User:InProgress/SWDN/Swedish questions

FAIR Answers – Home

A FairMormon Response to Questions Asked in Swedish Fireside with Elder's Jensen and Turley

∗       ∗       ∗

Question:
One of my questions is regarding the process of how the Book of Mormon came about.

• The fact that how the Book of Mormon came about was actually by Joseph Smith looking into the hat in the seer stone, the stone that he found in a well, and the stone that he used both before and after becoming a prophet in seeking for treasure.
• There’s a lot of efforts being made in order to make these plate[s] come about and they weren’t even part of the process, they were hidden away most of the time, sometimes not even in the same room where the writing was being done....Why, why do we still keep to this version that the plates were used in an actual translation process...Why some sort of revelation?

Short Answer:

• Why were the plates needed? To demonstrate that the record actually existed.

The plates were needed because the plates were real and they were preserved and they were passed down from generation to generation. Once Joseph Smith got them, then the method of translation was up to the Lord and the Lord chose to use a method of translation that was far more efficient, far better, and far more accurate than anything Joseph Smith could have done letter by letter. Because it would have taken him — he didn’t know the language. How else was he going to translate it if God didn’t help him?
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Why the Urim and Thummin and why the hat? To block out the light so that the revelatory tool could be used effectively.

The hat was apparently to block light out so that Joseph could see what he was doing with the record. If you have a computer sometimes the light, you know, affects the screen. We don’t know exactly how it works, Joseph Smith said he wasn’t meant to know how it works, but he did say this: in the early days of his translation, he was relying on revelatory tools of some sort or another— Urim and Thummim, seer stones, whatever the case may be.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Did Joseph translate the plates using both the Nephite interpreters (the "Urim and Thummim") and a seer stone? Yes.

To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, September 1974, 7.

• Did Joseph translate the plates using a seer stone placed in a hat? Yes.

David Whitmer wrote: "Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine."
—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, 61.

• Were both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone referred to as the Urim and Thummim? Yes.

He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30). He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones.
—Gerrit Dirkmaat, "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God," Ensign, January 2013.

• Did Joseph locate his seer stone while digging a well? Yes.

The seer stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it-as described above-as well as by means of the “Interpreters” found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.
—B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907), 1:257.

For a detailed answer, we recommend:

{{{extauthor}}}, "The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation," {{{extpublication}}} —This essay seeks to examine the Book of Mormon translation method from the perspective of a regular, nonscholarly, believing member in the twenty-first century, by taking into account both what is learned in Church and what can be learned from historical records that are now easily available. (Click here for full article)

Question:
I have a difficult question.

• The time of Abraham, God reveals that.... it’s OK to have more than one wife....does the church believe that it was a teaching from God that he married women who had other men that were still alive, and even some apostles wives when they were away on missions?
• One woman said the child that she bore she didn’t know if it was the child of Joseph or the child of, in this case, Orson Hyde....So that indicates that it was definitely not a spiritual marriage.

Short Answer:

Question:
According to information I have read

• The wives were forced into marriage.
• They were put under tremendous pressure to accept the marriage.
• You have only until, let’s say, tomorrow to decide and to marry me but it will have terrible consequences if you don’t accept the marriage.

Short Answer:

Question:
my other question was about the Book of Abraham if you please can tell us a little bit about your view of this? We all believe or the church members believed that this was actually a translation of the information Joseph got before as you know? .... And we also know through the Rosetta Stone that it actually is possible to translate it to English or any other language. And we know now that it has actually nothing to do with translation. This was something written 1500 years after Abraham, about 500 before Christ, and has no connection to Abraham whatsoever. And this is such a fundamental thing in church, I mean this is what we’re told in the temple, and this is what we have as a holy scripture. So, I’ve seen a number of explanations from the church of how this could be. I would like to hear what kind of version you have today.

Short Answer:

Question:

I have a question that’s really related to polygamy.

• When I was on my mission in London in the seventies, we were taught a very important principle called lying for the Lord. I mean, we were taught that.
• And it’s supposed to have been coined, this phrase, by I think John Taylor.
• Do you think that there are circumstances where it’s OK to withhold or manipulate truths just to defend or uphold the reputation of the Church?
• Is lying for the Lord still alive?

Short Answer:

• Was "lying for the Lord" practiced?

Are there circumstances where lying is justified? The church teaches the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments say, don’t bear false witness, right? The book of Mormon says wo be unto the liars.... Was it practiced? In all societies, there are clashes of moral imperatives, OK? The Ten Commandments say thou shalt not kill. But countries go to war and people kill. If somebody attacks you in your home, you can defend yourself, OK? There are these clashes where sometimes one moral imperative or ethical imperative becomes superior to another. If you’re protecting your children and I’m a killer and I come to you and say where are your children, are you going to tell me? Probably not. OK? When people bring up this topic, what they’re usually talking about is during plural marriage time periods when people were asked about plural marriage and, again, it’s a complicated subject but basically, people were trying to decide, do I say something, or do I not? Do I tell the truth or do I not? Do we teach as a church that you should lie? No, we don’t. I was brought up on the principle of strict honesty and that’s what I try to follow.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

• Was a "very important principle called lying for the Lord" a policy of the Church? No. "Lying for the Lord" is not, nor has it ever been, a policy of the Church.
• Was "lying for the Lord" taught to missionaries in the 1970s, or at any other time? Unknown. Elder Oaks has, however, responded to this:

Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord....As far as concerns our own church and culture, the most common allegations of lying for the Lord swirl around the initiation, practice, and discontinuance of polygamy. The whole experience with polygamy was a fertile field for deception. It is not difficult for historians to quote LDS leaders and members in statements justifying, denying, or deploring deception in furtherance of this religious practice....

I do not know what to think of all of this, except I am glad I was not faced with the pressures those good people faced. My heart goes out to them for their bravery and their sacrifices, of which I am a direct beneficiary. I will not judge them. That judgement belongs to the Lord, who knows all of the circumstances and the hearts of the actors, a level of comprehension and wisdom not approached by even the most knowledgeable historians....

I ask myself, “If some of these Mormon leaders or members lied, therefore, what?” I reject a “therefore” which asserts or implies that this example shows that lying is morally permissible or that lying is a tradition or even a tolerated condition in the Mormon community or among the leaders of our church. That is not so.

- Dallin H. Oaks, “Gospel Teachings About Lying,” BYU Fireside Address, 12 September 1993, typescript, no page numbers

• Does the Church teach "lying for the Lord"? No. The Church teaches and and continues to teach that honesty and integrity are character traits that we should develop in order to become more like God.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. (The 13th Article of Faith)

• Was the phrase "lying for the Lord" coined by John Taylor? No, the phrase was not invented by Taylor. The reason that the phrase is associated with John Taylor is because of a talk he gave in 1850. John Taylor stated that Latter-day Saints were not marrying multiple wives, yet he himself had already done so. Polygamy would not be publicly announced for another two years. Elder Taylor stated:

From the report of Elder Taylor's Discussion in France, as follows:—We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. ("Doctrine and Covenants," page 330).... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized, contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.
"Anti-Mormon Objections Answered," The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, Volume 20, 381.

• Elder Taylor's statement was a rejection of polygamy as an adulterous relationship called "spiritual wifery," rather than "plural marriage" (From the Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star):

Elder Taylor's Discussion in Boulogne took place in the year 1850, seven years after the Prophet Joseph had received the Revelation on Celestial Marriage, but two years before that revelation was published to the Church. Elder Taylor, therefore, had no authority to preach polygamy. He neither preached it, contradicted it, condemned it, nor publicly denied it. His controversial opponents adverted to certain absurd stories about seraglios of "spiritual wives," and sisterhoods of the "white vail" and "black vail," and other lying reports propagated by the apostate [John C.] Bennett fraternity and republished by Caswall [an anti-Mormon author]. Our objector, in making his extract from the Report, gives forth the notion that the speaker was "stoutly denying polygamy, and stigmatizing it" as "indelicate, obscene, and disgusting." But where the stout denial is to be found, we know not. His words are—"We are accused here of polygamy," (referring to accusations made even before the doctrine of polygamy was revealed, and which were false accusations,) "and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." The idea of his "stigmatizing" polygamy as "indelicate, obscene and disgusting," is an interpretation of his words which is altogether gratuitous on the objector's part. We do not so understand them. Such a meaning as that attached to them by the objector could certainly never have been intended by their author. Elder Taylor, instead of entering into a formal refutation of the charges cited by his opponents, which he considered as "too outrageous to admit of belief," contented himself with simply reading a passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants on the existing marriage-law of the Church....Polygamy was not then a revealed doctrine of the Church; and therefore the Saints, as a matter of course, adhered to the general monogamic law. If they had practised polygamy without "command" from God, their conduct would have been in that respect, as censurable as that of the ancient Nephites. It would have been a "crime" on their part; nor does the Book of Doctrine and Covenants intimate that it is.
"Anti-Mormon Objections Answered," The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, Volume 20, (June 19, 1858) 395-396.

• Is it OK to withhold or manipulate truths just to defend or uphold the reputation of the Church? The truth may be withheld, but only if the alternative is dangerous to the safety of others. When the early Church was under command to practice polygamy and Church leadership struggled against the legal persecution that was heaped upon the Church and the physical danger in which the practice placed the Saints, a similar moral choice was made. More correctly, this would be saying: My duty to obey God, and protect myself and other innocents from persecution and physical harm, requires me to withhold the truth from those perpetuating the persecution. There are times in our lives in which we must choose between conflicting moral choices. Such was the case when Abraham told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, rather than stating the she was his wife. Had Abraham told the truth in this instance, he would have been killed by those who desired to have his wife. Such cases are rare, and we know of none in the present-day Church.

For a detailed answer, we recommend:

{{{extauthor}}}, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (HTML) (Gregory L. Smith, FAIR Publications, 2005)," {{{extpublication}}} —Attacks upon Joseph Smith and the Church regarding polygamy have generally taken one or more of the following forms: Irreligious, Illegal, Lying, Lascivious, Implementation, Hiding history. (Click here for full article)

Question:
PI came across something, and it was the first time I really stopped and pondered. S

• Somebody smart enough to write documents that were false, the church buying them from this man....Mark Hofmann.

Short Answer:

Mark Hofmann. I’ll just recommend a book, and not because I wrote it, but I did write a book on this. It’s called Victims. It was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1992. Go to that book for answers on that one.
—Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside

Question:
Blood atonement. It’s just a strange thing altogether in my view.

Short Answer:

Question:
I also have the same feeling when reading about the first vision and Joseph Smith.

• After the first vision he claims that he was persecuted because of the vision, there was a lot of happenings around. And he said, “me an obscure boy, why are they giving me so much attention?” Whereas the history, I find and I don’t think it’s disputed, is that nobody really, not many at least, found out about the first vision until it was written in 1838.
• There was one account in 1832....It came about much later and the question is why....most of them hadn’t even heard.
• So why they join the church mainly because of the Book of Mormon and the issue of the new Israel and all that.
• The first vision as we teach today is not the foundation of the church originally.

Short Answer:

Question:
I’ve been a member of the church since 1962 and I’ve been a master of science in engineering and physics since 1970. Despite my critical and truth-seeking nature and education, the church succeeded in making me a happy and truly-believing member for 34? years. Five years ago, I discovered that the church as an organization had systematically deceived me by only telling a carefully selected, one-sided version of church history. The discovery was extremely painful to me and my wife who kept it — we didn’t tell the children or grandchildren. Do the leaders of the church really believe that they are actually inspired by God to act in such a way? Just to tell a selected, nice version of the church—the history of the church—in order to get more converts? Do they believe they are inspired to do this?

Short Answer:

Question:

Can I also fill in a little bit? In the PBS television on the Mormons, five years ago or something, I actually was in Florida, so I had time to see it. Elder Packer says there, it is not good for the members to know all the truth. I have the DVD with me if you’d like to see it. He used to say things, like last conference, as well, that changed afterwards. He says that it’s not good for a member to know all the truth. He said as a watchman on the tower he might stop things that could hurt. Even the truth can hurt. Yeah. Just to fill in what you’re saying. Elder Packer’s not the whole church, but he’s very known about in the church and outside the church.

Short Answer:

Question:
One thing that really bothers me is the lack of contemporary sources for the angelic visitations. I understand from both Michael Quinn and Bushman, they say, as I understand, there are sources from 1820-1830— affidavits, letters, minutes— but none of them ever mentions any angelic visitations or a priesthood [00:45:20-00:45:25], Quinn says, and Bushman records 1838. As a historian of the church you should be worrying about the credibility of the written sources are not [00:45:36-00:45:37]. So I wonder, why are there not any contemporary testimonies. Or are there?

Short Answer:

Question:
Can I have a question now, not just after question? The process a little, when I read about the priesthood and the blacks. And then I read about David O. McKay when he was an apostle and so on and he really had it up on the board of decision of Twelve, and the had [00:46:16-46:22] he had made OK that they should have the priesthood. But three of the apostles were not there and when they come back, they said no. So they had to cancel and then had to wait some years [00:46:33-00:46:37] and then he talks about or listen to his son — it was Kimball’s youngest son who said yeah it take a lot of years the Twelve and they told him this just what would happen with the church it belonged this and [00:46:54-00:46:56] like how many would we lose, like a company or business. Is this true that there were some apostles that went against the question to give the priesthood to the Blacks? And then, see that, I was on my mission in the seventies, you know, and we loved Mark E Peterson, no, Peterson? He talks a lot about the blacks and the pre-existence and they are damned and so on because they were black. For me he was an apostle. For me he was Doctrine and Covenants section 1, my mouth or my servant’s mouth and I thought he was a servant. But then he comes out and he was teaching false doctrines if they look at it now at least if I start to preach it I would think it be called false doctrines. And many people felt a great spirit, they would convert if the spirit testified that it was true. And it was not. To this I have a personal experience. I love the way you put out the devil there and Christ there. I’m glad I’m not a Muslim because I would have a problem with Christ there. Anyway, when I went to the temple the first time, it was 1970 in Switzerland. And after being in there the first day, I was terrified. I couldn’t sleep at night. I thought, what is this, you know? There was a black hole in my heart and I had nightmares the whole week. I thought, what is this? Have I been deceived? But then I thought, OK, I see my father there, I see my branch president and I said, maybe wrong on me. So if I look at the Holy Ghost, it seems to be peaceful, it’s a testifier, I would have a burning feeling, I would be happy. If I follow that description I would say the devil talk to me and said this is not right. But you know, it’s hard to say, but it really hurts me and I feel sad about it, you know? And I know a lot of people have the same experience. I’m not alone. I even had it with my brother. I won’t tell who it is, but, is good to know [laughter]? I wonder was, what did I do wrong?

Short Answer:

Question:
We had some Vikings visit North America about 1000 years ago, and today we know exactly where they lived actually, there are archeological evidence that they leave there, etc. So what about all the millions of people who have been Lamanites or Nephites … What kind of evidence can you show that actually exist? Every single small Indian tribe in the whole of America we know about today because they all leave buildings and tombs and anything which we can prove that they are there, have been there. And as far as I know there is nothing prove there have been Lamanites or Nephites in America. If we have time also could you comment on the American Indians and the DNA, and the connection to Lamanites, Nephites, and then back to the Jewish people. Interesting to hear.

Short Answer:

Question:
Could I please ask you a short question? Cause I’m just really happy that you’re here so I’m taking the chance now, it might be a bit risky, so I see this [0:51:55] It’s about the Adam-God theory. And my question is not so much about –I’ve heard answers to how Brigham might have thought about it, but my question is, how come it divided the church at the time? There was a lot of Apostles and leaders that didn’t agree to what Brigham had to say so if, I don’t know, what is church opinion on Adam-God out there in Utah and why didn’t they clear it up if it is the way I think they they that he actually thought that Adam in not Heavenly Father, but why couldn’t he make other apostles understand that?

Short Answer:

Question:
It’s the same thing with Kinderhook Plates where Joseph said yes this is good thing. But it’s a fraud.

Short Answer:

• From Elder Turley:

If you walk through all of the evidence from the time the Kinderhook Plates were discovered, down to the time they take them to Nauvoo, to the time they had the editorial published in the Times and Seasons, to the time that broadside published in the Nauvoo Neighbor newspaper, to the time that Wilbur Fugate one of the proponents of that fraud, made his statement, there’s clear evidence that Joseph wanted to translate them and never did. Why didn’t he? I think because they were a fraud. Wilbur Fugate, the man who helped to perpetrate this fraud, said explicitly that they wanted Joseph Smith to translate it. Joseph Smith said he would not translate it until they sent it to the Antiquarian Society in Philadelphia, France, and England. So he never did translate it.
—Elder Turley's answer to this question at the Sweden fireside.