Seer Stone was used for...

[tubaloth]

Where did the idea that the U&T were goggles come from?

Mostly Joseph Smith, Oilver, and Joseph Smith's Mother.

Did these updated U&Ts represent the snazzier reformed edition as opposed to those found in the Old Testament?

We don't know. The U & T of the Old Testament was used for Revelations, not for Translation purpose.

[Snow]

tubaloth,

Before I go to the trouble of responding, let me clarify your position:

1. "There is just no support for" the belief that Joseph Smith used "his seer's stone for much of the translation of the BoM."

2. Those that believe otherwise are either uneducated, ignorant, dishonest, or mistaken about it.

3. Eyewitnesses that report otherwise are either uneducated, ignorant, dishonest, or mistaken about it.

3. That Joseph Smith gave detailed enough accounts of the translation that we can rule out that he used the seer stone for BoM translation.

Is that correct?

[tubaloth]

1. "There is just no support for" the belief that Joseph Smith used "his seer's stone for much of the translation of the BoM."

Yes the key word being "Much". There could be parts that the seer stone was used for. It doesn't make sense that he would use it for parts (if the U & T is still being around). But for some learning purpose maybe I could see.

If so MUCH of the book of mormon came through the seer stone, why isn't Joseph Smith and Oliver not point the seer stone as the source? (Mostly Oliver).

2. Those that believe otherwise are either uneducated, ignorant, dishonest, or mistaken about it.

Mistaken, I guess. I haven't yet to see why believing David Whitmer is the Main source on the translation. Yes I assume much study has been done I this. But from my point of view it seems like because Joseph Smith and Oilver never commented on HOW it was done, we don't believe there accounts on the translation. Because David Whitmer (who never translated) did give an account (Assume was told) we believe his words?

I have yet to see why David Whitmer is the Main source in this matter? I'm sure more educated people have come up with a reason, I just wanted to know what the reason was? Why do these educated people trust David Whitmer’s idea of the seer stone more then Joseph Smith’s explanation in the Wentworth letter? They both can’t be right can they?

3. Eyewitnesses that report otherwise are either uneducated, ignorant, dishonest, or mistaken about it.

This is now a case of who do you believe more.

David Whimter I guess has some Eye witness account of the process (I don't think he actually look into the seer stone?) but I guess was sitting in the room when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were in the mist of translation? (That is one of the claims)

But, this Claim is different then what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught.

So now I’m suppose to come to believe David Whitmers account from Joseph Smith and Oliver, or I believe Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? Now because of some scholars I’m suppose to believe David Whitmer? Again I don't see why David Whimer's account has more weight put on it, then Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdery's account? Emma would be a different story.

3. That Joseph Smith gave detailed enough accounts of the translation that we can rule out that he used the seer stone for BoM translation.

How the translation happen, we don't know. The most detail we get of the use of the U & T is what we learn in the section 9.

What we do have a detailed enough account from Joseph Smith is WHAT was used to translate the book of mormon.

Joseph Smith seems to explain in a pretty detailed account that it happen through the U & T. There is no confusion that Joseph Smith was given the U & T. That doesn't get debated, but when Joseph Smith says he used it to translate, that gets debated?

Let me see if I can figure out your view Snow. Or I guess the view I’m suppose to believe.

1. Emma and David Whimter game more detail accounts of the translation process, and because they told us more about the process, they must know more about it then Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

2. Because, of some account (That I don't know of) The U & T was taken by Moroni after the lost of the 116 pages. When Oliver Cowdery comes into the picture EVERYTHING from this point on was done through the seer stone? Which would then mean that Section 9 is not talking about the U & T but is talking about the process used with the seer stone? (and Thus David Whitmers account of things should match the account in section 9)

That ALL of Oliver Cowderys account of the translation process are wrong because the U & T wasn’t around when Oliver Translated, and thus could never claim that Joseph Smith used the U & T to translated while Oliver was scribe.

3. The translation method was more of a dictation method then an actually translation method. Meaning every word and letter that Joseph Smith said, was straight from the seer stone itself. (The next word wouldn't appear until Joseph Smith had the correct word and spelling). Which means the manuscript that Oliver wrote is 100% Correct! There shouldn’t be any changes from that. This also would mean that the verses that are a copied from the King James Version of the bible are exactly the way Joseph Smith saw it in the seer stone?

Is that Correct?

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi, Tubaloth; I hope you're doing well this evening.

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?

Whitmer, as cited in the article I linked in the other thread. Let me know if you need me to post another link here (I'm in a bit of a rush at present but can do it later if you like).

What I have problems with is that, if you are going to tutor somebody you start easy and move on from that.

My idea is that that's exactly what happened--the U&T were, I suspect, somehow "easier" or "clearer" to use than the seer stone was. Again, see Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism by Bushman for Lucy's report of Joseph's remarks in this regard.

I have to still assume that Sections 8 & 9 is not talking about the same process that David Whitmer is talking about.

Why? Whitmer said (possibly erroneously) that Joseph saw the actual words--or at least, the words affiliated with proper names. But Whitmer never implied that it just came to Joseph without any effort or spiritual preparation on Joseph's part.

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.

The U&T was a tool, not a toy. Why should Joseph be permitted to keep it (especially under such a strict injunction of secrecy), once he'd learned how to apply another tool to the same task and get the same result?

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?

No idea what "most LDS scholars" believe. I wouldn't say we "can't trust it"; but I would say that where the account differs from another account that comes directly from the hand of someone who was also there--Joseph's account (pardon the expression) shouldn't automatically be taken as "gospel".

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

We often get locked into this idea of referring to THE Urim and Thummim. But there isn't just one. It's a type of object, not just one particular object. The High Priest of Israel had one. The Brother of Jared had another. I believe there's some authority to suggest that each exalted person will get one. The earth, eventually, will become one.

The U&T with the plates and the seer stone were both Urim and Thummim. Just because I refer frequently to a "dollar" doesn't mean I'm always talking about the "dollar" with the serial number L234563453B.

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).

Touché. But technically, the "revelations" do not specify the means by which they were received. The headings to the revelations make such specifications, but the headings are not scripture.

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.

Until I've had a chance to see a compilation of Cowdery's accounts, I'll have to defer comment.

I choose to throw out the odd ball, which is David Whitmer.

But Whitmer is not an "odd ball". We have Emma Smith, too. I believe (though I may be in error) that we also have hearsay accounts from Isaac Hale.

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.

Would you mind refreshing my memory as to that article (link?). Thanks.

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?

Only if we assume that a) Whitmer was right about the see-each-word-in-the-stone process (which he may not have been, while still being correct that the seer stone was used), and/or b) that the process Whitmer described was used through the translation of the entire Book of Mormon as we have it.

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.

Point taken, but I should think there would have been a specific revelation that would have been recorded in the History of the Church, if not in the D&C proper. Especially after just having been burned through the Martin Harris debacle--would Joseph be willing to circumvent a clear and concise commandment based on a mere "feeling"?

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?

The word-for-word translation part, yes. But that's not the part I'm asking you to believe. I'm arguing merely that the seer stone was in fact used in the translation process. Joseph didn't tell David he used the stone. David claimed he saw Joseph do it. So did Emma. That's about as first-hand as you can get. :)

[Snow]

Let me see if I can figure out your view Snow. Or I guess the view I’m suppose to believe.

1. Emma and David Whimter game more detail accounts of the translation process, and because they told us more about the process, they must know more about it then Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Completely wrong. I believe that no one knows more of the process than JS.

2. Because, of some account (That I don't know of) The U & T was taken by Moroni after the lost of the 116 pages. When Oliver Cowdery comes into the picture EVERYTHING from this point on was done through the seer stone? Which would then mean that Section 9 is not talking about the U & T but is talking about the process used with the seer stone? (and Thus David Whitmers account of things should match the account in section 9)

That ALL of Oliver Cowderys account of the translation process are wrong because the U & T wasn’t around when Oliver Translated, and thus could never claim that Joseph Smith used the U & T to translated while Oliver was scribe.

I don't know. What I do understand that the problem with many uneducated members is that fail to catch that the words "seer stone" and "urim and thummim" are used ambiguously by many people including Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. For example, Oliver once referred to something as the U & T but it couldn't have been the U & T because the U & T wasn't in JS's possession at the time. One has to study the entire matter, not just the use of the words.

3. The translation method was more of a dictation method then an actually translation method. Meaning every word and letter that Joseph Smith said, was straight from the seer stone itself. (The next word wouldn't appear until Joseph Smith had the correct word and spelling). Which means the manuscript that Oliver wrote is 100% Correct! There shouldn’t be any changes from that. This also would mean that the verses that are a copied from the King James Version of the bible are exactly the way Joseph Smith saw it in the seer stone?

Why would you think that? I didn't say that nor did I imply it or even mention it. Whatever the process actually was, it is obvious that it couldn't be exactly the way that you describe because we know that the manuscript wasn't perpect - in Joseph's mind. He continually worked on it, even after the first edition - refining it and improving it.

Is that Correct?

It seems like you've gotten just about everything wrong.

Here's the bottom line: Who knows for sure if the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is correct? What we do know is that the science is pretty far along and for all intents and purposes, there is a consensus among the experts that it is the best explanation that we've got and that though we will continue to learn more about it, the theory is solid enough that new develops will be improvement and modifications to the theory - not a whole new theory.

Same thing with the seer stone. It's no longer an unknown or undecided thing. Among the scholars and experts, and even at some some General Authorities, we know what the deal is. There isn't a controversy. That's why went an anonymous guy comes along on the internet and claims otherwise, it's a waste of time to go through his points one by one.

I've got and have read most all the relevant scholarly material on the matter - from Bushman and Givens to Van Wagoner and Lancaster. You should try Joseph Smith and seer stones - FAIRMormon to get up to speed on the issue.

[tubaloth]

Where to start…

I guess with the biggest part.

So Saturday afternoon I searched through Gospelink everything I could find about the Urim & Thimmim. I came upon this idea I guess from B.H. Roberts’ account of the history. I hope this isn’t to long, but its kind of all goes together

Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon the Prophet himself has said but little. "Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God," is the most extended published statement made by him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: "With the record was found 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 breast-plate."

Oliver Cowdery says of the work of translation, "I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as they are called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters'." This is all that Oliver has left on record on the manner of translating the book.

David Whitmer is more specific on this subject. After describing the means the Prophet employed to exclude the light from the Seer Stone, he says: "In the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment 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."

There will appear between this statement of David Whitmer's and what is said both by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery a seeming contradiction. Joseph and Oliver both say the translation was done by means of the Urim and Thummim, which is described by Joseph as being "two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate;" while David Whitmer says that the translation was made by means of a Seer Stone. The apparent contradiction is cleared up, however, by a statement made by Martin Harris. He said that the Prophet possessed a Seer Stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as with the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he sometimes used the Seer Stone. Martin said further that the Seer Stone differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger.

Martin Harris' description of the manner of translating while he was an amanuensis to the Prophet is as follows:

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." fn

The sum of the whole matter, then, concerning the manner of translating the sacred record of the Nephites, according to the testimony of the only witnesses competent to testify in the matter is: With the Nephite record was deposited a curious instrument, consisting of two transparent stones, set in the rim of a bow, somewhat resembling spectacles, but larger, called by the ancient Hebrews Urim and Thummim, but by the Nephites Interpreters. In addition to these Interpreters the Prophet Joseph had a Seer Stone, which to him was as Urim and Thummim; that the Prophet sometimes used one and sometimes the other of these sacred instruments in the work of translation; that whether the Interpreters or the Seer Stone was used the Nephite characters with the English interpretation appeared in the sacred instrument; that the Prophet would pronounce the English translation to his scribe, which, when correctly written, would disappear and other characters with their interpretation take their place, and so on until the work was completed.

(B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1930], 1: 128 - 130.)

The reason I liked this is Roberts at least realizes there is a difference in David Whitmers account and Joseph and Oliver’s. Maybe the answer is simple enough that Joseph Smith used both.

Now that still doesn’t sit well with me. Would Joseph Smith use the seer stone Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and the U & T on Tuesday, and Thursday?

But as I kept going through all the different accounts of the Uirm & Thimmim I found this:

We noted earlier that the Prophet Joseph used the Urim and Thummim for translation in some instances and not in others. We wish we knew more about this process. However, two items will help our understanding. The first is a statement from the Prophet himself with reference to receiving the Holy Ghost immediately after he was baptized. Remember, this was after he had already translated much of the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim. The statement is as follows:

Immediately on our coming up out of the water ... we were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation. Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of. (JS-H 1:73-74)

It appears that having the Holy Ghost in such abundance after baptism was a greater aid in understanding "the true meaning and intention" of the scriptures than even using the Urim and Thummim had been before baptism.

(Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Joseph Smith: The Prophet, The Man [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1993], 83 - 84.)

I don’t know why, but this kind of bridged the gap in my mind. I still don’t know if this is 100% the way things happen, but it does help bring into line all the different accounts.

So, Joseph Smith used the U & T up and until around the 3 Nephi section. Joseph Smith then is baptized, and maybe this was enough in itself to help Joseph Smith’s ability to translate now became easier? (if I can use that word). I have to think this probably fully didn’t happen until after he got the Melchizedek and the Holy Ghost a couple weeks later. But the time frame is close enough. Joseph Smith could have been for a time (a week or so) used both the U & T as he was realized he might not need the U & T as he use to.

To me this seems to all fit. . Joseph Smith didn’t need the more powerful U & T, because he had more of the power of the Holy Ghost (or of God). Something he didn’t have before. I don’t know if this just enhanced the seer stone to make it now more usable. (Where as before the U & T was the one of choice) I don’t know.

This also helps explain the account of David Whitmer. This would mean that more of end part of the book of mormon was translated through the use of the seer stone. (And didn’t Joseph Smith stay at one of the Whitmer’s house for the time near the end)

This would account for:

1- David Whitmer would have actually saw this being done/used. Compared to not seeing the U & T being used before hand.

2- Something that happen more at the end of Translation would be remembered easier years later, (especially if you saw it).

I don’t know how far off this is with all the scholars. But for me, this seems to explain things the best that can be done (with at least what I have searched through). Taking into account this idea (Joseph Smith now having added power, and thus not needing the U & T as much) should have been realized with Joseph Fielding McConkie. I still see why he is as harsh as he is, trying to fit Section 9 with the straight up David Whitmer account. So for me this part is done and for the most part answered.

Now, I still don’t take David Whitmer’s account 100% of an actually Letter by Letter or word by word translation. If I use the idea from this article LDS.org - Ensign Article - “By the Gift and Power of Godâ€

It helps bridge that gap. That is that only Names were a letter by letter translation. The rest was more of a study it out (section 9) type of case. That would then fit both Oilver’s account and some what of David Whitmer’s account.

So far that only leaves one hole. That is about the U & T not being given back after the 116 pages are lost.

Every account I looked through (pretty much any History on Joseph Smith before 2001) all take into account that the U & T was restored. George Q. Cannon’s History on Joseph Smith even makes a point that the seer stone AND the U & T were taken and both restored. Joseph Smith’s Mother, and Hyrmn Smith quote Moroni in saying “If you are very humble and penitent, it may be you will receive them again; if so, it will be on the twenty-second of next September.'"

All accounts I read agree that Joseph Smith got the U & T back. All commentary I have read on Section 9 (which isn’t that much) all agree that Oliver was trying to use the U & T to translate. I haven’t read the David Whitmer account, but maybe David Whitmer assumed the U & T was taken back, because Joseph Smith started to use the Seer stone for a time. ??????????

In the study I found some strange accounts of something called the U & T being around up and until 1841.

The first account is this

After I got through translating the Book of Mormon, I took up the Bible to read with the Urim and Thummim. I read the first chapter of Genesis, and I saw the things as they were done. I turned over the next and the next, and the whole passed before me like a grand panorama; and so on chapter after chapter until I read the whole of it. I saw it all! Then I think of the sectarian priests boasting of what they know. Why I have forgotten a thousand times more than they know.—Spoken at the house of Benjamin Brown, New York State, 1832. Related by Lorenzo Brown, "Joseph Smith, Jr. Papers," Church Historian's Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

(Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968], 32.)

This account does seem strange. There are other accounts from Joseph Smith that state speciecly he did NOT need U & T any more to "translate" the bible.

There are some accounts that suggest the Book of Abraham was “translated” with the U & T. More we have a Journal Entry by Willford Woodruff.

It is not clear how or how often Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to aid in the translation of the Book of Abraham. Elder Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal December 27, 1841: "The Twelve, or part of them, spent the day with Joseph the Seer, and he confided unto them many glorious things of the kingdom of God. The privileges and blessings of the priesthood, etc. I had the privelege of seeing for the first time in my day, the Urim and Thummim."

Elder Woodruff became business manager of the Times and Seasons less than six weeks later, and on February 19 he wrote in his personal journal: "The Lord is Blessing Joseph with Power to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; to translate through the Urim and Thummim Ancient records and Hieroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam, which caused our hearts to burn within us while we beheld their glorious truth opened unto us."

(H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 161.)

It doesn’t completely make sense that Wilford was getting the U & T mixed up with seer stone. At least if we are believe Martin Harris’s account that they didn’t look at all a like.

There is one account by Hyrum that talks about Joseph Smith writing down the Celestial Marriage revelation. Hyrum suggest Joseph to get the U & T again (so he can get the revelation and write it down). Joseph Smith said he didn’t need it (U & T) because he had it all in his head. This time frame does match at least some what with Wilford Woodruff’s journal.

It does seem strange that the U & T was still around this long. It could be the U & T was around for consultation purposes when needed? Anything is possible with the work of the Lord?

I leave this Long post for what it is. If people still want to question things, I’ll probably still be up for some discussion, but for the most part this thread has run its course. I feel like I have found at least an acceptable idea that fits all the accounts (or most of the accounts) together. I leave it that. It has been enjoyable.

Edited March 1, 2009 by tubaloth

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Tubaloth--

I could actually live with a scenario in which sometimes the U&T are used, and sometimes the seer stone. But I'd want to see a comprehensive chronology of who was serving as Joseph's scribe, and when.

Joseph Smith’s Mother, and Hyrmn Smith quote Moroni in saying “If you are very humble and penitent, it may be you will receive them again; if so, it will be on the twenty-second of next September.'"

The thing is, Lucy's account also has Emma translating for Joseph immediately after the work resumed. And Emma said Joseph was using the seer stone.

It does seem strange that the U & T was still around this long. It could be the U & T was around for consultation purposes when needed? Anything is possible with the work of the Lord?

I've seen some interesting speculation that maybe the Church does have the U&T and the plates, on the premise that the Lord doesn't do things for us that we are capable of doing for ourselves (in this case, safeguarding sacred relics). For all we know, maybe there was a continued interchange over the long-term where Joseph was turning the U&T over to Moroni in times of crisis or danger, and then receiving it again in times of stability.

The thing to remember here, though, is that (if memory serves) Joseph no longer had the Chase seer stone by the time of Woodruff's journal entry. I believe Cowdery had it in his possession when he left the church in the late 1830s. (Though Joseph did have at least one or two other seer stones as well; Brigham Young recalled Joseph's showing him a seer stone during the Nauvoo period.)