Seer Stone and a Hat Translating the Book of Mormon

[mdfxdb]

It isn't fair to demean those who are surprised and even uncomfortable with a factoid they just stumbled across.

But, speaking for me, I do find myself irritated with those who get upset by the fact they didn't learn about it in Sunday School.

It's not the curiosity that's a problem, it's the expectation that all little details need to be presented.

We can argue about the expectation of little details, but when we are presented with illustrations of Joseph Smith on one side of the table and Oliver on the other with a sheet between them, well what do you expect people to think? It's not about getting the details right. It's about misleading people into thinking the translation of the book of mormon occurred as we typically think of a translation process.

Joseph Smith stated that it was through the power of God that the book was translated, and as a member growing up I always swallowed that line along with the illustrations I was shown because I presumed just like 99% of everyone else who heard the statement that the power of God was manifest because Joseph didn't speak/read reformed egyptian. Also, that he used the Urim and Thummim exclusively for the translation.

Why would it be so hard to expect to be presented the facts as outlined on LDS.org that I cited on my initial post? Why does this even have to be a shock to people? It's a shock because as investigators, members, and sunday school attendees we are taught something very different about the process.

[Backroads]

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with having expectations on knowing all the facts if they are available. And if Sunday school or a particular lesson is not intended to cover topic x in such degree, it would be appreciated if it was noted that there are additional details and information that will not be covered. I'm not one to sit in a Sunday school class and push for more information if I'm lead to believe that's all there is. I think a side note would be nice, that's all.

That's just it, though. We have, what, an hour for Sunday school? Is that honestly enough time to present every little detail?

Even a footnote... that footnote would either have to be an encyclopedia unto itself or a mere and very general, go read more church books.

[mdfxdb]

That's just it, though. We have, what, an hour for Sunday school? Is that honestly enough time to present every little detail?

Even a footnote... that footnote would either have to be an encyclopedia unto itself or a mere and very general, go read more church books.

It's not about every little detail. It's about a misrepresentation of how it happened...

[Backroads]

We can argue about the expectation of little details, but when we are presented with illustrations of Joseph Smith on one side of the table and Oliver on the other with a sheet between them, well what do you expect people to think? It's not about getting the details right. It's about misleading people into thinking the translation of the book of mormon occurred as we typically think of a translation process.

Joseph Smith stated that it was through the power of God that the book was translated, and as a member growing up I always swallowed that line along with the illustrations I was shown because I presumed just like 99% of everyone else who heard the statement that the power of God was manifest because Joseph didn't speak/read reformed egyptian. Also, that he used the Urim and Thummim exclusively for the translation.

Why would it be so hard to expect to be presented the facts as outlined on LDS.org that I cited on my initial post? Why does this even have to be a shock to people? It's a shock because as investigators, members, and sunday school attendees we are taught something very different about the process.

But there are accounts of the sheet.

I suppose that if so many people are shocked, then yes, something is off. What, exactly, I don't know, because I think intentions in that illustration were innocent.

[mdfxdb]

But there are accounts of the sheet.

I suppose that if so many people are shocked, then yes, something is off. What, exactly, I don't know, because I think intentions in that illustration were innocent.

Book of Mormon Translation

The intentions of the illustration are irrelevant. It's not how it happened. Not once growing up in primary, sunday school, institute, my mission, BYU relition classes was it represented as it actually happened. I never once saw any reference to a seer stone or a hat...

[Backroads]

Okay, despite mixed historical accounts that in general suggest several methods of translation details at different points, you want what is taught in Sunday School to match up with the website, correct?

[mnn727]

Book of Mormon Translation

The intentions of the illustration are irrelevant. It's not how it happened. Not once growing up in primary, sunday school, institute, my mission, BYU relition classes was it represented as it actually happened. I never once saw any reference to a seer stone or a hat...

The usage of the seer stone used to bother me, however the Urim and Thummin are also seer stones,yes they are set in a bow and attached to a breastplate yet they are still stones.

You get right down to it the glass front of my Android Phone is fused sand (glass) making it a type of stone also and I can see all sorts of things on my phone.

Could God make words appear on a piece of stone or crystal? (especially since Steve Jobs had that ability also - meaning an iPhone)

---

To carry it even further: Would an early 18th century man recognize solid state electronics and a small view screen or would they call it a 'seer stone' and put it inside a hat to cut down on the suns glare?

Just throwing out a few thoughts here.

Edited January 23, 2014 by mnn727

[mdfxdb]

Okay, despite mixed historical accounts that in general suggest several methods of translation details at different points, you want what is taught in Sunday School to match up with the website, correct?

Correct. This article seems very well put together, and concise as to the translation process. It states what we don't know, and it states what we do know. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Leaving the process to our own points of view or various interepretations, of how the interpretation process took place just leads to the "shock" when you find out that's not how it happened. It makes no doctrinal difference, so why not just teach it as it happened?

[The Folk Prophet]

I suppose that if so many people are shocked, then yes, something is off. What, exactly, I don't know, because I think intentions in that illustration were innocent.

What is off, IMO, is that Satan is working hard, digging at people, using every tool in the arsenal to shake people's faith. There are, however, specific guides in the scriptures to guard against this -- diligently studying the scriptures being one of the prime points.

[The Folk Prophet]

The usage of the seer stone used to bother me, however the Urim and Thummin are also seer stones,yes they are set in a bow and attached to a breastplate yet they are still stones.

You get right down to it the glass front of my Android Phone is fused sand (glass) making it a type of stone also and I can see all sorts of things on my phone.

Could God make words appear on a piece of stone or crystal? (especially since Steve Jobs had that ability also - meaning an iPhone)

Would an early 18th century man recognize solid state electronics and a small view screen or would they call it a 'seer stone' and put it inside a hat to cut down on the suns glare?

THAT'S AWESOME!! MY PHONE IS A SEERSTONE!!

Sorry for shouting. But I love it!

[The Folk Prophet]

Correct. This article seems very well put together, and concise as to the translation process. It states what we don't know, and it states what we do know. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Leaving the process to our own points of view or various interepretations, of how the interpretation process took place just leads to the "shock" when you find out that's not how it happened. It makes no doctrinal difference, so why not just teach it as it happened?

It is not unreasonably to presume that the next edition of whatever manual that has a lesson on the translation will incorporate said information.

[Backroads]

Correct. This article seems very well put together, and concise as to the translation process. It states what we don't know, and it states what we do know. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Leaving the process to our own points of view or various interepretations, of how the interpretation process took place just leads to the "shock" when you find out that's not how it happened. It makes no doctrinal difference, so why not just teach it as it happened?

Okay! I think I'm finally on your same page (or at least chapter or volume).

I still stand by the notion that I doubt the Church was trying to hide anything by presenting that picture. Should that information be updated, especially since it is blatantly taught on the Church's website? Yes, I suppose that if they are going to show some stuff on the translation, it should be largely accurate.

But do forgive me for my other thoughts in the thread. It just that it seems that so many people, when getting upset over stuff they learn, are more angry that they didn't know it than at the concept itself and turn it into some big evil conspiracy ordeal.

I'm sure a lot of people hate being shocked by freshly discovered information. The way I see it: if you want to know about it, it falls on you to learn about it. As for saying it's hard to study on something you didn't know about, that's true, but that information should be taken as a simple absence of information rather than a lie or cover-up.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Backroads

[The Folk Prophet]

As for saying it's hard to study on something you didn't know about, that's true...

Was true. Not so much any more. Not in the day of information. Not with Google and Wikipedia. True 20 years back. No excuse nowadays.

[Backroads]

Was true. Not so much any more. Not in the day of information. Not with Google and Wikipedia. True 20 years back. No excuse nowadays.

Nah, you still have to have a subject to type into Google.

[The Folk Prophet]

Nah, you still have to have a subject to type into Google.

Well, yeah. You always had to have a subject to learn something. The implication was that it is hard to learn about Joseph using seer stones if you don't know to research about that. That isn't true anymore. Just google Joseph Smith.

From the wikipedia article on Joseph, for example:

Smith never said how he produced the Book of Mormon, saying only that he translated by the power of God and implying that he had transcribed the words.[205] As such, considerable disagreement about the actual method used exists. For at least some of the earliest dictation, Smith is said to have used the "Urim and Thummim", a pair of seer stones he said were buried with the plates.[206] Later, however, he is said to have used a chocolate-colored stone he had found in 1822 that he had used previously for treasure hunting.[207] Joseph Knight said that Smith saw the words of the translation while he gazed at the stone or stones in the bottom of his hat, excluding all light, a process similar to divining the location of treasure.[208] Sometimes, Smith concealed the process by raising a curtain or dictating from another room, while at other times he dictated in full view of witnesses while the plates lay covered on the table.[209] After completing the translation, Smith gave the brown stone to Cowdery, but continued to receive revelations using another stone until about 1833 when he said he no longer needed it.

^ that was without even trying.

[NeuroTypical]

It's about misleading people into thinking the translation of the book of mormon occurred as we typically think of a translation process.

So, I actually worked for a translation company for over two years back in the '90's. I learned about how the process worked, different languages, common issues and challenges. Work hours were sometimes early or late, so we could talk to our colleagues in Japan or China or Germany or wherever. Now I only speak English, yet I got familiar enough with the process to be able to identify languages just by looking at the text. I can see if something is written in Portuguese vs Spanish, I can tell the difference between Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. Heck, I was able to tell between Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. At the top of my game, I could even figure out where one translator stopped and another translator started working, just by looking at a block of translated text. I say all this to establish my credentials as someone who knows a thing or two about the translation process.

So listen to what I have to say: In my experience of talking to thousands of people all over the world across two decades, most people are almost completely ignorant of how translation works. Most of you don't even know what you don't know. What a typical person "typically thinks of a translation process" is less than useless - it's likely a handful of baseless assumptions that have rarely risen to the level of a conscious thought. In your case, everything you figure we "typically think" about it, probably was based largely on that picture you were shown in Primary.

This isn't a bad thing. It's just not knowing. We all go through life actually knowing very little of everything there is to know.

Here's a very, very brief primer of what translation looks like: On the Beach, or Why You Can't Just Translate the Words

After you've read it, (and feel free to show it to anyone from the t9n industry* if you doubt it's wisdom), you'll probably notice that it describes a whole lot of stuff that you've never even began to think about as what Joseph did.

And, having read the accounts of Joseph's process, I'd have to agree. What Joseph did cannot really be considered translation at all. Because he didn't know how to read the text on the plates.

That's right - I just claimed, in a thread where the words "translate" or "translation" have been used over a hundred times, by all parties in the conversation, that what Joseph did can't correctly be seen as "translating". If you read that link and think for a bit, you may be able to understand why. But we use the word "translate", because it's what we all think of, even though we're all wrong. Can you imagine me trying to teach any of this to a group of bored primary kids who just want their snack?

So, mdfxdb, not only was that picture wrong, but the entire use of the word "translation" is wrong. God was the being doing the translating - Joseph just read the English words as they appeared (in a stone or in his mind), and saw they were written down more or less correctly.

Because I know all this, I continue to be unable to rise to the level of concern you think appropriate. The church, peopled by folks ignorant of how translation works, needed a way to get across how Joseph created the BoM to it's young members, who also are largely ignorant of how translation works. Joseph himself used the word in error, having never done a day of real translation in his whole youthful life up until that point, and having still never done real translation after the dictation was all done. Nobody had really looked that closely into the accounts of how it actually happened (at least we can be pretty sure the folks who came up with that picture hadn't), so they did what you did - made an assumption which turned out to be based in ignorance.

You can call that "misleading" if you like. I'll call it an innocent mistake. Regrettable? Sure. Look at what it's doing to you. Nobody wanted that to happen. When they make me emperor of the mormons and give me a time machine, I'll go back to the people coming up with that picture, and have them read the 2014 link off lds.org, and come up with a different picture. But until then, I'm just going to continue not being agitated about the whole deal, and I sincerely suggest you consider letting go as well.

* t9n = translation (the letter "t", followed by 9 letters, ending with "n". Folks in the industry actually prefer L10n or I18n, because localization and internationalization are better than simple translation. Go ahead - google "L10N".)

Edited January 23, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[mdfxdb]

"misleading" and "translation"

I completely agree that "translation" is the wrong word. Inspired or by Revelation would be more accurate, just as in the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible, or the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Moses.

Any one know what happened to the Scroll of Joseph which accompanied the Book of Abraham?

"misleading" however, is exactly what I would call it.

[Guest]

A large portion of the scrolls were likely destroyed in the great Chicago fire. Emma Smith and her second husband donated them to the museum there.

[The Folk Prophet]

Loudmouth_Mormon, I think your post is fairly fully well the definition of "nitpicking".

You are correct, of course. But really, the simple definition of translate is: To render in another language. Joseph Smith most certainly did that concerning the BOM.

mdfxdb, you are somewhat correct on the simple definition of "mislead": To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. Per the second part, specifically "intentionally", there's a problem with your claim.

[Vort]

A large portion of the scrolls were likely destroyed in the great Chicago fire. Emma Smith and her second husband donated them to the museum there.

Yes, for safe keeping. I suspect Emma found little joy with Lewis Bidamon, but I hope she at least found some rest.

[NeuroTypical]

Loudmouth_Mormon, I think your post is fairly fully well the definition of "nitpicking".

You are correct, of course. But really, the simple definition of translate is: To render in another language. Joseph Smith most certainly did that concerning the BOM.

Well, to continue picking this nit, no he didn't. God rendered in another language, Joseph read (or felt) the English words and said them out loud. Joseph didn't gain the ability to comprehend the other language, which is necessary in order to translate - he gained the ability to see the English translation God put there for him.

mdfxdb, you are somewhat correct on the simple definition of "mislead": To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. Per the second part, specifically "intentionally", there's a problem with your claim.

I basically agree here.

[Vort]

Well, to continue picking this nit, no he didn't. God rendered in another language, Joseph read (or felt) the English words and said them out loud. Joseph didn't gain the ability to comprehend the other language, which is necessary in order to translate - he gained the ability to see the English translation God put there for him.

Yet both Joseph Smith and even God himself referred to the process as "translation".

[mdfxdb]

mdfxdb, you are somewhat correct on the simple definition of "mislead": To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. Per the second part, specifically "intentionally", there's a problem with your claim.

A lie of omission is just as much a lie as a lie of commission. Knowingly not correcting a falsehood is the same as willful deception.

[estradling75]

A lie of omission is just as much a lie as a lie of commission. Knowingly not correcting a falsehood is the same as willful deception.

Has it ever occurred to you that act of publishing more of the details the Church is correcting the falsehood... You are complaining that they are doing exactly what you want them to do.

[mdfxdb]

Has it ever occurred to you that act of publishing more of the details the Church is correcting the falsehood... You are complaining that they are doing exactly what you want them to do.

I am happy they are setting the record straight....only took 150+ yrs.....