"Out of a Hat": Rereading the Book of Mormon Translation Process

[wenglund]

Yes, I think you are right.

Growing up I always thought the U&T were the seer stones, and then I thought it was the breastplate with spectacles that the stones went in. So is the actual answer that the U&T was a piece of paper with God's name written on it? That's what I understand from Bernard's post.....

What you imagine "is the actual answer", is, like with what you "thought" before, yet more of your continued confusion.

It might help in unravelling your confusion were you to try distiguishing the various stones that are used by seers. This can be done first by recognizing the differences in the appelations (U&T vs. Seer Stone). Second, by considering whether the stones are used as a pair or individually. Third, by determining whether the stone(s) is/are a part of a set of devises or a stand-alone object. And, fourth, figuring out when the various stones were and were not in the possession of Joseph Smith (as well as the Church), when he may have used them, and under what conditions.

Or, perhaps you can wait until Don publishes his articles on the translation process.

THanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bernard Gui]

Growing up I always thought the U&T were the seer stones, and then I thought it was the breastplate with spectacles that the stones went in. So is the actual answer that the U&T was a piece of paper with God's name written on it? That's what I understand from Bernard's post.....

To continue this part of the discussion, I started a new topic using the above post as the kick-off.

You are welcomed to check it out.

Bernard

[russianwolfe]

Do you really consider mockery to be a valid debating technique? Where did you learn this? How much did you pay to learn this? Inquiring minds want to know.

Marvin

Talk out of a hat

Idiom Definitions for 'Talk out of your hat'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone is talking out of their hat, they're talking utter rubbish, especially if compounded with total ignorance of the subject on which they are pontificating. ('Talk through your hat' is also used.)

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/talk+out+of+your+hat.html

Talk through one's hat

Meaning

Talk nonsense; especially on a subject that one professes to be knowledgeable about but in fact is ignorant of.

Smith: It's true. And I'm going to translate the plates and publish it into a book for the whole world to read. Now, ahah-I know you have a lot of money, Mr. Harris, and I'm just gonna need a little bit to pay for the publishing costs.

Harris: Mmm, I don't know. Uh, how do you expect to translate it?

Smith: With these. [presents the seer stones]

Harris: Rocks?

Smith: They're not rocks. They're seer stones, given to me by an angel. With them, God allowed me to translate the plates into English. Watch. You take this quill and paper and write down what I say. Sit here. [on the floor, by some sheets of paper and a quill pen in an ink well] I have the golden plates here in this hat. I need to have them somewhere dark so I can read the spiritual light.

Harris: Really?

Smith: Now, when I put the seer stones into the hat, the ancient letter light up and change into English, which I can then read to you.

Harris: Wow! [smith looks down and lowers his head so the face is buried in the hat]

Smith: Ooo, I'm seeing the light. Oh, okay. Write this down. "And... so... it... was... that... Christ... appeared before... the... Nephites."

Singers: And that's how the Book of Mormon was written

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dahumb dahumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuumb, duuumb.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon134.html

[russianwolfe]

His name would be praised by you and many others as someone who came clean about the fraud that he helped create. He would be a hero. Now, you and others are calling him a liar and a fraud...hardly something for his relatives now to be proud about. Also, he would have saved many the 'pain' of belonging to a fraudelent church. And he would have stopped a mass immigration westward which did take some human life. Oliver would have been a hero if he came clean and proved it with details of how the process was done.

Or he could have done what John C. Bennett did and go on the lecture circuit telling the truth about Mormonism. John C. Bennett became rather well to do this way as many other have since then. Oliver could have enjoyed many of the finer things in life that money could buy.

Marvin

[USU78]

Or he could have done what John C. Bennett did and go on the lecture circuit telling the truth about Mormonism. John C. Bennett became rather well to do this way as many other have since then. Oliver could have enjoyed many of the finer things in life that money could buy.

Extraordinary what having character costs you.

[russianwolfe]

Extraordinary what having character costs you.

Only in the short term. I think Oliver's long term prospects see much better than John C. Bennett's.

Marvin

[Wiki Wonka]

I think you may be confusing the U&T with the seer stone. As intimated earlier in the thread the two may work differently in terms of the need for light or darkness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand that you are using the term U&T to refer to the instrument that Joseph obtained with the plates in order to distinguish it from the seer stone, but that is a problem. The term Urim and Thummim was also applied to the seer stone as well. That's why I always refer to the original instrument as the "Nephite interpreters." Things get confused even further when it becomes apparent that Joseph may have placed the Nephite interpreters in the hat prior to using the seer stone.

Martin Harris paraphrased in the The Gem 5 September 1829

[wenglund]

I understand that you are using the term U&T to refer to the instrument that Joseph obtained with the plates in order to distinguish it from the seer stone, but that is a problem. The term Urim and Thummim was also applied to the seer stone as well. That's why I always refer to the original instrument as the "Nephite interpreters." Things get confused even further when it becomes apparent that Joseph may have placed the Nephite interpreters in the hat prior to using the seer stone. WW

I appreciate the clarification. Evidently, I am the one that was confused. So, it may be a good idea for me going forward on this specific issue to defer to those who actually know what they are talking about.

My apologies to Areabird.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Areabird]

Okay, but just to clarify, Post #119 from Bernard indicates the U T was a piece of parchment that was sometimes placed inside the breastplate. So the UT was not the breastplate, it was not the stones, but was rather a piece of paper with God's name on it...correct?

"The "Urim V'Tummim" is the Name of G-d

The Urim V'Tummim was the famed, oracle-like aspect of the breastplate by which a Heavenly answer was received for important questions. According to most authoritative opinions, the expression urim v'tummim actually refers not to the breastplate itself, but to the mystical Divine name of G-d which was written on a piece of parchment and inserted into a flap of the garment. The presence of the name facilitated the reception of Divine guidance through the shining of specific letters on the stones.

...

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

[thews]

Growing up I always thought the U&T were the seer stones, and then I thought it was the breastplate with spectacles that the stones went in. So is the actual answer that the U&T was a piece of paper with God's name written on it? That's what I understand from Bernard's post.....

The Urim and Thummim is what Joseph Smith called the Nephite interpreters, but not until 1833. After the 116 pages were taken back, all that remain were the seer stones, and they were used for translation of the Book of Mormon.

[LeSellers]

The Urim and Thummim is what Joseph Smith called the Nephite interpreters, but not until 1833. After the 116 pages were taken back, all that remain were the seer stones, and they were used for translation of the Book of Mormon.

Not true.

The Urim and Thummin were retrieved by Moroni twice and returned twice, all in 1829. There is no record of his having retrieved them a third time.

I have already given a reference for this. The fact that it is not convenient for you to read the source is no reason for you to reject it. Until you can demonstrate better information, your repeated false claims are just that, false.

One wonders why you are so hung up on this (false) detail.

Lehi

[thews]

Not true.

The Urim and Thummin were retrieved by Moroni twice and returned twice, all in 1829. There is no record of his having retrieved them a third time.

I have already given a reference for this.

Just because you have one piece of data you claim is the end result, doesn't make it so. As I recall, you didn't proved an actual reference, but provided a book title that supposedly claimed proved the reference. ttribe provided a reference to the Urim and Thummim in 1843 (linked 12 July 1843) between Hyrum and Joseph. Please counter with an actual reference if you have one.

Thanks

[why me]

Or he could have done what John C. Bennett did and go on the lecture circuit telling the truth about Mormonism. John C. Bennett became rather well to do this way as many other have since then. Oliver could have enjoyed many of the finer things in life that money could buy.

Marvin

This is true. He could have done so. But he chose not to because I don't think that he could deny what happened to him. And on his deathbed he gave his testimony in hope that it would go better for him in the after life.

Many critics claim that oliver could never come clean because it would ruin his reputation. But this is not true. His reputation would have been enhanced and certainly if he were heading to the poor house, coming clean about mormonism would have made him some money.

[why me]

Or he could have done what John C. Bennett did and go on the lecture circuit telling the truth about Mormonism. John C. Bennett became rather well to do this way as many other have since then. Oliver could have enjoyed many of the finer things in life that money could buy.

Marvin

This is true. He could have done so. But he chose not to because I don't think that he could deny what happened to him. And on his deathbed he gave his testimony in hope that it would go better for him in the after life.

Many critics claim that oliver could never come clean because it would ruin his reputation. But this is not true. His reputation would have been enhanced and certainly if he were heading to the poor house, coming clean about mormonism would have made him some money.

[why me]

The hat trick is faith promoting. But I have to wonder why the lds church does not mention it. I think that it could be explained well and as a faith promoting reason.

[why me]

Or he could have done what John C. Bennett did and go on the lecture circuit telling the truth about Mormonism. John C. Bennett became rather well to do this way as many other have since then. Oliver could have enjoyed many of the finer things in life that money could buy.

Marvin

Bennett is an interesting character. I don't think that some exmembers are different from him today. When someone leaves mormonism they can do a Bennett. It is sad to see but we can see this on exmormon sites. There are many who are doing a Bennett, allowing bitterness to take over.

[LeSellers]

Just because you have one piece of data you claim is the end result, doesn't make it so.

Several pieces of data. Historical sources, in actuality.

As I recall, you didn't proved an actual reference, but provided a book title that supposedly claimed proved the reference. ... Please counter with an actual reference if you have one.

I repost my original source.

Moroni's Known Appearances to Joseph Smith 1823-1829

Sept 21-22, 1823 Joseph's bedroom-Message repeated three times (Manchester, NY) JS-H 1:30-47

Sept 22, 1823 Field outside Joseph's home-Initial message repeated (Manchester, NY) JS-H 1:48-49

Sept 22, 1823 At the Hill Cumorah-Plates, Urim and Thummin and breastplate shown in addition to an open vision (Hill Cumorah, NY) JS-H 1:51-53 and Messenger & Advocate July and Oct 1835

Sept 22, 1824, 1825, and 1826 Yearly at Cumorah. Instructions given to aid Joseph in preparation for the restoration (Hill Cumorah, NY) JS-H 1:53-54.

Winter 1827 Moroni met Joseph by the Hill Cumorah and said that the time had come for the record to be brought forth. He told Joseph to be up and doing the things that he had been commanded (Hill Cumorah, NY) Biographical Sketches, p. 99

Sept 22, 1827 Joseph receives the plates (Hill Cumorah, NY) JS-H 1:59

June-July 1828 Urim and Thummin taken by Moroni over the Martin Harris incident (Harmony, PA) HC 1:21-22

July 1828 Urim and Thummin returned (Harmony, PA) HC 1:21-22 and Biographical Sketches, p. 126

July 1828 Plates and Urim and Thummin taken (Harmony, PA) HC 1:23

July-Aug 1828 Plates and Urim and Thummin returned (Harmony, PA) HC 1:23 and Biographical Sketches, p. 126, (1/14)

June 1829 Angel obtained the plates at Harmony, PA, to transport them to Fayette township, NY, because Joseph was apprehensive about their safety enroute (Harmony, PA) Biographical Sketches, p. 126

June 1829 Joseph, Emma, Oliver & David Whitmer saw Moroni carrying the plates enroute to Cumorah-Moroni appeared and disappeared instantly (on the road between Harmony, PA, and the Hill Cumorah), Joseph F. Smith Journal Msd 4319 CHO, The Three Witnesses, Andrew Jensen, The Historical Record, 5, Jan 1886), p. 209

June 1829 Joseph had the plates once again in his possession in Fayette township. Moroni met Joseph in the garden and gave the plates to him (Fayette township, NY) Biographical Sketches, p. 137

June 1829 Joseph finished the translation and Moroni took the record (Fayette township, NY) HC 1:60

June 1829 Oliver, David Whitmer and Joseph Smith (B of M witnesses) saw Moroni and he showed them the plates (Fayette township, NY) HC 1:60

June 1829 Martin Harris and Joseph Smith (B of M witnesses) saw Moroni and the plates (Fayette township, NY) HC 1:55

June 1829 Moroni gave the plates to Joseph and he showed them to the eight witnesses. Moroni then called for them and kept them (Manchester township, NY) Biographical Sketches, pp. 140-41

"Appendix A", Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Joseph Smith: The Prophet, The Man, p.182~183.

There is no record of a third retrieval by Moroni. We are thus left to conclude that Joseph retained the Urim and Thummin until one of the times that Moroni took the plates back, or later. As the Urim and Thimmim were in Joseph's possession much later, and there is no record of any one's taking them back and returning them to Joseph again, I opt for the latter alternative.

Lehi

[thews]

Several pieces of data. Historical sources, in actuality.

I repost my original source.

There is no record of a third retrieval by Moroni. We are thus left to conclude that Joseph retained the Urim and Thummin until one of the times that Moroni took the plates back, or later. As the Urim and Thimmim were in Joseph's possession much later, and there is no record of any one's taking them back and returning them to Joseph again, I opt for the latter alternative.

Lehi

I'm not following you. What about ttribe's data leaves any doubt, especially since the LDS church still has the brown and white seer stones?

[USU78]

I'm not following you. What about ttribe's data leaves any doubt, especially since the LDS church still has the brown and white seer stones?

Is thews never going to address John's Apocalypse's mention of each Saint being issued a white stone?

[thews]

Is thews never going to address John's Apocalypse's mention of each Saint being issued a white stone?

Why are you deviating off topic? This OP is about the translation method, and if you wish to bump another thread please do.

[USU78]

Why are you deviating off topic? This OP is about the translation method, and if you wish to bump another thread please do.

It's rather on topic, IMNSHO. The Revelations scripture I cited earlier speaks of each Saint receiving a stone with secret word(s) readable therein. Reading words in stones is at this topic's core. thews has questioned the Christianity of reading words in stones in this very thread in an earlier post. thews fails to understand what's going on in Revelations. thews fails to understand that Revelations is critical to understanding Christianity. thews fails to appreciate where JSJr fits in Christian history. He is not an aberration.

thews ought to appreciate why Revelations is central to this conversation.

[thews]

It's rather on topic, IMNSHO. The Revelations scripture I cited earlier speaks of each Saint receiving a stone with secret word(s) readable therein. Reading words in stones is at this topic's core. thews has questioned the Christianity of reading words in stones in this very thread in an earlier post. thews fails to understand what's going on in Revelations. thews fails to understand that Revelations is critical to understanding Christianity. thews fails to appreciate where JSJr fits in Christian history. He is not an aberration.

thews ought to appreciate why Revelations is central to this conversation.

You should look at Deuteronomy 18:10-12 if you wish to discuss the bible. This OP is about the translation process, which was done with seer stones. Where you draw parallel lines is up to you.

[USU78]

You should look at Deuteronomy 18:10-12 if you wish to discuss the bible. This OP is about the translation process, which was done with seer stones. Where you draw parallel lines is up to you.

By all means, bring up Deuteronomy 18 again:

9-18 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God. For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

You see, even such terrible people as Jews were taught and understood that prophets would be raised up by G-d from time to time, and that the sort of stuff prophets do would be different in kind from the Canaanite neighbors.

Just as one would expect a prophet raised up in Protestant America would do things different in kind from the self-appointed arbiters of the things of G-d the dominated and continue to dominate Christianity hereabouts.

But for thews to ignore the context in Deuteronomy where G-d's prophets are contrasted with the bad guy Canaanite priests/priestesses is startlingly bad manners. Smacks of superficial prooftexting.

For thews to ignore Joseph of Egypt's Divination Cup . . . and for him to reject any conversation of the White Stones of Revelation is troubling.

Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

By ignoring and rejecting and failing to deal with such things, thews shows himself to be a pauper when it comes to familiarity with scriptures he apparently accepts as authoritative. He makes Joseph of Egypt, one of the great heroes of Israelite history, nothing but a reader of tea leaves: the great reader of dreams of heads of state is but a glass-looker, according to thews.

If thews rejects Joseph of Palmyra as an enchanter because he read Truth in stone, then he must reject Moses who found living water in stone, and the Word of G-d in stone, and must also reject Joseph of Egypt for reading the salvation of two great nations in wine dregs and the dreams of the heathen.

If instrumentality makes someone a bad guy in your eyes, thews, be careful . . . the Master opened the eyes of the blind with dust and spit.

[thews]

If thews rejects Joseph of Palmyra as an enchanter because he read Truth in stone, then he must reject Moses who found living water in stone, and the Word of G-d in stone, and must also reject Joseph of Egypt for reading the salvation of two great nations in wine dregs and the dreams of the heathen.

Only if I subscribe to your parallel lines. What you believe in is up to you... don't tell me what I believe based on what you believe. I reject your parallel arguments as false, and divination as wrong according to God.

[selek]

What you believe in is up to you... don't tell me what I believe based on what you believe.

Irony thick enough to choke on.

Your last three dozen posts here have been nothing BUT an attempt to dictate to us what we believe. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, you whine.

Clearly, you cannot refute USU's point, so you play the persecution card instead.

I reject your parallel arguments as false, and divination as wrong according to God.

Thank you for your opinion. Now begin dealing with the facts of the matter.

There were, apparently, quite a few prophets of the Old Testament who engaged in this sort of divination.

The Priests of the Lords first Temple in Jerusalem received answers by means of sacred stones.

The Book of Revelations states clearly that the faithful will receive similar means of direct revelation from God.

These are the facts of the matter.

That you reject these facts does not make them go away.

Mormon revelation, based on these examples, is far more in-line with Biblical and godly precedent than your own faith.

You have been engaged in special pleadings and blatant double standards from the git-go.

You have been lecturing us, preaching at us, proselyting to us, and sermonizing with all the sanctimony of a Jim Bakker in drag.

Now try dealing with the facts.