U&T v. Seer Stone

[Carborendum]

I've been listening to the debate between the Urim and Thummim vs the Seer Stone being the instrument of translation.  I thought I should get a discussion going on this.

First, why does it matter?  Virtually everyone thinks that it doesn't really matter what was used.  It was a divine method.  That's all that matters. 

On some level I agree.  But I've got something nagging at me that the U&T was prepared by the Lord for this very purpose.  The SS was not.  Maybe it's nothing. But it's nagging at me.

Arguments for the U&T:

• That's what Joseph and Oliver both said it was.  No one else actually saw the process, not even Martin Harris or Emma Smith.
• All scriptures state that it was the Urim & Thummim.
• Joseph did refer to the U&T as "seer stones".  Context indicates that he was referring to what we know as the U&T, not the other stone.

Arguments for the SS:

• We have the account of Martin Harris "tricking" Joseph with a false seer stone with the result: "All is dark as Egypt."
• A plethora of 2nd hand accounts -- none of which were repetitions of what Joseph or Oliver said.
• Emma claimed it was the seer stone. 

Points to ponder:

• No one doubts that Joseph and Olivers accounts all describe the U&T and "the gift and power of God."
• No one doubts that scriptural accounts all mention U&T.
• Martin's story of the swapping out is heavily part of LDS lore.

From the old publication Illustrated Stories from the Doctrine and Covenants, I recall a story about a "witch" who had a seer stone.  She led a mob to steal the gold plates from Joseph.  The reason she failed was that she could only see the box in which the plates were kept, not the plates themselves.  The box was empty.  Joseph had hidden the plates somewhere else.  This was an example of Joseph's many "stratagems" to protect the plates.  How did he know that would work?

My hunch is that such an instrument is not truly "divine".  There was some other power going on.  And because of that, the plates were not visible.  There is something to that story which I cannot easily let go.  But if true, then the seer stone could not have served as a translation device.

One thing that the Joseph Smith Foundation mentions is that the whole thing about the SS as a method of translation came from David Whitmer at a stage in his life when he absolutely hated Joseph and the Church.  Few to no stories about the SS (as an instrument of BoM translation) originated before that time.  The argument that follows: The story of the SS was invented by detractors for a reason.  It was specifically invented to discredit Joseph. 

If that was the purpose of the invented narrative, then we ought to eschew such narrative, not embrace it.

Another splinter on the smooth surface is that Joseph, himself, stated that the seer stone he received for himself was a white stone.  But Church publications show the "chocolate" stone.  I've recently learned that the Church relics also have the white stone in its vaults.  But no one sees them in publications.  There is a lot of what is said that is clashing.  But I'm truly surprised at what is not being said.

Maybe it isn't important.  But it keeps nagging at me.

Edited January 14 by Carborendum

[HaggisShuu]

I was under that the impression that the U&T were used for the lost pages, and after Martin Harris has lost them Joseph Smith started using the Seer Stone as it easier, but still on occasion used the U&T. 
 

Without context, looking into a stone in a hat, is equally as nonsensical and strange as looking into stones held together with a wire frame, attached to a chest plate. So I don't feel David Whitmer's antagonism really discredits the story all that much. 

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I was under that the impression that the U&T were used for the lost pages, and after Martin Harris has lost them Joseph Smith started using the Seer Stone as it easier, but still on occasion used the U&T. 

That is the common narrative of those on the stone side.  But the historical records don't offer a solid foundation for that theory.  IOW, it is still possible.  But you have to specifically interpret things for it to be true.

16 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Without context, looking into a stone in a hat, is equally as nonsensical and strange as looking into stones held together with a wire frame, attached to a chest plate. So I don't feel David Whitmer's antagonism really discredits the story all that much. 

Yes, that is what most people say.  Again, the argument is that "it is still a "divine" method." 

• What if seer stones aren't divine?  We really don't know how these things work. 
• What if at some future date, we find that seer stones have certain limits that would have made it impossible. 

Then we realize that was a false narrative.  So, we have to back track again?

With the U&T, they are specifically made to interpret.  Seer stones aren't.  Every description that we have record of (where it doesn't involve the BoM translation) we don't hear of any kind of translation/interpretation via seer stones.  It was only images. 

Even the Book of Abraham appears to have been done through the U&T. But the BoM wasn't?

Edited January 16 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

I can say in all honesty that I do not know the purposes of Seer Stones or the Urim and Thummim nor do I have understanding of their differences.  I have personally known a seer and asked them – they did not give me an answer.  I suspect and speculate that both the Seer Stone and Urim and Thummim were used at different times and for different reasons to complete the translation of the Book of Mormon.  I speculate that it is somewhat like a screwdriver and pliers.  Each have their purpose.  The Urim and Thummim was specifically provided for the translation of the Book of Mormon.  Who know what else it is capable of providing?  Seer Stones have their own purpose and are given for many things – including things related to scripture as well as covenants, ordinances and laws. 

Another sacred instrument was the Liahona.  Though these devices operated as tools for various purposes – they all are subject to operation through covenant.  I have speculated that as a seer becomes experienced in their craft and unique covenant – that such devices tend to become unnecessary.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/14/2025 at 8:48 AM, Carborendum said:

From the old publication Illustrated Stories from the Doctrine and Covenants, I recall a story about a "witch" who had a seer stone.  She led a mob to steal the gold plates from Joseph.  The reason she failed was that she could only see the box in which the plates were kept, not the plates themselves.  The box was empty.  Joseph had hidden the plates somewhere else.  This was an example of Joseph's many "stratagems" to protect the plates.  How did he know that would work?

That was Sally Chase.  IIRC her brother or uncle was a Methodist minister, and it was while digging a well on their property that Joseph had found one of his stones in the first place.

Quote

My hunch is that such an instrument is not truly "divine".  There was some other power going on.  And because of that, the plates were not visible.  There is something to that story which I cannot easily let go.  But if true, then the seer stone could not have served as a translation device.

IIRC, there's a quote out there from Brigham Young to the effect that Satan is a master of natural law (including that which appears supernatural) and is capable of generating whatever apparently-miraculous manifestation he wishes, unless a higher power intervenes.  (If you compel me, I'll look it up; though I'm lazy at the moment).  

I'm not sure that it's as easy as saying "this means of revelation is always spurious"--that there's a discernible difference between a "Urim and Thummim" versus a "seer stone", and that the former is always godly and the latter is always satanic; or that the former is capable of doing things that the latter intrinsically cannot do.  We know that God has given revelation through glass created by the Brother of Jared and touched by God's finger; we know He did it through the throwing of stones ("casting of lots"); we know He could give it through the Hebrew U&T (however they worked); we know He could do it do it through Oliver Cowdery's use of a divining rod; and the record seems pretty clear that (whether or not it was the source for some/all of the BoM text) Joseph Smith did receive true revelations through his seer stone.  Further, he seemed willing to label other people's seer stones as "Urim and Thummim"--for example, per the autobiography of Wandle Mace, we have that instance where seer stones are brought to Nauvoo by some British saints; and Smith reviews them and "pronounced them to be a Urim and Thummim as good as ever was upon teh earth but he said, 'they have been consecrated to devils'".  

Ultimately I think it's the source of the power, not the means through which the power is manifested, that makes the difference.  

Another thing worth noting is that we have references to Joseph Smith having/using/showing people his "Urim and Thummim" well into the Nauvoo period (see generally, here).  If that was the Jaredite interpreters, and Joseph never did return them to Moroni . . . then where are they now?  And if the Church really does have them hidden away in the First Presidency vault, then why would they go along with this dog-and-pony show about some other seer stone being the instrument of translation?  

Quote

One thing that the Joseph Smith Foundation mentions is that the whole thing about the SS as a method of translation came from David Whitmer at a stage in his life when he absolutely hated Joseph and the Church.  Few to no stories about the SS (as an instrument of BoM translation) originated before that time.  The argument that follows: The story of the SS was invented by detractors for a reason.  It was specifically invented to discredit Joseph. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Be really, really careful with the JSF.  Their founder was not a good guy.  Key personnel involved in the foundation today are not honest people.  I'm sorry, I can't elaborate.  I would almost never refer someone to the cesspool that is Reddit, but . . . there's a thread on the JSF's founder over there; and among the other nonsense that usually abounds in Reddit, someone has actually posted something that's pretty close to the truth.  So, the true story about them *is* out there and can be discerned by a healthy combination of skepticism and revelation.  

Back to the primary sources, though:  FWIW, both Emma Smith and David Whitmer supported the idea that the U&T (Jaredite interpreters/"spectacles") were used on the 116 pages; and the seer stone following the loss of those pages.  But they are, of course, relatively late recollections.  

Still, the notion that the story of the seer stone's role in the production of the BoM was intended to discredit Joseph Smith strikes me as problematic for several reasons.  

First, David Whitmer didn't think seer stones were shameful.  He, and his family, loved the idea of seer stones.  Shortly after Joseph Smith gives his brown stone to Oliver Cowdery in spring of 1830 following completion of the Book of Mormon translation, Whitmer family son-in-law Hiram Page starts getting revelations through his own stone--and most of the Whitmer family is initially firmly in support of him, until D&C 28 reins them all back in.  Whitmer's diminishing confidence in Joseph Smith's leadership coincided with Joseph Smith's resorting to the seer stone as a means of revelation less and less often.  For his part, David Whitmer had his own seer stones; which he passed on to his descendants and which they used with some regularity.  For David, citing the role of a seer stone in the origin story of the Book of Mormon does not diminish the book's credibility or miraculous nature; it enhances it.

Second, I think it's assuming facts not in evidence to suggest that either Whitmer or Emma Smith "hated" Joseph to the point that they were willing to deliberately publicly lie about him.  Yes, they disagreed with him--loudly and stridently, at times.  But they were both fiercely devoted to Joseph Smith's early status as a prophet and the cause of Mormonism. Emma lionized him to the end of her days; and Whitmer--from what I see of his statements--tended to look back on his associations with Joseph with more regret and "pity" than actual animus.  

Third, both Whitmer and Emma were fierce proponents of the Book of Mormon to the end of their lives.  I don't think there's anything in their histories suggesting that they would have deliberately tried to undermine or bring shame upon the authenticity of that book as an authentic, ancient, divinely-restored record.  The fact that people disagree with Joseph Smith about various things, does not render them wholly dastardly.  

Fourth, the seer stone-as-translation-instrument account was confirmed by Martin Harris even when at times when he was quite friendly to the Utah church and would have no motive to tell an origin story that he thought would somehow debase the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith's ministry.

And, finally:  A lot of this pooh-poohing of any source who didn't cross the plains with Brigham tiptoes around a rather uncomfortable truth:  Most of the people who were involved with the Smith family when the Book of Mormon was being written, didn't come to Utah with President Young.  The BoM witnesses didn't. (Harris, of course, came decades later).  The Smith family, didn't.  Those of the Hales who converted, didn't.  The Whitmers didn't.  The Stowells didn't.  The majority of the Twelve (as originally constituted in 1835) didn't.  If we dismiss the accounts of all the people who were there and saw the BoM being translated, on the grounds that they failed to stay faithful to the Utah Church and are therefore somehow suspect in their recollections; then on this topic we're forced to retrench into a sort of historical know-nothingism.  Because Joseph Smith himself isn't telling:  He flat-out said that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon".  

Quote

Another splinter on the smooth surface is that Joseph, himself, stated that the seer stone he received for himself was a white stone.  But Church publications show the "chocolate" stone.  I've recently learned that the Church relics also have the white stone in its vaults.  But no one sees them in publications.  There is a lot of what is said that is clashing.  But I'm truly surprised at what is not being said.

Yep.  There have have been a number of articles about this; and not all of the accounts perfectly reconcile.  There are a *lot* of inconsistencies--how many stones were there, what did they look like, when and where was each one acquired or used or given away (see, e.g., here).  But I think the all-too-common response to simply throw all of it out and say "It was the Jaredite interpreters, and nothing but the Jaredite interpreters, all the time" is just not correct.    

 

Edited January 17 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IIRC, there's a quote out there from Brigham Young to the effect that Satan is a master of natural law (including that which appears supernatural) and is capable of generating whatever apparently-miraculous manifestation he wishes, unless a higher power intervenes.  (If you compel me, I'll look it up; though I'm lazy at the moment).  

No need.  That is essentially what my intended message was. 

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm not sure that it's as easy as saying "this means of revelation is always spurious"--that there's a discernible difference between a "Urim and Thummim" versus a "seer stone", and that the former is always godly and the latter is always satanic; or that the former is capable of doing things that the latter intrinsically cannot do.  

But I did not necessarily mean that it was Satanic.  I tend to believe that there are a lot of things that go on in this world that we would probably call "supernatural", but they are in fact processes that go on every day.  We just don't know about it.

So, whether it was satanic or simply "mysterious", the ability for that seer stone to see the plates was obscured.  

I had not considered the idea that "normally" they would be able to see anything, but "higher power intervened." That may be.  And that could be a good argument to nullify this concern... if it is correct.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We know that God has given revelation through glass created by the Brother of Jared and touched by God's finger;

Did he?  I'm going to guess that you're saying that the clear stones were used to create the Jaredite interepreters.  I hadn't heard that.  

If that's what you are implying, yes, I'd like to see a source.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we know He did it through the throwing of stones ("casting of lots");

Yes, but that was part of a ritual specifically prescribed by the Lord.  Otherwise, we might as well put trust in chicken entrails.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we know He could give it through the Hebrew U&T (however they worked); we know He could do it do it through Oliver Cowdery's use of a divining rod; and the record seems pretty clear that (whether or not it was the source for some/all of the BoM text) Joseph Smith did receive true revelations through his seer stone.  Further, he seemed willing to label other people's seer stones as "Urim and Thummim"--for example, per the autobiography of Wandle Mace, we have that instance where seer stones are brought to Nauvoo by some British saints; and Smith reviews them and "pronounced them to be a Urim and Thummim as good as ever was upon teh earth but he said, 'they have been consecrated to devils'".  

Again, I agree that there is a separation from satanic vs divine, which I agree with.

My position is that there are "neutral" ways of doing similar things that seem supernatural.  I don't have any documentation for such things.  But I know that I have personally witnessed "things" that seem to defy the laws of physics which I, as a pretty informed engineer, would think was impossible.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ultimately I think it's the source of the power, not the means through which the power is manifested, that makes the difference.  

Certainly so. 

But isn't this the same argument I'm making about the narratives?  The source of the narrative is what I question.  Therefore, that makes the difference.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Another thing worth noting is that we have references to Joseph Smith having/using/showing people his "Urim and Thummim" well into the Nauvoo period (see generally, here).  If that was the Jaredite interpreters, and Joseph never did return them to Moroni . . . then where are they now?  And if the Church really does have them hidden away in the First Presidency vault, then why would they go along with this dog-and-pony show about some other seer stone being the instrument of translation?  

I had wondered what happened to them.  But I had believed them to be the Nephite interpreters, not the Jaredites'.

I'm not sure if they do have them in the vault.  Has there been such a public statement?

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Be really, really careful with the JSF.  Their founder was not a good guy.  Key personnel involved in the foundation today are not honest people.  I'm sorry, I can't elaborate. 

Based on all our interactions together, I believe you.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would almost never refer someone to the cesspool that is Reddit, but . . . there's a thread on the JSF's founder over there; and among the other nonsense that usually abounds in Reddit, someone has actually posted something that's pretty close to the truth.  So, the true story about them *is* out there and can be discerned by a healthy combination of skepticism and revelation.  

I'll take that under advisement.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Back to the primary sources, though:  FWIW, both Emma Smith and David Whitmer supported the idea that the U&T (Jaredite interpreters/"spectacles") were used on the 116 pages; and the seer stone following the loss of those pages.  But they are, of course, relatively late recollections.  

On this, specific wording would be helpful.  The thing is that in early days even Joseph and Oliver would use the terms interchangeably.  If they didn't use the U&T at any time during the translation of what became the BoM, why would he keep them?

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Still, the notion that the story of the seer stone's role in the production of the BoM was intended to discredit Joseph Smith strikes me as problematic for several reasons.

First, David Whitmer didn't think seer stones were shameful.  He, and his family, loved the idea of seer stones.  Shortly after Joseph Smith gives his brown stone to Oliver Cowdery in spring of 1830 following completion of the Book of Mormon translation, Whitmer family son-in-law Hiram Page starts getting revelations through his own stone--and most of the Whitmer family is initially firmly in support of him, until D&C 28 reins them all back in.  Whitmer's diminishing confidence in Joseph Smith's leadership coincided with Joseph Smith's resorting to the seer stone as a means of revelation less and less often.  For his part, David Whitmer had his own seer stones; which he passed on to his descendants and which they used with some regularity.  For David, citing the role of a seer stone in the origin story of the Book of Mormon does not diminish the book's credibility or miraculous nature; it enhances it.

Second, I think it's assuming facts not in evidence to suggest that either Whitmer or Emma Smith "hated" Joseph to the point that they were willing to deliberately publicly lie about him.  Yes, they disagreed with him--loudly and stridently, at times.  But they were both fiercely devoted to Joseph Smith's early status as a prophet and the cause of Mormonism. Emma lionized him to the end of her days; and Whitmer--from what I see of his statements--tended to look back on his associations with Joseph with more regret and "pity" than actual animus.  

Third, both Whitmer and Emma were fierce proponents of the Book of Mormon to the end of their lives.  I don't think there's anything in their histories suggesting that they would have deliberately tried to undermine or bring shame upon the authenticity of that book as an authentic, ancient, divinely-restored record.  The fact that people disagree with Joseph Smith about various things, does not render them wholly dastardly.  

Fourth, the seer stone-as-translation-instrument account was confirmed by Martin Harris even when at times when he was quite friendly to the Utah church and would have no motive to tell an origin story that he thought would somehow debase the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith's ministry.

And, finally:  A lot of this pooh-poohing of any source who didn't cross the plains with Brigham tiptoes around a rather uncomfortable truth:  Most of the people who were involved with the Smith family when the Book of Mormon was being written, didn't come to Utah with President Young.  The BoM witnesses didn't. (Harris, of course, came decades later).  The Smith family, didn't.  Those of the Hales who converted, didn't.  The Whitmers didn't.  The Stowells didn't.  The majority of the Twelve (as originally constituted in 1835) didn't.  If we dismiss the accounts of all the people who were there and saw the BoM being translated, on the grounds that they failed to stay faithful to the Utah Church and are therefore somehow suspect in their recollections; then on this topic we're forced to retrench into a sort of historical know-nothingism.  Because Joseph Smith himself isn't telling:  He flat-out said that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon".  

Those are pretty good arguments.  Thank you.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yep.  There have have been a number of articles about this; and not all of the accounts perfectly reconcile.  There are a *lot* of inconsistencies--how many stones were there, what did they look like, when and where was each one acquired or used or given away (see, e.g., here).  But I think the all-too-common response to simply throw all of it out and say "It was the Jaredite interpreters, and nothing but the Jaredite interpreters, all the time" is just not correct.    

Well, yes.  It is the inconsistencies that still trouble me.

What troubles me more is that the Lord tends to have patterns.  He has Lehi use the Liahona to find a pair of (Nephite) interpreters.  Once he has them, the Liahona stopped working.  It was a preparatory tool only.  Afterward, it was merely kept as a relic.

It seems that patterns like this would continue: Joseph borrowed someone else's seer stone to find the one that was meant for him.  Then he received the interpreters, why go back?  

What was the purpose?

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/17/2025 at 11:05 AM, Carborendum said:

Did he?  I'm going to guess that you're saying that the clear stones were used to create the Jaredite interepreters.  I hadn't heard that.  

If that's what you are implying, yes, I'd like to see a source.

The context of Ether 3:23 had led me to believe that the Jaredite U&T was just two of the clear stones the Brother of Jared had previously created.  But you're right, the text doesn't explicitly say that.  

Quote

I had wondered what happened to them.  But I had believed them to be the Nephite interpreters, not the Jaredites'.

I'm not sure if they do have them in the vault.  Has there been such a public statement?

The U&T that Joseph Smith recovered from the stone box as shown to him by Moroni, seems to have been the Jaredite U&T.  See D&C 17:1.

And yes, I don't think the Church has ever come out and said (or even hinted) that it still has that relic.  

Quote

On this, specific wording would be helpful.  The thing is that in early days even Joseph and Oliver would use the terms interchangeably.  If they didn't use the U&T at any time during the translation of what became the BoM, why would he keep them?

So, this is Rough Stone Rolling, p. 70:

Lucy Smith said that Joseph received the interpreters again on September 22, 1828, and that he and Emma did a little translating, but the need to prepare for winter intervened.⁴⁶

[Footnote 46]  [cites Lucy Mack Smith, Biological Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his Progenitors for Many Generations.  Liverpool, Eng.:  S.W Richards, 1853., 125-126.  Although the assertion clashes with other accounts, David Whitmer said Moroni did not return the Urim and Thummim in September.  Instead Joseph used a seerstone for the remaining translation.  Kansas City Journal, June 19, 1881, Omaha Herald, Oct 17, 1886; Interview (1885), in Whitmer, Interviews, 72, 157, 200.  Of the translation process, Emma said, "The first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color." Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, Mar 27, 1870 in EMD [Dan Vogel. ed.  Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols.  Salt Lake City:  Signature Books, 1996-2003], 1:532

Quote

What troubles me more is that the Lord tends to have patterns.  He has Lehi use the Liahona to find a pair of (Nephite) interpreters.  Once he has them, the Liahona stopped working.  It was a preparatory tool only.  Afterward, it was merely kept as a relic.

I don't recall the BoM suggesting that the Liahona led Lehi or any Lehite to a pair of Nephite interpreters--am I missing something?

It does seem like a pretty safe bet that the Nephite kings had some sort of interpreters, because Mosiah I is able to read the Jaredite stone (Omni 1:20) and Ammon later tells Limhi that Mosiah has one and is therefore a seer (Mosiah 8).  Maybe that was the Liahona, maybe it was something else--I'm not aware of the text specifying. 

But Mosiah still chooses to use the Jaredite interpreters (which Limhi's people had found along with the 24 gold plates) to translate the Jaredite record (Mosiah 28).  

Quote

It seems that patterns like this would continue: Joseph borrowed someone else's seer stone to find the one that was meant for him.  Then he received the interpreters, why go back?  

What was the purpose?

Joseph seems to have evolved to the point where considered any sort of physical media to be an inferior means of receiving revelation.  

Edited January 20 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The U&T that Joseph Smith recovered from the stone box as shown to him by Moroni, seems to have been the Jaredite U&T.  See D&C 17:1.

Cool. Thanks.  But...

Quote

Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has (present tense) wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

Mosiah 8:13

It seems that Mosiah had the interpreters prior to Limhi introducing the to the 24 plates.  In fact, there is nothing that says that the interpreters were with the 24 plates at the time of Ammon (I).  So, it appears that they were found earlier, as Bradley says.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Emma said, "The first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color."

I've also recently found an account by Emma speaking of the brief time when she acted as scribe.  So, she did witness the process first hand.  That's as close to a smoking gun as you can get.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't recall the BoM suggesting that the Liahona led Lehi or any Lehite to a pair of Nephite interpreters--am I missing something?

Yes, that's from the Don Bradley book I'm reading (I mentioned it here).  He did some historical reconstruction from all known accounts of Joseph and Sidney speaking of what they remembered from the lost manuscript.  I don't believe Bradley knew which high priest was spoken of.  It may have been anyone from Lehi to Mosiah.  But it was speaking of the Nephite interpreters which Mosiah had.

He (Bradley) looked into various topics that Mormon (or another BoM prophet) mentions as if it were understood based on the record. Yet such items were not found in the small plates of Nephi (per our present BoM).  So, he would assume that such things were in the 116 pages.  That makes sense.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It does seem like a pretty safe bet that the Nephite kings had some sort of interpreters, because Mosiah I is able to read the Jaredite stone (Omni 1:20) and Ammon later tells Limhi that Mosiah has one and is therefore a seer (Mosiah 8). 

exactly.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Maybe that was the Liahona, maybe it was something else--I'm not aware of the text specifying. 

I would tend to disbelieve that the Liahona was an interpretation device.  The Liahona has a very specific description that would not be at the same level as a seer stone or interpreters.  It was too often referred to as a compass.  So, we can see that it was different enough that no one referred to it as a seer stone or interpreter.

Also, see last paragraph.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But Mosiah still chooses to use the Jaredite interpreters (which Limhi's people had found along with the 24 gold plates) to translate the Jaredite record (Mosiah 28).

Yes.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Joseph seems to have evolved to the point where considered any sort of physical media to be an inferior means of receiving revelation.  

Yes, I recall that quote.  But what I find interesting is that it seems to contradict what Emma said above.  He speaks of having the U&T, not the seer stone.  Were they returned after the publication of the BoM?  Did he have them but preferred to use an ostensibly inferior instrument?

I also noted that (about 40% down the page) the first paragraph of the section titled "After the Book of Mormon Was Published" calls them "Nephite Interpreters."  Interesting.

[HaggisShuu]

On 1/16/2025 at 1:16 PM, Carborendum said:

What if seer stones aren't divine?  We really don't know how these things work. 

I remember reading an article somewhere, where a geologist weighed in on the seerstone when they released the pictures of it. Essentially, where it was discovered, it would be completely impossible for it naturally form. Meaning at some point in history it was placed where Joseph would find it. 
 

It's possible that that holds no bearing on your question whatsoever but it's something to consider. Additionally when he used it for treasure seeking, it was an angel who told him to stop using it for this purpose. I think its easy to put together a case for the seer stone being divine. I think its discovery was one of many events that had to take place to prepare Joseph for the prophetic mantle. 
 

At the end of the day compare it to Moses' staff. Nobody seriously believes his staff had the power to create water from stone, and turn into a snake. That power came from God. The seer stone was Josephs equivalent of Moses staff. In that respect, the only limitation is what God allows to happen, as the power comes from him, not the stone. 

[Vort]

On 1/16/2025 at 5:16 AM, Carborendum said:

We really don't know how these things work. 

Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This I believe.

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The Liahona has a very specific description that would not be at the same level as a seer stone or interpreters.  It was too often referred to as a compass.

The word "compass" originates from the Latin compassus, "step together". It was originally used to designate devices used to create and measure circles, and only relatively late (1300s) was applied to navigating by means of a magnetic spindle. It is interesting and seemingly anachronistic that the Liahona, an instrument of direction, should be described in the Book of Mormon as a "compass". (I don't find it anachronistic, any more than I find an English translation of any other ancient document anachronistic because, hey, English didn't even exist back then!) Interestingly, both meanings are used in the endowment as a description of a certain mark on the Priesthood garment. Apropos of nothing in particular.

[mikbone]

The Liahona was more than just  a compass.  

From 1 Ne 16:27-29 we learn that it also had the capacity to display printed text.

“it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it. And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.”

I have no idea if it was like a computer screen, magic 8 ball, or if the brass surface could be repeatedly inscribed.

Curious workmanship indeed.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

The Liahona was more than just  a compass.  

From 1 Ne 16:27-29 we learn that it also had the capacity to display printed text.

“it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it. And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.”

I have no idea if it was like a computer screen, magic 8 ball, or if the brass surface could be repeatedly inscribed.

Curious workmanship indeed.

Sounds like the pointers were not needle-like, but broad enough to clearly show some words inscribed thereon (in ancient Hebrew or perhaps Nephi's version of "reformed Egyptian", almost certainly Demotic Egyptian).

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

From 1 Ne 16:27-29 we learn that it also had the capacity to display printed text.

“it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it. And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.”

I have no idea if it was like a computer screen, magic 8 ball, or if the brass surface could be repeatedly inscribed.

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sounds like the pointers were not needle-like, but broad enough to clearly show some words inscribed thereon (in ancient Hebrew or perhaps Nephi's version of "reformed Egyptian", almost certainly Demotic Egyptian).

One theory bandied about (and I'm still looking for the reasons for the theory) is that there were letters or symbols permanently engraved along the circle which the second spindle pointed.  Thus the "writing" was not something that appeared on a previously blank surface. 

Thus, the "diligence and heed" required that you be there when it was pointing to the letters/symbols.  If you didn't rush to it as it activated, you'd miss the message.

Again, not sure why this came about.  But I have some things that I'm going through that supposedly indicates that this is the nature of the Liahona's communication.

[mikbone]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Again, not sure why this came about.

Probably from this.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/20/2025 at 4:26 PM, Carborendum said:

One theory bandied about (and I'm still looking for the reasons for the theory) is that there were letters or symbols permanently engraved along the circle which the second spindle pointed.  Thus the "writing" was not something that appeared on a previously blank surface. 

Thus, the "diligence and heed" required that you be there when it was pointing to the letters/symbols.  If you didn't rush to it as it activated, you'd miss the message.

Again, not sure why this came about.  But I have some things that I'm going through that supposedly indicates that this is the nature of the Liahona's communication.

In family scripture study this week (we are redoing the BoM), it was suggested that maybe the Liahona was coated in small writing; and maybe one would only notice it had “changed” if one made a habit of studying it closely on a routine basis.

As to the pointers, I’ve entertained the notions that the second pointer may have pointed:

—To “intermediate” objectives—not campsites, but hunting locations or water sources or to the current whereabouts of wandering livestock that had been left to forage;

—To a cardinal direction (true north or true east);

—The way back to Jerusalem.

Edited January 22 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

On 1/16/2025 at 6:16 AM, Carborendum said:

That is the common narrative of those on the stone side.  But the historical records don't offer a solid foundation for that theory.  IOW, it is still possible.  But you have to specifically interpret things for it to be true.

Yes, that is what most people say.  Again, the argument is that "it is still a "divine" method." 

• What if seer stones aren't divine?  We really don't know how these things work. 
• What if at some future date, we find that seer stones have certain limits that would have made it impossible. 

Then we realize that was a false narrative.  So, we have to back track again?

With the U&T, they are specifically made to interpret.  Seer stones aren't.  Every description that we have record of (where it doesn't involve the BoM translation) we don't hear of any kind of translation/interpretation via seer stones.  It was only images. 

Even the Book of Abraham appears to have been done through the U&T. But the BoM wasn't?

 

Yes, there were supposedly several stones. 

Most of the statements we have of Joseph using a Seer Stone for translation are NOT primary accounts.  I wish I knew where I got the information, but the sources I originally found the statements from were from newspaper reports.  They were tertiary accounts which supposedly the individuals had told a reporter (decades after the fact...which would also be highly suspicious) and he had then written as an article.  There were no primary accounts to back up his statements, and no primary accounts existed in that regard.

That was one reason why the Church Historian for decades discredited these accounts (as he should have, tertiary accounts decades after the fact from a reporter that was shown to be hostile to group he was writing on is normally not considered a trustworthy or reliable source from any historian...and I cannot fathom why the church gives credit to some of these statements today).  They were only used by Anti-Mormons.

Today, they are portrayed as being primary sources and official statements, but most of them were not.

In regards to the Whitmers, Joseph did spend time there, but he probably would not have witnessed the actual translation in person.  Some of the accounts (if one trusts them) were supposed to have been stated at a highly volatile time.  During this period, Joseph was deceased and the church was splintering.  Some of those splinter groups also said they had a seer stone and were getting revelations from stones and rocks they possessed.  Whitmer supported one such individual and from how he (if it is him) phrases things, it would appear the account was given to grant validity to the individual who was claiming church leadership at the time through revelation via stone.

That said, it was not thought that Joseph did not get revelation through the Seer Stone, but that there were several ways translations occurred.  One was more of revelation than translation (ala...Bible Translation...ala Pearl of Great Price...etc).  These would have been done via using available sources and then, via the Seer Stone, getting inspiration of what was the true meaning. 

The Book of Mormon on the otherhand was given via a more direct translation, but whether via one of the Seer Stones or via the Urim and Thummim...does it really matter?  It as divine in either case.

That said, several prophets have gone on record to say that the Book of Mormon was translated via the Urim and Thummim.  Most notably, the descendants of Hyrum Smith and those who came from the Smith Family.

The difficulty some point out is that when the Gold Plates were initially taken from Joseph, the Urim and Thummim supposedly were taken as well...and though the plates were returned, some say that there is no indication that the interpreters were returned as well.  If this were true, that leaves a gaping hole on how Joseph actually accomplished the translation of the rest of the Book of Mormon.

I personally believe he translated it with the Urim and Thummim as I feel Hyrum's son, grandson, and others would not knowingly lie on this account.  They were NOT there, but I feel they may have been told (or at least the son) when they were young how it was accomplished.

That is a PERSONAL belief though. 

If we accept the Seer Stone idea, as I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, it makes little difference to me.  I can also understand the entire idea of using it and using a hat as well.  There have been times when I needed to focus, and the best way to focus was to close out all other distractions.  This could mean that I needed to have a dark spot (and in fact, using darkness and a bright beam of light to try to focus on a small part of an artifact is not unknown when trying to decipher something) in order to focus my energies on.  Him using a hat during the day to exclude outward distractions, and focus on what was within the stone makes perfect sense to me as well.

Furthermore, we know there were several Seer Stones (only one of which has been shown by the church, which is I think the Catseye) utilized.  The white stone which I feel was the one utilized for translation and revelation has not been shown.  There is also some thought that the white stone is actually the Urim and Thummim, and the Urim and Thummim may only mean one stone rather than the two we imagine it to be. 

Once again, what the truth turns out to be means little if you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.  It is an interesting side note to try to understand, but the more important thing, that the Book of Mormon came to use through the Power of the Lord and is his word is what is the most important thing for us to know through the Holy Ghost, and to have revealed to us by the Lord.

 

PS:  In theory, we've had 2 of the seer stones shown to us.  We've had the Cat's Eye from our recent Prophet, and the Bidaman stone from the RLDS group (or, more specificially, Emma Smith).  I personally don't think the white stone was the interpreters (though, they could have been), I think they were something else (two stones set and bridged together).  Supposedly Joseph showed people something all through his life that were the Urim and Thummim.

Also, if one can actually find the links (not sure if they to be found on the internet or not) that show that many of the accounts for the Seer Stone translation idea are actually from a reporter who wrote (or recorded these stories supposedly) and thus an unreliable secondary (or tertiary) account, I'd appreciate it. 

Edited January 22 by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As to the pointers, I’ve entertained the notions that the second pointer may have pointed:

—To “intermediate” objectives—not campsites, but hunting locations or water sources or to the current whereabouts of wandering livestock that had been left to forage;

—To a cardinal direction (true north or true east);

—The way back to Jerusalem.

This was along the same lines as another theory which went along with the previous one that I cited.

One pointed the direction they were to go. The other pointed to a symbol indicating what they would find there (food, water, ores, protection from weather, etc.).

Edited January 22 by Carborendum

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

I will stick with the statements and scriptures from Joseph Smith and Oliver on this topic. The so-called 'seer stone' story is all based on hearsay from people that were not involved in the translation process.

[DurangoUT01]

On 1/27/2025 at 8:09 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I will stick with the statements and scriptures from Joseph Smith and Oliver on this topic. The so-called 'seer stone' story is all based on hearsay from people that were not involved in the translation process.

Agreed.  My question though is why do the LDS scholars go with “ rock and the hat”?

Edited January 29 by DurangoUT01

[NeuroTypical]

Nobody has posted the picture yet, so I thought I would.  This is the seer stone used by Joseph:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/seer-stones?lang=eng#aside1_p3

[Carborendum]

30 minutes ago, DurangoUT01 said:

Agreed.  My question though is why do the LDS scholars go with “ rock and the hat”?

Theory #1: Word usage

• The term Urim and Thummim doesn't appear in the BoM.  They are only referred to as "interpreters."  Both Joseph and Oliver very often referred to them as interpreters.
• They also referred to them as "seer stones" because they functioned similarly.
• Others hearing "seer stones" thought that must refer to a different mechanism than the U&T. 
• People heard them describing the process with "seer stones" to the point where they thought of either the white or chocolate stones Joseph was said to have used.
• They didn't start using the term U&T until Joseph read a lot more of the Old Testament where they were mentioned.  My guess is that as he inquired of the Lord what that was, He told Joseph "they are the interpreters."  So, he began using that terminology from that point on.  And a lot of the people of that generation didn't know what that meant.  And many didn't pick up on that.

Theory #2: Demonstration

• Joseph was commanded to never show the U&T (interpreters) to anyone.  Later, Oliver was the only one to receive an exception that rule (D&C 9).
• People asked him to demonstrate the interpretation process.  He couldn't do it with the actual interpreters because ^ ^.  So, he just threw a rock in there representing the interpreters since he couldn't use the actual interpreters because of the prohibition.
• Those observers simply assumed that the stone represented a seer stone rather than the interpreters.  And they repeated the story that way.

All this confusion got Joseph so frustrated that when he was asked by his own Brother (Hyrum) for a public demonstration/explanation, he simply stood up to say "The world was not meant to know the method of translation."

Edited January 29 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nobody has posted the picture yet, so I thought I would.  This is the seer stone used by Joseph:

Did you know he also had a white one?

[zil2]

This video has some information that seems relevant to this thread:

 

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, DurangoUT01 said:

Agreed.  My question though is why do the LDS scholars go with “ rock and the hat”?

Because that’s what three of the people who saw him using it, said that he used; and they were more specific than JS tended to be.

Edited January 30 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because that’s what three of the people who saw him using it, said that he used; and they were more specific than JS tended to be.

I know that Emma said something like that.  But when did Oliver or Martin?

One problem with Martin saying so is that this clashes with the narrative that the interpreters were used during the 116 pages but were not given back to Joseph for the translation.

If they were never given back to him, why do we have other stories of him using the interpreters later on?