Joseph Smith Question

[realtall]

Any of you hear anything about Joseph Smith doing any peeping into a hat looking at stones? I saw it on South Park(not exactly the best source) and read it also in 'Under the Banner of Heaven'(a piece of dog excrement); but I do hear about things like this from time to time in the early days of the church. Anyone know anything?

[Jason]

Look up the book: "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" by D. Michael Quinn. It was written back in his faithful LDS days, so you shouldn't read it with a bias.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/magic.htm

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 4 2004, 10:40 PM

Any of you hear anything about Joseph Smith doing any peeping into a hat looking at stones? I saw it on South Park(not exactly the best source) and read it also in 'Under the Banner of Heaven'(a piece of dog excrement); but I do hear about things like this from time to time in the early days of the church. Anyone know anything?

What was so bad about John Krakauer's book that you would call it "dog excrement"? Did it say something that was untrue that made you angry?

I have heard that Joseph Smith used magic rocks to translate so-called "gold plates" that sometimes weren't even in the room that he was "translating" them in, but it's most likely lies because it makes me feel good to think that.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 4 2004, 10:44 PM

Look up the book: "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" by D. Michael Quinn. It was written back in his faithful LDS days, so you shouldn't read it with a bias.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/magic.htm

He SHOULD read that book with a bias, because D. Michael Quinn is gay, and that means that he has an agenda to destroy the church. Those gay people are always trying to shove their beliefs down our throats by trying to recruit our children to be gay, and trying to stop us xtians from revising the Constitution to make their beliefs and actions illegal. They are so very mean and are always persecuting us faithful xtians. Poor us. Let's whine and pity ourselves some more.

[realtall]

What was so bad about John Krakauer's book that you would call it "dog excrement"? Did it say something that was untrue that made you angry?

I didn't say that I was angry. The comment about dog excrement was mostly because it was poorly written. It jumped all over the place and did a poor job of providing clear background for the crimes in question. Any, yes, it did appear to me that he had an agenda. His book left me with the impression that he had a certain attitude about the LDS church and hand picked sources to back it up.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 4 2004, 10:59 PM

What was so bad about John Krakauer's book that you would call it "dog excrement"? Did it say something that was untrue that made you angry?

I didn't say that I was angry. The comment about dog excrement was mostly because it was poorly written. It jumped all over the place and did a poor job of providing clear background for the crimes in question. Any, yes, it did appear to me that he had an agenda. His book left me with the impression that he had a certain attitude about the LDS church and hand picked sources to back it up.

Oh, I was hoping that you would say that he lied a lot, or something. So you don't actually have any complaints about the book but about the author's style? I don't know what more background you are criticizing him for. Was the book not long enough? Was that the problem?

What sources should he have cited to provide a balanced story, and in reference to what?

Your criticisms sound pretty weak. Do try to be more specific.

[realtall]

Oh, I was hoping that you would say that he lied a lot, or something. So you don't actually have any complaints about the book but about the author's style? I don't know what more background you are criticizing him for. Was the book not long enough? Was that the problem?

Lied a lot? Why were you hoping that I would say that?

I guess I was vague before so I'll be more succinct in my criticisms:

1. His style was hard(for me to follow). The reading level of the book wasn't all that high(good thing, huh?) but he really jump around the timeline A LOT, making it incresingly hard to get back to his original point(history of LDS->FLDS->murders).

2. He did not appear to make any attempt to have a broad view of the beginnings or the current state of the LDS church. Indeed, he spent most of his time ripping on the early to mid-nineteenth century LDS church when the book was supposedly about the murders which happened a hundred and fifty years later. I understand that necessity of providing a historical background but in this case the background became the book and the subject became the background.

What did you think of the book, bat?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 4 2004, 11:17 PM

Oh, I was hoping that you would say that he lied a lot, or something. So you don't actually have any complaints about the book but about the author's style? I don't know what more background you are criticizing him for. Was the book not long enough? Was that the problem?

Lied a lot? Why were you hoping that I would say that?

I guess I was vague before so I'll be more succinct in my criticisms:

1. His style was hard(for me to follow). The reading level of the book wasn't all that high(good thing, huh?) but he really jump around the timeline A LOT, making it incresingly hard to get back to his original point(history of LDS->FLDS->murders).

2. He did not appear to make any attempt to have a broad view of the beginnings or the current state of the LDS church. Indeed, he spent most of his time ripping on the early to mid-nineteenth century LDS church when the book was supposedly about the murders which happened a hundred and fifty years later. I understand that necessity of providing a historical background but in this case the background became the book and the subject became the background.

What did you think of the book, bat?

So your primary complaints are that he made his book readable to the masses (as opposed to the FARMS "Way over their heads" approach), and that he didn't include a whole bunch of irrelevant information about the mainstream LDS church.

Are you sure you read the book, and not just brother turley's now edited review of it?

[realtall]

Back to the original topic. Does anyone have any further background on Joseph Smith peeping into a hat to look at stones? Were there the Urim & Thumim?

[Guest bat]

By the way, the background is important, so that the readers are aware of where the beliefs of the Lafferties originated. You obviously see that as a bad thing. Good for you.

[realtall]

So your primary complaints are that he made his book readable to the masses (as opposed to the FARMS "Way over their heads" approach), and that he didn't include a whole bunch of irrelevant information about the mainstream LDS church.

Are you sure you read the book, and not just brother turley's now edited review of it?

Well, bat, this sounds like you have an attitude of your own towards the LDS church.

No, my complaints are not that he made the book readable to the masses. I think that I spoke pretty planely in the post that you just quoted from as to my criticisms.

Yes, I am sure that I read the book.

I don't know who Bro Turley is.

What did you think of the book?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 4 2004, 11:24 PM

Back to the original topic. Does anyone have any further background on Joseph Smith peeping into a hat to look at stones? Were there the Urim & Thumim?

Try here.

[realtall]

By the way, the background is important, so that the readers are aware of where the beliefs of the Lafferties originated. You obviously see that as a bad thing. Good for you.

Again, I think that I spoke rather plainly about this:

I understand that necessity of providing a historical background but in this case the background became the book and the subject became the background.

Anything else that I can clear up for you? Can we get back to the original question now?

[realtall]

Try here.

Thanks for the link, bat.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 4 2004, 11:31 PM

Try here.

Thanks for the link, bat.

You're welcome. Read it while you can. The moderators here don't allow linking to websites that quote LDS leaders. They say that quoting LDS leaders is "anti-mormon"

[realtall]

You're welcome. Read it while you can. The moderators here don't allow linking to websites that quote LDS leaders. They say that quoting LDS leaders is "anti-mormon"

That seems odd.

[Lindy]

well...I read the link....and really can't find much ado about it.

so, JS used a different stone after the first was taken from him....as the story went....

he screwed up trusting Martin Harris; and he had to take the consequenses as they came.

It just seems that after the news of the "seer stone" that some people wanted on the bandwagon.... and they had to have "one" too!

It seems like a lot of others had "special" stones before JS had his turn with them. And ever since I found out all the "modern" things the Romans had way back when; nothing seems to surprise me anymore.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Aug 4 2004, 11:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Aug 4 2004, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--realtall@Aug 4 2004, 11:24 PM

Back to the original topic. Does anyone have any further background on Joseph Smith peeping into a hat to look at stones? Were there the Urim & Thumim?

There are a few errors in that question and answer session.

First, Smith never said he used the "urim & thummim" for the whole translation. Joseph said he got "interpreters" from the angel and after the first 116 pages that he translated were lost by Martin Harris, they got taken away from him along with the power to translate. When God restored the power to translate, He told Joseph he had to find his own method since the "interpreters" were not going to be restored.

Second, the term "Urim and Thummim" was first used by W.W. Phelps in January of 1833 in an article in the Evening and Morning Star. He writes that "the plates were translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." (Evening and Morning Star 1st Ed.1:8 (January, 1833) p. 58:b.)

When others used the term "urim & thummim" it was years afterward and they used that term to refer to the interpreters, but Joseph never claimed he had the "urim & thummim" during the time he was translating.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Jenda+Aug 5 2004, 05:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Aug 5 2004, 05:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Aug 4 2004, 11:28 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--realtall@Aug 4 2004, 11:24 PM

Back to the original topic. Does anyone have any further background on Joseph Smith peeping into a hat to look at stones? Were there the Urim & Thumim?

Try here.

There are a few errors in that question and answer session.

First, Smith never said he used the "urim & thummim" for the whole translation. Joseph said he got "interpreters" from the angel and after the first 116 pages that he translated were lost by Martin Harris, they got taken away from him along with the power to translate. When God restored the power to translate, He told Joseph he had to find his own method since the "interpreters" were not going to be restored.

Second, the term "Urim and Thummim" was first used by W.W. Phelps in January of 1833 in an article in the Evening and Morning Star. He writes that "the plates were translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." (Evening and Morning Star 1st Ed.1:8 (January, 1833) p. 58:b.)

When others used the term "urim & thummim" it was years afterward and they used that term to refer to the interpreters, but Joseph never claimed he had the "urim & thummim" during the time he was translating.

There is a little bit of legwork (a very little bit of legwork) that can be done to check out these facts (that I have given) when it seems on the surface that what the other guy said was true.

The original revelation was given to Joseph in May, 1829. It is section 10 in the RLDS D&C, section 11 in the LDS D&C, but it was section 3 in the original Book of Commandments. The way it was first written and published in the Book of Commandments (published in 1833) was:

[sec 3:1a] Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up (so many) those writings which you had power given unto you to translate, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them;

The blue words are the words of the original revelation that were deleted and the red were words that were added in during the second attempt in 1835 to put together the D&C. So as you see, the words Urim & Thummim were not part of this revelation till 1835. The first time the words Urim & Thummim were used were in 1832 by WWPhelps.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jenda@Aug 5 2004, 06:27 AM

The original revelation was given to Joseph in May, 1829.  It is section 10 in the RLDS D&C, section 11 in the LDS D&C, but it was section 3 in the original Book of Commandments.  The way it was first written and published in the Book of Commandments (published in 1833) was: 

[sec 3:1a] Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up (so many) those writings which you had power given unto you to translate, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them;

The blue words are the words of the original revelation that were deleted and the red were words that were added in during the second attempt in 1835 to put together the D&C.  So as you see, the words Urim & Thummim were not part of this revelation till 1835.  The first time the words Urim & Thummim were used were in 1832 by WWPhelps.

I have a red letter King James, is there a blue letter D&C ???

I'm looking for one to match snow's red shoes!

[Snow]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 4 2004, 10:40 PM

Any of you hear anything about Joseph Smith doing any peeping into a hat looking at stones? I saw it on South Park(not exactly the best source) and read it also in 'Under the Banner of Heaven'(a piece of dog excrement); but I do hear about things like this from time to time in the early days of the church. Anyone know anything?

Yes, it is true.

I can recommend a couple of good sources on the translation process that all cover it, and more:

By The Gift and Power of God, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Ensign Sept. 1977, 79

By the Gift and Power of God, Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign January 1997, 36

A Treasured Testament, Russell M. Nelson, Ensign July 1993, 61

By the Hand of Mormon, Terryl L. Givens, Oxford University Press, 2002 (Chapter One)

Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, University of Illinois Press, Richard L. Bushman (Chapter III)

The first three are available at lds.org.

You can also try Mormonism and the Magic World View by Quinn but his prose is a bit dry.

I wouldn't call Banner the same thing as you but it is fundamentally flawed. Besides a lousy piece of editing, he is factually mistaken on a number of items, uses secondary sources when primary sources are available and make what I think are unwarranted jumps in reasoning. I just picked up his other book, Into Thin Air which is great, though having heard a couple of reviews I hear recently at a lecture, he kind of reveals the caliber of his character - not so good - in his account.

Then there is one of my favorites... The Perfect Storm.

[Guest jackvance88]

according to the testimonies of those closest to him at the time, including emma, he did place the stones into a hat and then look into the hat. he would then dictate the book as emma transcribed. that's according to the testimonies printed in the back of a book of mormon i saw at the BYU bookstore, the 1920 edition edited by Grant Hardy who i believe is a current BYU professor.

[Guest]

Originally posted by realtall@Aug 5 2004, 12:24 AM

Back to the original topic. Does anyone have any further background on Joseph Smith peeping into a hat to look at stones? Were there the Urim & Thumim?

Urim and Thumim... whazzat?

[Guest Traci]

Snow, correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that I read somewhere that Joseph Smith really "demanded" the mother of Helen Kimball but the husband agreed to give Joseph the daughter Helen. If this is true, what kind of parents did the girl have?