So I caught about the last 15 minutes of a "Big Love" episode on HBO last night...

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Tex

The fact that I knew about this little ditty as a young teenager (long before the Internet was even a twinkle in Al Gore's eye), with only church-sanctioned materials at my fingertips, indicates to me that this cannot really be called "suppressed" material. De-emphasized maybe, but hardly suppressed.

I'm in agreement with you Tex. I don't think it has been suppressed. On the other hand, I know several people who stumbled about this very material in the last few years and they were shocked by it. It was a big deal to them; they didn't leave the church or anything like that and they are over it now but on first discovery the were quite bothered (and expressed some sense of betrayal). To be clear, I don't blame their reaction, I don't blame the brethren, I don't blame their seminary teachers, etc. It a natural part of life to discovery things we don't know. It's part of our spiritual journey.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

These accounts are out there, but they have been de-emphasized. Some members who watched the PBS documentary discovered them there for the first time, and plenty of others probably don't know about them at all (as Scottie's post evidences). I don't recall ever seeing it in a lesson manual, but the more "acceptable" version is always there. Church art depicting the translation of the BoM certainly doesn't reflect them. The few mentionings of them--like Elder Nelson's--don't go into that Martin Harris said Joseph got the stone he used to translate the BoM from the bottom of a well (I'll find the source on this), or that it was most likely the stone he used for money digging, or the implications for all of this is for the U&T.

It's known, and yet, not known.

Could it be that when Joseph spoke about the process he described it in terms of using the U&M, and so to the extent there is an apparent conflict it gets resolved in most cases in favor of Joseph's account? I think this is one of those things that is out there in some official publications, but it is not emphasized because we don't know much about it other than the fact of it.

I can say that I have heard it discussed in church on several occassions.

As to the whole backstory on the stone is it, again, just not something we know much about because JS didn't comment on it?

You obviously know more about this than I do, just thinking outloud.

[Indy Coug]

You only have 45 minutes each Sunday to teach Sunday School, so how do you prioritize what should be learned during that time? Should we concentrate on understanding the scriptures and how they relate to the doctrine of the church and how we can use that understanding for daily application of the Gospel, or should we spend more time learning the peripherals that provide less practical benefit for its members?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You only have 45 minutes each Sunday to teach Sunday School, so how do you prioritize what should be learned during that time? Should we concentrate on understanding the scriptures and how they relate to the doctrine of the church and how we can use that understanding for daily application of the Gospel, or should we spend more time learning the peripherals that provide less practical benefit for its members?

That's a good argument for Sunday School. But a much tougher sell when you are talking about CES. Especially church history classes.

[Indy Coug]

I've never been a CES student, so I can't comment on that one way or the other.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You only have 45 minutes each Sunday to teach Sunday School, so how do you prioritize what should be learned during that time? Should we concentrate on understanding the scriptures and how they relate to the doctrine of the church and how we can use that understanding for daily application of the Gospel, or should we spend more time learning the peripherals that provide less practical benefit for its members?

I strongly think the former, but I don't think things like this are necessarily peripheral. One can learn alot about prophets, the context of revelation, and the history of the Church in these accounts, and these things can help people endure and grow in their faith. Certainly it's better to learn of them in a faith-friendly environment than through some Anti-Mormon source.

Having some serious, scholarly courses available to those who are interested (sort of like how Institute classes are available to some now), might work out. This is the kind of thing CES could be doing for mature adults--if it were equipped and inclined.

Joseph's stone(s), Oliver's divining rod, Joseph's divination cup (Genesis 44)--they're all of a kind.

[SteelBlue]

I knew of the stone in the hat, but until I read Bushman's book, I did not know that it was Joseph's preferred method of translation. I got the impression that the majority of the book was translated via the seerstone.
I don't think this information has been supressed necessarily. I agree that it has been de-emphasized. In the end, it's not much, if any, stranger than getting a pair of godly glasses that can translate unknown language. But the seer stone/hat just wouldn't make a good Deseret Book print for the living room wall.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I knew of the stone in the hat, but until I read Bushman's book, I did not know that it was Joseph's preferred method of translation. I got the impression that the majority of the book was translated via the seerstone.
I don't think this information has been supressed necessarily. I agree that it has been de-emphasized. In the end, it's not much, if any, stranger than getting a pair of godly glasses that can translate unknown language. But the seer stone/hat just wouldn't make a good Deseret Book print for the living room wall.

Yeah, a picture of the face of the prophet completely buried in a hat isn't much of an iconic image.

[scottie]

If an investigator on my mission had told me about JS using the hat and the stone, I would have laughed out loud and told him it was anti-Mormon material and testified that he translated the BOM thru the U&T. I would have also reacted that way had they told me that JS took part in polygamy and polyandrous relations.

IMO they need to spend some time in the MTC teaching missionaries about that type of LDS history.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by scottie

If an investigator on my mission had told me about JS using the hat and the stone, I would have laughed out loud and told him it was anti-Mormon material and testified that he translated the BOM thru the U&T. I would have also reacted that way had they told me that JS took part in polygamy and polyandrous relations.

IMO they need to spend some time in the MTC teaching missionaries about that type of LDS history.

what % of missionaries in the MTC have even read the BoM, or know the first thing about church history?