Seer Stone and a Hat Translating the Book of Mormon

[Blackmarch]

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.

the seer stones came from the breast plate which had a part designed to keep them in front of a persons eyes. The stones were removable... Joseph used the stones early on in a multitude of settings. a hat in lieu of a darkened room was sometimes used among other methods. Generally we don't go into every detail in all the different ways Joseph used the stones, but (at leat in the classes I've been) have all mentioned that Joseph would use seer stones to help translate. Generally the scenes used in videos come from descriptions later on in the translation process.

[NeuroTypical]

One more fun story, told by BYU professor Dan Peterson:

Having, some time back, served on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee of the Church for nearly ten years, I would never, ever, take a Gospel Doctrine manual to be an official and binding declaration of Church doctrine. We tried to get things right, we prayed about our work, and what we did was reviewed in Salt Lake before publication, but it scarcely constituted scripture.

A story:

Once, the scriptural selection about which I was assigned to write a lesson included, among other things, Acts 20:7-12, in which the apostle Paul drones on for so long in the course of a sermon that a young man (ironically named Eutychus or "Fortunate") dozes off and falls from the rafters. Paul has to restore him to life. As a joke, I inserted a passage in my lesson manuscript that read somewhat along the following lines:

Have a class member read Acts 20:7-12. Have you ever killed anyone with a sacrament meeting speech? How did it make you feel? What steps can you take in the future to ensure that it does not happen again?

Members of the committee laughed, and the committee chairman sent my lesson on up, incorporating their suggested revisions but also still including my little joke, to Salt Lake City. Where it passed Correlation. (I can only assume that each member of the committee chuckled and then passed it on, expecting that somebody else would remove it.) When I received the galleys of the lesson back for final approval just before it went to press, the joke was still there. I faced one of the greatest moral crises of my life, but finally called Church headquarters and suggested that they probably didn't really want the lesson to go out to Church members entirely as it stood. So the joke was removed.

The point being that Gospel Doctrine manuals are not to be confused with authoritative divine revelations.

Folks screw up and are wrong sometimes. Sometimes, lots and lots and lots of people can be all wrong about the same thing. Sometimes those people are all found in a certain organization like a religion. This is what living life on planet earth as a social human being involves. Ok, it can be shocking when it first dawns on you. Now you know.

[Dravin]

I'm not saying the church lied, they just left out the details.

Here is the thing, the Church will always leave out details. Limited time, limited space, and limited focus will ensure this will be the case. If not about detail X then about detail Y. This does not mean (I am not attributing these positions to you):

1) It's a nefarious happening meant to sucker people in.

2) That said detail is being hidden by the Church.

3) That said detail needs to be emphasized in the curricula of the Church.

For what it's worth I can understand the idea that, "Maybe a new picture depicting the use of a seer stone and a hat could be commissioned." Yeah, sure. I don't have any issue with that (others might, but I don't), but most people are addressing the three points above.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Dravin

[Backroads]

I remember growing up in Primary and being taught about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon and hanging on the chalkboard was the picture of Joseph sitting across the table from Oliver with a sheet between them, and Joseph is reading the plates.

Please tell me how I am to think that this was not the way it was done? I'm not saying the church lied, they just left out the details. This is what bothers a lot of people. And for members to mock, dismiss, claim they have weak testimonies, only drives these people further away.

You would one day reach a point where you wanted to find out a little more information about the translation process and you would ask questions and eventually learn that there may have indeed been a sheet at one point and there may have also been a hat at another point. Yes, you might think that's how it was done until you investigated further and found out more nuances on the subject and you would integrate your new-found knowledge into what you already assumed on the subject.

Let's put this another way: What if the method of translation that remained in public memory for years was in fact the seer stone?

Then some people bring up the notion that a sheet hung up in a room was probably used at one point.

Oh, the horrors!

[Dravin]

Let's put this another way: What if the method of translation that remained in public memory for years was in fact the seer stone?

Then some people bring up the notion that a sheet hung up in a room was probably used at one point.

Oh, the horrors!

It's worth noting that according to the LDS.org reference ( Book of Mormon Translation ) that some accounts do have Joseph Smith studying the plates themselves during the translation process. I don't know the subject well enough to know which specific accounts that is referring to (or to grade it on reliability) but if you have an account of Joseph Smith studying the plates during translation then a painting based on such an account introducing a sheet (considering what we know about the restrictions concerning showing the plates to people) isn't some egregious distortion of the account (and for all I know the accounts include it).

Which highlights one of the things about history, while we like to think of history as some giant collection of facts of what we know all laid out in a row, history is a compilation of multiple sources that are synthesized according to metrics such as consistency, perceived reliability, focus, and even plausibility. History isn't a single narrative, it's a cacophony of sources. When you convert history from that cacophony into a narrative it is a lossy process. Narratives are generally how history is handled at an introductory level though because the narratives are easier to understand than the cacophony.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Dravin

[Backroads]

It's worth noting that according to the LDS.org reference ( Book of Mormon Translation ) that some accounts do have Joseph Smith studying the plates themselves during the translation process. I don't know the subject well enough to know which specific accounts that is referring to (or to grade it on reliability) but if you have an account of Joseph Smith studying the plates during translation then a painting based on such an account introducing a sheet (considering what we know about the restrictions concerning showing the plates to people) isn't some egregious distortion of the account (and for all I know the accounts include it).

Which highlights one of the things about history, while we like to think of history as some giant collection of facts what we know all laid out in a row, history is a compilation of multiple sources that are synthesized according to metrics such as consistency, perceived reliability, focus, and even plausibility. History isn't a single narrative, it's a cacophony of sources. When you convert history from that cacophony into a narrative it is a lossy process. Narratives are generally how history is handled at an introductory level though because the narratives are easier to understand than the cacophony.

Well-said.

Which is why I have so much trouble understanding why some people are so bothered by stuff like this. If it's reasonable, according to historical reports, to assume a sheet was used at once point of the translation, then why not depict it in a picture?

As a former primary teacher, if I had to present two different paintings of two different methods of translation, well, I'd probably confuse a lot of little kids. One painting to illustrate that Joseph Smith translated plates presents the concept that Joseph Smith translated plates. Let's move on and not get bogged down in the details.

[The Folk Prophet]

Not that any of this matters, but I couldn't help myself...

* He once used a swear word in a letter, when talking about men who wouldn't defend their families.

Right. Have you studied up on what was and wasn't considered "swearing" in the 1800s? Most cussing, as they saw it, would sound more like Yosemite Sam to us. Not that it really matters, but I'm a bit skeptical on this. Just because something reads as a swear word to us doesn't mean it did to them and was intended that way.

* Brigham Young had some serious anger management issues.

Because he was a strong leader who spoke his mind and put people in their place? Or was there a story you heard in church of him breaking dishes and slapping people around? Just curious.

* Joseph was a really horrible business owner.

I don't know if this is entirely fair. He wasn't successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was horrible. He was too generous, etc., but had a fair amount of bad fortune to boot. Everyone who fails at business isn't necessarily horrible at it.

* I had a primary teacher tell us that the third part which sided with Lucifer came to earth and got bodies. So one out of every three people you meet in life is actually a demon in disguise.

Ha ha.

* A scout leader once told me that gays would destroy the country and God would allow it if we didn't stop them.

Seems reasonable to me.

* A convert who had once belonged to the Community of Christ (RLDS) told me Nephites and Incas are the same thing.

Wouldn't Lamanites and Incas being the same make more sense? :) Heheh.

[NeuroTypical]

Have you studied up on what was and wasn't considered "swearing" in the 1800s? Most cussing, as they saw it, would sound more like Yosemite Sam to us. Not that it really matters, but I'm a bit skeptical on this. Just because something reads as a swear word to us doesn't mean it did to them and was intended that way.

I dunno - you tell me:

"Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. [but] Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a b*st*rd."

-- Joseph Smith Jr., journal entry, January 29, 1843. Source: "An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith," edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Inc.,1989, p. 298

Because he was a strong leader who spoke his mind and put people in their place? Or was there a story you heard in church of him breaking dishes and slapping people around? Just curious.

Because he told us so himself.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young - Chapter 28: Exercising Self-Control

"Many men will say they have a violent temper, and try to excuse themselves for actions of which they are ashamed. I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself." (He goes on to explain how one can overcome their passion.)

I don't know if this is entirely fair. He wasn't successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was horrible. He was too generous, etc., but had a fair amount of bad fortune to boot. Everyone who fails at business isn't necessarily horrible at it.

How many business ventures does one need to fail at, in the absence of any business successes, before one could rightly claim the title of "horrible business owner"? I'm really interested in a number. One? Five? "One more than Joseph"? Anyway, I suppose I can't really say I got this notion from church, because it was some of the scholarly commenting from folks like Hugh Nibley and people at FAIR who went through his history.

You know, Joseph was a great leader, very charismatic, with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and learning, and the people who knew him best (friend or foe) pretty much all said he possessed great character, honesty, and genuine forthrightness. It's ok if he stank at business, isn't it?

Church, don't tell me you're now ticked off that some of this stuff wasn't covered more when you were in primary... :)

[Guest]

Everyone knows that the Lamanites were Mayans.

[Guest]

Everyone knows that the Lamanites were Mayans.

Seminoles!

[The Folk Prophet]

I dunno - you tell me:

"Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. [but] Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a b*st*rd."

-- Joseph Smith Jr., journal entry, January 29, 1843. Source: "An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith," edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Inc.,1989, p. 298

We don't know how Joseph viewed that word, is my point. It could very well have been the equivalent to our saying, "Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a pig."

A few hundred years hence and they read that in our journal and...oh my goodness!! What did he say?!

Because he told us so himself.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young - Chapter 28: Exercising Self-Control

"Many men will say they have a violent temper, and try to excuse themselves for actions of which they are ashamed. I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself." (He goes on to explain how one can overcome their passion.)

Cool.

How many business ventures does one need to fail at, in the absence of any business successes, before one could rightly claim the title of "horrible business owner"? I'm really interested in a number. One? Five? "One more than Joseph"? Anyway, I suppose I can't really say I got this notion from church, because it was some of the scholarly commenting from folks like Hugh Nibley and people at FAIR who went through his history.

You know, Joseph was a great leader, very charismatic, with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and learning, and the people who knew him best (friend or foe) pretty much all said he possessed great character, honesty, and genuine forthrightness. It's ok if he stank at business, isn't it?

By the same logic the antis call him a lawbreaking, womanizing scoundrel. Joseph was a special man with a special mission. That anything befell him, even multiple times, shouldn't necessarily read the same to us as in reading others. That being said, yes. Yes it is ok if he stank at business. And I admit to being a staunch Joseph Smith defender. In this case, however, I was just playing the smart aleck. Nontheless, I stand by my assertion that your assertion isn't conclusive.

Church, don't tell me you're now ticked off that some of this stuff wasn't covered more when you were in primary... :)

Commencing apostasy..............................................now.

[Traveler]

Just wondering - has anyone present during the translation of the Book of Mormon testified that for actual translation the stone was placed in a hat?

It is my understanding that a seer stone is sacred and that according to the instruction, covenant and commandment of G-d no one is to look upon the stone to receive revelation except the seer G-d has commanded. Joseph protected individuals privileged to be in his presents when the power of the stone was manifested by placing the stone in a hat so only Joseph could gaze upon it so those present could gain greater insights in to the power by which the Book of Mormon was translated.

If my view is twisted - I look for correction and a reference well sourced.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

When you consider how many people have their faces buried in their phones these days, the Seer stone doesn't seen as strange as it used to.

[Bini]

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

I must be an idiot then. I don't ever recall hearing about "seer stones" or a "hat".

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

Perhaps. But if you don't know about it, never hear about it, what would possess you to suddenly look it up? I'm almost 30-years old and have never heard of such things as a seer stone or translating hat.

---

We had a discussion a while back ago where another member did not realise the extent of Joseph Smith's multiple wives. That person got a lot of crap for it. I've known about polygamy in the Church but that's about where it ends. I don't know how many wives prophets and other priesthood holders had or how old those wives were. And yes, I'd probably be very shocked in knowing the exact facts. This doesn't mean I'm now anti-gospel. It just becomes a curiosity with many questions.

[The Folk Prophet]

I must be an idiot then. I don't ever recall hearing about "seer stones" or a "hat".

To be fair, I include myself as "people".

Perhaps. But if you don't know about it, never hear about it, what would possess you to suddenly look it up? I'm almost 30-years old and have never heard of such things as a seer stone or translating hat.

The hat thing I can see not having heard about with no external reading on Joseph Smith. Though within the last 10 years or so really all it takes is a Google search or a quick wikipedia read...but.... The seer stone isn't that uncommon a thing, from my point of view, to have knowledge of. That being said, it really doesn't matter to not have heard of these things. It's not important. And in spite of my snide remark about idiots, not having heard of these does not make one an idiot...though it might be fair to say that one is somewhat uneducated in this particular field (which is fine, there are plenty of fields where I am woefully uneducated myself). I would hope that after a certain amount of time of serious investment in the gospel that one would dig into a deeper level of learning. But, if not...it really doesn't matter to our eternal salvation, except perhaps wherein when we do actually hear about things like this we let it throw our testimonies.

We had a discussion a while back ago where another member did not realise the extent of Joseph Smith's multiple wives. That person got a lot of crap for it. I've known about polygamy in the Church but that's about where it ends. I don't know how many wives prophets and other priesthood holders had or how old those wives were. And yes, I'd probably be very shocked in knowing the exact facts. This doesn't mean I'm now anti-gospel. It just becomes a curiosity with many questions.

I just read a book on Joseph Smith's polygamy...well, 3 books actually....called, interestingly enough, Joseph Smith's Polygamy. As much as I learned things that I did not know before, I did not find any of it "shocking". (Though I'm sure one could find more sensational/anti points of view on the matter.) Shocking is a matter of bias with most of this stuff. We have preconceived notions of something based on our contemporary, Protestant, Victorian influenced culture, so anything outside of that can blast us with cold chills. But it's entirely perception based in that bias. Our feelings on these matters don't really have much to do with reality and eternal truth.

[Backroads]

This doesn't mean I'm now anti-gospel. It just becomes a curiosity with many questions.

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.

[estradling75]

We had a discussion a while back ago where another member did not realise the extent of Joseph Smith's multiple wives. That person got a lot of crap for it. I've known about polygamy in the Church but that's about where it ends. I don't know how many wives prophets and other priesthood holders had or how old those wives were. And yes, I'd probably be very shocked in knowing the exact facts. This doesn't mean I'm now anti-gospel. It just becomes a curiosity with many questions.

Bini--- Its one thing to come here and say I didn't know about this... Its quiet another to come here blame the church for 'keeping secrets' because they didn't didn't know something. On both the subjects you reference (reference to seer stones and the command to take multiple wives) the knowledge that they exist and/or happened is right there in our scripture. Scriptures which we are encourage to study daily.

Sure you wouldn't get the historical details... But the surprise factor that Joseph Smith use a seer stone(s) to translate the Book of Mormon should not be a shock given thats what scriptures say they were for. Nor the should one be surprise that Joesph Smith followed the commandment to take multiple wive once you read that the commandment was given in the Doctrine in Covenants.

To accuse the church of 'keeping secrets' when it the Church is the one that by and large persevered and made available the historical record they try to use proof of such a claim simply rubs many the wrong way

[The Folk Prophet]

estradling75,

You still use a modem? :)

[estradling75]

estradling75,

You still use a modem? :)

Yes

HowStuffWorks "How Cable Modems Work"

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes

HowStuffWorks "How Cable Modems Work"

Yeah, yeah, yeah...as soon as I posted I thought to myself..."duh."

edit: I had visions of War Games.

[Guest]

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

Backroads, you are a very wise woman.

[Bini]

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

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.

Also, the "idiot" comment was unnecessary, whether made as a generalisation or exclusively. It's just not very nice.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

There is nothing wrong with having expectations to know the facts that are available. But it behooves us, if we do have such expectations, to research on our own, and that IS clearly taught by the church. An expectation for a disclaimer in the manuals is unreasonable however. Of course there is further information.

Also, the "idiot" comment was unnecessary, whether made as a generalisation or exclusively. It's just not very nice.

Don't be so sensitive. The obvious point of it was to say that we shouldn't base our testimony or lack thereof on other people because people are fallible, mortal, unseeing, unknowing, prejudice, blind, ignorant, weak creatures. And Mormons are people, so all of the above applies to all of them. ALL people are "idiots" (except, of course, the Savior). It wasn't an attack on you. Stop reading personal attacks into things that are clearly not.

[Bini]

Don't be so sensitive.

I don't mind these discussion and opposing opinions but the name calling isn't necessary. You could try being a bit more tactful, yeh.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Bini
broken quote.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't mind these discussion and opposing opinions but the name calling isn't necessary. You could try being a bit more tactful, yeh.

Yes, I could. I apologize for offending you.

I am serious though. Don't be so sensitive. There was no actual "name calling" as you put it. There was an honest and legitimate point. You and the OP have a concern because of things people have done or said. I'm saying, stop worrying about the fact that people aren't perfect. I will work to be more tactful in the way I express myself in the future though.