The stone in the hat and treasure digging were considered anti-mormon lies when I served a mission. If it's a normal biblical device why did we avoid talking about it for so long?
The history is interesting when you learn the details. BH Roberts published about seer stones around 1904-1909 and they were included in sunday school curriculum between 1918 and 1934. Then Francis Kirkham came along and started denying them and they were considered anti-mormon for a long time. Richard Bushman published a little about them in the early 1980s, but his writings were not published by Deseret Book as originally planned because the Q12 didn't like what he had to say. So another 20 years of hiding this from the membership until Rough Stone Rolling came out in 2005.
@@scottvance74 I don't know about hiding. We talked about seer stones in the 80's during Institute. It is true when I was a missionary some companions were ignorant, but others were not.
@@brettmajeske3525 I can only speak of my own experience in honors religion classes at BYU in the 1990s. In my classes (including BOM and D&C) seer stones were never mentioned. After a period of relative openness (1900-1934), Roberts died and Fancis Kirkham and others removed this from the curriculum. It was only added in earnestness after 2013 and the church is still misleading about the topic by not admitting that the whole (current) BOM was constructed using the brown seer stone and hat methodology.
@@scottvance74 Well I did not go to BYU. I can only speak of what was taught in the Institute of Religion classes I attended, both in the 80's before my mission and in the early 90's after wards. Many "hidden topics" including the seer stones and BoA, were taught clearly. Mostly that there is still a lot we do not know for certain. It always surprises me when someone says "the Church" does such and such when they are actually talking about Utah culture. Obviously even within the CES different teachers talk about different things. That particular teacher went on to become both a Stake President and a Patriarch so his teaching style could not have been that disruptive. Thing is your theory is just that. Obviously the seers stones (multiple) were used, but there is no clear record from JS which ones were used when. The best we have is reconstructed speculation. Maybe you are right, but it isn't definitive. Fact is without a time machine it is difficult to know exactly how things happened. Which Seer Stones were the most important? JS never said. So we speculate.
I honestly didn't learn about the stone and the hat until I saw it on South Park. I don't mind the explanation as to why he went with this route, but I do get frustrated that the church never presented this narrative when discussing history.
Actually they did, but we were all asleep while watching the general conference talk in 1993 when thay explanation the translation of the book of mormon.www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng
Some of us were 9years old during general conference in 1999. By early 2000s it still hasn’t become part of standard curriculum and the church was still showing pics abs videos that didn’t involve this. Just simply at a table with plates and cowers across the table.
The green stone belonged to Sally Chase and Joseph "borrowed it" because he claimed he could see things with it. When he looked in the green stone he saw a white stone about 150 miles away under a tree. He traveled the multiple day journey over 150 miles to retrieve it. He had to dig down to get it but it was a beautiful stone that was more like a crystal white stone. When he looked in it he was able to see into the past, future, and present time. He then used it to find the baby's foot stone, then a brown hens egg stone was found while digging a well for Wilard Chase, so he had 4 stones. 1. The Green one from Sally Chase 2. The white one he traveled to get 3. The baby's foot one 4. The brown hen egg one at the well The brown one hurt his eyes but the one he treasured the most was the white one.
Been a member my whole life and I have never heard anyone speak about these other seer stones. Not trying to be mean, but you sound very delusional....
Thanks Steven for the detail description. For my personal research would you please help with any references. Before your post, I only heard about the brown stone. Thanks.
It’s interesting that you mentioned Joseph Smiths possible connection with folk magick. For me this doesn’t help the case for Joseph Smith If he was actually practicing folk magick since divination, fortune telling and sorcery are condemned in the bible. I’d be suprised if God would choose somebody that practiced these things to be his prophet on earth. If you take fortune telling as one example, it mimics the idea of prophecy. So it may seem spiritual. Except that prophecy comes from a holy and righteous source unlike fortune telling which seems to draw on the power of fallen angels who deceive people with a bogus version of the gifts of the spirit, since most of us would agree that Satan is a deceiver and a very clever one at that. Still like you said, Moses had murdered a man before God appeared to him in the burning bush. Although he did it on behalf of his Jewish brothers so what it did may not have been seen as unrighteous during that particular time of our history, since even the most holy men like King David sometimes struck their enemies down in the cause of righteousness. But; this just surprised me that if it’s true that Joseph was involved in folk magick that God would have chosen him above others that weren’t doing this.
William Henley To my knowledge Noah was just the guy that built the ark I didn’t realise that he was a prophet but maybe I’ve just forgotten. Yes I do remember the occasion that Noah got drunk and stripped off. And you are right we all sin. But there is a big difference between sinning in a moment of weakness and practicing sin with regularity. People like Noah and king David fell prey to temptation but there’s no evidence that they were choosing it deliberately. They slipped up. In order to be a folk magician it would require practice and someone that practices something sinful isn’t just slipping up. For example if someone commits formication then they have sinned but it’s not as sinful as someone that practices fornication on a regular basis because one is accidental sin whearas the other is deliberate sin.
William Henley The fact a person keeps repeating the same sin demonstrates that it is done willfully. Would God choose someone that willfully practiced magick, something that he condemns, when he could have chosen someone that didn’t do such things? After all, been Gods prophet would require Gods favour in the first place.
Johnny Phoenix yeah I know the account about the witch of Endor. And although it sounds as though she had summoned Samuel from the grave, she had simply summoned a demon that pretended to be Samuel. Demons are supernatural beings that have the ability to know many things about us without needing to be told. They were once righteous angels but some of these rebelled against God and weren’t welcome back with him due to their disobedience. So what was once righteous became corrupt. Because demons are essentially corrupt angels they have powers and abilities that humans don’t and are able to disguise themselves as whoever they please. That is exactly why spirit mediums are condemned in the bible because they are working in cahoots with these demons. They may believe that they are speaking with the dead but if that was possible then explain to me why it is that Ecclesiastes 9:5 says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, for all memory of them is forgotten.” The story of the witch of endor was demonstrating that she summoned a demon that pretended to be Samuel. You guys need to understand that the bible is not about cherry picking certain verses and misrepresenting them. It’s about joining all the dots until the real picture emerges. You guys don’t join the dots you simply cherry pick chapters that you do not understand because you haven’t put them in the wider context of the bible on its whole form. 2 Corinthians 11:14 “Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness.” To understand what scripture is telling you you need to join the dots. I help people join the dots by joining a few for them since I know that they have no desire to join them in case they learn something that doesn’t tickle their Ears in the way that their own ministers and leaders do. I study the bible carefully, so I don’t make mistakes.
Johnny Phoenix Corrupt angels are actually not that unlike corrupt human beings. They use deceit because they know it works, much like wicked people also use deceit because they want to mislead people in order to achieve their own ends. These understandings should not be beyond you.
Why did God bother to include the urim and thummim if Joseph was able to "translate" using his existing seer stone, or nothing at all? Why did God even bother to include the plates at all since Joseph apparently didn't even need them in the room?
Why did God let Moses use a staff? Why did Jesus use mud to heal someone? And also many other people using many other things that they did not need to do what God can do alone or through them anyway?? God could've just given Joseph Smith the translation. God could've just made the plagues happen and parted the Red Sea without Moses or his staff. Jesus could've healed the man without the mud. What about Noah and his Ark? God could've just reorganized the whole Earth except Noah and his family and the animals but he chose to use these people and these objects for reasons beyond our understanding. If you do understand why please tell me why he used Moses' staff and Noah's ark and why Jesus used spit and mud to heal people. I just don't understand how some people can believe God would let some people use objects like Moses and Jesus himself but if other people such as Joseph Smith use objects from God it is so impossible, crazy, and unbelievable. I believe in the power of God and that he gave these items for them to use for a reason. That includes Moses, Noah, Joseph Smith, and so many other Prophets and more.
@@NameInsertedHere _"God could've just given Joseph Smith the translation."_ That's the point of OP. God _did_ give Joseph Smith the translation through the seer stone, and Joseph never actually translated the plates or used the urim and thummim for the book we now have. Laying out all these questions about god utilizing objects is irrelevant. There were objects that God apparently intended Joseph to use, but weren't.
Allan Mount - THANKS for chiming in Allen!! Love ❤️ listening to you and Kattie on “marriage on a tightrope podcast”. My thoughts exactly on believing the narrative about JS and his “special rock” hat trick- that is dutifully answered by TBMs with the appeal to the Old Testament fables as well. If you believe those are myths created by those cultures as part of their historical and cultural mythology, then you can truly see that a rock in a hat , is pretty much the same device that the palm reader/ psychic who uses a crystal ball and lives out near the freeway uses! 😇
@@ThomasJDavis We really don't know that. Most of this is speculation from second hand sources. We really can not know to what degree what instrument was actually used.
The argument that the scribes "couldn't possibly be in on it" is ridiculous, since they were either his wife, his family members or a dude who just mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the book in question... I would say he has the biggest interest of them all. These are not good arguments, the best argument is that some of the witnesses involved in the whole 'stone in hat' thing are wrong and that the other ones that said he used the umim and thumim to translate the plates are actually correct.
Just a note. The stones attached to the breast plate were originally known as the "interpreters". They weren't referred to as Urim and Thummim until later. Thank you for not saying that seer stones are like modern cell phones, they are nothing alike.
If we're being really accurate, the stones were not attached to the breast plate. This idea was introduced by Lucy Mack Smith later. The spectacles were used for only a brief period prior to loosing the 116 pages (Harris). They got the Urim and Thummim name by Phelps starting in mid 1832. This idea became mainstream when Cowdrey adopted this narrative (fraudulently) in 1834. Also, the spectacles were 6 inches between lenses - not the smaller (usable) version shown in this video. This size was presumably because the ancient Americans were giants.
@Joseph the Wanderer they were not giants. It’s because they used them one by one. Not like spectacles. That’s why they have different names. They had different purposes.
Add in that peeper and seer meant the same thing at the time of Smith, we have recorded comments from the time... add in seer, peeper, scryer and divinator were all the same thing terminology and even FAIR admits to this and uses Sally Chase as an example Smith wasn’t odd, it was very common... Saints Unscripted lies a lot, not white washes BUT lies
Funny fact... the witnesses never physically saw the plates, they saw with “spiritual eyes” a common belief at Smith’s time... ouch spiritual eyes and not physically?
@@atheistapostate7019 That’s not accurate at all. You need to read more. Both the three and the eight witnesses saw them with their own eyes. The eight witnesses handled them with their own hands. Several other unofficial witnesses did likewise. None of them ever recanted their testimonies to that effect.
@@jordanwutkee2548 better go do your homework, even FAIR backs up the critics statements that ALL BoM witnesses NEVER saw the plates physically, BUT only in vision. The plates were ALWAYS covered. You must be LDS and never been to FAIR’s website to verify the facts
@@atheistapostate7019 I have read plenty of material on FAIR that directly contradicts your claim. From FAIR: “How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" (Joseph Smith III, et al., Interview, July 1884, Richmond Missouri, in Lyndon W. Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134-35)” That’s just one of many such statements. Now put up or shut up.
im not a peeper, im a seer guys. i promise. i dont pretend to look through stones to find money, I actually do it pretty much 100% unsuccesfully. dont believe i have ever done such a thing just ask josiah stowell. his court testimony states he believes that i do this practice without a doubt.
Había escuchado de que supuestamente José hacia magia en los años de su juventud, me parece muy interesante aprender de esto, me podrías escribir o mandar un link para ver acerca de esas piedras videntes que José consiguió Muchas gracias
Many people in that time believed in biblical archaeology or “treasure hunting” and considered it a part of their faith. Whether catholic, non-denominational, or Protestant. It’s worth noting that God teaches men according to their understanding and as such there would be similarities between Joseph Smiths childhood culture and hobbies, and his behavior as a prophet. Saints Unscripted makes an excellent video about this exact subject as well.
The church in all it's videos, images, missionary lessons, and on and on for decades never showed the seer stone in the hat. which accounted for the VAST MAJORITY of the translation process. Why? We may never know. But they chose not to, and now everyone is acting like its not weird at all and the seer stone hat trick was "suuuuuper normal bro, be chill about it man, nothing to see here". This, "there is nothing to see here" mentality is why I hate the church, and little to do with seer stones. People think those who left the church because of this are confused at the idea of seer stones. But the apologists miss the point. The church treats its origin story like any other major company trying to control the image of their brand. And then you see throughout history the church more interested in the marketability of the truth than the actual truth. And then have the audacity to wonder how anyone could question the truth claims of the church and their testimonies when they realise the images and videos are what the church deems as most likely to give a "spiritual experience " than letting the truth speak for itself. They would rather have a well lit room, the spiritual crescendo of an orcestra, playing over Joseph running his fingers along the golden plates, as if he was given the gift of translation, to give the viewer a "spirtual experience". This is marketing and brand management.... What a fun religious experience.
(Part 1 long reply) When looking at church history it’s important to realize that a lot of things people believe were ‘hidden’ from the public until recent years were simply not well known or understood. History isn’t always a clear line of chronological information that exists in a perfectly accurate and reasoned state the moment we look at it. The easy to understand encyclopedic form that many historical events are given to us in is a modern luxury. But history doesn’t come like that. We make sense of history by aggregating all of the sources that can be found and having historians analyze them. The reason the seer stones weren’t mentioned as much in the past is likely due to the fact that the majority of the general authorities didn’t know about them. The description of the process that was held for many years was that the plates were translated by the power of God. That is what the witnesses said and so that was what was taught. It was only when church historians started digging more into the records that talk of the seer stones started to emerge. Leaders weren’t sure precisely how the translation process happened and were likely hesitant to make many definitive statements on the subject. Especially since in the past- there were many lies published in newspapers and journals about the early church in order to discredit them. For example, there was a story floating around in the 19th century that Joseph smith built a dam under a river to trick people into thinking he could walk on water. Some men came in the night and broke down the dam so that in the morning Joseph would step out into the river and fall making a fool of himself. The story circulated in newspapers all over the country for decades all versions had different details. Some claimed it was in one town while others claimed another. Many said it was their cousin or brother or friend who broke down the dam. The accounts didn’t agree. Historians aggregated all of the accounts and discovered that the true version of the story was that the saints had built a dam in a river to slow the current so they could perform baptisms in the river. A mob came in the middle of the night and tore it down. The saints realized this and came back the next night to build it again. They then had their baptisms in the morning. The mob saw that they’d rebuilt the dam and were baptizing people so they came and heckled the saints-disturbing the ordinances. This was the true origin of the story that could be verified against the historical documents. But it had grown sensational in the telling. Imagine if the church leaders heard the story from the papers- assumed it to be true and started teaching it. Only to learn later that it was false? This too could be used as means of vilifying the church.
"Sometimes Joseph gets a bad rap for his history of folk magicky stuff. I frankly don't really care. I mean, Paul in the New Testament was an accomplice to the murder of Steven before he found the truth, turned out to be a pretty solid guy, though." ...Uh, yeah, but a solid guy according to whom? Himself, from whom we have the majority of new testament books? Who's to say that Paul of Tarsus wasn't a cult leader, too?
The narrative given as I became actively involved was very different. This is wrong. There’s no spinning or excusing not revealing this when images had shown a different story.
So he went from eyeglasses that just happened to be the exact technology used in those days, then he switched to a rock, then just magically translated? How does possibly strengthen anybody's belief? WHy not a more advanced tool? Or why even make some dude translate at all? Is god so immature he has to send notes down to Earth to decode like it's a middle school boy asking his crush out to the dance next month? If I have to choose between Joseph Smith memorizing a manuscript perfectly, he had cohorts, or he received devine messages from a power beyond our known existence of which there's zero physical proof of its existence beyond eyewitnesses, I'm going to go with the memorizing or he had partners in a scam any day. These types of questions posed as if the alternatives are SO unbelievable Smith must be truthful is insulting.
Seer stones are divination, nothing god had people use in the Bible was for that. Paul didn't preach misguidance. He had done things, god saved him and changed him, ..that makes me understand why jesus is who we follow. Not Paul. Not John the Baptist. Not king David. The Bible says kings are tyrants.. The problem is the misguiding and allowance of that to continue. The Bible says it's better to drown yourself then to misguide believers.
Isaiah 43:10 10“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. After reading this why does joseph smith say we will become gods? It will not happen. There is only 1 god and with smith folk magic. That power comes from someone else. Its not gods power do research. I was mormon for many years. Its a hard pill too swallow but smit is a false prophet.
6I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Every mormon always tells me that but you forget to read the next verse. That doesn't sound like we will be gods or anyone else. Lets go back why does smith say we will become gods when we won't?
I would like to think im not causing trouble. I've seen people go after the church a lot wprse than me. I do try to be respectful but im also blunt. I enjoyed talking with you.
@@joshvanweerd3305 There are several important things you have missed in your Isaiah quote. Firstly, who is actually speaking in Isaiah? It is the Savior, the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, he states all of these titles plainly at the beginning of the chapter. This is premortal Jesus Christ speaking, that is very clear to even a casual reader. Now, let's put his words into context, instead of just throwing them out there without any reference. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. " He then goes on to say verse 11... 11 "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." Firstly, He is declaring to his witnesses and servant, "I am he". Ok, who is "he"? He that runs the hundred yard dash is 3 seconds? He that can throw a pigskin a quarter mile? The "he" He is referring to is the uniter, the gatherer, the creator, the Savior. Stating who "He" is, what He has done and what He will do for his people is the focus and central point of the chapter. He IS the Savior, a god, and He wants his servant to be a witness of this fact. He then states that there's no God formed before Him. This is true, He is the first born of Heavenly Father, spiritually and temporally. He then states that there shall not be any after him. This is a very important statement and one that can't be rushed passed. He is inferring DIRECTLY that he was "formed" (or begotten, or spiritually born) in that he states that none shall be formed after him. How can no other be formed after him if he himself was not formed to begin with? How could can no other be formed before Him if He himself was not formed first? Clearly, He sees himself as formed, or begotten, or spiritually born. Clearly, if we take Christ at his word, Heavenly Father possesses the power to "form" a god, and Christ is the first one to acknowledge that power. Either Heavenly Father "formed" his Son, or he did not. Either he has the power to make His Son his equal, or he does not. Well, we know from the scriptures that Christ is His Father's equal in kingdom, glory, wisdom, knowledge and perfection, and although they share these godly attributes, Heavenly Father does not share with Jesus the title and responsibility of "Savior". That alone goes to Jesus Christ. Christ, speaking in Isaiah, is referring to himself in the godly sense of being the Savior, as he states in verse 11. Beside me, before me, after me, there is no savior. Read as a whole, the whole idea and meaning is more clear and understandable. Heavenly Father has knowledge and power enough to form a "god". There is no Savior before or after Jesus and Jesus. How did Joseph Smith get this wrong exactly? Your reading of Isaiah isn't an honest reading, in my opinion. Christ and the apostles stated in the Bible that men can be joint heirs with Christ and the Father and gain all They have (knowledge, priesthood power, wisdom, perfection, increase), there are many scriptures that make that clear.
well what most probably happened was he was using some form of divination. Fallen angles are awfle smart so if one of them is speaking to you like Joseph or Muhamed than it makes sense.
Ok, so a convicted fraud told another story about how he used some magical devices to do something magical, but this time it's believable because it appeals to faith? Makes total sense.... Well, it should be easy to demonstrate the credibility of this claims or show some evidence, but most believers won't challenge the narrative anyway
Wait wait wait... ...you're serious? Really? .. ...naaaahh....! No way is this real! No way! I disbelieve. NOBODY is this gullible. NOBODY!...and that includes a friend of mine who we once convinced that ice cream was a meat product. This is WAAAAAY past that level of gullibility. .. Please tell me this isn't what Mormons *actually* believe. Please tell me its one of the classic "Well, it's not REALLY supposed to be taken literally...not that part...only the parts that ARE supposed to be taken literally"...that's classic monotheism. I'll believe that other people think like that all day long. .. But this? ...nope. Not buying it.
Jeseph Smith had a 3rd grade education. He came with factually proven incidents he couldn't possibly known about with out divine intervention. The things in my Quad are Divinely inspired and beyond learned men of the day. God uses the weak to dumbfound the wise. I refuse to ripe up my Quad for the faithless.
The stone in the hat and treasure digging were considered anti-mormon lies when I served a mission. If it's a normal biblical device why did we avoid talking about it for so long?
The history is interesting when you learn the details. BH Roberts published about seer stones around 1904-1909 and they were included in sunday school curriculum between 1918 and 1934. Then Francis Kirkham came along and started denying them and they were considered anti-mormon for a long time. Richard Bushman published a little about them in the early 1980s, but his writings were not published by Deseret Book as originally planned because the Q12 didn't like what he had to say. So another 20 years of hiding this from the membership until Rough Stone Rolling came out in 2005.
The weakness of men.
@@scottvance74 I don't know about hiding. We talked about seer stones in the 80's during Institute. It is true when I was a missionary some companions were ignorant, but others were not.
@@brettmajeske3525 I can only speak of my own experience in honors religion classes at BYU in the 1990s. In my classes (including BOM and D&C) seer stones were never mentioned. After a period of relative openness (1900-1934), Roberts died and Fancis Kirkham and others removed this from the curriculum. It was only added in earnestness after 2013 and the church is still misleading about the topic by not admitting that the whole (current) BOM was constructed using the brown seer stone and hat methodology.
@@scottvance74 Well I did not go to BYU. I can only speak of what was taught in the Institute of Religion classes I attended, both in the 80's before my mission and in the early 90's after wards. Many "hidden topics" including the seer stones and BoA, were taught clearly. Mostly that there is still a lot we do not know for certain.
It always surprises me when someone says "the Church" does such and such when they are actually talking about Utah culture. Obviously even within the CES different teachers talk about different things. That particular teacher went on to become both a Stake President and a Patriarch so his teaching style could not have been that disruptive.
Thing is your theory is just that. Obviously the seers stones (multiple) were used, but there is no clear record from JS which ones were used when. The best we have is reconstructed speculation. Maybe you are right, but it isn't definitive.
Fact is without a time machine it is difficult to know exactly how things happened. Which Seer Stones were the most important? JS never said. So we speculate.
I honestly didn't learn about the stone and the hat until I saw it on South Park. I don't mind the explanation as to why he went with this route, but I do get frustrated that the church never presented this narrative when discussing history.
Actually they did, but we were all asleep while watching the general conference talk in 1993 when thay explanation the translation of the book of mormon.www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng
I remember discussing it is Institute classes back in the 80's. So it wasn't hidden.
Some of us were 9years old during general conference in 1999.
By early 2000s it still hasn’t become part of standard curriculum and the church was still showing pics abs videos that didn’t involve this.
Just simply at a table with plates and cowers across the table.
I'm here because of South Park.
"Joseph Smith he was a Prophet...Dum dum dum dum dum."
The green stone belonged to Sally Chase and Joseph "borrowed it" because he claimed he could see things with it. When he looked in the green stone he saw a white stone about 150 miles away under a tree. He traveled the multiple day journey over 150 miles to retrieve it. He had to dig down to get it but it was a beautiful stone that was more like a crystal white stone. When he looked in it he was able to see into the past, future, and present time. He then used it to find the baby's foot stone, then a brown hens egg stone was found while digging a well for Wilard Chase, so he had 4 stones.
1. The Green one from Sally Chase
2. The white one he traveled to get
3. The baby's foot one
4. The brown hen egg one at the well
The brown one hurt his eyes but the one he treasured the most was the white one.
Been a member my whole life and I have never heard anyone speak about these other seer stones. Not trying to be mean, but you sound very delusional....
Cool
@@jeffreyyoung5119 you just need to do more research.
Steven Henderson I think they are so busy watching anti-Mormon videos and trust them so much that they no longer search for themselves.
Thanks Steven for the detail description. For my personal research would you please help with any references. Before your post, I only heard about the brown stone. Thanks.
It’s interesting that you mentioned Joseph Smiths possible connection with folk magick.
For me this doesn’t help the case for Joseph Smith If he was actually practicing folk magick since divination, fortune telling and sorcery are condemned in the bible.
I’d be suprised if God would choose somebody that practiced these things to be his prophet on earth.
If you take fortune telling as one example, it mimics the idea of prophecy.
So it may seem spiritual.
Except that prophecy comes from a holy and righteous source unlike fortune telling which seems to draw on the power of fallen angels who deceive people with a bogus version of the gifts of the spirit, since most of us would agree that Satan is a deceiver and a very clever one at that.
Still like you said, Moses had murdered a man before God appeared to him in the burning bush.
Although he did it on behalf of his Jewish brothers so what it did may not have been seen as unrighteous during that particular time of our history, since even the most holy men like King David sometimes struck their enemies down in the cause of righteousness.
But; this just surprised me that if it’s true that Joseph was involved in folk magick that God would have chosen him above others that weren’t doing this.
Noah got drunk and ran around naked. Prophets are not perfect
William Henley To my knowledge Noah was just the guy that built the ark I didn’t realise that he was a prophet but maybe I’ve just forgotten.
Yes I do remember the occasion that Noah got drunk and stripped off.
And you are right we all sin.
But there is a big difference between sinning in a moment of weakness and practicing sin with regularity.
People like Noah and king David fell prey to temptation but there’s no evidence that they were choosing it deliberately. They slipped up.
In order to be a folk magician it would require practice and someone that practices something sinful isn’t just slipping up.
For example if someone commits formication then they have sinned but it’s not as sinful as someone that practices fornication on a regular basis because one is accidental sin whearas the other is deliberate sin.
William Henley The fact a person keeps repeating the same sin demonstrates that it is done willfully.
Would God choose someone that willfully practiced magick, something that he condemns, when he could have chosen someone that didn’t do such things?
After all, been Gods prophet would require Gods favour in the first place.
Johnny Phoenix yeah I know the account about the witch of Endor.
And although it sounds as though she had summoned Samuel from the grave, she had simply summoned a demon that pretended to be Samuel.
Demons are supernatural beings that have the ability to know many things about us without needing to be told.
They were once righteous angels but some of these rebelled against God and weren’t welcome back with him due to their disobedience.
So what was once righteous became corrupt.
Because demons are essentially corrupt angels they have powers and abilities that humans don’t and are able to disguise themselves as whoever they please.
That is exactly why spirit mediums are condemned in the bible because they are working in cahoots with these demons.
They may believe that they are speaking with the dead but if that was possible then explain to me why it is that Ecclesiastes 9:5 says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, for all memory of them is forgotten.”
The story of the witch of endor was demonstrating that she summoned a demon that pretended to be Samuel.
You guys need to understand that the bible is not about cherry picking certain verses and misrepresenting them.
It’s about joining all the dots until the real picture emerges.
You guys don’t join the dots you simply cherry pick chapters that you do not understand because you haven’t put them in the wider context of the bible on its whole form.
2 Corinthians 11:14 “Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness.”
To understand what scripture is telling you you need to join the dots.
I help people join the dots by joining a few for them since I know that they have no desire to join them in case they learn something that doesn’t tickle their
Ears in the way that their own ministers and leaders do.
I study the bible carefully, so I don’t make mistakes.
Johnny Phoenix Corrupt angels are actually not that unlike corrupt human beings. They use deceit because they know it works, much like wicked people also use deceit because they want to mislead people in order to achieve their own ends.
These understandings should not be beyond you.
Why did God bother to include the urim and thummim if Joseph was able to "translate" using his existing seer stone, or nothing at all? Why did God even bother to include the plates at all since Joseph apparently didn't even need them in the room?
Why did God let Moses use a staff? Why did Jesus use mud to heal someone? And also many other people using many other things that they did not need to do what God can do alone or through them anyway?? God could've just given Joseph Smith the translation. God could've just made the plagues happen and parted the Red Sea without Moses or his staff. Jesus could've healed the man without the mud. What about Noah and his Ark? God could've just reorganized the whole Earth except Noah and his family and the animals but he chose to use these people and these objects for reasons beyond our understanding. If you do understand why please tell me why he used Moses' staff and Noah's ark and why Jesus used spit and mud to heal people. I just don't understand how some people can believe God would let some people use objects like Moses and Jesus himself but if other people such as Joseph Smith use objects from God it is so impossible, crazy, and unbelievable. I believe in the power of God and that he gave these items for them to use for a reason. That includes Moses, Noah, Joseph Smith, and so many other Prophets and more.
@@NameInsertedHere _"God could've just given Joseph Smith the translation."_
That's the point of OP. God _did_ give Joseph Smith the translation through the seer stone, and Joseph never actually translated the plates or used the urim and thummim for the book we now have. Laying out all these questions about god utilizing objects is irrelevant.
There were objects that God apparently intended Joseph to use, but weren't.
Allan Mount - THANKS for chiming in Allen!! Love ❤️ listening to you and Kattie on “marriage on a tightrope podcast”. My thoughts exactly on believing the narrative about JS and his “special rock” hat trick- that is dutifully answered by TBMs with the appeal to the Old Testament fables as well. If you believe those are myths created by those cultures as part of their historical and cultural mythology, then you can truly see that a rock in a hat , is pretty much the same device that the palm reader/ psychic who uses a crystal ball and lives out near the freeway uses! 😇
@@ThomasJDavis you've literally ignored the content of the video
@@ThomasJDavis We really don't know that. Most of this is speculation from second hand sources. We really can not know to what degree what instrument was actually used.
Btw..we need a blooper reel guys..you’ve done wayyy too many vids to not have dropped one by now!
I Love the Book of Mormon! Great work!
The argument that the scribes "couldn't possibly be in on it" is ridiculous, since they were either his wife, his family members or a dude who just mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the book in question... I would say he has the biggest interest of them all. These are not good arguments, the best argument is that some of the witnesses involved in the whole 'stone in hat' thing are wrong and that the other ones that said he used the umim and thumim to translate the plates are actually correct.
Just a note. The stones attached to the breast plate were originally known as the "interpreters". They weren't referred to as Urim and Thummim until later. Thank you for not saying that seer stones are like modern cell phones, they are nothing alike.
If we're being really accurate, the stones were not attached to the breast plate. This idea was introduced by Lucy Mack Smith later. The spectacles were used for only a brief period prior to loosing the 116 pages (Harris). They got the Urim and Thummim name by Phelps starting in mid 1832. This idea became mainstream when Cowdrey adopted this narrative (fraudulently) in 1834. Also, the spectacles were 6 inches between lenses - not the smaller (usable) version shown in this video. This size was presumably because the ancient Americans were giants.
@Joseph the Wanderer they were not giants. It’s because they used them one by one. Not like spectacles. That’s why they have different names. They had different purposes.
This channel is Always well done.
You did a perfectfully job with this video! Thanks for all your hard work! 😆
Great videos!
Anyone using the slightest bit of critical thinking would instantly see this story and Mormonism as nonsense.
Add in that peeper and seer meant the same thing at the time of Smith, we have recorded comments from the time... add in seer, peeper, scryer and divinator were all the same thing terminology and even FAIR admits to this and uses Sally Chase as an example Smith wasn’t odd, it was very common... Saints Unscripted lies a lot, not white washes BUT lies
Funny fact... the witnesses never physically saw the plates, they saw with “spiritual eyes” a common belief at Smith’s time... ouch spiritual eyes and not physically?
@@atheistapostate7019 That’s not accurate at all. You need to read more. Both the three and the eight witnesses saw them with their own eyes. The eight witnesses handled them with their own hands. Several other unofficial witnesses did likewise. None of them ever recanted their testimonies to that effect.
@@jordanwutkee2548 better go do your homework, even FAIR backs up the critics statements that ALL BoM witnesses NEVER saw the plates physically, BUT only in vision. The plates were ALWAYS covered.
You must be LDS and never been to FAIR’s website to verify the facts
@@atheistapostate7019 I have read plenty of material on FAIR that directly contradicts your claim.
From FAIR:
“How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" (Joseph Smith III, et al., Interview, July 1884, Richmond Missouri, in Lyndon W. Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134-35)”
That’s just one of many such statements. Now put up or shut up.
Is this akin to using a crystal ball?
This was a great video and definitely helped me to understand it more
Paul wholly confessed to his wrongdoing when persecuting the church, he never excused his actions but lead a life of repentance for it.
Fantastic video! It would be great if we could get one of our current 15 ordained Seers to show us the stones that they use.
A man dictated a book instead of writing it himself... it's a miracle!
The folks at Saints Unscripted like to live dangerously 😅😬 but I love it! 😏
I’m glad you guys are discussing topics such as this and being open..
im not a peeper, im a seer guys. i promise. i dont pretend to look through stones to find money, I actually do it pretty much 100% unsuccesfully. dont believe i have ever done such a thing just ask josiah stowell. his court testimony states he believes that i do this practice without a doubt.
I heard that Joseph found the plates through the stone but Ive also heard that he was guided by moroni? whats the stance?
Great job !!!!
Había escuchado de que supuestamente José hacia magia en los años de su juventud, me parece muy interesante aprender de esto, me podrías escribir o mandar un link para ver acerca de esas piedras videntes que José consiguió
Muchas gracias
Many people in that time believed in biblical archaeology or “treasure hunting” and considered it a part of their faith. Whether catholic, non-denominational, or Protestant. It’s worth noting that God teaches men according to their understanding and as such there would be similarities between Joseph Smiths childhood culture and hobbies, and his behavior as a prophet. Saints Unscripted makes an excellent video about this exact subject as well.
I love the new, “ if you think Joseph smith was a fraud, that’s cool too” narrative.
The church in all it's videos, images, missionary lessons, and on and on for decades never showed the seer stone in the hat. which accounted for the VAST MAJORITY of the translation process. Why? We may never know. But they chose not to, and now everyone is acting like its not weird at all and the seer stone hat trick was "suuuuuper normal bro, be chill about it man, nothing to see here".
This, "there is nothing to see here" mentality is why I hate the church, and little to do with seer stones. People think those who left the church because of this are confused at the idea of seer stones. But the apologists miss the point. The church treats its origin story like any other major company trying to control the image of their brand.
And then you see throughout history the church more interested in the marketability of the truth than the actual truth. And then have the audacity to wonder how anyone could question the truth claims of the church and their testimonies when they realise the images and videos are what the church deems as most likely to give a "spiritual experience " than letting the truth speak for itself. They would rather have a well lit room, the spiritual crescendo of an orcestra, playing over Joseph running his fingers along the golden plates, as if he was given the gift of translation, to give the viewer a "spirtual experience".
This is marketing and brand management.... What a fun religious experience.
To be honest, they may not have known. Most Apostles and Prophet were not historians themselves.
It wasn't written down in detail or Cannonized as the urim and thumim was. No one really thought about it until historians found the details about it.
Aaron Judd, east Phoenix, 1970's?
@@vendingdudes Had me all up to 1970's sorry mate
(Part 1 long reply)
When looking at church history it’s important to realize that a lot of things people believe were ‘hidden’ from the public until recent years were simply not well known or understood.
History isn’t always a clear line of chronological information that exists in a perfectly accurate and reasoned state the moment we look at it. The easy to understand encyclopedic form that many historical events are given to us in is a modern luxury. But history doesn’t come like that.
We make sense of history by aggregating all of the sources that can be found and having historians analyze them. The reason the seer stones weren’t mentioned as much in the past is likely due to the fact that the majority of the general authorities didn’t know about them.
The description of the process that was held for many years was that the plates were translated by the power of God. That is what the witnesses said and so that was what was taught.
It was only when church historians started digging more into the records that talk of the seer stones started to emerge.
Leaders weren’t sure precisely how the translation process happened and were likely hesitant to make many definitive statements on the subject. Especially since in the past- there were many lies published in newspapers and journals about the early church in order to discredit them.
For example, there was a story floating around in the 19th century that Joseph smith built a dam under a river to trick people into thinking he could walk on water. Some men came in the night and broke down the dam so that in the morning Joseph would step out into the river and fall making a fool of himself.
The story circulated in newspapers all over the country for decades all versions had different details. Some claimed it was in one town while others claimed another. Many said it was their cousin or brother or friend who broke down the dam. The accounts didn’t agree.
Historians aggregated all of the accounts and discovered that the true version of the story was that the saints had built a dam in a river to slow the current so they could perform baptisms in the river. A mob came in the middle of the night and tore it down.
The saints realized this and came back the next night to build it again. They then had their baptisms in the morning. The mob saw that they’d rebuilt the dam and were baptizing people so they came and heckled the saints-disturbing the ordinances. This was the true origin of the story that could be verified against the historical documents. But it had grown sensational in the telling.
Imagine if the church leaders heard the story from the papers- assumed it to be true and started teaching it. Only to learn later that it was false? This too could be used as means of vilifying the church.
Soooooo, a seer stone is just a small smooth rock of any color with pretty swirls on it?
Seems like it.
That is like saying Harry Potter's wand is just a stick.
@@happyjesus123 It is just a stick. Or the gift shop variant, a plastic stick.
Just a rock???? That's a BEAUTIFUL rock. Could be jasper, or even a banded iron formation!!!
"Sometimes Joseph gets a bad rap for his history of folk magicky stuff. I frankly don't really care. I mean, Paul in the New Testament was an accomplice to the murder of Steven before he found the truth, turned out to be a pretty solid guy, though."
...Uh, yeah, but a solid guy according to whom? Himself, from whom we have the majority of new testament books? Who's to say that Paul of Tarsus wasn't a cult leader, too?
Totally different stones. Joseph Smith said here is the Yurman thumb not see your stones.
The narrative given as I became actively involved was very different. This is wrong. There’s no spinning or excusing not revealing this when images had shown a different story.
So he went from eyeglasses that just happened to be the exact technology used in those days, then he switched to a rock, then just magically translated? How does possibly strengthen anybody's belief? WHy not a more advanced tool? Or why even make some dude translate at all? Is god so immature he has to send notes down to Earth to decode like it's a middle school boy asking his crush out to the dance next month?
If I have to choose between Joseph Smith memorizing a manuscript perfectly, he had cohorts, or he received devine messages from a power beyond our known existence of which there's zero physical proof of its existence beyond eyewitnesses, I'm going to go with the memorizing or he had partners in a scam any day. These types of questions posed as if the alternatives are SO unbelievable Smith must be truthful is insulting.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Seer stones are divination, nothing god had people use in the Bible was for that.
Paul didn't preach misguidance. He had done things, god saved him and changed him, ..that makes me understand why jesus is who we follow.
Not Paul. Not John the Baptist. Not king David. The Bible says kings are tyrants..
The problem is the misguiding and allowance of that to continue.
The Bible says it's better to drown yourself then to misguide believers.
Lucy Harris is the closest thing to a saint in the church of latter days saints. Patron saint of skepticism.
Isaiah 43:10
10“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.
After reading this why does joseph smith say we will become gods? It will not happen. There is only 1 god and with smith folk magic. That power comes from someone else. Its not gods power do research. I was mormon for many years. Its a hard pill too swallow but smit is a false prophet.
Explain why he says we will become gods. By that scripture says we wont.
Does God contradict himself?
6I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
Every mormon always tells me that but you forget to read the next verse. That doesn't sound like we will be gods or anyone else. Lets go back why does smith say we will become gods when we won't?
I would like to think im not causing trouble. I've seen people go after the church a lot wprse than me. I do try to be respectful but im also blunt. I enjoyed talking with you.
@@joshvanweerd3305 There are several important things you have missed in your Isaiah quote. Firstly, who is actually speaking in Isaiah? It is the Savior, the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, he states all of these titles plainly at the beginning of the chapter. This is premortal Jesus Christ speaking, that is very clear to even a casual reader. Now, let's put his words into context, instead of just throwing them out there without any reference.
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.
"
He then goes on to say verse 11...
11 "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
Firstly, He is declaring to his witnesses and servant, "I am he". Ok, who is "he"? He that runs the hundred yard dash is 3 seconds? He that can throw a pigskin a quarter mile? The "he" He is referring to is the uniter, the gatherer, the creator, the Savior. Stating who "He" is, what He has done and what He will do for his people is the focus and central point of the chapter. He IS the Savior, a god, and He wants his servant to be a witness of this fact. He then states that there's no God formed before Him. This is true, He is the first born of Heavenly Father, spiritually and temporally. He then states that there shall not be any after him. This is a very important statement and one that can't be rushed passed. He is inferring DIRECTLY that he was "formed" (or begotten, or spiritually born) in that he states that none shall be formed after him. How can no other be formed after him if he himself was not formed to begin with? How could can no other be formed before Him if He himself was not formed first? Clearly, He sees himself as formed, or begotten, or spiritually born. Clearly, if we take Christ at his word, Heavenly Father possesses the power to "form" a god, and Christ is the first one to acknowledge that power. Either Heavenly Father "formed" his Son, or he did not. Either he has the power to make His Son his equal, or he does not. Well, we know from the scriptures that Christ is His Father's equal in kingdom, glory, wisdom, knowledge and perfection, and although they share these godly attributes, Heavenly Father does not share with Jesus the title and responsibility of "Savior". That alone goes to Jesus Christ. Christ, speaking in Isaiah, is referring to himself in the godly sense of being the Savior, as he states in verse 11. Beside me, before me, after me, there is no savior. Read as a whole, the whole idea and meaning is more clear and understandable. Heavenly Father has knowledge and power enough to form a "god". There is no Savior before or after Jesus and Jesus. How did Joseph Smith get this wrong exactly? Your reading of Isaiah isn't an honest reading, in my opinion. Christ and the apostles stated in the Bible that men can be joint heirs with Christ and the Father and gain all They have (knowledge, priesthood power, wisdom, perfection, increase), there are many scriptures that make that clear.
well what most probably happened was he was using some form of divination. Fallen angles are awfle smart so if one of them is speaking to you like Joseph or Muhamed than it makes sense.
I’m Mormon :) god bless u all 👍🏽
What makes you believe such stupid stuff?
Wasn't there a purpose to it being an animal skin hat?
Ok, so a convicted fraud told another story about how he used some magical devices to do something magical, but this time it's believable because it appeals to faith? Makes total sense.... Well, it should be easy to demonstrate the credibility of this claims or show some evidence, but most believers won't challenge the narrative anyway
Wait wait wait...
...you're serious?
Really?
..
...naaaahh....!
No way is this real! No way! I disbelieve. NOBODY is this gullible. NOBODY!...and that includes a friend of mine who we once convinced that ice cream was a meat product. This is WAAAAAY past that level of gullibility.
..
Please tell me this isn't what Mormons *actually* believe. Please tell me its one of the classic "Well, it's not REALLY supposed to be taken literally...not that part...only the parts that ARE supposed to be taken literally"...that's classic monotheism. I'll believe that other people think like that all day long.
..
But this? ...nope. Not buying it.
LOL.
Delusional theists!
Don't feed the troll people.....
@@youcallhimdrjones
Yes, let's not feed those dopey theists.
Jeseph Smith had a 3rd grade education.
He came with factually proven incidents he couldn't possibly known about with out divine intervention.
The things in my Quad are Divinely inspired and beyond learned men of the day. God uses the weak to dumbfound the wise.
I refuse to ripe up my Quad for the faithless.
I won't watch these anymore until you take off the stoopid "whoosh!" sounds every time the frame changes.
Just ignore it, these videos are awesome
Whoosh? I think it sounds more like "ssfsfsf". Ooh, wait.
Sorry...i don't get it. I don't speak brainwashed.