Urim and Thummim vs. the Anti-Mormon's


JohnsonJones
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently I came across a site.  It reflects some of my own views.  Unfortunately, as any Historian knows (and in Church History I am but an Amateur and no Pro), many times one is biased in their views and when something comes that apparently seems to align with our views we are more apt to agree with it outright than doing a proper check on ourselves and a proper form or skepticism and research.  I bring this up because this page I will list very strongly aligns with my thoughts on the matter of the Urim and Thummim and it's translation of the Book of Mormon.

For over 150 years it was taught that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon.  There was no seer stone craze that afflicts us today.  The prophets taught this, it was WELL Known.  The ONLY people that were trying to destroy this teaching were the Anti-Mormons.  One of the tactics they used was to try to show that Joseph Smith was a treasure seeker and used a Seer Stone.  By using this, they also tried to utilize it as a connection that He ALSO used this stone to translate the Book of Mormon rather than the Urim and Thummim.

While there was acknowledgement that Joseph had a Stone other than the Urim and Thummin and at times used it for various purposes...more normally that of revelation (while the Urim and Thummim would be more of translation), it was seen that the Urim and Thummim were the primary PHYSICAL instruments of translation of the Book of Mormon (though the primary instrument was the Power of the God, the PHYSICAL instrumentation utilized as in a physical object held or used by Joseph besides the plates themselves).

In recent years, to the mystery of MANY a Historian, the Church has been trying to change it's dialogue to AGREE FAR MORE with the Anti-Mormon story.  Why it tossed 150 years of teaching was absolutely perplexing, especially when it accorded more directly with the Anti-Mormons.  This is in light that the original teachings of the church on the matter were well founded and strongly supported in my view.  The NEW ideas were always on shaky ground, and finding the primary sources was sometimes nigh impossible and only done via word of mouth or secondary or tertiary sources.

I've also shown in other posts (as this idea of mine that the original teaching that the Urim and Thummim were the items used) in that the statements made were under questionable circumstances in regards to some of the people who talked about a Seer Stone, I recently found a site that actually goes into the primary sources and shows WHY the entire discourse about Joseph using a Seer Stone instead of the Urim and Thummin is on VERY SHAKY ground compared to the old teaching of him using primarily the Urim and Thummim.

Here is the web page...

Did Joseph Smith translate the book of Mormon with a Rock in a Hat

As you can see, though primary sources most of those that claimed it was done by a stone rather than the Urim and Thummim were NOT PENNED by those in the church itself.  Of course, not all the sources sited on the page about the Urim and Thummim are primary sources either or reliable.  However, the tracking down of the sources seems to point out the shaky ground one could have in refuting 150 years of the Church's teaching on HOW the Book of Mormon was translated.

Thus, the GREAT perplexity about WHY the church has been changing it's dialogue on the issue in the past decade.  I have had MANY difficulties with people who would normally have tossed aside the anti-Mormon stories on the matter, except then the turn to the Church's accounts themselves and can now point out...the church itself seems to side with the Anti-Mormon dialogue AGAINST itself (the church is arguing against it's own history and self).  This has done MORE to convince many that the Anti-Mormons were right than almost anything else I've seen with the Anti-Mormon in much of my life.  I'd imagine church numbers of those falling away has INCREASED tremendously over the past decade, and I feel as much of it has been due to the Church aligning it's stories to be more in accordance with the stories told by the Anti-Mormons than with sticking to it's original teaching on the matter or sticking to it's guns.

Anyways, a LOT said over what was basically a singular post about the evidences of both sides of the story...the original story as told by the church for 150 years (even if not so much now)...vs. that of what was told by the Anti-Mormons.

To say I am perplexed about the Church's changes in it's discourse in history and change in it's course on the matter is to minimize how confusing it is to see it (from the 1960s ideas to what is being found in some of the writings now).  I think it is a great source of why many are falling away to a degree.  A church that fights itself falls from within rather than from without.  I sometimes wonder if there is someone (or ones) deep within the Church bureaucracy that are instituting this change in dialogue slowly and methodically in an effort to undermine and destroy the church (and I think in part they are being at least a little successful in the attempt, or at least causing some to fall away due to the confirmation they are giving to the enemies of the church's stories).

In regards to the Urim and Thummim and the Seer Stone...my thoughts are STILL reflected on what they used to teach (and hopefully that is not wrong still) and is found in a quote that is reflected on the page I posted above which says...

Quote

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.”

Joseph F Smith (though the book quoted or items I believe was actually authored by Joseph Fielding Smith).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His seer stones are the same as the glasses. They can both be defined as a Urim and Thummim. It's defined by it's definition which in hebrew means lights and perfections. Whether he used different ones it matters not. Joseph didn't like the glasses version because they were too big and wouldn't fit on his face and he eventually popped out the lenses.

 

To be blunt though. Who cares. This is only trivial. And I don't believe the church hides it's history on purpose or at all in most cases. If you think about it, where did the anti Mormons get their information in the first place? Mostly from the church. So obviously it was available to people. If it's available then it's not hidden. The church's priorities are to teach things relavent to salvation and repentance. It's only recently the church has been more transparent on history because people are starting to care about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queolby said:

His seer stones are the same as the glasses. They can both be defined as a Urim and Thummim. It's defined by it's definition which in hebrew means lights and perfections. Whether he used different ones it matters not. Joseph didn't like the glasses version because they were too big and wouldn't fit on his face and he eventually popped out the lenses.

 

To be blunt though. Who cares. This is only trivial. And I don't believe the church hides it's history on purpose or at all in most cases. If you think about it, where did the anti Mormons get their information in the first place? Mostly from the church. So obviously it was available to people. If it's available then it's not hidden. The church's priorities are to teach things relavent to salvation and repentance. It's only recently the church has been more transparent on history because people are starting to care about it.

 

Anti-Mormons normally either invented it or gathered it from places that did NOT have original sources.  The article I posted actually displays this pretty openly.

None of the sources the Anti-Mormons use to try to show a seer stone was used to translate the Book of Mormon instead of the Urim and Thummim are primary (or many times, even secondary) sources.  They are unreliable in comparison to the two or three reliable sources (as opposed to the majority of similar sources also used on the pro-side of the argument as well, which has it's same problem in regards to secondary and tertiary sources) that the LDS church used for decades in explaining how the Book of Mormon was translated.

It would be as if I told you, my brother heard this from Martin Harris 50 years ago that this was how the Book of Mormon was translated...vs. how someone who was actually there and actually wrote it down told us.

That's what the article or post was looking at.

The reason it matters is because Joseph is seen to be one of those stated in a secondary source as well as Oliver in describing that the Book of Mormon was translated by the Urim and Thummim.

One reason people defend or feel that the Urim and Thummim accounts are the correct method that it was done by is that by  stating it was done otherwise is similar to calling them and that account a liar, or doing mental acrobatics to try to explain why they said that when it actually was done another way.

For some they don't care, and that is fine.  For the Anti-Mormons, this item was one of their primary goals in showing that Joseph Was a liar and thus was not a prophet.

Of course, that is one of their primary goals in MUCH of what they talk about and try to show with history in their attempts to discredit Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Gospel.

I know the dialogue within the church has changed to a degree in recent years (and has puzzled the heck out of me) but I'm one of those that still believe the original accounts and teachings on the matter, hence why I posted the article as I found it interesting, especially it's breakdown of the sources of each document in regards to where the story came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author simply blows off as forgeries or nonexistent, any source (s)he finds inconvenient.   The Emma Smith letter to Emma Pilgrim letter, for example, which the article concludes never existed, certainly exists and has been reproduced in an edition of early(ish) Mormon manuscripts.  The author also peddles whack-a-doodle conspiracy theories, suggesting that Emma Smith and David Whitmer (and other members of restorationist sects) would set out to undermine the Book of Mormon because they didn’t like what the Utah church was doing.  

This isn’t someone I’m inclined to take seriously.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The author simply blows off as forgeries or nonexistent, any source (s)he finds inconvenient.   The Emma Smith letter to Emma Pilgrim letter, for example, which the article concludes never existed, certainly exists and has been reproduced in an edition of early(ish) Mormon manuscripts.  The author also peddles whack-a-doodle conspiracy theories, suggesting that Emma Smith and David Whitmer (and other members of restorationist sects) would set out to undermine the Book of Mormon because they didn’t like what the Utah church was doing.  

This isn’t someone I’m inclined to take seriously.

I don't know about Emma Smith, but David Whitmer DID set out to undermine the Brighamite Segment (as they were known, those of whom our lineage comes from) as did Martin Harris.  Not the Book of Mormon that I was aware of, but he did actively try to persuade others that those who followed Brigham were not following the right course. 

Harris later came back I believe (some cast doubt on this, as they contend he was trying to still find an in to give him more validation to support the other branches, but I disagree on that assessment) but the statements utilized by those against the church were typically from his time period where he was trying to prop up support for another via the seer stone method. 

If his statements on the matter were spurious or tertiary claims rather than secondary or primary, it could actually weaken the argument further in the support of the story as well as others that have been utilized by anti-Mormons, literally since the turn of the century (some longer) that were trying to weaken the stories of Joseph and Oliver and the official Church history at the time.

Part of my stubborn support of this (urim and thummim translation) probably comes from years of supporting the official church dialogue as it was prior to the turn of the century (though we can find statements by Nelson at least dating to the 90s) against the Anti-Mormon arguments...old habits die hard.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

old habits die hard.

Hey, you can write a post that is less than 45,000 words now. So some old habits apparently do go away! 

(just playing JJ. Nothing but love) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't know about Emma Smith, but David Whitmer DID set out to undermine the Brighamite Segment (as they were known, those of whom our lineage comes from) as did Martin Harris.  Not the Book of Mormon that I was aware of, but he did actively try to persuade others that those who followed Brigham were not following the right course. 

Harris later came back I believe (some cast doubt on this, as they contend he was trying to still find an in to give him more validation to support the other branches, but I disagree on that assessment) but the statements utilized by those against the church were typically from his time period where he was trying to prop up support for another via the seer stone method. 

If his statements on the matter were spurious or tertiary claims rather than secondary or primary, it could actually weaken the argument further in the support of the story as well as others that have been utilized by anti-Mormons, literally since the turn of the century (some longer) that were trying to weaken the stories of Joseph and Oliver and the official Church history at the time.

Part of my stubborn support of this (urim and thummim translation) probably comes from years of supporting the official church dialogue as it was prior to the turn of the century (though we can find statements by Nelson at least dating to the 90s) against the Anti-Mormon arguments...old habits die hard.

Yeah, I’m aware of the history and tension; but the author here affirms the canard that “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”.  

Whitmer, for example, LIKED the seer stone.  A major reason he wound up leaving was that he felt Joseph was no longer using the seer stone as frequently as he should have been, and Whitmer began rejecting revelations if they hadn’t come through the stone.  When Whitmer talks of the stone being used as an instrument of translation, he isn’t trying to make the Book of Mormon seem ridiculous; he’s affirming why he thinks its textual reliability is so solid.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, I’m aware of the history and tension; but the author here affirms the canard that “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”.  

Whitmer, for example, LIKED the seer stone.  A major reason he wound up leaving was that he felt Joseph was no longer using the seer stone as frequently as he should have been, and Whitmer began rejecting revelations if they hadn’t come through the stone.  When Whitmer talks of the stone being used as an instrument of translation, he isn’t trying to make the Book of Mormon seem ridiculous; he’s affirming why he thinks its textual reliability is so solid.

Well, he hadn't had this affirmation towards a seer stone until he started in support of another who claimed to have used a seer stone for translation as well.  At that point, it seems the Whitmers were all about a seer stone being utilized in translation similar to others who claimed to be using seer stones.

Even if they are true statements to Whitmer (meaning there is some doubt), the way they appear seem more towards throwing support for other segments of Mormons who did not follow Brigham to bolster up other individuals claims. 

Ironically, some of this idea changes a little later on when the stories seems to still say similar items, but show support rather for Whitmer's veracity of authority.

None of it was ever to tear down the Book of Mormon though, as far as I know.  To do that would have torn down Whitmer's own reliability.  Instead it was always in support as Whitmer's own standing was built upon the vital point that the translation of the Book of Mormon was done by the Power and Authority of Heaven.

To that end, at times Whitmer's accounts seem to try to almost make it sound as if HE (whitmer) was the primary scribe rather than others.

You are right on the author.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2019 at 12:38 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Why it tossed 150 years of teaching was absolutely perplexing, especially when it accorded more directly with the Anti-Mormons.

The church is an assortment of humans doing their best.  Technological advances have brought source material out into the forefront and made it more accessible to more people than ever before.  We were emphasizing stuff incorrectly, and corrected it.  Doesn't matter what AM's think or don't think, say or don't say, more better historical accuracy is more better.

Not really any reason to think deeper than that, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, he hadn't had this affirmation towards a seer stone until he started in support of another who claimed to have used a seer stone for translation as well.  At that point, it seems the Whitmers were all about a seer stone being utilized in translation similar to others who claimed to be using seer stones.

I presume you’re talking about Hiram Page, which precipitated the receipt of D&C 28.  And that was *very* early on—autumn of 1830.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For over 150 years it was taught that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon."

" The prophets taught this, it was WELL Known.  The ONLY people that were trying to destroy this teaching were the Anti-Mormons.  One of the tactics they used was to try to show that Joseph Smith was a treasure seeker and used a Seer Stone.  By using this, they also tried to utilize it as a connection that He ALSO used this stone to translate the Book of Mormon rather than the Urim and Thummim."

" In recent years, to the mystery of MANY a Historian, the Church has been trying to change it's dialogue to AGREE FAR MORE with the Anti-Mormon story.  Why it tossed 150 years of teaching was absolutely perplexing, especially when it accorded more directly with the Anti-Mormons.  "

I don't think the Church has been trying to change it's dialogue at all. The truth of the matter is that the term "Urim and Thummin" has been used by Smith himself (earlish 1830's) in reference to any stones (yes, plural) that he used in the translation process. From that point forward, things started getting really confusing because if you read historical records it is very hard to determine what kind of stones they are referring to, whether the original interpreters or other seer stones. I'm not saying here that the Church was unaware of this fact, what I'm saying is that the language used in early Mormonism to describe ALL these stones was rather confusing.

" Thus, the GREAT perplexity about WHY the church has been changing it's dialogue on the issue in the past decade.  I have had MANY difficulties with people who would normally have tossed aside the anti-Mormon stories on the matter, except then the turn to the Church's accounts themselves and can now point out...the church itself seems to side with the Anti-Mormon dialogue AGAINST itself (the church is arguing against it's own history and self).  This has done MORE to convince many that the Anti-Mormons were right than almost anything else I've seen with the Anti-Mormon in much of my life.  I'd imagine church numbers of those falling away has INCREASED tremendously over the past decade, and I feel as much of it has been due to the Church aligning it's stories to be more in accordance with the stories told by the Anti-Mormons than with sticking to it's original teaching on the matter or sticking to it's guns. "

For me, it is perplexing to think that there are members who want the Church to stick to it's guns even when it might not be historically accurate. In my view, this issue seems to me more about perception, culture and image than anything else. You see, the narrative of an angelic visitation (and the Urim and Thummin) does not present conflict within mainstream religion but when we talk about seer stones coming from a young man who used one (or more) prior to the First Vision, we move from religion to superstition/wizardry/occultism and I suppose some people are having a hard time digesting that and they don't want the Church to be associated with anything that could be perceived as cultish. The truth of the matter is that Smith as he grew in knowledge and wisdom, didn't need the use of the stones anymore.

I also don't think the Church is aligning it's narrative in accordance with the stories told by Anti-Mormons. What I believe is happening is that some members are discovering that not everything the Anti-Mormons have been saying were complete lies. Shocking? Not really. Sounds familiar? (Satan). 

I am not condoning their actions but being honest and this is why we need to take responsibility for our own studies and not expect the Church to spoon-feed us. That's what makes Anti-Mormons successful many times, they use some truth and then change it a little bit to fit their agenda.

I am glad the Church History Department set the record straight, yes even if they took so long. One could speculate all day why they are choosing to do it now but I think we all know that technology and the dissemination of information played a very big part.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I largely agree with Suzie's comments, with a couple of minor exceptions:

38 minutes ago, Suzie said:

when we talk about seer stones coming from a young man who used one (or more) prior to the First Vision, we move from religion to superstition/wizardry/occultism and I suppose some people are having a hard time digesting that

I am not at all convinced the line of demarcation is so bright. To talk of airplanes 200 years ago would be to invoke superstitious beliefs. An actual, functioning airplane 200 years ago would have been considered a true example of magic. I am reminded of the statement about meteors, apocryphally attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that "it was easier to believe that two Yankee Professors could lie than to admit that stones could fall from heaven," and of Sir William Thomson's (Lord Kelvin's) proclamations that "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, all that remains is more and more precise measurement" and "X-rays will prove to be a hoax".

Until we fully understand the realities of our universe and the laws that govern them, it's darn near impossible to peg something as nothing but superstition. Staring at rocks to gain divine revelation? Well...why not? Years ago, Nibley pointed out that the "superstition" of augury, the observation of birds to divine the future, is not as far-fetched as it sounds; you can learn a lot by careful observation of birds, including impending weather events and even the actions of large bodies (e.g. armies) over the horizon. So I don't think it's really justified to dismiss Joseph Smith's ideas as nothing but superstition, or asserting that any mention of the use of seer stones in a non-religious context involves a shift into superstition or occultism. I do not believe that necessarily follows.

38 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I am glad the Church History Department set the record straight, yes even if they took so long. One could speculate all day why they are choosing to do it now but I think we all know that technology and the dissemination of information played a very big part.

The subtext for this appears to be, "Now that people are finding out all sorts of things about the history of the Church because of the openness of the internet, the Church's leaders think they need to provide counter-information to correct bad inferences made by anti-Mormons and ignorant members." I think it's just as likely, and probably much more productive, to take the viewpoint that the Church itself is able to take advantage of new technological (and social) paradigms to better disseminate information to members of the kingdom of God. I think this is more true (and, as I wrote, more productive) than the defensive guarding-against-new-knowledge position. I am not a historian, but when I look over the history of the Restoration, I see very little effort by the Church's leading quorums to cover up knowledge and information. I am reminded of B. H. Roberts' efforts to characterize "problems" in the Book of Mormon, passages which seemed to be contradictory or to raise uncomfortable questions. Just a day or two ago, my wife asked about a book I had inherited from my dad, written by some well-known leader of a generation or two past—Sterling W. Sill, maybe? I don't remember—with a title along the lines of "The Problems of the Book of Mormon". I do not see, nor do I believe, that covering up inconvenient information has been an important or common practice of the Church, ever.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, Vort said:

I do not see, nor do I believe, that covering up inconvenient information has been an important or common practice of the Church, ever.

Though it may be a practice in some cases of some well placed and well meaning members.  Regardless of what is said by whom = a Latter-day Saint is obligated to exercise the gift and covenant of the Holy Ghost as the primary means of understanding truth.  I also believe that there is a difference in seeking truth and being bound by covenant to those that possess the keys of the priesthood and kingdom of G-d here on earth.  

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 2/25/2019 at 12:38 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Thus, the GREAT perplexity about WHY the church has been changing it's dialogue on the issue in the past decade. 

To say I am perplexed about the Church's changes in it's discourse in history and change in it's course on the matter is to minimize how confusing it is to see it (from the 1960s ideas to what is being found in some of the writings now). 

This isn't correct and I hate to say it, but I'm at least somewhat skeptical that you have read our Church History.  The Church History has been mentioning the seer stones and hat since the beginning.

It's all over our Church History documents and from original sources.   This article, for example, refers to many sources and earlier prophets and church leaders, including Brigham Young, Parley P Pratt, the Three Witness, etc., etc.:

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

Those who were actually there mention the seer stones and hat.

Not only does the Church History mention the seer stones (that were not part of the Urim and Thummim), but the Church has them in their possession and has pictures of the stone on the Church website.

The Seer Stone was one of the primary sources used when translating the Book of Mormon.  This has always been in our Church History.  It isn't a new development.  If anything there is less emphasis on it now days than there was 150 years ago. 

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2019 at 11:27 AM, MormonGator said:

Hey, you can write a post that is less than 45,000 words now. So some old habits apparently do go away! 

(just playing JJ. Nothing but love) 

How would you know how many words are in a post?

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