Church releases picture of seer-stone

[omegaseamaster75]

Forgive me for ever standing on the same side of anything as omega, for which I am truly ashamed....

 

...haha...j/k....(though I certainly am ashamed of his rudeness)

 

Honestly though, I've looked at all the references in the D&C about the Urim and Thummim and they are all, fairly clearly, not speaking of the seer stone.

Well I just fell out of my chair....

[omegaseamaster75]

For the record if I have been rude in this thread I am sorry not my intention.......now that I'm thinking of it I am still waiting for the apology that I am owed for the remark about my lack of reading comprehension......

[Guest]

I'll post just the beginning of the section of the article I posted that I'm referring to, that explains how the reference of "Urim and Thummim" was actually reference to the seer stone(s) Joseph used. No, it's not laid out word for word, but as the article says, the information has been available to anyone interested in the ins and outs of it. 

 

 

The Myth that the Church Has Kept Seer Stones Secret

In his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol III, page 225, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

“We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is currently in the possession of the Church.” (

Doctrines of Salvation

 3:225). For more on this, see 

here

.” (Joseph Fielding Smith,

Doctrines of Salvation

 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56) 3: 225.)

This book is still in print today and can be purchased through Amazon.com and Deseret Book. Anyone interested in reading could have found out that the Church possesses a seer stone, but that the urim and thumin were returned to Moroni with the gold plates. However, Joseph Fielding Smith has not been the only one to mention either seer stones or the translation device called the Urim and Thummin.

[omegaseamaster75]

Well we are reading the same thing and seeing it two different ways. I don't see at all how JFS says that the urim and thummin is/are the seer stone at all. He clarifies a misunderstanding about which items were on the alter of the manti temple at its dedication is all. In fact he calls is a seer stone not a urim and thummim.

 

On a side note I am still waiting for my D&C reference.

[mordorbund]

We need to pick one, we could teach 3 versions of the first vision but we don't.

 

We need to teach the version that is accepted by the GA of the church. Which it seems is not the one taught currently in primary.

 

I think the version accepted by the General Authorities of the Church is the one publicly taught by Joseph Smith:

 

 

 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.”

 

That leaves artists a lot of leeway in depicting it. It also gives Sunday School teachers a focus when teaching about the Prophet's translating gift.

[omegaseamaster75]

I think the version accepted by the General Authorities of the Church is the one publicly taught by Joseph Smith:

 

 

I am familiar with the article, I don;t remember this article being covered in Sunday school. While there is no date on the posting I suspect that it is fairly recent

 

 

That leaves artists a lot of leeway in depicting it. It also gives Sunday School teachers a focus when teaching about the Prophet's translating gift.

We can sugar coat it if we want. Our depictions of "translation" are not what happened. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Our depictions of "translation" are not what happened. 

 

While this is, for the most part, true, the historical reports of what happened are not, to my thinking, in any way reliable.

[Just_A_Guy]

We can sugar coat it if we want. Our depictions of "translation" are not what happened. 

 

Just for clarity:  Are you suggesting that the visual depictions the Church has used are "sugar coatings" of the translation process?

[omegaseamaster75]

While this is, for the most part, true, the historical reports of what happened are not, to my thinking, in any way reliable.

While I agree, physical evidence supports the seer stone theory and is the most verifiable as described by JS wife, and Martin Harris.

 

We call the writing of the BOM a translation, but it was not a translation in the traditional sense of translation. It was translated "By the gift and power of God"

 

Our depictions and what we teach in Sunday school do not/did not reflect this.

[omegaseamaster75]

Just for clarity:  Are you suggesting that the visual depictions the Church has used are "sugar coatings" of the translation process?

Yes he didn't translate that way. 

 

I suspect that it is because we use the word "translation" when we describe the writing of the BOM that traditional translation pictures were used.

Edited August 11, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes he didn't translate that way. 

 

I suspect that it is because we use the word "translation" when we describe the writing of the BOM that traditional translation pictures were used.

 

The thing is, that phrase--"sugar coat"--is interesting to me; because it suggests that any of the scenarios traditionally shown are somehow more visually palatable than what Whitmer and Emma described.

 

How is this:

 

 

a "sugar coated" version of this?

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes he didn't translate that way. 

 

"Inaccurate" is a different thing than "sugar-coated". To sugar coat is to intentionally soften or change to make something not look so bad. To support sugar-coating, you have to support intentional and that it was done to that end.

[mordorbund]

I am familiar with the article, I don;t remember this article being covered in Sunday school. While there is no date on the posting I suspect that it is fairly recent

 

 

The reason I included the link was to show that the Church's default approach (saying the Book of Mormon was translated by "the gift and power of God" and simply leaving it at that) is the version Joseph Smith (and Oliver Cowdery) told. They've already complied with your request to pick one version and stick with it. They went with the translator's version. As a result, that's the version we find in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

 

 

 

We can sugar coat it if we want. Our depictions of "translation" are not what happened. 

 

Well what happened? Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim as told by Oliver Cowdery? Joseph's reading lines from seer stone as told by David Whitmer? Or did he outgrow the translating device altogether (the Doctrine and Covenants shows he moved away from using them as revelatory instruments)? Are the plates covered up in the room or out in the woods?

 

I don't know of any theory that reconciles the accounts (like you can get with the First Vision accounts).

 

Any depiction used by the Church is intended to convey the party line of "translated by the gift and power of God". I would personally like to see the Urim and Thummim depictions popularized, but that's secondary (and contradictory to the account told by Whitmer). Sounds like you would prefer the seer stone depiction, but that's also secondary (and contradictory to the account told by Cowdery).

[omegaseamaster75]

 

Well what happened? Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim as told by Oliver Cowdery? Joseph's reading lines from seer stone as told by David Whitmer? Or did he outgrow the translating device altogether (the Doctrine and Covenants shows he moved away from using them as revelatory instruments)? Are the plates covered up in the room or out in the woods?

 

I have read that when Martin Harris lost the 116 pages of the BOM the interpreters were also taken from Joseph, aka Urim and Thummim. This predates the Oliver Cowdery statement and lends more verification to the other accounts. We know that D&C did not come from any sort of interpretation device but from the mouth of JS.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/%22Rock_in_hat%22_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation#cite_note-13

 

Sure the church picked a version but was it the correct version? because it depicts traditional translation, which we know did not happen

 

 

 

 

Any depiction used by the Church is intended to convey the party line of "translated by the gift and power of God". I would personally like to see the Urim and Thummim depictions popularized, but that's secondary (and contradictory to the account told by Whitmer). Sounds like you would prefer the seer stone depiction, but that's also secondary (and contradictory to the account told by Cowdery).

 

What about the account told by Emma? do we discount that account? 2>1

[mordorbund]

I have read that when Martin Harris lost the 116 pages of the BOM the interpreters were also taken from Joseph, aka Urim and Thummim. This predates the Oliver Cowdery statement and lends more verification to the other accounts. We know that D&C did not come from any sort of interpretation device but from the mouth of JS.

The section headings of D&C 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 all state they were received through the Urim and Thummim. These all came through "an interpretation device". Sure the actual Urim and Thummim was taken when the manuscript was lost. Was it ever returned? I don't know. Sounds like we're doing some guesswork here to make sense of these different accounts. I don't know that anyone has guessed right.

 

 

 

 

Sure the church picked a version but was it the correct version? because it depicts traditional translation, which we know did not happen

 

What about the account told by Emma? do we discount that account? 2>1

 

We don't have to discount Emma's account. When I said secondary, I meant translation method x is secondary to the fact that the plates were translated by the gift and power of God. So when you ask if the Church picked the correct version, I say absolutely - it was translated by the gift and power of God. Whether a seer stone or the Urim and Thummim was used principally (or exclusively) is less consequential.

Edited August 11, 2015 by mordorbund

[omegaseamaster75]

 

We don't have to discount Emma's account. When I said secondary, I meant translation method x is secondary to the fact that the plates were translated by the gift and power of God. So when you ask if the Church picked the correct version, I say absolutely - it was translated by the gift and power of God. Whether a seer stone or the Urim and Thummim was used principally (or exclusively) is less consequential.

it was translated by the gift and power of God- On this we agree,the issue comes in with our depiction of how it was done and the secrecy surrounding the seer stone.

[The Folk Prophet]

the issue

 

You forgot scare quotes. Where are the scare quotes? Shouldn't there be scare quotes?

 

And caps?

 

"THE ISSUE"

 

Ahh. That's better.

[mdfxdb]

This is what is being taught in church as recently as last Sunday.  Someone please confirm that this is accurate.....

 

I believe it is not.  

[Just_A_Guy]

This is what is being taught in church as recently as last Sunday.  Someone please confirm that this is accurate.....

 

I believe it is not.  

 

Depends on what stage of the translation process we're talking about.  We know that before the actual translation started, Smith did apparently open up the plates and simply began copying the characters from the plates onto paper without translating them at all.

 

Was the thrust of the handout the translation process itself, or merely that the golden plates existed and that Joseph Smith had them?  If the latter, I see nothing wrong with the picture.  If the former, then isn't the bigger problem that the Church is presuming to teach how this process worked when Joseph Smith clearly said that the mechanics of the translation process are none of our business?

Edited August 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Point 1: Joseph Smith described his process of rendering the Book of Mormon into English as "translation". Thus, we do, too. Those who complain about this are in fact complaining about the Prophet's terminology, which I am sure the current Church leadership has not the least inclination to "correct".

 

(Point 1a: Joseph Smith also revealed the use of the word "translate" to describe a physical change that renders a person capable of being in God's presence and no longer subject to death or other mortal vicissitudes. This may not be mere coincidence; it might be worth pondering whether and how this relates to the use of the word "translate" to describe his process of bringing forth the Book of Mormon.)

 

Point 2: The Book of Mormon itself mentions the seer stone. Alma 37:23 refers to "Gazelem", which was the name given both to Joseph's seer stone and to Joseph himself during that period when the revelations (now part of the book of Doctrine and Covenants) used "code names" to refer to the brethren mentioned therein.

 

And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

This is what is being taught in church as recently as last Sunday.  Someone please confirm that this is accurate.....

 

I believe it is not.  

 

Are you telling me that you believe Joseph never sat down and looked at the characters directly on the plates in this manner? We know, as a matter of fact, that he copied characters down from them. Do you believe he did this through the hat/stone set up too?

 

What isn't accurate about this picture? Joseph certainly looked at the plates. Wouldn't you?

[omegaseamaster75]

Point 2: The Book of Mormon itself mentions the seer stone. Alma 37:23 refers to "Gazelem", which was the name given both to Joseph's seer stone and to Joseph himself during that period when the revelations (now part of the book of Doctrine and Covenants) used "code names" to refer to the brethren mentioned therein.

 

And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.

So now there are secret code names? I fell out of my chair again.....

 

Gazelem...speculation NOT DOCTRINAL

 

 

Are you telling me that you believe Joseph never sat down and looked at the characters directly on the plates in this manner? We know, as a matter of fact, that he copied characters down from them. Do you believe he did this through the hat/stone set up too?

 

What isn't accurate about this picture? Joseph certainly looked at the plates. Wouldn't you?

Of course he sat down and looked at them and copied them. That was not the translation process, which we teach as depicted there

 

from the CTR 7 manual:

 

Joseph Translated the Plates

Explain that the writing on the plates was in a language that Joseph could not read. Joseph received a special tool to help him translate the writing on the plates.

• •

  Do any of you know what the Urim and Thummim are?

Explain that the Urim and Thummim are like special glasses through which Joseph could look to help him translate the ancient writing on the plates. With Heavenly Father’s help and by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph was able to translate the words on the gold plates into words we could understand. When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It was called the Book of Mormon.

Hold up a Book of Mormon. Point out that this book is what Joseph translated from the gold plates.

After he translated the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith returned the plates to Moroni.

 

 

 

I might add no mention of a seer stone, and no mention of translation process other than pictures given out by the teachers

Edited August 11, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[Just_A_Guy]

So now there are secret code names? I fell out of my chair again.....

 

Gazelem...speculation NOT DOCTRINAL

 

Yes, code names, and the historical foundation for their existence and use is sound.  Your dismissal of all this as "speculation NOT DOCTRINAL" is kind of funny, because to suggest that Joseph Smith never used the Nephite interpreters during the translation process is both non-doctrinal and highly speculative (both Joseph and Emma attested to their being used). 

 

I repeat my question from earlier:  Why are you so obsessed with making sure that the narrative of the translation of the Book of Mormon looks like this:

 

 

instead of this:

 

 

or this:

 

 

when we have pretty solid testimony that all three scenes played out at one point or another during the translation process?

Edited August 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

Yes, code names, and the historical foundation for their existence and use is sound.  Your dismissal of all this as "speculation NOT DOCTRINAL" is kind of funny, because to suggest that Joseph Smith never used the Nephite interpreters during the translation process is both non-doctrinal and highly speculative (both Joseph and Emma attested to their being used). 

 

Please cite your references regarding code names for objects used. I am open to the idea of it. Please prove it to me. If you can't provide a reliable source I will chalk it up to Mormon folk lore

 

Also I never said that the urim and thummim were not used during translation they were. Or history shows that we dismiss the seer stone.

[mdfxdb]

Yes, code names, and the historical foundation for their existence and use is sound.  Your dismissal of all this as "speculation NOT DOCTRINAL" is kind of funny, because to suggest that Joseph Smith never used the Nephite interpreters during the translation process is both non-doctrinal and highly speculative (both Joseph and Emma attested to their being used). 

 

I repeat my question from earlier:  Why are you so obsessed with making sure that the narrative of the translation of the Book of Mormon looks like this:

 

 

instead of this:

 

 

or this:

 

 

when we have pretty solid testimony that all three scenes played out at one point or another during the translation process?

Why are you so obsessed that the translation process not appear as Joseph looking into a hat? I have been a member my whole life, and in all those years I have not once seen a depiction during sunday school of Joseph looking into a hat.....I wonder why?

 

Nobody is suggesting Joseph never used the Nephite interpreters during the translation process.  But he did not use them for the bulk of the translation process.

 

The reality is most people do not know about the seer stone, and the hat.  

Edited August 11, 2015 by mdfxdb