Book of Mormon Translation with Dr. Steven C. Harper
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- Welcome to the CES Letters, where we respond to the questions and concerns posed in the CES Letter. Today Dr. Steven C. Harper gives a great perspective on the Book of Mormon Translation.
PODCAST LINK:
podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
WEBSITE:
www.cesletters.org
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: /
Facebook: / cesletters
RUclips: / @cesletters
57:12 the gaslighting is now on those who hold to the words of the prophet Joseph smith on how he translated. Those that “cling” to the importance and use of the plates and interpreters for the translation. We are now the ones who are “wacky”.
Thank you sincerely for making this video it has opened my eyes to some of the challenges of our day. For both members and nonmembers.
Satan doesn’t care the reasons people begin to leave the church only that we do leave.
@@TheJanesaw There is no Satan, only foolish, cruel and dangerous people. Much like a Christian fanatic who will not be swayed from superstition and fables
This was awesome. I learned things I’ve never heard before.
Great discussion, keep up the great work !
“RoughStone Rolling”
“No Man Knows My History “
“This is My Doctrine “
“Obscure Mormon Doctrine “
These are my top 3 books written by Mormon authors. Tells the truth. 😮😮
While "Rough Stone Rolling" and "This is My Doctrine" were written by a faithful LDS, "No Man Knows My History", was by Faun Brodie, who left the Church before writing her biography and does not consider herself to be a member.
For what it is worth, only Rough Stone Rolling was written by a professional historian, although I find This is My Doctrine interesting, it was written by an engineer.
I was not able to find details on the last book you mention.
The reason Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates using the spectacle-like Nephite interpreters which came with the plates is because Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery repeatedly in written statements during their lifetimes said that that was how the translation was done. These statements began right after the stone-in-the-hat translation theory was first published in the anti-Mormon book "Mormonism Unvailed" in 1834. Contrary to the professor, the evidence advanced to support the stone-in-the-hat theory is far from overwhelming. Indeed, those accounts are all late and secondhand, and when examined with a true historical critical approach, rather than naively being accepted at face value, can all be seen to be quite unreliable. This is all laid out in detail in the new book "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration." In particular, Appendix C in that book addresses the translation parts of the CES Letter far more directly and effectively than this video by, among other points, maintaining that Joseph and Oliver told the truth about the translation, which is in sharp contrast to the approach in this video where the professor essentially agrees with Runnels that Joseph and Oliver lied about the translation.
Don’t forget Dr Harper indirectly says church leaders don’t know what they are talking about and we should trust the scholars. I believe he is referring to Benson, Packer and Hinkley. Rough stone rolling was originally going to be published by the church and once the leaders saw this “history” rhey said heck no! So Bushman published it outside the church.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
@@DoctorWithoutDogma It is interesting what people will believe and become invested in. When I saw the movie portraying Joseph being 'visited' by Christ and god I was pretty impressed by how well the music lighting novelness of the idea and the moment of perhaps that this may be true was testament to its persuasive narrative. Yet persuasion is not conviction and belief and faith are not facts. Smith was clever but the church now is just devious. So glad it didn't ring true and the testimony I received was walk away
So what were the spectacles and breastplate used for and why were those thought to be part of the translation process for so long?
Maybe just made up
@@beboystyle620no maybe, they are seduced by the ego and this thing they call faith. Belief and faith are not facts
The breastplate is only mentioned by Smith family members and the references are late. This was probably made up. The spectacles however occur in the narriative early on and I believe that there may have been a physical article. They were 8" across and would not even fit into the hat used for translation (7"), so one lens was removed during the early translation process. After the 116 pages were lost, they were no longer used.
@@scottvance74 it's all made up
Because they were part of the translation process and necessary. All of the sources that cite use of the stone in the hat are secondary and third hand, many have alterer motives (David Whitmer-had his own church and its focus was seer stone revelation and the Book of Mormon) and none other than Joseph and Oliver were eyewitnesses of the process. David Whitmer either misremembered or is lying that he said he witnessed the translation. Having said that did Joseph have and use a seer stone it appears so, but not for translation.
Here's how the psychology works. You read the Book of Mormon and want it to be true. So you study and pray about it. That is called PRIMING. You are predisposing your mind for an expected outcome. So then you get an answer, a "spiritual witness" that confirms what you want to be true. Then you continue to study and pray, but only pay attention to whatever confirms what you believe. That's called CONFORMATION BIAS. Being objective, the Book of Mormon theology is a rehash of 19th century Protestant theology, in the milieu where Joseph Smith lived. As to the history in the book, everything about it contradicts what is known about the ancient American civilizations, the genetics, the culture, the environment. All that is well laid out in the CES Letter and in many other on line sources, and in several scholarly books. Of course, there are some valuable humanistic lessons laid out in the Book of Mormon, as in the Bible, and if someone wants to focus on those as a source of inspiration and guidance for life, I have no objection.
I started reading the Book of Mormon to "disprove" it .. Imagine my surprise when spirit and light flooded into my mind and heart as I read.... 😊
@@jandyson9030 Please describe your experience in more detail. What is spirit and light?
@@billyates3226I would say the spirit of light and truth is the power that has the ability to change a persons nature. All books have principles. All groups have doctrine. The direction someone changes all depends on their view of, why. What purpose.
I love Jesus because of the way I’m changing. Any and all books that help me understand Jesus and his doctrine is light and truth. Hence I love the Bible, I love the BOM, I love the Apocrypha, I love conference talks, I love testimonies, I love evangelical pastors messages… these all are good to help me develop perspective. I love the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because I feel it has provided the meaning of life that brings enduring joy.
...that, OR it's really true and that unique feeling I get is ACTUALLY the Spirit of God communicating to me. I chose the latter and I've been happier for it.
@@billyates3226 Peace, happiness, joy. It's a feeling in my heart and mind. It's a unique feeling I only feel when pondering, praying, reading or listening to things relating the the gospel. It's hard to explain the feeling and it's possible you have never felt it, so it's difficult to explain.
Do you find it sleazy at all that you picked the name of your podcast specifically with SEO in mind to try to wash out the actual CES letter?
@@frankchurch7271 my exact same thoughts
Absolutely not!! For a letter that many read with zero differing perspectives within the seo sphere, people who truly are interested in studying this out need all the perspective that is available. “Sleazy” is a horrible word that you used intentionally to describe EVERY SINGLE SEO BUSINESS in the world. You use seo and metadata to get your message out there…everyone does that. It’s not sleazy. It is the internet. What is sleazy is the histrionics and manipulative wording of your question. To take something normal and turn it into something nefarious as your question does is sleazy. This kind of thing needs to stop.
I think that it's a fair way to name things. They are hoping to catch members who are looking for or at the CES letter and to provide a different perspective.
There’s an anti Mormon RUclipsr that has adopted the Come Follow Me phrase on his channel. That’s sleazy.
yeah, I’ve watched his videos with some chuckles. I saw what ward radio said about him using the “come follow me” meta line. I still don’t think that’s sleazy. It truly is what every company with a digital marketing presence/profile will do. Using the word sleazy carries a really specific immoral connotation. Reality is that it’s just competition. Basic competition for clicks and views.
Critically thinking LDS people ask yourselves this question: Do you actually believe that a person can look into a rock and see anything other than a rock? I ask myself the same question and the conclusion that I come up with is that there is a reason that most modern, educated people have abandoned belief in peep stones and crystal balls.
51:40 "Two stones (spectacles) but not one stone in a hat... why not?" The answer is pretty simple. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery maintained that only the magical Urim and Thummim spectacles were used. This is (as you and other historians have pointed out) objectively false. So the question that remains is, if Joseph and Oliver were so willing to lie about the translation process, is it possible that they also lied about the appearnce of angles, the restoration of priesthood, etc? People are not concerned about one stone vs. two stones so much as they are concerned with the credibility of the primary wittnesses of the restoration & the willingness of the LDS church to be open and honest about its history.
No Latter-day Saints ever had Urim & Thummim. The Urim & Thummim are strictly biblical tools used by the Israelite High Priest, and no one else. Non-scholars have no idea what that means.
@@BobSmith-lb9nc Clearly the term was biblical and adopted by the LDS movement from 1832-1834 to describe the translation instruments. It was meant to refer to a pair of spectacles that were extremely large (8" across) and supposedly used for translation. Now, this was not the tool mentioned in the Bible. Regardless, it was an early change in the narriative which represents deception on the part of Joseph and Oliver which became the dominent narriative in the LDS church between 1834-2015. Now the mainstream church is trying to modify this narriative without confusing or causing doubts among older members.
@@scottvance74 The term Urim & Thummim was erroneously adopted first by W. W. Phelps in 1833. There were no Latter-day Saint scholars on hand at the time to explain that the term was only and solely a biblical term, having nothing whatever to do with the Nephite Interpreters, and certainly not any seerstone. Local yokels tend to adopt such high falutin terminology simply because they don't know any better.
By the way, Latter-day Saint theology rejects supernaturalism, which means that such devices are not "magical," but simply examples of high technology -- like smartphone or iPad. In Latter-day Saint theology, the universe is entirely naturalistic.
@@BobSmith-lb9nc I disagree that it was an "error". It was marketing - Phelps was a creative marketer. He would later come up with the "Lion of the Lord" (Brigham Young) among other things.
@@scottvance74 Yep, Phelps was brilliant, but utterly at sea as a biblical "scholar." Reminds me of the feral nature of our current Orange Jesus. Great at marketing, but not sophisticated in a great deal else.
RE: Book of Mormon
In the end....that is, until the end: every day a certain conviction keeps gathering more experience and "joy"...
Steven, have you seen the changes or edits in The Joseph Smith Papers? I have been looking up the sources for myself provided by the those who are talking about Joseph not being a polygamist. I believe Joseph denials of polygamy. What do you think?
Oh wow. Using CES letters as your name and then starting by telling people to use emotion, rather than actual evidence, to find truth. No deception here.
Please re-watch the part of the video starting at 4:32. I think you may want to revise your comment. Love you much!
Mormonism, if you believe it it must be true...
Nope… wrong. Infinitely more to it than that! :)
I would like to know what “best books” in the church curriculum would I have had to “read” if I wasn’t such a “lazy learner” to know that Joseph Smith was a scryer that used a seer stone to find treasure and that he used the same stone in the hat to translate the Book of Mormon.
If you had been born prior to 1925, you would have covered the topic in Sunday School as it was part of the ciriculum from 1920 to 1936. You could have caught a mention in "Story of the Latter-day Saints" sold at deseret book if you bought the 2nd edition (1992?), though it was not covered in the version from the 1970s. A very careful reading of the 1988 January Ensign could have give you a clue, as long as you overlooked all of the artwork which was entirely inaccurate. Apart from that, the 1993 Ensign article by Nelson was probably your best bet. Of course, even there you would have had to know to completely ignore the inaccurate image and early text in the article which is misleading. So, if you were a typical member then your chance of figuring this out would have been next to nil. Now, if you had read Quinn's book (early mormonism and the magical world view) after 1987/88 then you would have figured this out, but this title was not available at deseret book and although it's clear that the apostles were aware of this book, most members would have completely missed it.
@@scottvance74 I was born in 1991 in Mexico and attended Spanish speaking wards in the US, any chance to have figured this out reading “faithful” sources in Spanish? I know it’s obvious I didn’t but I’m sure someone in the comments is going to try to gaslight me.
I recommend instilling Oriental Orthodoxy -Armenian into your Mormon ward. Joseph was very crafty, but Jesus installed his gospel already, thank you.
@@dr33776 I've studied the accounts in official church literature in some detail, but not in spanish. I assume that the earliest that you would have reasonably come across this information would have been in the 2013-2015 timeframe (assuming that the Gospel Topics essays were translated around that time and/or the Ensign). Of course many members didn't come across this until 2017, 2020 or later. Even after this timeframe, the church continued to publish misleading artwork until about 2021.
I really benefitted from this discussion, which addressed the questions in Jeremy Runnell's letter. It is too bad that there wasn't an in-depth response like this back when he was questioning. I am learning as a parent to pay more attention to what my adult children are concerned with and be more willing to listen and then search and pray with them for answers. For me the basic questions of the divinity of the Father and Son are answered. The life and teachings of Joseph Smith have been a great benefit to me. Thanks again for this podcast!!
The New Testament is all about how Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law. There is no longer any need for a temple. Jesus Christ is the lamb who takes away the sins of the world (read Isaiah 53, written 700 years before Christ came).
I'm sorry no where in the NT we can find an abolishment of sacred spaces, like the temple, on the contrary we see Jesus in the Gospel protecting the temple in Jerusalem, the earliest NT accounts, we see temple worship and allegories....
Why did he want to sell the book of mormon??? For money..😢😢
To me the seer stone in the hat is akin to JS being a magician, pulling the BOM out of the hat.
If the Urim and Thummim were not used to translate the writing of the God plates, then what stopped JS from continuing to translate the BOM when Moroni took both the plates and the Urim and Thummim from him.
The seer stone theory makes no sense to me.
According to multiple witnesses and apostles, the phrase "Urim and Thummim" was used for all tools, including the Seer Stones. I think this is one of the evolutions in language that causes confusion. Both Joseph and Oliver seem comfortable using the phrase to mean whatever tool was at hand, without distinguishing. At some points different tools were likely used, but all were "Urim and Thummim". It is only when modern readers assume that only the Nephite spectacles count as Urim and Thummim that the early accounts seem problematic.
@@brettmajeske3525 From my understanding, some of the witnesses for the seer stone, such as David Whitmer, were deemed unreliable. He was never present during the translation process, and he eventually left the Church, becoming quite hostile to it. Emma's testimony, written by an unknown person after an interview with her just before her death, also raises concerns. She never had an opportunity to review the document, and she was suffering from dementia at the time.
If Joseph translated the Book of Mormon via a seer stone and face in a hat while the gold plates were left covered on a table, several contradictory questions arise:
1. When Moroni took away both the Urim and Thummim and the gold plates from Joseph, what stopped him from continuing the translation of the Book of Mormon if those artifacts were never used?
2. Why did the Nephite prophets meticulously labor to make a record of their people on gold plates if they were never intended to be used to tell their story?
3. How was it possible for Joseph Smith to provide Martin Harris with a document containing the hieroglyphic symbols and their translation for verification by a scholar if the plates were left covered and unused? He would have risked being exposed as a fraud if the translation did not match the symbols. This implies that he used the plates with the Urim and Thummim.
4. Why was Oliver Cowdery unable to translate the Book of Mormon if all he had to do was read what was written on the stone?
These points suggest that the seer stone theory is not consistent with the historical and doctrinal context of the Book of Mormon's translation.
@@DavoBenjamin Frankly, many of your assertion seemed based on false assumptions. I freely admit that not all witnesses are of equal merit, however those who would later explain that both Joseph and Oliver used the phrase "Urim and Thummim" to mean both Seer Stones and Nephite Spectacles include both Pratt brothers, BH Roberts, John Witdsoe and Russel M Nelson. As for your other points:
1. No one has said those other artifacts were never used. Those that believe the stone in the hat was used do not claim that neither the plates nor spectacles were ever used, quite the opposite. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the stone in the hat theory, which is that Joseph used different tools at different points in the translation. More importantly than the loss of the artifacts, was the loss of the Gift and Power of God, which could only be returned following true repentance.
2. Again, that is not the claim being made. The Plates were a critical part of the translation process, just not it the way many assume. Even with the Nephite spectacles, the claim was never that Joseph used them to view the plates, but saw the translation in them, after having studied the plates.
3. Again, the theory is not the plates were never used. Even using the Seer Stone in a hat, the plates would still be critical.
4. What makes you think that just looking at the stone was all that was needed? No one is making that claim.
@@brettmajeske3525 Firstly, you mentioned BH Roberts, John A. Widtsoe, and Russell M. Nelson as reliable witnesses of the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, none of these men were present during the actual translation process. They based their understanding on historical accounts and testimonies from others, not direct observation.
Additionally, while the Pratt brothers were influential early Church leaders, they also did not directly witness the translation process. This distinction is crucial when evaluating the reliability and directness of witnesses.
Regarding the specific points you raised:
1. Nature of Translation: Many scholars believe that the Book of Mormon is a functional translation rather than a direct translation. Joseph Smith had to rephrase the meaning of the symbols the Urim and Thummim showed him. Even Moroni was aware of the weaknesses of the hieroglyphic writing and commented that the gentiles would mock their writings. This affirms that Joseph was being shown the meaning of the characters, which he then had to phrase into understandable language.
2. Inconsistency in Artifact Use: Your statement that both the plates were used and the seer stone in the hat method is inconsistent. The seer stone method explicitly describes that the plates were left covered on the table and not used at all during the translation process. This exclusion of the plates contradicts the accounts that emphasize the direct use and importance of the plates in the translation.
In conclusion, the historical accounts from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery emphasize the use of the Urim and Thummim. The seer stone theory introduces inconsistencies that are difficult to reconcile with these accounts. Therefore, it is reasonable to maintain a critical perspective on the seer stone theory based on the available historical evidence.
The admonition at 6:50 to go "directly to God" allows one to avoid all of the critical information regarding historicity of the various events and the analysis of scholars. People of faith go directly to God and come to very very different conclusions, with some of them choosing to do hateful and harmfull things. Do you trust a person of another faith who goes directly to God and then is told to go out and committ crimes? Are we somehow more sincere than these people who are being told by God to do these horible things?
What planet are you on?
Joseph wrote he was author. It's just one more of his tall tales about treasure digging.
On the other hand, Oriental Orthodoxy -Armenian illustrates Christ's true gospel. You can instill these teachings in your Mormon ward.
Reason and faith are two very separate modes of thought. Harper is a brilliant scholar, but he doesn't seem to get that important distinction.
No he's not a brilliant scholar, he is brain washed like all other men in the church, his only super power he'd like is his ability to understand women??
@BobSmith, I am not so sure that those things are as separate as you believe them to be. The Lord Jesus Christ told us that there is no such thing as "temporal" things. That all things are spiritual and temporal. I believe that faith and reason are similarly interconnected. Speaking to those seeking a witness of the truth of the restoration, the Lord said, "I will tell you in your heart and in your mind." In short, He will testify to our reason and our faith. We are wise to both study it out in our minds and also to heed the burnings in the bosom.
@@gwengold8154 Seeking and knowing a truth by the power and witness of the Holy Spirit is very different from doing math (1+1=2). Reason and logic are just not the same as faith and belief. The differences are stark, and we separate them from each other with our secular schools as well as our Sunday schools. Reading Shakespeare is just not the same as reading the Bible. “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).
As Dr. Harper probably knows, there is at least one account of the "digging of the well" at 16:00 which indicates that they weren't digging a well at all, but rather were digging for treasure. As Joseph was the seer - literally tasked with telling other people where to dig - his dismissal of Chase's account that he was in the well digging is not a well supported conclusion. Joseph had a bad leg. He wouldn't have made a great digger. His conclusion seems to be an attempt to avoid the uncomfortable probability that Joseph stole the stone from Chase. I don't think that Richard Bushman would draw the same conclusion as Harper and I have not seen other historians (faithful or not) draw this conclusion.
@scottvance74 You mean other liars. You fit right in.
Joseph Smith is NOT a liar OR a thief!
May God show you the error you're making🙏🏼
@@guardianangel9517Joseph was a convicted liar and deceiver. He spent his life duping and coercing people. He did as a treasure digger, the BoM, Book of Abraham, polygamy, priesthood authority, etc. The list is long and one of the saddest is polygamy. Why would he hide his adultery from Emma? Because it was wrong! No angel visited him with a flaming sword threatening him to marry other women. If it is true then that is a sick god. Joe couldn't even follow his own rules that he made up in Section 132 for polygamy.
Stop holding on to falsehoods and dogmas, even historical ones. Allow your members to safely and freely chose to believe in a historical Book of Mormon or in an inspired fiction without fear of reprisal. Let them profess a belief in the entire edifice of Mormonism as a useful fraud if they wish. Stop disciplining and excommunicating dissenters if you wish to stop being classified as a cult!
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I have the choice to believe whatever I want when I want and how I want.
Try again hater.
@@guardianangel9517 Don't play the semantic Mormon games. Your tricks don't work with me! You are not free to believe what you please with a loaded gun on the table and a sock in your mouth. Try giving your testimony of the allegorical nature of the Book of Mormon text during your next group therapy and fast Sunday meeting, then come back and report.
I was also shocked to learn that in Mormon worship services songs are sung in praise of Joseph Smith. Friend, if you are in the Mormon church please think carefully. This is in direct contradiction to God’s commands that we should have no other gods before him. Only he is worthy of praise, we should not be worshiping a man.
@followingjesus2028, no one is in the Mormon church because there is no such thing. We belong to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. I absolutely love the song "Praise to the Man!" Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah! When I sing it, I think not only of the prophet Joseph Smith but of the apostles Peter, James, and John; John the Baptist; Isaiah; Abraham; Ezekiel; Daniel; Nathan; Samuel; Isaac; Jacob; Nephi; Moroni and ALL of the prophets the Lord Jesus Christ has sent us throughout time and who have overcome the evil one. They are all worthy of praise for holding out faithful and obedient to the Lord until the end. Furthermore, I praise and honor all of the Christian martyrs who died dreadful deaths by fire, sword, or wild beasts rather than deny the Lord Jesus Christ.
We worship God. We do not worship Joseph Smith or any other human.
If you truly understood the glory of the restoration, then you could understand our love for Joseph Smith, the prophet whom God used to bring it about. It is a treasure more priceless than the entire earth.
@@followingjesus2028 You should be shocked at your inability to follow the commandments. That and the fact that you can lie so easily.
Worship is different than honoring. We honor Joseph Smith. We worship Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father.
Repent for not following the tenets of the church?
OMG... Beyond Stupid. It is insane. You can go to any Wicka store and buy a seer stone. They are the instruments of witches and wizards.
I mean, you can instill oriental Orthodoxy into your ward and teach others.
Doritos Nacho Cheese Tacos are totally wacky. I can agree on that.
Chief midegah of the ojibwe nation and the birch bark scrolls. The nemenhah records. "New Zealand skeletons in the cupboard "..