Seer Stone and a Hat Translating the Book of Mormon


mdfxdb
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it seems as if the way "translation" of the Book of Mormon is taught in Sunday School is very different from what the truth is.

Book of Mormon Translation

I remember growing up being taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and we saw the picture of him and Oliver Cowdry separated by a bedsheet with Joseph reading the Gold Plates, and Oliver acting as scribe.

Turns out that's not how it happened at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope. It was quite an eclectic development as Smith relied on some of the mysticism that was common in his day (seer stones, and the like) until he gradually learned more confidence in listening to the Spirit within himself.

If we look at the process with a paradigm of a growing and developing prophet, it makes a lot more sense than if we assume Smith was the complete package as early as 1823.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say magic egg because one of his seer stones is described as being approximately the size of an egg. I get that he was not a fully complete package, it just seems as if the church teaches as if he was. I don't ever recall having it made clear exactly how the "translation" process was done. Seems as if we are left to the understanding that the translation took place exactly how we think translation should happen. I speak a different language, and know what it is to translate something. That's not how it happened, but we are not taught the "he looked into a hat" version in sunday school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mysticism that was common in his day (seer stones, and the like) until he gradually learned more confidence in listening to the Spirit within himself.

It makes a lot of sense to me that Heavenly Father would communicate important things to us in ways that we can understand. For me it's often through music, even secular, but for my husband it's something else.

We don't give enough credit to what the culture and times were like back then. We expect to be able to understand according to what we know today. Imagine if 100 years ago I told people that I could listen to the Prophet from anywhere in the world if I just watched a glowing box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you have a question?

My question is: Why isn't the translation process taught exactly as it happened? Why are we left to suppose and infer how it happened? The pictures I was shown growing up as to how the process took place are definately not it.

Edited by mdfxdb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I've been in the church for 50+ years and I was taught about seer stones and such growing up.

maybe you were, but most members I have spoken with have no clue about it. Including my bishop.

In sunday school this week several members were discussing how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Moses........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: Why isn't the translation process taught exactly as it happened? Why are we left to suppose and infer how it happened? The pictures I was shown growing up as to how the process took place are definately not it.

I don't think we need a step-by-step tutorial on how to translate brass plates. Like pam said, it has been taught at church. I never felt I had to infer anything. Does it matter that much? Does it affect the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? Like many things, it's a peripheral detail that has no effect on our salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe you were, but most members I have spoken with have no clue about it. Including my bishop.

In sunday school this week several members were discussing how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Moses........

None of this has been kept a secret.

Elder Nelson even spoke about this 20 years ago in a talk he gave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe you were, but most members I have spoken with have no clue about it. Including my bishop.

In sunday school this week several members were discussing how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Moses........

Members being uneducated has nothing to do with anything. People are idiots. That includes members of the church.

This hardly needs to be said because it's been said many times if one cares to look into it in any regard but...

Sunday school is not about teaching history. This is not the domain of "the church" as you like to call it, though calling a picture painted by an artist "the church" seems pretty unfair. Regardless, the church's position is, and always has been, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we need a step-by-step tutorial on how to translate brass plates. Like pam said, it has been taught at church. I never felt I had to infer anything. Does it matter that much? Does it affect the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? Like many things, it's a peripheral detail that has no effect on our salvation.

We don't need a step by step, but why not just lay out the facts? Why leave it to interpretation? People assume too much about some of these processes and we are not taught about them in Sunday School.

I would venture to guess most members of my Sunday School class also think Joseph Smith "translated" the JST version of the bible.

Granted these details aren't important to an overall testimony, but geeze if they exist why not just teach it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say magic egg because one of his seer stones is described as being approximately the size of an egg.

Nevertheless it has a derogatory bent to it, and as such I'm changing the title to its proper name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is old news and a common anti-Mormon topic of discussion on almost any forum when discussing Joseph Smith.

This isn't old news for everyone. Some people are just finding out that what a lot of people claimed back in the day about the translation process is actually quite true. I grew up looking at the picture of Joseph sitting at a table, looking at the plates while Oliver sat across the table, separated by a sheet hung across the table, writing down what Joseph said. Imagine my surprise to find out that's not the way it happened. Imagine asking your mission president if what the anti's were saying about the translation process was true (head in a hat) and being told no, only to find out later that it actually was true. People struggle with these issues. I know of several personally. mdfxdb has a point. Why wasn't/isn't this taught in Sunday School?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this has been kept a secret.

Elder Nelson even spoke about this 20 years ago in a talk he gave.

Is this the talk to which you are referring? A Treasured Testament - Ensign July 1993 - ensign

We also have the following referencing both the seer stone and the hat: Book of Mormon Translation

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would venture to guess most members of my Sunday School class also think Joseph Smith "translated" the JST version of the bible.

To be fair, Joseph called the process a translation. So that would be a fairly easy thing to come to if one did not bother to every do a single bit of reading or research into it.

Granted these details aren't important to an overall testimony, but geeze if they exist why not just teach it?

Because it has nothing to do with anything. As has been pointed out, it has been taught and has never been covered up. But it is not the objective of the church.

Moreover, there is also, as has been pointed out, a cultural divide that makes certain things difficult for our culture to understand. It's entirely reasonable to not openly discuss something that is difficult to understand culturally, in favor of discussing the things that actually do matter, meaning spiritually. I mean, we don't generally go into detail in Sunday School about how they bled out the animals when doing sacrifices and smeared the blood all over the alter, etc. The gory details of it would be quite shocking to our culture as we don't generally slaughter our own animals anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't old news for everyone. Some people are just finding out that what a lot of people claimed back in the day about the translation process is actually quite true. I grew up looking at the picture of Joseph sitting at a table, looking at the plates while Oliver sat across the table, separated by a sheet hung across the table, writing down what Joseph said. Imagine my surprise to find out that's not the way it happened. Imagine asking your mission president if what the anti's were saying about the translation process was true (head in a hat) and being told no, only to find out later that it actually was true. People struggle with these issues. I know of several personally. mdfxdb has a point. Why wasn't/isn't this taught in Sunday School?

Except that assumes Joseph Smith used the same method all the times. He had access to the Urim and Thummin (Aka interpreters) he had his seer stone... and he had a few different scribes... so to assume that one picture describes exactly how it happened all the time makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call hogwash on this. Historical interpretive hearsay at best.

Bushman documented this pretty well in Rough Stone Rolling. If you'd like a fair treatment on the subject, I'd refer you to him.

Just as Eowyn suggests in her comment on the same quote, it makes sense that the Lord would start building Smith with the familiar and gradually develop him into an independent revelator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that assumes Joseph Smith used the same method all the times. He had access to the Urim and Thummin (Aka interpreters) he had his seer stone... and he had a few different scribes... so to assume that one picture describes exactly how it happened all the time makes no sense.

Moreover, there is an assumption that the Sunday School manual is and always has been the complete and perfect answer to teach everyone exactly what they need to fulfill their intellectual concerns and desires about the church.

This is patently unfair and a ridiculous expectation. The manuals are put together to teach the gospel as best they can. They are developed by committee and then reviewed and approved by the appropriate authority. To expect that they will cover every detail that is concerning to every one of the millions of members through the years is unrealistic. And to blame "the church" as if they were trying to cover things up is just plain silly.

People are going to have concerns with the church. Satan is working his very hardest to ensure this is the case, and people are weak and skeptical and naturally of little faith. The Sunday School manual cannot possibly account for every single instance of every crisis of faith that members face. The Lord expects us to study and learn, have faith, pray, listen to the spirit, etc. not be spoon fed every minor detail, even those that hardly matter, in is Sunday School.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: Why isn't the translation process taught exactly as it happened? Why are we left to suppose and infer how it happened? The pictures I was shown growing up as to how the process took place are definately not it.

I think part of the problem is that Smith himself was reluctant to give details about how it happened. From the article you listed in your OP:

In the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith wrote: “I would inform you that I translated [the book], by the gift and power of God.” When pressed for specifics about the process of translation, Joseph repeated on several occasions that it had been done “by the gift and power of God” and once added, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.”

It would be wonderful to be able to "lay out the facts". Trouble is, we don't know precisely what those "facts" always are. Scholars themselves don't agree about the mechanics. Some claim the Nephite interpreters were never used at all. Others assert that they were used up until the loss of the 116 pages, at which time they were not returned to Joseph and he had to rely on his stone. Some scholars argue that the translation process involved specific words somehow showing up on the stone; others feel that the stone primarily conveyed ideas and that it was up to Joseph to articulate those ideas into words.

Moreover, "seer stones" have been kind of a touchy issue in the Church--beginning with Hiram Page, but continuing well into the Utah period and even the early 20th century. Suffice it to say: if you start messing around with that kind of thing without the Spirit of God, you can get yourself into a heckuvalot of trouble; and I don't blame the Church for down-playing the role of Joseph's seer-stone even at the expense of historical accuracy.

I call hogwash on this. Historical interpretive hearsay at best.

Well, I think it makes sense to say that the Lord initially made a habit of revealing His power to Joseph in a way that Joseph was accustomed to looking for it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share