U&T v. Seer Stone

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

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?

David, not Oliver.   

And yeah, Harris’s narrative suggests the seer stone was also used, at least sometimes, before the loss of the 116 pages (because of the incident he records of swapping out the stone while serving as a scribe, and AFAIK he didn’t serve as a scribe after the loss of the 116 pages).  But AFAIK Harris’s narrative doesn’t place the Jaredite interpreters back in Joseph’s possession after they’d been taken away from him.

What primary source do we have that clearly, unequivocally distinguishes between the Jaredite interpreters and the seer stone and unequivocally says that JS used the former and not the latter *after* the loss of the 116 pages?

 

Edited January 30 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

David, not Oliver.   

David never saw the translation process.  So, whatever he knew about the process is secondhand.

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And yeah, Harris’s narrative suggests the seer stone was also used, at least sometimes, before the loss of the 116 pages (because of the incident he records of swapping out the stone while serving as a scribe,

I'm familiar with the story.  But is there any explanation of why he would say that "sometimes" the interpreters were used and "sometimes" the stone?

I've heard that it had to do with the size of the breastplate.  But that doesn't make much sense.  Did Joseph ever say anything about that?

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

and AFAIK he didn’t serve as a scribe after the loss of the 116 pages).

That's as I understand it as well.

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 But AFAIK Harris’s narrative doesn’t place the Jaredite interpreters back in Joseph’s possession after they’d been taken away from him.

Yes, I had never heard either way from any source.  Everything I've read is silent on the matter of receiving them back again.  But...

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What primary source do we have that clearly, unequivocally distinguishes between the Jaredite interpreters and the seer stone and unequivocally says that JS used the former and not the latter *after* the loss of the 116 pages?

We have the following Q&A (first-hand source): I just came across it recently.  

I'd read this Q&A before.  But not in the context of the U&T vs SS.  I had remembered his more humorous responses.  (Wife, gold-digger, having things in common).

Quote

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York, being dead; and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.

Elders’ Journal, July 1838, Page 42 & 43  (July 1838).  Joseph Smith, Jr. Editor

No modifiers.  No qualifiers. No equivocation.  No using the (up until then) ambiguous terms "seer stone" or "interpreters."  He clearly said the Urim and Thummim.  AFAIK, that is a completely unambiguous term. 

He doesn't say "most of the time."  He doesn't mention using the seer stone at all.  It sure seems pretty clear to me.  

This was long after the publication of the BoM.  Language is clear now because he had learned the term Urim and Thummim by then.  Once he had that terminology set, I don't know of any instance where he used the term seer stone in conjunction with the translation.  

No more the "ignorant young plow-boy" who didn't know if Jerusalem had walls about the city nor how to pronounce the name "Sariah."  He had translated the BoM.  He led the Church that had been established 8 years before.  And having been educated by celestial beings (as well as earthly scholars) for over a decade, he had become the prophet that God had forged him to be through much tribulation (so he could weather even harsher tribulation yet to come). 

By then, he knew what he was saying and how to say it.

Edited January 30 by Carborendum

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No modifiers.  No qualifiers. No equivocation.  No using the (up until then) ambiguous terms "seer stone" or "interpreters."  He clearly said the Urim and Thummim.  AFAIK, that is a completely unambiguous term. 

He doesn't say "most of the time."  He doesn't mention using the seer stone at all.  It sure seems pretty clear to me.  

...

By then, he knew what he was saying and how to say it.

And maybe he also knew to keep his answers simple and that the details didn't really matter.  You're thinking like a modern person.  I have no idea what the facts are, but I know all about simplifying the story to focus on the important facts and not get bogged down in the details.

(That video I posted, somewhere around the 17 minute mark, explains the animal-skin hat, FYI.  I guess you'd have to get the guy's book to learn about all his sources and decide whether he's done a good job piecing it all together.)

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, zil2 said:

And maybe he also knew to keep his answers simple and that the details didn't really matter.  You're thinking like a modern person.  I have no idea what the facts are, but I know all about simplifying the story to focus on the important facts and not get bogged down in the details.

(That video I posted, somewhere around the 17 minute mark, explains the animal-skin hat, FYI.  I guess you'd have to get the guy's book to learn about all his sources and decide whether he's done a good job piecing it all together.)

Yes, I saw the video.  But he didn't really clear it up.  And I do have the book.

He compared the translation process with the method used by the OT prophets.  They used the Urim and Thummim.  During his jumble of words (in the video) Bradley also invoked the seer stone.

When I get back home, I'll go look up his source on the beaver skin hat.  It was only one source.  But I don't recall who it was.

Yes, I can fully appreciate simplifying the narrative to avoid confusion, etc.  And it is entirely possible he had both at his disposal.  What is not likely is that he simply did not have access to the U&T after the 116 pages were lost and then he went on to claim he translated by way of the U&T.

Then the question becomes: If he had the U&T, why would he bother using a lesser instrument (seer stone)?

Why do I believe it is a lesser instrument?  Because we seem to only know of two interpreters in existence -- the Nephite/Jaredite version in the BoM (AFAIK) and the Hebrew ones mentioned in the OT.  Yet there are enough seer stones for everyone on the planet?

Edited January 30 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

David never saw the translation process.  So, whatever he knew about the process is secondhand.

Where do we get the idea that David never saw the translation process?  A significant portion of the work was done (and the job was finished) at his family's farm, in the small cabin in which the Church would later be organized.  Whitmer claimed, in his Address to All Believers (p. 11), that he saw the work being done.  Joseph Smith himself said that David Whitmer was available to serve as a scribe for him (see here, p. 8).

You've also forced () me to drag out my copy of Brandt Gardner's Translating the Book of Mormon, wherein he also cites an 1883 account by William Smith in which William claims JS used "the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light" and an 1870 account by Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery (who would grow up to marry Oliver Cowdery) who wrote that "[JS] translated the most of [the Book of Mormon] at my Father's house.  And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together.  Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating.  He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him."  Translating the Book of Mormon, 7 [editorial marks original to Gardner].

Quote

I'm familiar with the story.  But is there any explanation of why he would say that "sometimes" the interpreters were used and "sometimes" the stone?

I've heard that it had to do with the size of the breastplate.  But that doesn't make much sense.  Did Joseph ever say anything about that?

As I understand it, the interpreters recovered with the plates were attached to the breastplate but resembled eyeglasses or "spectacles" and could be detached.  Even so, as Don Bradley writes in The Lost 116 Pages, 

Some nineteenth-century reporters say that the lenses of the interpreters were set too wide for Joseph's eyes, making it uncomfortable for him to use them simultaneously while they rested on the rod [that linked the two stones].  Joseph's father, a wearer of spectacles himself, reportedly said that the interpreters were set one and a half inches wider than the lenses of ordinary spectacles, indicating either that Joseph was not using it in the way intended by its inventor or that the device holding the interpreters was designed for a person of extraordinary size.  The Lost 116 Pages, 49. 

Bradley goes on to bring in some really interesting descriptions of the interpreters to explain how they link to the symbols of the compass and square, and points out additional logistical issues that may have been presented by using the interpreters.   

Quote

Yes, I had never heard either way from any source.  Everything I've read is silent on the matter of receiving them back again.  But...

Harris outright says it, IIRC.  Emma heavily implies it, saying explicitly that after the loss of the 116 pages the brown stone, not the interpreters (which she labeled the "Urim and Thummim"), were used.  Gardner cites to a couple of other historians (separate articles by Stephen Ricks and John Welch), but I'm not sure what additional primary sources they may have used in formulating their conclusions.  See Translating the Bo0ok of Mormon, 290-291, note 25.  

Quote

We have the following Q&A (first-hand source): I just came across it recently.  

I'd read this Q&A before.  But not in the context of the U&T vs SS.  I had remembered his more humorous responses.  (Wife, gold-digger, having things in common).

No modifiers.  No qualifiers. No equivocation.  No using the (up until then) ambiguous terms "seer stone" or "interpreters."  He clearly said the Urim and Thummim.  AFAIK, that is a completely unambiguous term. 

He doesn't say "most of the time."  He doesn't mention using the seer stone at all.  It sure seems pretty clear to me.  

This was long after the publication of the BoM.  Language is clear now because he had learned the term Urim and Thummim by then.  Once he had that terminology set, I don't know of any instance where he used the term seer stone in conjunction with the translation.  

No more the "ignorant young plow-boy" who didn't know if Jerusalem had walls about the city nor how to pronounce the name "Sariah."  He had translated the BoM.  He led the Church that had been established 8 years before.  And having been educated by celestial beings (as well as earthly scholars) for over a decade, he had become the prophet that God had forged him to be through much tribulation (so he could weather even harsher tribulation yet to come). 

By then, he knew what he was saying and how to say it.

Weellll . . . sort of.

First off--as an aside, Gardner's Translating the Book of Mormon also addresses the linguistic evolution through which the interpreters/seer stone were Biblicized as the "Urim and Thummim".  See pp. 127-129.

As for the Elder's Journal article:  The thing about it is that as you read the entire article it becomes pretty evident that in that particular forum Joseph is by turns being facetious, flippant, and/or evasive.  On a variety of topics he obviously knows far more than he's telling: 

Question 1st. Do you believe the bible?

Answer. If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does. For there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.

[Is that doctrine, Brother Joseph?  ]

Question 3rd. Will every body be damned but Mormons?

Answer. Yes, and a great portion of them,unless they repent and work righteousness.

[Now, Brother Joseph; don't tease us.  You received D&C 76 six years ago!]

Question 5th. Do you believe Joseph Smith Jr. to be a prophet?

Answer. Yes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus. “For the testimony of Jesus, is the spirit of prophecy.”—Rev. 19: 10.

[Brother Joseph!  I get that you're trying to make friends and elevate those around you, but don't sell yourself short here!]

Question 6th. Do the Mormons believe in having all things common?

Answer. No.

[Brother Joseph, you were getting revelations on the United Order seven years ago.  Are you sure there isn't more you'd like to say here?]

Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one.

Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe, that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the custom which has gained in the world, and has been practised among us, to our great mortification, of marrying in five or six weeks, or even in two or three months after the death of their companion.

We believe that due respect ought to behad, to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of both friends and children.

[Brother Joseph, haven't you already received the fundamentals of what will later be canonized as D&C 132?  Does the name Fanny Alger ring a bell?]

And from there, the interview morphs on into playful banter as Smith addresses questions about whether he was a money digger, whether he stole his wife, etc; as well as more serious questions about, e.g., abolitionism (where he insists, contra earlier Church publications, that "we do not believe in setting the Negroes free").  

The point I'm trying to make here is not that Joseph is being deliberately dishonest in this article.  But he is being evasive; he is giving simplistic and glib answers and refusing to be publicly drawn out on topics that are by turn complicated, sacred, and/or deeply personal.  Seven years ago, Joseph had publicly told Hyrum that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c."  I don't think we should read the Elders' Journal article as an attempt to comprehensively and publicly expose what Joseph had already defined to be sacred and confidential.  

 

Edited January 30 by Just_A_Guy

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 1/29/2025 at 2:06 PM, DurangoUT01 said:

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

from my research, it seems that Joseph used the U&T to translate the plates and the seer stone for regular revelations like the D&C. They seem to confuse the two as the same thing, because not very much detail was given by Joseph and Oliver.

[JohnsonJones]

On 1/30/2025 at 9:57 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Where do we get the idea that David never saw the translation process?  A significant portion of the work was done (and the job was finished) at his family's farm, in the small cabin in which the Church would later be organized.  Whitmer claimed, in his Address to All Believers (p. 11), that he saw the work being done.  Joseph Smith himself said that David Whitmer was available to serve as a scribe for him (see here, p. 8).

You've also forced () me to drag out my copy of Brandt Gardner's Translating the Book of Mormon, wherein he also cites an 1883 account by William Smith in which William claims JS used "the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light" and an 1870 account by Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery (who would grow up to marry Oliver Cowdery) who wrote that "[JS] translated the most of [the Book of Mormon] at my Father's house.  And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together.  Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating.  He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him."  Translating the Book of Mormon, 7 [editorial marks original to Gardner].

As I understand it, the interpreters recovered with the plates were attached to the breastplate but resembled eyeglasses or "spectacles" and could be detached.  Even so, as Don Bradley writes in The Lost 116 Pages, 

Some nineteenth-century reporters say that the lenses of the interpreters were set too wide for Joseph's eyes, making it uncomfortable for him to use them simultaneously while they rested on the rod [that linked the two stones].  Joseph's father, a wearer of spectacles himself, reportedly said that the interpreters were set one and a half inches wider than the lenses of ordinary spectacles, indicating either that Joseph was not using it in the way intended by its inventor or that the device holding the interpreters was designed for a person of extraordinary size.  The Lost 116 Pages, 49. 

Bradley goes on to bring in some really interesting descriptions of the interpreters to explain how they link to the symbols of the compass and square, and points out additional logistical issues that may have been presented by using the interpreters.   

Harris outright says it, IIRC.  Emma heavily implies it, saying explicitly that after the loss of the 116 pages the brown stone, not the interpreters (which she labeled the "Urim and Thummim"), were used.  Gardner cites to a couple of other historians (separate articles by Stephen Ricks and John Welch), but I'm not sure what additional primary sources they may have used in formulating their conclusions.  See Translating the Bo0ok of Mormon, 290-291, note 25. 

 

GOOD sources...BUT...

If I recall, none of those are primary.

They are tertiary (meaning, not even secondary) writings given supposedly from someone else to the writer.  That individual supposedly told the writer that Emma, or others told them such and such, and it was recorded as if they said it directly.

It's one of the few beefs I have with the current history department of the Church.  They show things as if they were from a primary source, but when you actually look at the source documents from which they originally (rather than being rewritten, etc) come from, they aren't primary sources. 

Some of the items are, but many of those which they are using to say certain things (which were used by the anti-mormons for decades) are actually from unreliable sources and papers (which is also the valid reason the Church was able to say these things were not true several decades ago and for a long while prior, and anti-mormons were not using reliable information).

Which is probably why it makes it hard for many of my generation to accept a Lot of what the more recent items the Church has been changing in it's statements of history of the past decade.  There are things the Church is now saying that you would have been excommunicated for a mere 35 years ago (Remember the September Six and Quinn.  He was excommunicated specifically for several items which the  Church now is using in it's church history narrative).  Part of that problem is that they are now using sources that anti-mormons were using, which were shown not to be reliable (by historians not even connected to the Church!  no less) in the first place. 

However, I've come to terms with it in my own way (see my above post on the actual topic) by understanding that in the end, what is truly important is revelation, and through that revelation, what the spirit and the Lord tells you is true. 

Edited February 1 by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

JAG, I hope you understand that I'm pursuing this thread to get better understanding.  I find your statements to be insightful and reasonable.  It is getting me to think more about the topic.  So, I ask just a little more indulgence as I've pondered the things you've posited.

On 1/30/2025 at 10:57 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't think we should read the Elders' Journal article as an attempt to comprehensively and publicly expose what Joseph had already defined to be sacred and confidential.  

Agreed.  I never made that claim.  I said that it was the clearest statement about the U&T in lieu of the seer stone narrative that we have (AFAIK).

On 1/30/2025 at 10:57 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

The point I'm trying to make here is not that Joseph is being deliberately dishonest in this article.  But he is being evasive; he is giving simplistic and glib answers and refusing to be publicly drawn out on topics that are by turn complicated, sacred, and/or deeply personal. 

I fully accept that characterization.  But it doesn't seem to be enough to simply dismiss the use of the U&T.

1. If he only used the seer stone (not that you made such claim, but bear with me) then it would have been a flat out lie that he used the U&T.
2. If he primarily used the seer stone and occasionally used the U&T, that would have been misleading not only for the article, but to the Saints.
3. On another line of thinking: If he used the U&T (whether exclusively or primarily) then it is a poor narrative/bad framing to simply "accept" the narrative of the stone in the hat and forget about the U&T.  (Whether intended or not, that is exactly what the stone narrative is doing.)

On 1/30/2025 at 10:57 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Seven years ago, Joseph had publicly told Hyrum that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c." 

I have a theory that I'm not going to completely share about the U&T that addresses this statement.  But there is a reason for the glasses being so widely placed.  It is not sufficient to claim that they were designed for a much larger person.  Joseph, himself, was a large man.  We have that daguerreotype that we've recently discussed.  He had a wide face for a large head on a large man.

Were all the prophets from Jared through Moroni also very large headed men?  Were they all larger than Joseph?  Were their head larger than Joseph's?

I recall many quotes about him using the U&T for various revelations (multiple sections of D&C included).  So, it couldn't be that he simply couldn't use them. 

Some say it was difficult for him to use them.  Possible.  I have difficulty believing that if we are to believe he translated the 116 pages with the U&T, but the seer stone for the text we now have (this is the common narrative to accept both tools).

The Chapter heading of D&C 6 states that the section was given through the U&T. This was day 1 of Oliver's tenure as scribe.  So, he clearly had them and used them for revelatory purposes.

My theory is that part of the function of the U&T required them to be set that way for a reason.  I consider it a reasonable theory.  But if I stated the reason, I'd probably be stoned for saying so.  For the same reason, Joseph would not explain just how the U&T worked.  The seer stone?  Nothing to it.  We know most of the particulars.  But the U&T was a different animal.  So, again, I see explanations such as this to be more supportive of the U&T than the seer stone.

Going back to your theory that the seer stone can see all that is (unless blocked by a higher power)... If that is the explanation, then why bother separating the box from the plates?  Why not block the seer stone from seeing the box at all? 

The biggest roadblocks for me in the translation via seer stone are:

• Everything we know about the use of a seer stone is that it shows what is.  What "is" on the gold plates are a foreign language.  Interpreters are required for translation.  And apart from the alleged use for the BoM, is there any account of a seer stone showing what "is not"?  Simply seeing the past or future would be sufficient to dissuade me from this argument.
• The U&T were specifically prepared for the purpose of interpretation.  They were specifically preserved for use by Joseph.  Why would that be ditched in favor of a seer stone that (by comparison) seems to be a lesser instrument that Joseph already had?  Do we have any statements from Joseph or Oliver about the stone in the hat narrative after he had begun using the term "Urim & Thummim"? 
  • My position is that he called them the seer stones because he had not yet learned the term U&T.  So, afterward, he would have almost exclusively used the term "U&T".

On 1/30/2025 at 10:57 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

First off--as an aside, Gardner's Translating the Book of Mormon also addresses the linguistic evolution through which the interpreters/seer stone were Biblicized as the "Urim and Thummim".  See pp. 127-129.

I don't have that book.  I'm still going through Bradley's book right now.

Edited February 3 by Carborendum

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 1/29/2025 at 2:06 PM, DurangoUT01 said:

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

They think they know everything. Pride goeth before the fall of most scholars that are excommunicated.

[Carborendum]

On 1/30/2025 at 3:18 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

from my research, it seems that Joseph used the U&T to translate the plates and the seer stone for regular revelations like the D&C.

Many revelations in the D&C specifically say he received the revelations via the U&T, not the seer stone.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Many revelations in the D&C specifically say he received the revelations via the U&T, not the seer stone.

The only reference to a seer stone is the incident with Hiram Page.

D&C 28:11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

I guess you can say that Mosiah also references the Urim as a pair of seer stones as well.

Edited February 3 by Emmanuel Goldstein

[Carborendum]

On 1/30/2025 at 10:57 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

You've also forced () me to drag out my copy of Brandt Gardner's Translating the Book of Mormon, wherein he also cites an 1883 account by William Smith in which William claims JS used "the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light" and an 1870 account by Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery (who would grow up to marry Oliver Cowdery) who wrote that "[JS] translated the most of [the Book of Mormon] at my Father's house.  And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together.  Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating.  He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him."  Translating the Book of Mormon, 7 [editorial marks original to Gardner].

As I understand it, the interpreters recovered with the plates were attached to the breastplate but resembled eyeglasses or "spectacles" and could be detached.  Even so, as Don Bradley writes in The Lost 116 Pages, 

Some nineteenth-century reporters say that the lenses of the interpreters were set too wide for Joseph's eyes, making it uncomfortable for him to use them simultaneously while they rested on the rod [that linked the two stones].  Joseph's father, a wearer of spectacles himself, reportedly said that the interpreters were set one and a half inches wider than the lenses of ordinary spectacles, indicating either that Joseph was not using it in the way intended by its inventor or that the device holding the interpreters was designed for a person of extraordinary size.  The Lost 116 Pages, 49. 

I had understood that Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to anyone except Oliver.  Where did William and Joseph Sr get this information?

I'm not aware of any lifting of the restriction.

One principle that Bradley repeats is that when the further detached witnesses (2nd hand, 3rd hand...) begin to make claims that wander from 1st hand accounts, that is usually a sign of rumors rather than true testimony.  It seems that the further we get from Oliver and Joseph, the more we hear about the stone rather than the intpereters.

Edited February 13 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I had understood that Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to anyone except Oliver.  Where did William and Joseph Sr get this information?

I'm not aware of any lifting of the restriction.

I’d have to look it up, but I believe Lucy Smith also said she’d seen them and left a fairly detailed description.

[Carborendum]

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’d have to look it up, but I believe Lucy Smith also said she’d seen them and left a fairly detailed description.

Again, we have to be careful of these descriptions.  Were they secondhand?  Or did certain other individuals (other than Joseph or Oliver) see them firsthand?  If so, what about the injunction to not allow any to see them?

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Again, we have to be careful of these descriptions.  Were they secondhand?  Or did certain other individuals (other than Joseph or Oliver) see them firsthand?  If so, what about the injunction to not allow any to see them?

I need to correct myself:  Lucy felt them under a silk handkerchief the night Joseph got the plates, as related in her account as dictated to the Corays, the manuscript of which is on the JSP website.

Going back to the other 2 accounts:  remember JS Sr was eventually one of the 8 witnesses.

Joseph Sr’s account comes via a late recollection from one Fayette Lapham, who in 1870 published a (highly skeptical) account of his interview with Joseph Sr from 1830, which is available online via Wikisource.

William’s account comes from a book he published in 1831 called “On Mormonism” which is available online via archive.org.

On 2/3/2025 at 7:27 AM, Carborendum said:

JAG, I hope you understand that I'm pursuing this thread to get better understanding.  I find your statements to be insightful and reasonable.  It is getting me to think more about the topic.  So, I ask just a little more indulgence as I've pondered the things you've posited.

Agreed.  I never made that claim.  I said that it was the clearest statement about the U&T in lieu of the seer stone narrative that we have (AFAIK).

I fully accept that characterization.  But it doesn't seem to be enough to simply dismiss the use of the U&T.

1. If he only used the seer stone (not that you made such claim, but bear with me) then it would have been a flat out lie that he used the U&T.
2. If he primarily used the seer stone and occasionally used the U&T, that would have been misleading not only for the article, but to the Saints.
3. On another line of thinking: If he used the U&T (whether exclusively or primarily) then it is a poor narrative/bad framing to simply "accept" the narrative of the stone in the hat and forget about the U&T.  (Whether intended or not, that is exactly what the stone narrative is doing.)

I have a theory that I'm not going to completely share about the U&T that addresses this statement.  But there is a reason for the glasses being so widely placed.  It is not sufficient to claim that they were designed for a much larger person.  Joseph, himself, was a large man.  We have that daguerreotype that we've recently discussed.  He had a wide face for a large head on a large man.

Were all the prophets from Jared through Moroni also very large headed men?  Were they all larger than Joseph?  Were their head larger than Joseph's?

I recall many quotes about him using the U&T for various revelations (multiple sections of D&C included).  So, it couldn't be that he simply couldn't use them. 

Some say it was difficult for him to use them.  Possible.  I have difficulty believing that if we are to believe he translated the 116 pages with the U&T, but the seer stone for the text we now have (this is the common narrative to accept both tools).

The Chapter heading of D&C 6 states that the section was given through the U&T. This was day 1 of Oliver's tenure as scribe.  So, he clearly had them and used them for revelatory purposes.

My theory is that part of the function of the U&T required them to be set that way for a reason.  I consider it a reasonable theory.  But if I stated the reason, I'd probably be stoned for saying so.  For the same reason, Joseph would not explain just how the U&T worked.  The seer stone?  Nothing to it.  We know most of the particulars.  But the U&T was a different animal.  So, again, I see explanations such as this to be more supportive of the U&T than the seer stone.

Going back to your theory that the seer stone can see all that is (unless blocked by a higher power)... If that is the explanation, then why bother separating the box from the plates?  Why not block the seer stone from seeing the box at all? 

The biggest roadblocks for me in the translation via seer stone are:

• Everything we know about the use of a seer stone is that it shows what is.  What "is" on the gold plates are a foreign language.  Interpreters are required for translation.  And apart from the alleged use for the BoM, is there any account of a seer stone showing what "is not"?  Simply seeing the past or future would be sufficient to dissuade me from this argument.
• The U&T were specifically prepared for the purpose of interpretation.  They were specifically preserved for use by Joseph.  Why would that be ditched in favor of a seer stone that (by comparison) seems to be a lesser instrument that Joseph already had?  Do we have any statements from Joseph or Oliver about the stone in the hat narrative after he had begun using the term "Urim & Thummim"? 
  • My position is that he called them the seer stones because he had not yet learned the term U&T.  So, afterward, he would have almost exclusively used the term "U&T".

I don't have that book.  I'm still going through Bradley's book right now.

Apologies for the lengthy response time; I had missed this earlier.  

I’m posting on my phone and can’t do a well-cited comprehensive response now, but a couple of cursory responses:

—On narrative of U&T vs SS:  I don’t think Option 3 needs to unnecessarily downplay the role of the U&T/Nephite Interpreters.  The fact is, we just don’t know exactly what the balance was; and the more we entrench into the position that one or the other was not used in the process, the more likely we are to be disproven at some point.

—Beware of D&C sections headings as a source for describing the medium by which those headings were received.  D&C 6 was originally published in the Book of Commandments as “Chapter V”—you can see it on the JSP website, and that header says nothing about how it was received.  To suss all that out you have to go back to whoever wrote the headings—I think they mostly hark back to the “History of the Church”, which was written by JS well after 1833 (when he apparently started using the term “U&T” exclusively and, AFAIK, never explicitly referred to the seer stone again) and which was largely written as dictated to scribes.  We know that for at least part of 1829 JS had the Nephite interpreters *and* the seer stone(s).

—I’d be interested to hear your theory on the interpreters and how they were used; though I certainly understand your reticence here.

—I think it’s important to differentiate Joseph’s seer stone (which was of God) from Sally Chase’s stone/glass (about which we know no such thing).  If we hypothesize that seer stones work according to some sort of unknown-yet-natural phenomena, then asking why God let Sally’s stone work “a little, but not all the way” is like asking why God let my beater car go 300,000 miles, but not 300,050 miles, before conking out.  At some point the discussion is less about natural/mechanical cause-and-effect; and more about why God does what He does and what He’s trying to teach us through the layers of protection He does or doesn’t offer.  (For example, in the case of the Sally-inspired raid on the empty box, it reminds Joseph that there are unseen-but-real supernatural powers trying to take the plates from Joseph and that he needs to be utterly vigilant).

Re the roadblocks you cite:

—On seer stones/U&T showing “what is not”—again, you’re talking about Sally Chase’s stone here; and I think we get into trouble if we look at (divinely approved) seer stones as a mechanical object that is bound by law to always work in the same way and under a consistent set of conditions/ restrictions.  (And even Sally’s stone was apparently able to accurately show what had previously been; just not—in that instant—what was the current situation.)

—As to why JS would transition from the U&T to a “lesser” instrument:  One might as well ask why he would quit using any physical revelatory medium at all (which, odor far as we know, he eventually did).  It may well be that he didn’t initially realize that the seer stone could *also* function as an interpreter.  

There’s certainly a lot of unclarity here; but I think people who deny that the seer stone was ever used in translating need to explain why Whitmer, Harris, and Emma (who were actually there when it was happening) claimed to have seen it being used.  If it was never used, then who was it who originated these rumors so powerful that they managed to taint the memories of 3/4 of the firsthand witnesses to the process; and what was the originator’s agenda?

And, one thing that just occurred to me (as I perused this article)—what do we do with the witnesses who don’t necessarily specify which instrument was used, but are quite certain that they saw a hat being used in the process?  Does that change the analysis?  Should it?

Edited February 13 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I need to correct myself:  Lucy felt them under a silk handkerchief the night Joseph got the plates, as related in her account as dictated to the Corays, the manuscript of which is on the JSP website.

That is as I recall as well.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Going back to the other 2 accounts:  remember JS Sr was eventually one of the 8 witnesses.

Joseph Sr’s account comes via a late recollection from one Fayette Lapham, who in 1870 published a (highly skeptical) account of his interview with Joseph Sr from 1830, which is available online via Wikisource.

Yes, he was a witness to seeing the plates.  But I had never heard that he was a scribe to the translation, nor eyewitness to the process.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

William’s account comes from a book he published in 1831 called “On Mormonism” which is available online via archive.org.

I'd have similar comments about his account.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think Option 3 needs to unnecessarily downplay the role of the U&T/Nephite Interpreters.  The fact is, we just don’t know exactly what the balance was; and the more we entrench into the position that one or the other was not used in the process, the more likely we are to be disproven at some point.

One or the other of us is mixing something up.  I'm not sure what "Option 3" you're referring to.  The #3 that I posted seems to be the reverse of... could you please clarify?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Beware of D&C sections headings as a source for describing the medium by which those headings were received.

The D&C Sections which state that they came through the U&T comes from Church History, Vol 1.  By Joseph's own hand.  Thusly:

Quote

On the 5th day of April, 1829, Oliver Cowdery came to my house... Two days (later)... I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and obtained the following:

(D&C Section 6).

He also explicitly states that several other sections came by way of the U&T introducing those sections in similar manner.  History of the Church.  Written in the first person by Joseph Smith.  I doubt he was being evasive, simplistic, and glib in this official history.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think they mostly hark back to the “History of the Church”, which was written by JS well after 1833 (when he apparently started using the term “U&T” exclusively and, AFAIK, never explicitly referred to the seer stone again) and which was largely written as dictated to scribes.  

Wouldn't this give more credibility to what I've been saying all along? 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We know that for at least part of 1829 JS had the Nephite interpreters *and* the seer stone(s).

Yes, but I'd think that if he had the U&T, and he did (as I pointed out) use them for revelatory purposes on more than one occasion, then it seems that there was no reason "not" to use them.  Couple that with the fact you cited above that "he never explicitly referred to the seer stone again."  It seems like, *maybe*, he was exclusively referring to them because that's what he exclusively used?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—I’d be interested to hear your theory on the interpreters and how they were used; though I certainly understand your reticence here.

Not today.  It just doesn't feel right.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—I think it’s important to differentiate Joseph’s seer stone (which was of God) from Sally Chase’s stone/glass (about which we know no such thing).  If we hypothesize that seer stones work according to some sort of unknown-yet-natural phenomena, then asking why God let Sally’s stone work “a little, but not all the way” is like asking why God let my beater car go 300,000 miles, but not 300,050 miles, before conking out.  At some point the discussion is less about natural/mechanical cause-and-effect; and more about why God does what He does and what He’s trying to teach us through the layers of protection He does or doesn’t offer.  (For example, in the case of the Sally-inspired raid on the empty box, it reminds Joseph that there are unseen-but-real supernatural powers trying to take the plates from Joseph and that he needs to be utterly vigilant).

This is a rather atheistic argument for miracles.  "If your only explanation for creation is that God did it, then why didn't he make the universe where fish flew in outer space?..."  I'm hoping you're familiar with that argumentation.

My point was that there is an order to things that God does.  And if He specifically prepared the interpreters AND preserved them for over 1200 years, then it seems an awful waste if the seer stone (which Joseph already had) was perfectly adequate.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Re the roadblocks you cite:

—On seer stones/U&T showing “what is not”—again, you’re talking about Sally Chase’s stone here; and I think we get into trouble if we look at (divinely approved) seer stones as a mechanical object that is bound by law to always work in the same way and under a consistent set of conditions/ restrictions.  (And even Sally’s stone was apparently able to accurately show what had previously been; just not—in that instant—what was the current situation.)

—As to why JS would transition from the U&T to a “lesser” instrument:  One might as well ask why he would quit using any physical revelatory medium at all (which, odor far as we know, he eventually did).  It may well be that he didn’t initially realize that the seer stone could *also* function as an interpreter.  

My point is that we know by ample descriptions about what the U&T can do (possibly more that was not described).  But we don't have any scriptural knowledge of what seer stones are like.  Why are we so quick to accept the stories about them without proper basis?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s certainly a lot of unclarity here; but I think people who deny that the seer stone was ever used in translating need to explain why Whitmer, Harris, and Emma (who were actually there when it was happening) claimed to have seen it being used.  If it was never used, then who was it who originated these rumors so powerful that they managed to taint the memories of 3/4 of the firsthand witnesses to the process; and what was the originator’s agenda?

And, one thing that just occurred to me (as I perused this article)—what do we do with the witnesses who don’t necessarily specify which instrument was used, but are quite certain that they saw a hat being used in the process?  Does that change the analysis?  Should it?

I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself.  But I'll try to organize it better.

• Vocabulary.  Joseph wasn't aware of the term U&T until later.  So, he used what vocabulary he had to best describe it at the time.
• Demonstration.  One of the theories among the U&T crowd is the demonstration narrative.  Since he couldn't show anyone the U&T, he simply grabbed a stone and threw it into the hat he used.  This means that the hat was used with the U&T.  Bradley mentioned the beaver skin/badger skin parallel when using the U&T.  Let me know if you haven't read that part yet.

**************************

I was just trying to look up dates for the translation and printing.  Based on my memory of having read the HC about 30 years ago, I remembered the date the manuscript was taken to the printer on June 10th or 11th.  But I was just trying to verify that.  And it appears that the closest thing I have is that HC says in June, "our translation drawing to a close, we went to Palmyra, Wayne county, New York, secured the copyright, and agreed with Mr Egbert... to print five thousand copies..." No specific date.

My theory was partially based on the schedule.  If that figure of the 10th or 11th is true, consider the schedule:

• IIRC, they moved to the Whitmer home in June (I suppose the 1st at the earliest).
• Multiple sections of the D&C were given and recorded.
• They also had several visions including the 3 witnesses.
• The 8 witnesses also had to do their thing.
• They had to put together the testimonies for them to sign their names.
• They put together a whole bunch of filler pages.
• They wouldn't have had much time for a dozen people acting as scribe to have seen how the translation process was done. 

That's what I was getting at with all the scribes.  I don't think that happened.  I think their scribal work was about converting the original manuscript into the printer's manuscript and putting together all the other documents.  So, few, if any of the other parties actually participated in the translation itself.  They only participated in the editorial work.

That's what I get when I read the history.

Edited February 13 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, I'm back on a laptop so hopefully can express myself/respond a little more clearly via the "quote" function.   

Quote

Yes, he [Joseph Sr.] was a witness to seeing the plates.  But I had never heard that he was a scribe to the translation, nor eyewitness to the process.

I don't think I'd cited Joseph Sr. as a source for having witnessed the translation process, or even for using the seer stone.  I merely cited him for the proposition that he had, in fact, seen the Nephite interpreters.  Martin Harris also remarked on their inordinately large size, as did a couple of other non-LDS who were acquainted with the Smiths during the BOM printing process (see the Dirkmaat article I linked to in my prior post). 

Quote

I'd have similar comments about his [William Smith's] account.

As the conversation has progressed I've realized the distinction between the accounts saying JS used the seer stone, and the accounts saying JS put the instrument (whichever it was) into a hat.  And yeah, William Smith (and Elizabeth Cowdery) only back the latter view.  

Quote

One or the other of us is mixing something up.  I'm not sure what "Option 3" you're referring to.  The #3 that I posted seems to be the reverse of... could you please clarify?

I'm referring to your earlier statement that:

3. On another line of thinking: If he used the U&T (whether exclusively or primarily) then it is a poor narrative/bad framing to simply "accept" the narrative of the stone in the hat and forget about the U&T.  (Whether intended or not, that is exactly what the stone narrative is doing.)

I don't think acknowledging that the seer stone was used, constitutes "accept[ing] the narrative of the stone in the hat and forget[ting] about the U&T."

Quote

The D&C Sections which state that they came through the U&T comes from Church History, Vol 1.  By Joseph's own hand.  Thusly:

. . . 

He also explicitly states that several other sections came by way of the U&T introducing those sections in similar manner.  History of the Church.  Written in the first person by Joseph Smith.  I doubt he was being evasive, simplistic, and glib in this official history.

Are they actually in his handwriting?  As I understand it, the HC was written by scribes in Joseph's voice; parts dictated by Joseph and others under his direction to a greater or lesser degree.  As we parse out the statements in the HC, I think it's fair to point out that 

a) There are questions about how specific JS was willing to be (the 1826 Stowell trial docs suggest that the entire experience was mortifying for him; JS Sr. apparently testified and stated as much).  And we know he was simplistic, if not outright evasive, in his explanation for why his name had been associated with money digging (see JS-Hist 1:56).

b) Even if JS were inclined to be specific, it's an open question as to whether the scribes caught the nuances of what he was telling them; and

c)  Given that what scholars understand of the biblical U&T suggests that those particular stones worked significantly differently than either the seer stone or the Nephite interpreters did, "Urim and Thummim" may simply be a catch-all term for any sacred physical object (or at least, any stone) that serves as a conduit for revelation.  

Quote

Wouldn't this [JS's not referring to seer stones after 1833] give more credibility to what I've been saying all along? 

Not necessarily; it just means that for whatever reason, he didn't want to talk about seer stones anymore.  Martin Harris said that Joseph was specifically told by Moroni to get away from the money diggers.  [Source]  His activities with the seer stone, in hindsight, were not a point of pride for him.  

Quote

Yes, but I'd think that if he had the U&T, and he did (as I pointed out) use them for revelatory purposes on more than one occasion, then it seems that there was no reason "not" to use them.  Couple that with the fact you cited above that "he never explicitly referred to the seer stone again."  It seems like, *maybe*, he was exclusively referring to them because that's what he exclusively used?

As noted above, I think it's "facts not in evidence" to assert that all of those revelations definitely came through the interpreters and not the seer stone. David Whitmer seems to have thought that they came through the latter; and IIRC attributed much of his falling-out with Joseph to Joseph's having abandoned its use.  In fact, the earliest draft of the HC that exists dates to 1839 (though there was an earlier lost draft begun in 1838); whereas David Whitmer was excommunicated in April of 1838.  If the seer stone was a wedge issue between Joseph and David, then that's another reason for Joseph to downplay its role in the restoration as he writes his official history.  

Quote

Not today.  It just doesn't feel right.

Fair enough. 

Quote

This is a rather atheistic argument for miracles.  "If your only explanation for creation is that God did it, then why didn't he make the universe where fish flew in outer space?..."  I'm hoping you're familiar with that argumentation.

Vaguely; but with respect, I don't see its applicability to the current discussion.  My point is that there is a purpose to what God does; and that we aren't really in a position to divine natural laws and then overlay them onto God to determine how He would or wouldn't act; or how an instrument He has created should or shouldn't work under a given set of circumstances.  There's more at play here than simple mechanics.  

Quote

My point was that there is an order to things that God does.  And if He specifically prepared the interpreters AND preserved them for over 1200 years, then it seems an awful waste if the seer stone (which Joseph already had) was perfectly adequate.

I don't see it that way.  I think we overestimate the degree to which Joseph Smith knew, when he got the plates, precisely what he was doing; and/or the quality of his training up to that point in receiving revelation.  The crowd who taught him to use seer stones, don't seem to be the most savory of characters.  Even after he had the plates, it seems not to have initially occurred to Joseph that he already had instruments that could unlock a divine power of translation:  he's reportedly approaching locals with copied characters from the plates to see if they recognize the language.  He eventually takes a stab at translating and dispatches Martin Harris with the characters and translation to New York City to meet with the eminent scholars of the day and check his work--only to find out that they can't do it; and at that point it seems he finally understands that his job was more than that of a finder and caretaker.  He already knows the Nephite interpreters are far superior to the seer stone--he tells his mother as much the day he gets them--and the interpreters thus serve as both a confidence-booster and a sort of set of "spiritual training wheels", affirming to him that God had prepared means especially for him to do the work and providing a crutch as Joseph hones his ability to recognize the Spirit (especially in those early days prior to his baptism [after which Oliver says they received a spiritual outpouring] and his ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood [at which time he would have finally gotten the Gift of the Holy Ghost]).

Quote

My point is that we know by ample descriptions about what the U&T can do (possibly more that was not described).  But we don't have any scriptural knowledge of what seer stones are like.  Why are we so quick to accept the stories about them without proper basis?

On what basis do we say that a [divinely approved] seer stone is functionally and/or theologically different than a Urim and Thummim?  On what basis do we say that Joseph's brown seer stone was not a Urim and Thummim?  Does Joseph ever say that that?  Heck, per Wandle Mace's account, during the Nauvoo period Joseph even applies the term "Urim and Thummim" to a set of seer stones that he also condemns as having been consecrated to devils.

Quote

I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself.  But I'll try to organize it better.

• Vocabulary.  Joseph wasn't aware of the term U&T until later.  So, he used what vocabulary he had to best describe it at the time.
• Demonstration.  One of the theories among the U&T crowd is the demonstration narrative.  Since he couldn't show anyone the U&T, he simply grabbed a stone and threw it into the hat he used.  This means that the hat was used with the U&T.  Bradley mentioned the beaver skin/badger skin parallel when using the U&T.  Let me know if you haven't read that part yet.

It's been a couple of years and I don't remember the demonstration narrative, but . . . sure. 

But I would still come back to my questions above:  Once Joseph starts using the term "Urim and Thummim", does he ever say that any of his other seer stones were not Urim and Thummim?  Does he ever, after that, mention the brown stone at all?  

Quote

I was just trying to look up dates for the translation and printing.  Based on my memory of having read the HC about 30 years ago, I remembered the date the manuscript was taken to the printer on June 10th or 11th.  But I was just trying to verify that.  And it appears that the closest thing I have is that HC says in June, "our translation drawing to a close, we went to Palmyra, Wayne county, New York, secured the copyright, and agreed with Mr Egbert... to print five thousand copies..." No specific date.

My theory was partially based on the schedule.  If that figure of the 10th or 11th is true, consider the schedule:

• IIRC, they moved to the Whitmer home in June (I suppose the 1st at the earliest).
• Multiple sections of the D&C were given and recorded.
• They also had several visions including the 3 witnesses.
• The 8 witnesses also had to do their thing.
• They had to put together the testimonies for them to sign their names.
• They put together a whole bunch of filler pages.
• They wouldn't have had much time for a dozen people acting as scribe to have seen how the translation process was done. 

That's what I was getting at with all the scribes.  I don't think that happened.  I think their scribal work was about converting the original manuscript into the printer's manuscript and putting together all the other documents.  So, few, if any of the other parties actually participated in the translation itself.  They only participated in the editorial work.

That's what I get when I read the history.

That's a really good point on the time frame generally.  But I think Emma was in a position to do some of the translation work in the interim between when Joseph got the plates back, and when the family relocated.  David and Elizabeth Whitmer were living at the Whitmer home.  William, though not a witness to the process, is very well positioned to have heard accounts about it directly from the parties involved.  Martin's narrative, of course, applies to the 116 pages; but if we know that the seer stone was used at least some of the time early in the process, then it seems remarkably cavalier to flat-out deny that it was used later in the process.  Especially on the basis of statements by Joseph Smith that are not comprehensive and weren't intended to be.

Edited February 14 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

I just learned that the prohibition on seeing the plates and the interpreters did not include Emma.  She was there when he pulled the plates and the interpreters out of the stone box.

Later, when they got the items home, she handled the interpreters by hand without any covering.