Seer Stone was used for...

[tubaloth]

From another thread, this idea that most everything after the 116 pages was lost was all translated by the use of the seer stone instead of by the Urim & Thummim. I will try to present some of the holes found in this logic. Some of my own, some found in commentary. Most point to Emma and David Whitmer as the source. I will try to show these aren’t very reliable. (and thus can’t see why we want to follow them)

Even more, to show that we should be believe Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery account more.

David Whitmer in one interview said this:

“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. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

David Whitmer was not a main scribe of the Book of Mormon. I guess there was a time that he did some scribe work for Joseph Smith. But this account isn’t talking about when HE was the scribe but more when Oliver Cowdery was the scribe. Almost making it seem like David Whitmer is sitting on the side watching this happen. There is no account that David Whitmer watch Joseph Smith translate.

We learn that Moroni instructed Joseph Smith “that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed.“(Joseph Smith-History:42.)

So not only would the plates be kept hidden from view, also the U & T. For translation the whole side of the room would be covered. This mean its not common, even rare for Joseph Smith to be translating for any buddy to see him do it. He couldn’t show the U & T to anybody yet. I don’t see how it was any common practice for Joseph Smith to be translating in full view of even David Whitmer.

Now this actually hurts and helps my cause. This shows that while Emma Smith was helping Translate (we site she is a good source because she helped translate the first 116 pages). But if that’s when Joseph Smith had the U & T, he wouldn’t be wearing it around the house. It would be a hidden.

This also holds true for Oilver Cowdery. He also never would have actually Saw Joseph Smith using the U & T.

The next argument is that Joseph Smith didn’t have the U & T after the lost of the 116 pages. But again reading his account with Moroni its clear the Joseph Smith (or his scribe) explains that the U & T were restored to Joseph Smith so he could learn what happen and why he shouldn’t retranslate the 116 pages. We even have other revelations given through what Joseph Smith called the U & T. So we know the U & T was around for translation.

The rest of the holes in David Whitmers account is taking from the D & C Commentary titled “Revelations of the Restoration” by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler. The book is not published anymore but you can find used ones around. This is from there book:

The testimony of David Whitmer, which is laid forth below, clearly contradicts the principles established by the Lord in this revelation [section 9]. It is also at odds with the testimonies of both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. In our judgment, Mr. Whitmer is not a reliable source on this matter. We are entirely respectful of and grateful for the testimony to which he appended his name as one of the three witnesses of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin. That, however, does not make him a competent witness to the process of translation. We too, like countless others, are competent witnesses of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Our knowledge of how it was translated, however, is limited to that which has come through the channels ordained by the Lord for that purpose. As to David Whitmer’s explanation, it should be remembered that he never looked into the Urim and Thummim nor translated anything. His testimony of how the Book of Mormon was translated is hearsay.

Spanning a period of twenty years (1869-1888), some seventy recorded testimonies about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon claim David Whitmer as their source. Though there are a number of inconsistencies in these accounts, David Whitmer was repeatedly reported to have said that after the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord took both the plates and the Urim and Thummim from the Prophet, never to be returned. In their stead, David Whitmer maintained, the Prophet used an oval-shaped, chocolate-colored seer stone slightly larger then an egg. Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon, according to Mr. Whitmer, was translated by placing the chocolate-colored stone in a hat into which Joseph would bury his head so as to close out the light. While doing so he could see “an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear,” and below the ancient writing, the translation would be given in English. Joseph would then read this to Oliver Cowdery, who in turn would write it. If he did so correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear and be replaced by other characters with their interpretation (Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 115, 157-58).

Such an explanation is, in our judgment, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith and to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after the translating the Book of Mormon. We invite the reader to consider the following:

First, for more then fifty years David Whitmer forthrightly rejected Joseph Smith, declaring him to be a fallen prophet. Though he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, he rejected virtually everything else associated with the ministry of Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel. His rejection included both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, which were restored during the time the Book of Mormon was being translated and, of course, the revelations which would eventually constitute the Doctrine and Covenants.

Second, according to David Whitmer’s account of how the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph Smith was the instrument of transmission, while translation rested solely with the Lord. This is simply a reflection of the notion of divine dictation, which holds that every word of scripture comes from God himself. If David Whitmer’s account is to be accepted, revelation also includes spelling and punctuation. This notion is at odds with the explanation found in Doctrine and Covenants 8 and 9, which details how revelation comes. In this respect, Richard Anderson observed that Whitmer “after decades of reflection outside of the Church, concluded that no modification could possibly be made in any revelation. This highly rigid view of these revelations matched his highly rigid view of the origin of the Book of Mormon” (“By the Gift and Power of God,” 84)….

David Whitmer repeatedly said that if a word was misspelled, the translator would not be able to go on until it had been corrected. This hardly allows for the 3,913 changes that have been made between the first edition of the Book of Mormon and the edition presently in use.

Third, if the process of translation was simply a matter of reading from a seer stone in a hat, surely Oliver Cowdery could do that as well, if not better, than Joseph Smith. After all, Oliver was a schoolteacher. How then do we account for Oliver’s inability to translate? Further, regarding the use of a hat in translation, Joseph’s brother William Smith explained that the Prophet used the Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate by a rod that held the seer stones set in the rims of a bow before his eyes. “The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes restored to covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part” (Smith, Rod of Iron 1, 3 [February 1924]:7).

Fourth, Joseph Smith repeatedly testified to having both the plates and the Urim and Thummim returned to him. He further testified that he translated from the plates by the use of the Urim and Thummim.

Fifth, David Whitmer gave inconsistent accounts of the instrument used to translate. Thomas Wood Smith, in published response about an interview he had with David Whitmer, who told him that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim in translating the Book of Mormon, wrote, “When I first read Mr. Traughber’s paper in the Hearld of November 15th, I thought that I would not notice his attack at all, as I supposed that I was believed by the Church to be a fair and truthful in my statements of other men’s views, when I have occasion to use them, and I shall make this reply only: That unless my interview with David Whitmer in January 1876, was only a dream, or that I failed to understand plain English, I believed then, and since, and now, that he said that Joseph possessed, and used the Urim and Thummim in the translation of the inscriptions referred to, and I remember of being much pleased with that statement, as I had heard of the ‘Seer stone’ being used. And unless I dreamed the interview, or very soon after failed to recollect the occasion, he described the form and size of the Urim and Thummim. The nearest approach to a retraction of my testimony as given…publicly in many places from the stand from January, 1876, till now, is, that unless I altogether misunderstood ‘Father Whitmer’ on this point, he said the translation was done by the aid of the Urim and Thummim. If he says he did not intend to convey such an impression to my mind, then I say I regret that I misunderstood him, and unintentionally have misrepresented him. But that I understood him as represented by me frequently I still affirm” (as cited in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 56).

Finally, the testimony of David Whitmer simply does not accord with the divine pattern. If Joseph Smith translated everything that is now in the Book of Mormon without using the gold plates, we are left to wonder why the plates where necessary in the first place. It will be remembered that possession of the plates placed the Smith family in considerable danger, causing them a host of difficulties. If the plates were not part of the translation process, this would not have been the case. It also leaves us wondering why the Lord directed the writers of the Book of Mormon to make a duplicate record of the plates of Lehi. This provision—which compensated for the loss of the 116 pages—would have served no purpose either. Further, we would be left to wonder why it was necessary for Moroni to instruct Joseph each year for four years before he was entrusted with the plates. We would also wonder why it was so important for Moroni to show the plates to the three witnesses, including David Whitmer. And why did the Lord have the Prophet show the plates to the eight witnesses? Why all this flap and fuss if the Prophet didn’t really have the plates and if they were not used in the process of translation? What David Whitmer is asking us to believe is that the Lord had Moroni seal up the plates and the means by which they were to be translated hundreds of years before they would come into Joseph’s possession and then decided to have the Prophet use a seer stone found while digging a well so that none of these things would be necessary after all. Is this, we would ask, really a credible explanation of the way heavens operate?

When asked how the labor of translation was accomplished, the Prophet declined to answer, saying, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon” (Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 23). Surely we do not look to the world or the understanding of the world for an answer. We would expect to find that understanding only as we come to understand in greater measure the operations of the Spirit of revelation.

(Revelations of the Restoration, McConkie & Ostler, pp 95-98)

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.

These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose.fn It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.fn

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 226.)

[LittleWyvern]

In this case, the process doesn't matter nearly as much as the product.

[Just_A_Guy]

Bearing in mind LittleWyvern's observation, I'll indulge in a bit of historical gnat-straining:

. . . So not only would the plates be kept hidden from view, also the U & T. For translation the whole side of the room would be covered.

I would be interested to see a primary source supporting the notion (often expressed in contemporary art) that half the table/room would be veiled off during the translation process.

I also note that this line of argument seems to postulate from the outset that the relatively bulky U&T were the instrument used in the entire translation process, which proves that David Whitmer couldn't have seen the translation process, which proves that David Whitmer's account of the use of the seer stone was incorrect, which proves that the U&T were the instrument used in the entire translation process.

The next argument is that Joseph Smith didn’t have the U & T after the lost of the 116 pages. But again reading his account with Moroni its clear the Joseph Smith (or his scribe) explains that the U & T were restored to Joseph Smith so he could learn what happen and why he shouldn’t retranslate the 116 pages. We even have other revelations given through what Joseph Smith called the U & T. So we know the U & T was around for translation.

My issue here is that Smith himself wasn't always careful to distinguish the U&T received with the plates (presumably the same one given to the Brother of Jared) from the Chase seer stone or from seer stones in general. I've expressed elsewhere my reservations about the History of the Church. The actual language of the pertinent D&C sections is ambiguous.

I haven't read Ostler and J.F. McConkie's work and I generally think highly of McConkie, but after reading the extract you provide I think a lot less of him:

--They over-simplify Whitmer's reasons for falling away. Most historians agree that Whitmer did not invent the seerstone story to justify his falling away--rather, he fell away because of his devotion to the seerstone and his suspicion of revelations revealed through any other means.

--They get some of their historical facts wrong--for example, Whitmer had no problem with the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods; what he objected to was the institution of the office of High Priest within the Melchizedek Priesthood.

--I'm generally not impressed that they choose to accuse Whitmer of calculated dishonesty, rather than simply shoring up Cowdery's and Smith's accounts.

--Nor am I particularly moved by their resorting to hearsay in order to imply that Whitmer changed his story.

--Their bit about the spelling of names is something of a red herring--how many of the subsequent changes to the 1830 edition were corrections of the spellings of proper names, and how many of those corrections differed from the manuscript (as opposed to the print edition)?

--They make broad assumptions about a "divine pattern" of translation and then assert that Whitmer's version of events doesn't fit the pattern--but they ignore the Book of Abraham, which according to the evidence we have also does not "fit the pattern". They also employ a rather egregious straw man by implying that, per Whitmer, Joseph "didn't really have the plates".

--They use Joseph Smith's quote to hint that Whitmer shouldn't presume to "tell the world" how the Book of Mormon came forth, and then they presume to do the exact same thing (subtly implying that we can believe them, because they have Received a Revelation on the subject. Ugh! Priestcraft, anyone?)

I respect President Smith and Elder McConkie tremendously, but the fact is that they were not there, either. As for the Ether account, the Lord tells the Brother of Jared that the stones will aid in the assistance of the Brother of Jared's written record. That is not necessarily a reference to the Book of Mormon. It could also refer to the future coming forth of the sealed portion; or possibly Mosiah's translation of the stone brought to him by the people of Zarahemla.

One thing that I don't think the Dialogue article cited in the other thread did well, is to inventorize and parse out Oliver Cowdery's statements on the subject. It seems to me that that would be the next logical step.

[Justice]

Thank you very much, tubaloth, that was insightful.

[Moksha]

I have read many posts pointing to the use of the seer stone. This point is only contentious when examined against the well meaning after story, that unnecessarily punched the use of the seer stone up into the Old Testament Urim and Thummin, which the embellishers thought would give the story more authenticity. However, consider this: Why would a stone known to have divination properties need to be elevated by equating it with another two stones that had simply been soldered to a bent rod attached to a breast plate? If the stone had power, the stone had power.

Even the prime Mormon apologist, Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, has no problem with the translations emanating from a Latter-Day Seer Stone. Makes sense, does it not?

As seen on the PBS Mormon Special

:)

[Justice]

It makes sense either way.

I'm just trying to gather all the information I can so I'll be able to form an educated opinion.

It makes no difference on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon... just interesting details.

[Hemidakota]

We always need to learn the details of the historic values in order to teach others.

[tubaloth]

I also note that this line of argument seems to postulate from the outset that the relatively bulky U&T were the instrument used in the entire translation process, which proves that David Whitmer couldn't have seen the translation process, which proves that David Whitmer's account of the use of the seer stone was incorrect, which proves that the U&T were the instrument used in the entire translation process.

Yes this is the line of thinking. (I probably should have added that Oilver did see U & T I’m guessing before the other three witnesses, when he tried to translate himself.) I don’t see why the size of the breast plate seems to be the factor involved. Yes in theory the seer stone would be easier to translate on the run. But if Joseph Smith was trying to protect the plates, he already had something he has to carry around with him. Also, as far as I can remember, wasn’t rest of the book of mormon done in one place (maybe two)? I don’t remember the need to move around a lot for those two or so months when “most” of the translation happen.

My issue here is that Smith himself wasn't always careful to distinguish the U&T received with the plates (presumably the same one given to the Brother of Jared) from the Chase seer stone or from seer stones in general. I've expressed elsewhere my reservations about the History of the Church. The actual language of the pertinent D&C sections is ambiguous.

This could be the case in some revelation. Joseph Smith isn’t clear if the revelation came through the U & T or the seer stone, and thus the D & C could be wrong in this case.

But with U & T bring brought back that it doesn’t seem like something you would mix up with something you always had.

The History of Church states

In the meantime, while Martin Harris was gone with the writings, I went to visit my father's family at Manchester. I continued there for a short season, and then returned to my place in Pennsylvania. Immediately after my return home, I was walking out a little distance, when, behold, the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and Thummim again—for it had been taken from me in consequence of my having wearied the Lord in asking for the privilege of letting Martin Harris take the writings, which he lost by transgression—and I inquired of the Lord through it, and obtained the following:

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 1: 21 - 22.)

For at least this one account it seems clear that Joseph Smith knew the difference between getting back the U & T vs being able to use the seer stone again. Joseph Smith also seems to make the point that God wanted him to have the U & T back.

--I'm generally not impressed that they choose to accuse Whitmer of calculated dishonesty, rather than simply shoring up Cowdery's and Smith's accounts.

I’ll take the blame here. There actually is a couple of other pages before what I quoted that the commentators explain about the translation process. Or more a couple of accounts by Joseph Smith and Oilver Cowdrey. Pretty much thet site different places (over different years) where Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey both agree the translation happen through the U & T. Most of these quotes seem to be known, and thus I didn’t see a reason to really quote them. ( could if needed)

They make broad assumptions about a "divine pattern" of translation and then assert that Whitmer's version of events doesn't fit the pattern--but they ignore the Book of Abraham, which according to the evidence we have also does not "fit the pattern".

This is really just my biggest concern with Withmer’s account. It does really fit with what the revelations teach about the translation process. I haven’t looked into much of how the Book of Abraham came forth (if it was closer to Whitmer or D&C) but Whitmer’s explanation makes it seem like it was a bit too simple. (that even I could have done it) From the D&C we learn there is more work put into it. I can’t see how these two would go together.

Maybe Joseph Smith used the seer stone to translate the Book of Abraham, and maybe that’s what Whitmer saw.

They also employ a rather egregious straw man by implying that, per Whitmer, Joseph "didn't really have the plates".

I actually don’t know if this is in Whitmer’s account or in Emma’s account. But one of the accounts have it that the Plates were just sitting on the table. That Joseph Smith didn’t even look at them or be on any certain page in the book of mormon. If that holds true, then yes there was no need for the plates.

--They use Joseph Smith's quote to hint that Whitmer shouldn't presume to "tell the world" how the Book of Mormon came forth, and then they presume to do the exact same thing (subtly implying that we can believe them, because they have Received a Revelation on the subject. Ugh! Priestcraft, anyone?)

Actually, again this would be my fault because I don’t quote in the parts that they show from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

What they are trying to show, and the same thing I have always tried to show, is that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery should be the source in what was used to translate (meaning the U & T). But for some reason we grasp this notion from David Whitmer for the reason that it explains more then what Joseph and Oliver did. So because David explains more, (assuming its true) it now become the source of our knowledge and Joseph and Oliver’s testimony so to speak are thrown out the window. That for some reason doesn’t make sense to me.

I respect President Smith and Elder McConkie tremendously, but the fact is that they were not there, either.

I don’t think anybody is debating that. What we are debating is why was the seer stone so much better then the U & T. So far the main argument is because the seer stone is easier to carry it thus must have been better to use then the U & T, something that was brought forth for the purpose of translating. Its more of a logical argument then anything.

[tubaloth]

Even the prime Mormon apologist, Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, has no problem with the translations emanating from a Latter-Day Seer Stone. Makes sense, does it not?

In what way does it makes sense?

In this case, the process doesn't matter nearly as much as the product.

No, it doesn’t hurt the product.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Tubaloth. This won't be a comprehensive reply--my time is limited--but it will have to suffice for the present, I'm afraid. Let me start with this:

What we are debating is why was the seer stone so much better then the U & T.

With all due respect, that is not what I am debating. I freely concede that the U&T were more powerful than the seer stone. Joseph Smith himself said so, if Lucy Smith's account is to be believed.

What I'm interested in is which instrument was actually used during the translation of the Book of Mormon in the wake of the loss of the 116 pages.

For at least this one account it seems clear that Joseph Smith knew the difference between getting back the U & T vs being able to use the seer stone again. Joseph Smith also seems to make the point that God wanted him to have the U & T back.

How do you figure? Smith doesn't mention the seer stone at all in the quote you cite.

I’ll take the blame here. There actually is a couple of other pages before what I quoted that the commentators explain about the translation process. Or more a couple of accounts by Joseph Smith and Oilver Cowdrey.

Sounds like I'll have to find the book, then. :)

It does[n't] really fit with what the revelations teach about the translation process. I haven’t looked into much of how the Book of Abraham came forth (if it was closer to Whitmer or D&C) but Whitmer’s explanation makes it seem like it was a bit too simple. (that even I could have done it) From the D&C we learn there is more work put into it.

Ostler and McConkie seem to be locked into the mindset that the translation process was 1) look at the original material; 2) look into the translating medium; and 3) a translation of the content of the original material somehow appeared. What I'm getting at is, that paradigm is not the absolute and universal method of inspired translation. For example, the Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of what was actually on the Joseph Smith Papyri. (The remnants of those Papyri still exist and have been examined by Egyptologists; they are a near-perfect match for a copy of the Egyptian Book of Breathings.) The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was done without either the source documents (except for a standard King James Bible) or, as far as I know, a U&T/seer stone of any type. Please note that I'm not saying the Book of Abraham or the JST are false; I'm merely saying that there's more to the translation process than meets the eye and Ostler/McConkie are on shaky ground if they're trying to discredit Whitmer based on their flawed understanding of the process.

I actually don’t know if this is in Whitmer’s account or in Emma’s account. But one of the accounts have it that the Plates were just sitting on the table. That Joseph Smith didn’t even look at them or be on any certain page in the book of mormon. If that holds true, then yes there was no need for the plates.

What Ostler and McConkie state is

Why all this flap and fuss if the Prophet didn’t really have the plates . . . ?

Whitmer never made such a claim. It strikes me as highly disingenuous to imply that he did.

. . . Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery should be the source in what was used to translate (meaning the U & T). But for some reason we grasp this notion from David Whitmer for the reason that it explains more then what Joseph and Oliver did. So because David explains more, (assuming its true) it now become the source of our knowledge and Joseph and Oliver’s testimony so to speak are thrown out the window. That for some reason doesn’t make sense to me.

As Ostler and McConkie themselves state, Smith pointedly refused to go on-record as to the mechanics of the translation. All we really have from him (AFAIK) are some references (possibly firsthand, and possibly not) to his possessing the "Urim and Thummim" (possibly THE Urim and Thummim, and possibly not) at various times.

So really it boils down to Whitmer and Emma Smith vs Cowdery. That's why I'm so interested in Cowdery's statements, and when they were made.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

In what way does it makes sense?

Because the seer stone that Joseph Smith already possessed was sufficient and need not be gussied up as stones on a breast plate painted with Hebrew letters. Additionally if you accept one set of rocks as being capable of translation, then why not the single rock that was present and had already been tested.

[tubaloth]

What I'm interested in is which instrument was actually used during the translation of the Book of Mormon in the wake of the loss of the 116 pages.

Then why use something that less powerful? What was the point in using the seer stone if the U & T is sitting on the self?

How do you figure? Smith doesn't mention the seer stone at all in the quote you cite.

That’s the point. We don’t debate the U & T was taken. (116 were used) but we debate Joseph Smith’s language that it wasn’t returned?

If Joseph Smith had the seer stone and either knew he could translate with it, or had done so in the past. Why even have Moroni return the U & T?

Ostler and McConkie seem to be locked into the mindset that the translation process was 1) look at the original material; 2) look into the translating medium; and 3) a translation of the content of the original material somehow appeared. What I'm getting at is, that paradigm is not the absolute and universal method of inspired translation.

That could be.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was done without either the source documents (except for a standard King James Bible) or, as far as I know, a U&T/seer stone of any type.

I don’t doubt this. As Joseph Smith grew (practice) he got better at to the point that I don’t know if any seer stone or U & T was used. For that, as we learn in second 93, Joseph Smith could have even gotten the whole record through revelation.

Please note that I'm not saying the Book of Abraham or the JST are false; I'm merely saying that there's more to the translation process than meets the eye and Ostler/McConkie are on shaky ground if they're trying to discredit Whitmer based on their flawed understanding of the process.

So what do you believe the process was? Was there a different process for the 116 vs the rest of the book of mormon? If so, why?

Whitmer never made such a claim. It strikes me as highly disingenuous to imply that he did.

That could be. But he never explains how the plates come into play.

As Ostler and McConkie themselves state, Smith pointedly refused to go on-record as to the mechanics of the translation. All we really have from him (AFAIK) are some references (possibly firsthand, and possibly not) to his possessing the "Urim and Thummim" (possibly THE Urim and Thummim, and possibly not) at various times.

So, if I’m getting this through process correctly? The reason we can’t trust Joseph Smith on any of his accounts about the U & T is because he never explained it in detail? And because Whitmer did explain it in detail he has more credibility even though his process doesn’t fit with what we know about how the book of mormon came to be (the changes) and with the revelation when Oliver tried to translate?.

So really it boils down to Whitmer and Emma Smith vs Cowdery.

So none of Joseph Smith’s remarks are even credible?

I still don’t see why is Whitmer’s account is even considered a reliable source on this matter? (Even more reliable then Joseph Smith)?

[tubaloth]

Because the seer stone that Joseph Smith already possessed was sufficient and need not be gussied up as stones on a breast plate painted with Hebrew letters.

Then why even “prepare” the U & T in the first place? Why not just have Joseph Smith get the plates, and then go dig a well to find the means to translate them.

So the seer stone could do the exact same thing as the U & T? Did it do it the same way? From David Whitmer’s account it sounds like the seer stone could do it in an easier way then the U & T. Joseph Smith found a short cut in the translation loop hold.

Why does Oilver Cowdery never mention it as part of the translation process? Even though, according Whitmer, Oilver was there.

Additionally if you accept one set of rocks as being capable of translation, then why not the single rock that was present and had already been tested.

Because I have no idea what the seer stone was used for?

What I accept is God prepared an instrument designed for translating the Book of Mormon. I don’t see why God would prepare such an instrument, when a rock found in a well is not only easier to carry (and hide) but can do the translation process easier. Anybody can just read what’s on the rock, where as the U & T you had to do some thought process first.

[Snow]

From another thread, this idea that most everything after the 116 pages was lost was all translated by the use of the seer stone instead of by the Urim & Thummim. I will try to present some of the holes found in this logic. Some of my own, some found in commentary. Most point to Emma and David Whitmer as the source. I will try to show these aren’t very reliable. (and thus can’t see why we want to follow them)

Even more, to show that we should be believe Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery account more.

In that corner: Eyewitnesses: The wife of Joseph Smith, BoM scribe to the Joseph Smith - Martin Harrios; Top LDS historians and scholars, including Richard Bushman and Teryl Given, and General Authorities.

In this corner: some anonymous guy on the internet named tubaloth.

Whatever.

[Hemidakota]

I have read many posts pointing to the use of the seer stone. This point is only contentious when examined against the well meaning after story, that unnecessarily punched the use of the seer stone up into the Old Testament Urim and Thummin, which the embellishers thought would give the story more authenticity. However, consider this: Why would a stone known to have divination properties need to be elevated by equating it with another two stones that had simply been soldered to a bent rod attached to a breast plate? If the stone had power, the stone had power.

Even the prime Mormon apologist, Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, has no problem with the translations emanating from a Latter-Day Seer Stone. Makes sense, does it not?

As seen on the PBS Mormon Special

:)

Technology today has the ability to transfer data into a crystal rock. Now if I can command it to talk to me or show words without a screen, then I would have a seer stone.

[Hemidakota]

Then why even “prepare” the U & T in the first place? Why not just have Joseph Smith get the plates, and then go dig a well to find the means to translate them.

So the seer stone could do the exact same thing as the U & T? Did it do it the same way? From David Whitmer’s account it sounds like the seer stone could do it in an easier way then the U & T. Joseph Smith found a short cut in the translation loop hold.

Why does Oilver Cowdery never mention it as part of the translation process? Even though, according Whitmer, Oilver was there.

Because I have no idea what the seer stone was used for?

What I accept is God prepared an instrument designed for translating the Book of Mormon. I don’t see why God would prepare such an instrument, when a rock found in a well is not only easier to carry (and hide) but can do the translation process easier. Anybody can just read what’s on the rock, where as the U & T you had to do some thought process first.

The UT was not used after Joseph was given the inspiration of another seer stone that was left in that region for a wiser purpose. It was due to the size of those Jaredites spectacles that was a major problem for him.

[tubaloth]

Eyewitnesses: The wife of Joseph Smith, BoM scribe to the Joseph Smith

Is a better source for this then Joseph Smith himself?

Top LDS historians and scholars, including Richard Bushman and Teryl Given, and General Authorities.

Are a better source then Oilver Cowdery?

Why?

some anonymous guy on the internet named tubaloth

And Me!

That just seems to be the only one asking the right questions?

Do these “scholars” explain why David whitmers account is much more believable then Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery?

The UT was not used after Joseph was given the inspiration of another seer stone

I have yet to see an explanation of this. Why? We know the U & T was returned?

We even have Revelations in the D&C that are said to be through the U & T. Yet Joseph Smith used the seer stone to translate? Why?

It was due to the size of those Jaredites spectacles that was a major problem for him.

How was this a major problem? Was Joseph Smith on the move when he was translating? Is it because he had to carry the plates AND the U & T that it just became too much (I still assume he didn’t try to find a lighter version of the plates?)

This is what I have gathered so far.

1. David Whitmer’s account of the translation process does not fit with the recorded translation process in sections 8 and 9.

2. This leads to me to believe that there had to have been two processes for translation, one for the U & T (which goes in line with Sections 8 & 9) and one for the seer stone (if Whitmer is to be believed).

3. This means that Whitmers way of “translating” wasn’t really translating, but was reading the exact letters and words that appeared on the stone. (So far this is what “most” people believed was the method for translating all the book of mormon we now have)

4. That the seer stone was an easier way of bring forth the book of mormon. That the U & T was the hard way. Thus, God brought for the U & T for a dumb purpose, but there was always an easier way found in a well?

[tubaloth]

In trying to read what else is out there on this subject I found this article In the Ensgin LDS.org - Ensign Article - “By the Gift and Power of Godâ€

Maybe a little older, but for the most part its states the same thoughts I have.

David Whitmer’s idea of translation is similar to Samuel Richards’s. Yet this view does not appear until 1875, nearly a half-century after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery worked in David Whitmer’s home. His many statements on translation harmonize with his Address to All Believers In Christ, published in 1887 to supersede second-hand reports. There he gave his most detailed view of “the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated”:

(Quotes David Whitmer, Address to All Believers In Christ (Richmond, Mo., 1887), p. 11. Which has already been quoted in the first post. )

It is tempting to accept the above statement at face value. However, since David Whitmer had not personally translated, his accuracy on details depends on whether he correctly understood what Joseph Smith told him in the first place, and whether he correctly remembered such details after that. This explanation has Joseph Smith simply read off the entire translation rather than formulate it. In one David Whitmer interview, however, such a procedure is limited to proper names. At that time David Whitmer said that Joseph “was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.” 12 This much is likely, for proper names are not a subject for translation, but for transliteration; that is, their sounds and not their meanings carry over into the second language. So Joseph’s dictation of these names fits any informed concept of translation.

But many anti-Mormons have seized on the implications of going further: that is, if Joseph Smith only dictated divinely given English from his viewing instrument, then God is the author of some bad grammar in the original.

Some critics have also felt that misspellings in the Book of Mormon “prove” it is false. The latter cannot be blamed on the printer, for we possess parts of the original unpunctuated Cowdery manuscript from Joseph’s dictation in 1829. The scribe on occasion wrote “hart” for “heart”; “desirus” for “desirous”; and “futer” for “future.” 13These spelling errors were corrected in the recopied printer’s manuscript and thus appeared in correct form in the first printing. 14 They were probably mistakes of the secretary in the rapidly moving dictation process, and had nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Thus there is no logical problem with scribal misspellings, even under David Whitmer’s explanation of Joseph simply reading “the interpretation in English.” This much refutes the extreme claim that the Prophet’s use of divine aid in translation rules out “all changes, regardless of how minor.” There have been notable misspellings in the printing process of Bible editions that have nothing to do with the question of the inspired nature of the original writings!

Yet David Whitmer’s explanation clearly goes too far in respect to sentence structure and grammar. The first edition of the Book of Mormon carried numerous sentences with a plural subject and singular verb, and vice versa; it sometimes placed an idiomatic “a” before a participle (“a marching”) or an idiomatic “for” before an infinitive (“for to destroy them”); it regularly used “which” for the personal “who.” Such language clearly originated with the Prophet as he dictated, not with the secretary.

Accuracy is not the issue, since ungrammatical language can still communicate clearly the meaning of the original. Perhaps David Whitmer unconsciously added his own ideas as he spoke on the translation method. He could legitimately speak on the physical appearance of translation but had no personal knowledge of the translation itself. Watching a scientist at work with a delicate instrument gives an untrained observer no insight into the inner workings of either the apparatus or the mind of the scientist. In the case of Book of Mormon translation, the only one that fully understood the procedure was Joseph Smith.

Then farther down in the article it says

On this issue David Whitmer’s general philosophy of revelation may have influenced his view of the translation. Joseph Smith updated some revelations and made many grammatical changes for better communication in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. David Whitmer went along at the time, as he said, but, after decades of reflection outside of the Church, concluded that no modification could possibly be made in any revelation. This highly rigid view of these revelations matched his highly rigid view of the origin of the Book of Mormon. But the Lord had earlier allowed for a process of better expressing the revelations in the preface given for them, indicating that their divine commands were expressed by “my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language.” (D&C 1:24.)

This phrase applies specifically to Joseph Smith’s revelations, but probably cannot be isolated from the process by which he translated. For one thing, many of the 1829 revelations came through the Urim and Thummim, during the very time that the Book of Mormon was being dictated. 30 Since the “manner of their language” concept applies specifically to these divine commands through the Urim and Thummim, there is little reason to suppose that translation was received differently, particularly when one of these revelations (D&C 7) was itself a translation.

Edited February 26, 2009 by tubaloth

[Snow]

Is a better source for this then Joseph Smith himself?

Are a better source then Oilver Cowdery?

Why?

Honesty on your part is called for. You imply that JS's account contradicts Emma's - yet's you haven't posted his account that does not.

Why?

Obviously you can't.

You should read your own posts: JS: “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon”

As to OC's believability - can you explain why he referred to the seer stone or whatever you think was being used as the U&T at a time when the U&T was not even in the possession of JS, it having been retaken by Moroni?

[Moksha]

It was due to the size of those Jaredites spectacles that was a major problem for him.

It should be noted that most Jaredite spectacles did not come with a rose:

A romantic Jaredite?

PS. Perhaps Merlin was foreshadowing the seer stone and Laban's sword, by the way he sequestered the sword of Uther Pendragon.

[tubaloth]

As to OC's believability - can you explain why he referred to the seer stone or whatever you think was being used as the U&T at a time when the U&T was not even in the possession of JS, it having been retaken by Moroni?

This is the easier one so I’ll start here.

In the meantime, while Martin Harris was gone with the writings, I went to visit my father's family at Manchester. I continued there for a short season, and then returned to my place in Pennsylvania. Immediately after my return home, I was walking out a little distance, when, behold, the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and Thummim again—for it had been taken from me in consequence of my having wearied the Lord in asking for the privilege of letting Martin Harris take the writings, which he lost by transgression—and I inquired of the Lord through it,

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 1: 21 - 22.)

Which Joseph Smith gets section 10.

Then in the History of church it states

After I had obtained the above revelation, both the plates and the Urim and Thummim were taken from me again; but in a few days they were returned to me, when I inquired of the Lord, and the Lord said thus unto me:

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 1: 23.)

There seems to be some doubt in the accuracy of this account that Joseph Smith was referring to the Seer stone. I don’t see that at all. The first verse of this revelation states:

“1. Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up 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 Lord is talking about the Urim and Thummim.

Maybe somebody can explain to me why the idea that the Urim and Thummim is missing after the 116 pages?

Then Oliver Cowdery comes into the picture

Two days after the arrival of Mr. Cowdery (being the 7th of April) I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me, which having continued for some time, I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and obtained the following:

So the Urim and Thummim is still around.

Same for Revelations 7, 8, 9. The key thing here is that when Oliver Cowdery is trying to translate was after the lost of the 116 pages where it is clamed Joseph Smith didn’t have the Uirm & Thimmim any more (that Moroni took it). This doesn’t fit with the time line of Oliver trying to translate through the Urim and Thimmim.

Do we still debate what Oliver used to try to translate?

Then Revelations 11, 14, 15, 16.

Then the revelation on the three witness is given come

In the course of the work of translation, we ascertained that three special witnesses were to be provided by the Lord, to whom He would grant that they should see the plates from which this work (the Book of Mormon) should be translated; and that these witnesses should bear record of the same, as will be found recorded, Book of Mormon, page 581 Almost immediately after we had made this discovery, it occurred to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and the aforementioned Martin Harris (who had come to inquire after our progress in the work) that they would have me inquire of the Lord to know if they might not obtain of him the privilege to be these three special witnesses; and finally they became so very solicitous, and urged me so much to inquire that at length I complied; and through the Urim and Thummim, I obtained of the Lord for them the following:

I can't seem to be 100% sure if the three witnesses where show the plates after the translation was complete or just close to complete (around Either).

What is now strange is no more revelations come through the Uirum and Thimmim pretty much timing it right on with the end of the translating the book of mormom.

Now for Joseph Smiths account of how the Book of Mormon came to be.

We fast forward to May 8, 1838

I answered the questions which were frequently asked me, while on my last journey but one from Kirtland to Missouri.

Fourth—"How and where did you obtain the Book of Mormon?"

Moroni, who deposited the plates in a hill in Manchester, Ontario county, New York, being dead and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were, and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon.

Some how we feel this isn’t true?

Next is the account from the Wentwork letter.

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction, and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breast plate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.

I don’t see why this is so hard to accept?

That’s just History of the Church, I'll see what I can dig up else where.

Let me pull one from Oilver Cowdery that is actually found in the back of our scriptures. (its part of the footnote when Joseph Smith is explaining the restoration of the priesthood).

Joseph Smith-History Footnote

Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

I leave it to the read to figure out who to believe in the matter.

Edited February 27, 2009 by tubaloth

[Just_A_Guy]

Technology today has the ability to transfer data into a crystal rock

Hemi, than what's the deal with all those "crystal radio sets" my classmates used to build as science projects?

Then why use something that less powerful? What was the point in using the seer stone if the U & T is sitting on the self?

Umm, it wasn't sitting on a shelf. If it was indeed taken away, it was taken because Joseph hadn't been giving proper heed to the revelations he had received thereby.

I think you're also not taking into account (at least, where this argument is concerned) the schooling process Joseph was then undergoing. Perhaps the U&T served as a "training device" whereby Joseph learned to make more effective use of the seer stone. We just don't know.

. . . but we debate Joseph Smith’s language that it wasn’t returned?

If Joseph Smith had the seer stone and either knew he could translate with it, or had done so in the past. Why even have Moroni return the U & T?

You have not yet demonstrated that it was really Joseph Smith's language (I've already explained my reservations about parts of the History of the Church).

I don’t doubt this. As Joseph Smith grew (practice) he got better at to the point that I don’t know if any seer stone or U & T was used. For that, as we learn in second 93, Joseph Smith could have even gotten the whole record through revelation.

Concur. And I would submit that the same could have been the case with the Book of Mormon, had Joseph Smith been as spiritually attuned in the 1820s as he was in 1833. As it was, he needed the plates and some medium of translation at least some of the time.

So what do you believe the process was? Was there a different process for the 116 vs the rest of the book of mormon? If so, why?

I don't pretend to know every detail. If it differed throughout the translation process, I think it comes back to the issue of Joseph Smith's "spiritual schooling", cited above. What is clear is that at least under some circumstances (contra Ostler and McConkie), a) the original record need not be present, and b) the Urim and Thummim proper are not necessary.

So, if I’m getting this through process correctly? The reason we can’t trust Joseph Smith on any of his accounts about the U & T is because he never explained it in detail? And because Whitmer did explain it in detail he has more credibility even though his process doesn’t fit with what we know about how the book of mormon came to be (the changes) and with the revelation when Oliver tried to translate?.

I'm saying that a) many of his accounts may not even be "his" accounts; b) he may not have seen a need to be specific as to details; c) Whitmer's account doesn't conflict with what we "know" about the translation process, because we really don't know that much; d) when you speak of "changes", you assume that the original manuscript was identical to the printer's manuscript, which was in turn identical to the 1830 edition; and e) Whitmer never (to my knowledge) said it that the seer stone worked irrespective of the user's spiritual state (Indeed, wouldn't Oliver's use of the U&T violate Joseph's previous injunction to not show them to anyone?)

So none of Joseph Smith’s remarks are even credible?

I still don’t see why is Whitmer’s account is even considered a reliable source on this matter? (Even more reliable then Joseph Smith)?

Two reasons:

a) We notice details about the things that are most important to us. The stone ultimately wasn't that important to Joseph--over time, he learned to receive revelation directly. By contrast, the stone was crucially important to Whitmer. When Joseph dispensed with the stone, Whitmer dispensed with Joseph.

b) Because at least some of "Joseph Smith's remarks" may actually be second- or third-hand.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

“1. Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up 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 Lord is talking about the Urim and Thummim.

Reading textually, He appears to be talking about the writings.

Do we still debate what Oliver used to try to translate?

Barring a description of the "Urim and Thummim" Cowdery used by the man himself: Yes. Joseph was under injunction not to show the actual U&T to anyone.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Where did the idea that the U&T were goggles come from? Did these updated U&Ts represent the snazzier reformed edition as opposed to those found in the Old Testament?

[tubaloth]

Umm, it wasn't sitting on a shelf. If it was indeed taken away, it was taken because Joseph hadn't been giving proper heed to the revelations he had received thereby.

So, I think this is what I need to learn more about. Where does it say (the source) that Joseph Smith did not get the U & T back? Does it give a reason why he didn’t get them back? (I assume Moroni explains to Joseph Smith why he didn't get the U & T back? Or at least Joseph Smith figures it out on his own?)

It seems to be that this is a fact that I’m just not seeing. I assume this is from somebody else besides Joseph Smith or Oliver?

I think you're also not taking into account (at least, where this argument is concerned) the schooling process Joseph was then undergoing. Perhaps the U&T served as a "training device" whereby Joseph learned to make more effective use of the seer stone. We just don't know.

I don’t doubt that Joseph Smith was being tutored in the things of God at some level. What I have problems with is that, if you are going to tutor somebody you start easy and move on from that. I have to still assume that Sections 8 & 9 is not talking about the same process that David Whitmer is talking about. Thus, Joseph Smith started learning the hard way, and moved on to an easier way. Now it very well could be that the U & T prepared Joseph for the Seer stone. But that would only be in spiritual ways, not in any actually learning process. (The U & T vs Seer stone did things differently).

I don’t see what Training the U & T provided, when the seer stone doesn’t seem to need the same type of focus? It almost seems like that Joseph Smith was never fully forgiven, because he never got back the more powerful way to translate, he had to settle for the less powerful way.

I'm saying that a) many of his accounts may not even be "his" accounts;

Yes I know Joseph Smith didn’t actually write much down. But this almost makes it sound like Joseph Smith didn’t care what was written down. (That he wasn’t part of the process) That because Joseph Smith didn’t care to take the time to write it himself, we can’t trust what was explained?

Is this what most LDS scholars believe? Because we don’t know what words are actually Joseph Smith we can’t use any of them?

b) he may not have seen a need to be specific as to details;

I don’t see how Joseph Smith would get the story so mixed up.

The account that assume is written down somewhere states.

Joseph Smith wanted to allow Martin Harris to take the papers to show people. Joseph Smith got the answer No three time. Joseph Smith finally gets an answer of Yes. Because Joseph Smith didn’t listen the first time the plates and the U & T are taken. The angel comes back to Joseph Smith and gives him Just the plates, (and tells him to get his Seer stone out so a revelation can be give to him). Joseph Smith realizes that he needs to get a revelation, and thus confuses that U & T (which wasn’t returned) with the seer stone, that he always had. I don’t see how that can be mistaken?

I also don’t see how you can mistake how some 8 or 9 revelations came. Also I don’t see how it just happens to be the time the translation process is done, that you don’t need the seer stone or U & T anymore. (Meaning he doesn’t seem to make this mistake after the U & T is really taken back with the plates).

c) Whitmer's account doesn't conflict with what we "know" about the translation process, because we really don't know that much;

What we do know is found in Section 8 & 9. I guess there is some debate still if this was through a seer stone, or the U & T (even though the revelations themselves say they come through the U & T, which is not to be believed).

As far as I can tell, and again I’m trying to be corrected for all my false ideas, is how these accounts of Oliver trying to translate goes along with the so called account by David Whitmer. Because I don’t see these two matching at all, I thus have to conclude that Oliver was trying to use the U & T at this point in time. But if that is the case, then that throws a off the logic that the U & T wasn’t still around. There is something that isn’t correct here. I choose to throw out the odd ball, which is David Whitmer.

d) when you speak of "changes", you assume that the original manuscript was identical to the printer's manuscript, which was in turn identical to the 1830 edition;

No, what I am assuming is from that Ensign article. That there was things “translated” that was in the original manuscript from Oliver that have been changed. David Whitmer’s “process” of translation (if we call it that) doesn’t account for these.

The article also makes some points about the King James verses of the Bible found in the Book of Mormon, even though it doesn't compair it to David Whitmers process. If David Whitmer’s process it to be followed, we would have to assume that the Joseph Smith actually READ the King James Verses on the plates? This would fit in line with David Whitmes views of the Translation and Revelation Process. Where as the U & T allows for a more loose translation (you come up with the phrase yourself, and the U & T well confirm it).

I haven’t read much of what the scholars say about the King James Verses found in the Book of Mormon (the article sites Ludlow), I would be interested if the scholar’s ideas fit with David Whitmer’s version of translating. Anybody know?

(Indeed, wouldn't Oliver's use of the U&T violate Joseph's previous injunction to not show them to anyone?)

Not if Joseph Smith seeks to get permission from God to allow Oliver to translate. It would violate it if Joseph Smith made this decision on his own.

b) Because at least some of "Joseph Smith's remarks" may actually be second- or third-hand.

Even from History of the Church? Wentworth Letter? There is no source at all for Joseph Smith's remarks?

We do assume that David Whitmers account of the translation process is at least second hand? The only way for David Whitmer to know such detail is to have Joseph Smith (or Oliver) explain it to him?

So we are believing David Whitmers second hand account of the process, but not Joseph Smith's so called Second hand?

Edited February 28, 2009 by tubaloth