We [the Latter-day Saints] claim to hold keys that would allow men filled with sin to forgive sins on earth and in heaven, to grant eternal life, or to bar from the kingdom of God. Using that false and useless claim, we slay the souls of men, thereby committing murder. We are riddled with priestcrafts.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|414}}

Snuffer ignores that the claim to hold keys derives not from "Latter-day Saints," but from both the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants:

:'''Bible''': And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ({{b||Matthew|16|19}}).
: '''Doctrine and Covenants''': That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ({{b||D&C|124|93}}).
: '''Doctrine and Covenants''':hatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and '''whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven''' ({{s||D&C|132|46}}, emphasis added).

Does Snuffer imagine that these men were any less fallible, any less sinful that modern leaders? Yet, God declared that they had priesthood keys of blessing and cursing, binding and loosing, of remitting or retaining sins.

Joseph Smith could have been speaking directly to Snuffer's complaint when he wrote:

:It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it? ({{s||D&C|128|9}}). [Joseph then quotes Matthew 16 as above.]

Snuffer's quarrel, then, is not with the Church leaders, but with ancient and modern scripture, as well as Joseph Smith whom he claims to sustain.

These claims are criticisms. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===David O. McKay liked to be 'lionized'===

Snuffer makes a false claim relying on a misrepresented text to claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|349}}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

{{:Mormonism and prophets/David O. McKay liked to be lionized}}

===LDS leaders = Proud===

He repeatedly labels all general leaders since Nauvoo as "proud":

* “Ever since the expulsion of church members from Nauvoo, the highest leadership positions in the church have been held by Nauvoo’s proud descendants.”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|113}}
* “The proud refugees from Nauvoo and their descendants have always claimed they succeeded in doing all that was required.”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|381}}
* “If [my] new view of history is more correct than the narrative offered by the proud descendants of Nauvoo…”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|420}}
* “The Nauvoo saints and their proud descendants would necessarily diminish. This view is unlikely to ever be accepted by a church whose leadership is filled overwhelmingly by those same proud descendants of Nauvoo. There hasn’t been a single church president without Nauvoo ancestors.”<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|119}}

It is clear that he intends the term "proud" in its negative sense, since he elsewhere accuses the leaders of great arrogance:

:I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough!<ref name="mesa">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa}}</ref>{{Rp|31}}

This is a gross misrepresentation of how LDS members see their leaders, or what the leaders claim. But, it is the attitude that Snuffer imputes to them—clearly stuffed with pride and arrogance.

To be "proud" is to be guilty of great sin.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders only "administrative apostles"===

Snuffer's attitude toward modern Church leaders is displayed in his chapter title, "Prophets, Profits and Priestcraft."<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|185}} The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are said to be "modern administrative Apostles,"<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|61}} who cannot bear the proper Apostolic witness that Snuffer can: there are “two different kinds of Apostles”—”one is an administrative office in the church. The other is a witness of the resurrection, who has met with Christ”.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|34}}

To accuse others of priestcraft and valuing "profits" over prophecy is not a compliment. It is not praise to say that the Twelve Apostles are only "administrators" instead of witnesses of the resurrection.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===Church leaders use "Babylonian methods"===

Snuffer accuses Church leaders of changing the Church, and using "[B]abylonian methods":

* "The book brings to light the [B]abylonian methods church leadership uses to make rapid and dramatic changes. We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith....."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders = not true messengers===

Snuffer writes:

:Part of the ceremony [made] it...clear to those who participated that there were no mortal sources who could claim they were ‘true messengers.’ Mortal men were universally depicted as false ministers in the ceremony Joseph restored. The only source of true messengers was God or angels sent by Him.<ref name="PTHG">{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift}}</ref>{{Rp|276}}

LDS prophets and apostles claim to be true messengers from God. Snuffer says that they are not.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

==="Instructions from above" are not from Salt Lake City===

Snuffer tells his followers:

* instruction from above...for me...has little to do with 47 East South Temple.<ref>Denver Snuffer, “Current Events,” from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 26 August 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/current-events.html}}</ref>

Snuffer claims that instructions from Church leaders (at the Church Office Building at 47 East South Temple) are not from above, while claiming that he ''does'' get instruction from God above.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders wish to hide the Church's desire to accommodate the homosexual agenda===

Snuffer tells his audience that the Church is easing "toward open acceptance of socially progressive mormonism. This is the product of social, political and legal pressure," as evidenced by the Church's support of anti-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals.<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

*"This accounts for the difference between the reaction of the church to socially progressive Mormons (who are tolerated) and me. Those who advocate for the place the church has already decided to go are not a threat to their plans. What I write can create a good deal of difficultly in arriving there."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>
*"The church needs not only to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men," the church must be able to teach AS doctrine the commandments of men. Meaning that the church must have those aboard who will do, believe and accept whatever the leaders tell the members. Unquestionably. Unhesitatingly."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>
*"I will state for all you blog readers: ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'' contains content that will make your appreciation and acceptance of the efforts of the institution now and in the future to bend its teachings to conform to social, political and legal trends much more difficult to achieve. You will be happier if you don't read the book. You will be more inclined to sleepwalk along with what is progressively distant from the original restoration. You will not detect that these changes mark the downfall predicted in the prophecies of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

Snuffer claims Church leaders are caving to social and legal pressure on homosexuality, and not following God's will.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

===LDS leaders wink at homosexual lust===

* The church introduced a web page on same sex attraction. Two of the twelve contributed to the page. One of them asserted that same sex attraction is not a sin, but only acting on the impulse would be. This is an interesting accommodation which contradicts the Lord's statement that "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Or, adds to it: "but if you burn in lust for the same sex that isn't adultery in your heart."<ref name="compliance">Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html}}</ref>

Snuffer here accuses two of the twelve apostles:
# of teaching contrary to Jesus' words
# of declaring that "burning in lust" isn't a sin.

Snuffer is clearly misrepresenting the apostles. Snuffer's "opposite sex attraction" is not a sin in and of itself, and someone else's "same sex attraction" is not a sin. Snuffer could sin by burning in lust toward someone, just as a homosexual member could sin by encouraging fantasies of same sex acts. But, there mere fact that Snuffer, or the homosexual member, have an attraction to one gender or the other is not a sin.

It appears that Snuffer is going out of his way to find fault, and reading Church leaders with the least charitable interpretation possible.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

{{More|Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Denver_Snuffer/Excommunication/Sustaining_Church_leaders|l1=Even further examples of Snuffer's criticism of his leaders are discussed elsewhere.}}

=LDS leaders cannot bear proper testimony of the resurrection=

Snuffer claims:

:Today, testimonies of the presiding authorities, including the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, assert only vaguely they are “special witnesses” of the Lord…. A great number of active Latter-day Saints do not notice the careful parsing [sic] of words used by modern administrative Apostles. They presume a “witness of the name” of Christ is the same as the New Testament witness of His resurrection. The apostolic witness was always intended to be based upon the dramatic, the extraordinary…. Without such visionary encounters with the Lord, they are unable to witness about Him, but only of His name.<ref name="PTHG"></ref>{{Rp|62}}

It is not a compliment to claim that the Twelve Apostles "are unable to witness about" Christ.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Snuffer also misrepresents the content of many modern apostles' witness:
{{:Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Passing_the_Heavenly_Gift/Brigham_Young_and_apostles_not_witnesses_of_Christ}}

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>

{{Articles Footer 1}}
[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]

Book of Abraham facsimiles

2015-03-10T05:41:54Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Media efforts by MormonThink managing editor Tom Phillips

2015-03-04T06:06:03Z

JordanLatimer: /* Tom Phillips and the Summons for President Thomas S. Monson to appear in Court in the United Kingdom */

Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?

2015-03-02T05:56:47Z

JordanLatimer:

Source:Gospel Topics:Becoming Like God:Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense

2015-02-28T05:26:53Z

JordanLatimer: /* Gospel Topics: "Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense" */ Clean up

{{FME-Source
|title=''Gospel Topics'': "Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense"
|category=Nature of God/Deification of man
}}
<onlyinclude>
==''Gospel Topics'': "Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense"==
[https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng "Becoming Like God,"] ''Gospel Topics'' on LDS.org:
<blockquote>
Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.” Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father's.<ref>[https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng "Becoming Like God,"] ''Gospel Topics'' on LDS.org (25 February 2014)</ref>{{read more|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Becoming Gods]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

The Bible/Completeness

2015-02-26T04:01:05Z

JordanLatimer: /* */

The Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon

2015-02-26T03:57:20Z

JordanLatimer: /* God is superior even to His Word */

Book of Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth century/Joseph Smith's lifetime 1829-1840/Joseph Smith

2015-02-26T03:44:53Z

JordanLatimer:

Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?

2015-02-23T05:22:05Z

JordanLatimer: Added content to this page.

User:JordanLatimer

2015-02-23T03:38:21Z

JordanLatimer: Created page with "We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know. W. H. Auden"

We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know.
W. H. Auden