Church releases picture of seer-stone

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm still not clear. What is it you'd like us to do about it?

[Just_A_Guy]

Mdfxdb, the lesson you observed last week was this one.  The graphic you find so objectionable is not part of the manual (which has been in use since 1994 and which doesn't refer to any graphic illustration of the translation process).

 

Regarding the translation process, the manual reads as follows:

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.

 

This narrative, while incomplete, does track Joseph Smith's description in the canonized Joseph Smith-History.  I doubt even a Primary-aged child would mistake it for a "traditional translation process".  And, though we seem to be going around in circles on this . . . I have a very difficult time sympathizing with someone who decides that he doesn't need to proactively study any topic that was covered in the Primary curriculum.  2 Nephi 28:30 keeps coming to mind.

 

And the thing about the traditional oral and visual depictions is that while they are not complete, they are also not wrong.**  We know Joseph copied characters, so the scene depicted in the picture you saw last Sunday (or something very like it) really did happen (Joseph Smith-History 1:62).  We know that he thereafter used the Urim and Thummim--the one obtained with the plates--in translating those characters (JS-H 1:62; cf 1:35 and 1:59; see also the footnote to verse 71 including Oliver Cowdery's account).

 

To complain that the Church's having circulated pictures of the translation in stages A and B, but not C, is somehow deceptive; is rather like complaining that the Church is being deceptive in its presentation of the story of the Kirtland Temple's construction because, while the Church has commissioned pictures of the windows being glazed and the exterior being stuccoed (in the wrong color, by the way) and the land being cleared--why, the Church has never commissioned a picture of the roof being shingled!!!  What are those Mormons trying to hide, anyways?!?  Could it be that they find the image of grown men absurdly perched on top of a three-story building to be somehow embarrassing?

 

 

 

 

**Two exceptions: 

1.  That image of Joseph and Oliver translating with the plates in open view (which anyone familiar with the story of the Three Witnesses could have told you was wrong), and

2.  The image of Joseph and Oliver translating with a blanket separating them (a scene that was actually first described by a non-Mormon minister in the nineteenth century--which, if anything, should remind us of the dangers of putting too much stock in non-Church-approved historical sources, amiright?)

Edited August 13, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

I believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.  We either come clean about the whole process, including the Urim and Thummin, Seer Stone, and reading of characters, or we just leave it at Gift and Power of God.  

 

If you believe such, then all other points you have made are moot.  The Church has come clean.  Not the Church's problem if members are not willing to study for themselves what has been said, yes even back to 1970, and even further.  

 

The false dichotomy doesn't help (either this or this), while insinuating the Church hasn't come clean when they have clearly taught it.   There have been many things taught, even earlier than 1970, that we as members miss out on because we don't take the time (yes, even laziness is included in that) to study for ourselves, and then hearing members point of finger of scorn at the Church appears really childish.  How is it the Church's fault that you didn't think you had to go back to 1997 or 1970s?  

 

I suppose now, we should think, that anything older than 15 years that the Church hasn't repeated again, they must be hiding things and surely they haven't come clean. 

[Maureen]

The seer stone is the Urim and Thummim referred to in the D&C. 

 

You are mistaken. The article you linked specifically says they are two different things.

 

The Seer Stone and the Urim and Thummin used by Joseph Smith are different things with similar functions. Joseph Smith received an Urim and Thummin that were buried by Moroni with the golden plates, the Sword of Laban and some other Nephite artifacts. The scriptures teach that the Urim and Thummin buried with the plates are the same that the Lord prepared for the Brother of Jared on the mount (Ether 4:5). It’s reported that Joseph Smith found the seer stone while digging a well in upstate New York. Elder B.H. Roberts recorded:

 

“The Seer Stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hryum, for a Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra, New York. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it…Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.” (Roberts, B.H. Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 1: 129)

 

The Urim and Thummim are described as this:

 

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.35?lang=eng#34

 

M.

[Crypto]

You are mistaken. The article you linked specifically says they are two different things.

You are correct, they are different things, as is said in the articles.

However the terminology Urim and Thummim seem often times to be used interchangeably by many latter day saints and understood as the same as the seer stone. Possibly due to lack of historical study, or similarity in use.

A time while attending institute... the seer stone, and the Urim and Thummim were addressed (while studying the D&C) 

One student even after being told the seer stone existed and was separate from the Urim and Thummim was stuck on the idea that the seer stone was simply one of the Urim and Thummim or an interchangeable term.

It's possible many of the early saints made a similar mistake, as is alluded to in the discussion, idk if any historical analysis has been done on this though. (which would be interesting to see if anyone has a reference to some work done on it)

Edited August 14, 2015 by Crypto

[Anddenex]

Also to note: The seer stone is a type of Urim and Thummim:

 

 Hebrew term that means “Lights and Perfections.” An instrument prepared of God to assist man in obtaining revelation from the Lord and in translating languages. See Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65; JS—H 1:35.

 

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”¹⁸ As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.¹⁹ As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.²⁰

 

These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.²¹

[mdfxdb]

Well, since you all put it that way, I guess it is my fault for not researching out every little thing everyone has ever taught me either in school, or church..... my bad.....How dare I take my Sunday school teachers at their word.......How dare I believe that the illustrations they show, and continue to show are accurate......

 

Are you serious?  Let's read the 1994 manual again...  Whether or not you want to admit it, please read again, but carefully this time.  

 

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.

 

The manual uses the word "translate" What do you think most primary teachers think of when they think of the word translate?  The manual says Joseph could not read the plates, but he used the Urim and Thummin as glasses to look through to help him "translate".  There's that word again.  I wonder how most primary teachers think Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon.........I wonder how they teach it?   Then Joseph Smith completed the translation......No mention of him copying characters, no mention of a seer stone........ 

Edited August 14, 2015 by mdfxdb

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't understand.  You're upset because the manual says Joseph "translated" the plates?

[omegaseamaster75]

Well I don't think he translated them, not how we understand the function of translating: The key skills of the translator are the ability to understand the source language and the culture of the country where the text originated, then using a good library of dictionaries and reference materials, to render that material clearly and accurately into the target language. 

Edited August 14, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[Just_A_Guy]

What word would you use?

[Vort]

Well I don't think he translated them, not how we understand the function of translating: The key skills of the translator are the ability to understand the source language and the culture of the country where the text originated, then using a good library of dictionaries and reference materials, to render that material clearly and accurately into the target language. 

 

Joseph Smith himself said he translated the plates. That was the word he used. Do you actually know the exact method in which Smith rendered the contents of the plates into English? (Hint: No, you don't.) If not, then how are you at all qualified to override the personal testimony of a prophet of God on what he did almost 200 years ago and say that he was wrong?

[Crypto]

Is it my fault for not knowing about Dynamical Systems & Chaos level mathematics even though I was taught about arithmetic?

Is it the fault of my teachers for teaching me arithmetic and not Dynamical Systems & Chaos ?

[Vort]

Stupid teachers, hiding the truth.

[Crypto]

Stupid teachers, hiding the truth.

haha made me laugh :)

(i'm taking this discussion light heartedly) 

[omegaseamaster75]

What word would you use?

He wrote them, not in the traditional sense that you and I think of writing, but by the gift and power of God.

[omegaseamaster75]

Joseph Smith himself said he translated the plates. That was the word he used. Do you actually know the exact method in which Smith rendered the contents of the plates into English? (Hint: No, you don't.) If not, then how are you at all qualified to override the personal testimony of a prophet of God on what he did almost 200 years ago and say that he was wrong?

His vocabulary was limited and he used the word that most resembled what he did, if he told anyone he wrote the book by the gift and power of God he would lose more credibility. His personal testimony shows that it was not a direct translation. Furthermore future attempts at direct translation ie. Book of Abraham/Moses were failures.

[Just_A_Guy]

He wrote them, not in the traditional sense that you and I think of writing, but by the gift and power of God.

 

I think this term even more problematic, because it pretty much obliterates the link between the content of the gold plates and the English manuscript Joseph produced.

 

We have that kind of wiggle room with the Joseph Smith papyri (catalyst theory and all).  The gold plates . . . not so much.

 

His vocabulary was limited and he used the word that most resembled what he did, if he told anyone he wrote the book by the gift and power of God he would lose more credibility.

 

To suggest that Joseph Smith used the word "translate" so as to curry favor with Enlightenment-influenced rationalists and to downplay the supernatural/divine origin of the Book of Mormon, is quite simply to ignore pretty much every description of the process that Smith himself offered--not to mention hearsay accounts from Palmyra residents who heard him describe the process, dating all the way back to 1830. 

 

 

His personal testimony shows that it was not a direct translation.

 

We need to be really, really careful with how we describe this.  With regard to the methods used:  it was not an academic translation, to be sure.  But to say that the Book of Mormon is not a "direct" translation is, again, to undermine the relationship between the plates and the Book of Mormon itself.  Joseph Smith always maintained that the Book of Mormon was the English version of the characters inscribed on the plates; and the Testimony of the Three Witnesses bolsters this view.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

He wrote them, not in the traditional sense that you and I think of writing, but by the gift and power of God.

 

This train of thought is absolutely (and ridiculously) false. Joseph Smith most assuredly translated the plates. The fact that he did it by the power and gift of God instead of by traditional means has no bearing on the meaning of what it is to translate. To translate is to express the meaning or sense of words or text into another language. And this is exactly what Joseph did.

[mdfxdb]

This train of thought is absolutely (and ridiculously) false. Joseph Smith most assuredly translated the plates. The fact that he did it by the power and gift of God instead of by traditional means has no bearing on the meaning of what it is to translate. To translate is to express the meaning or sense of words or text into another language. And this is exactly what Joseph did.

OK, so how did he do it?  Seer Stone, Urim and Thummin, Direct reading, and recitation?  Which was it?  How should we teach it in church?  What illustrations should we be showing to depict said translation?  

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, so how did he do it?  Seer Stone, Urim and Thummin, Direct reading, and recitation?  Which was it? 

 

What's so wrong with "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon", besides that statement's utterly abysmal prospects for satisfying our spiritual voyeurism?

 

How should we teach it in church?  What illustrations should we be showing to depict said translation?

 

Out of the three-hundred-odd lessons a child will get during his/her time in Primary, precisely four of them touch on the translation process.  The first is actually a repeat--children get Primary 3, Lesson 15 at age 4 or 5, and then again two years later.  Sometime between age 8 and 11, they will spend a year with a lesson manual emphasizing Church history (Primary 5) where the translation process comes up in some detail in Lesson 6 and Lesson 7. 

 

In none of these lessons does the manual suggest any particular graphic depiction of the translation process.

 

The first lesson is fine for 4-7-year-olds.  It introduces the concept of Urim and Thummim; and there are potential drawbacks to telling a six-year-old that he can find revelations from a rock he finds while digging a hole. The next two lessons are actually surprisingly nuanced (they include some good discussion on the role of the Spirit, study, and prayer in the process) and could easily be supplemented with a brief paragraph noting that at some point Joseph discovered that a special stone he had found sometime previously, could also be used to help in the translation process; and that in Joseph Smith's account he often uses the phrase "Urim and Thummim" to refer to that stone as well as the Nephite interpreters. 

 

So, after all the hand-wringing about the problems inherent to the Church's Primary curriculum--we find that really, the status quo wasn't half-bad and any remaining deficiencies can be resolved by adding one paragraph each to two different lessons.  Voila!

Edited August 17, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

OK, so how did he do it?  Seer Stone, Urim and Thummin, Direct reading, and recitation?  Which was it?  How should we teach it in church?  What illustrations should we be showing to depict said translation?  

 

 

We should be teaching people that they need to study it and ponder it for themselves..

 

We should teach them that if they are depending on a teacher to regurgitate everything that they need to know with no thought or effort required of their own they are failing hard on a core principal of the Gospel.

[Guest]

We should teach what is always taught, which is that we need to read the Book of Mormon and pray for a testimony of its truthfulness. If we have a testimony of it being a true book of scripture, why should we care what exact tool was used to bring it about?

[The Folk Prophet]

OK, so how did he do it?  Seer Stone, Urim and Thummin, Direct reading, and recitation?  Which was it?  How should we teach it in church?  What illustrations should we be showing to depict said translation?  

 

I see no problem whatsoever with the way it's been taught in the past. Hater's gonna hate.

[BladeMoses]

I don't know what a Seer-Stone is lol so much to learn 

[cdowis]

The fact that he did it by the power and gift of God instead of by traditional means has no bearing on the meaning of what it is to translate. To translate is to express the meaning or sense of words or text into another language. And this is exactly what Joseph did.

 

When Enoch was "translated", what other language did he become.  I think that this word is very flexible in how it is applied.

 

Angels dancing on a pinhead, so to speak.