Joseph'S Use Of Seership And The Seer Stone Before The Bom

[Brant Gardner]

So what your are saying is that seer stone, which Smith thought he was using to find buried treasure and translate ancient writing, had as much magical powers as Dumbo's feather.

Never thought about it like that, but yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

That is a way we describe it so that we understand it, but there is no way that Joseph or anyone he knew understood it that way. They thought that Joseph could see things in his stone that others could not, and they had evidence from various experiences that they accepted as confirmation.

It is our modern perspective that looks for another answer, and I believe there is a very logical and scientific explanation for much of what was happening. No one in Joseph's time had the information available with which to construct a modern answer, so the one they inherited sufficed.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of good information to show that the stones never did anything. It was always Joseph, even when he thought it was the stone. The way he produced revelation did not differ after he stopped using the stone. His translation did not vary in quality when he shifted from the interpreters to his old seer stone. It was always Joseph.

[Brant Gardner]

The peepstone and related issues are a top five issue for me in my strikes against Mormonism list. ie found using another peepstone borrowed from friend Sally Chase,

That is simply part of the lore of what a seer stone was. Sally was a seeress, and there were others in the area and continued to be others even later. It was often tied to the Old World and called Scottish second sight.

the whole treasure hunting thing,

another very widespread practice. Joseph admitted to one such occassion. There appear to have been others, but frankly some of the statements so indicating are suspicious for other reasons. Still, lots of folk dug. What is most interesting is the way the seer got involved. The reports we have indicated that they were invited in and did not begin the search. The one well-attested case with Joseph has him invited in.

the reports about how the treasure was found but sunk further in the ground

And this is bothersome because? Are you assuming that everyone in the past was using modern science as their worldview?

the very nature of using a peepstone to translate

How would you suggest translating a text with no Rosetta stone and no dictionaries? The method is much less interesting that the result.

the gold plates not being present during translation

Again, this seems to be based on an assumption of what the word "translation" meant to Joseph. Check the 1828 Webster's. That definition is deep in the list.

the treasure seeking/Captain Kidd/Moroni connection,

No historical connection. This is a modern construct.

Oliver being encouraged to use his diving rod to translate, etc.

Of course, this is no more surprising that Joseph using a seer stone, and I think it provides the answer as to why Oliver did not translate.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is a way we describe it so that we understand it, but there is no way that Joseph or anyone he knew understood it that way. They thought that Joseph could see things in his stone that others could not, and they had evidence from various experiences that they accepted as confirmation.

It is our modern perspective that looks for another answer, and I believe there is a very logical and scientific explanation for much of what was happening. No one in Joseph's time had the information available with which to construct a modern answer, so the one they inherited sufficed.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of good information to show that the stones never did anything. It was always Joseph, even when he thought it was the stone. The way he produced revelation did not differ after he stopped using the stone. His translation did not vary in quality when he shifted from the interpreters to his old seer stone. It was always Joseph.

Brant, how do you account for the reported incident in which, to test Joseph, Martin Harris secretly substituted another stone in place of the seer stone, and Joseph was unable to translate with the substitute stone?

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, how do you account for the reported incident in which, to test Joseph, Martin Harris secretly substituted another stone in place of the seer stone, and Joseph was unable to translate with the substitute stone?

I assume the Lord was actively involved in the translation process. When Martin substituted another stone, it was something that Martin needed, not Joseph. Since the Lord understood the reason and the need, He did not provide the inspiration for the translation. Martin thought it was the stone and believed that Joseph really could translate (through the stone). Martin was a bit of a doubter, which is why he took the copy of the characters to Mitchell and Anthon. This was the same kind of test of faith. The Lord gave Martin what he needed, which was the assurance that Joseph was really translating. That fact was true. The stone was just the piece in play.

[Brant Gardner]

At this point, the shameless plug. My book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon from Kofford Books covers these topics, and provides the data behind the conclusions I am presenting here. The first third of the book deals with the question of the magic worldview, seer stones, treasure digging and the creation of history. The second section examines the evidence from the text that might tell us about the nature of the translation (what type of translation), and the last attempts to explain how the translation occurred, accounting for the data in as economical an explanation as I can find.

[David T]

At this point, the shameless plug. My book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon from Kofford Books covers these topics, and provides the data behind the conclusions I am presenting here. The first third of the book deals with the question of the magic worldview, seer stones, treasure digging and the creation of history. The second section examines the evidence from the text that might tell us about the nature of the translation (what type of translation), and the last attempts to explain how the translation occurred, accounting for the data in as economical an explanation as I can find.

I just want to chime in the Brant's book is absolutely fantastic, and had the effect of affirming some suspicions I had, reversing some other thoughts, and substantially changing some paradigms in my approach to viewing some things. It altered the way I thought. I can't give greater praise for a book.

Edited June 19, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as we're plugging Brant, here's my news story about his presentation on this topic at last year's FAIR Conference.

I haven't bothered to look, but I assume the whole thing is presented verbatim on the FAIR website in accordance with FAIR's typical practice of making the conference presentation transcripts available there.

[Freedom]

Having witnessed on multiple occasions, while in my youth, the use of a rod to find water to dig a well, I am reluctant to dismiss this 'science'. Perhaps, as has been suggested, those who use a rod for such a purpose can find the water on their own but are assuming that the discovery comes through the inanimate object. My mormon leaders dismissed this as nonsense, and for years I put these experiences aside until I read Rough Stone Rolling. Now I look back with a bit of awe and wonder at how the discoveries of water were so accurate and sure. I recall visiting a property with multiple trill points that failed to produce any results. The man with the carefully chosen twig walked the property with the stick resting on his open hands. After some time the stick suddenly pointed down. This procedure was done two or three times to make sure of the results. Each time the stick pointed down in line with the first spot. The drill went down and water came out. Every time I witnessed it, the water was found on the first drilling.

[bcuzbcuz]

I am convinced that there is an economy of effort in the way that the Lord typically works. There are certainly major miracles that we look to, but most of the time, the Lord simply influences in much more subtle ways. Personally, I think this is one of them. Scrying seems to be virtually universal among humans, with the object used varying.

Hypnosis is a very different animal, as are tarot cards and ouja boards. Divining rods have some similarities. The difference with divining rods is that there are still some who use them, though they tend not to advertise it because it isn't accepted. Most of the wells in the Ozarks up the the 1940s have been found with divining rods

.

Whether it is called Scrying or witchcraft or divining doesn't matter. It's all humbug. It doesn't work.

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

To equate magic sticks with revelation is to cheapen any scripture.

[Deborah]

So what your are saying is that seer stone, which Smith thought he was using to find buried treasure and translate ancient writing, had as much magical powers as Dumbo's feather.

Never thought about it like that, but yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Your snarky remark aside, the point was that there were no magical powers in the stone itself, but Joseph believed there was in the beginning until he realized the power was in himself and in God.

I agree with what was said previously that a seer stone or any other object is merely the means to focus so that the mind can be open to receiving inspiration.

[Deborah]

It is not our enemies who have done this. The Church itself has moved away from many of the gifts given to our early leaders and members, such as the use of seer stones and speaking in tongues.

Oh, I don't know I think speaking in tongues is still pretty much in play. I asked a friend who was involved with teaching in the missionary training center what method was used to teach the missionaries so quickly. He said the gift of tongues. He said it really comes down to that because some of these guys leave not knowing the language and then soon pick it up.

Don't you think though, being more sophisticated the use of seer stones is not as necessary as we recognize that the Spirit can speak to us without use of such artifacts? I wouldn't be surprised, however, if many of these gifts are still used but probably not advertised because of the skepticism of the world and even apparently some of the saints.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whether it is called Scrying or witchcraft or divining doesn't matter. It's all humbug. It doesn't work.

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

To equate magic sticks with revelation is to cheapen any scripture.

And thus the presentist mindset expresses itself.

[robuchan]

Your snarky remark aside, the point was that there were no magical powers in the stone itself, but Joseph believed there was in the beginning until he realized the power was in himself and in God.

I agree with what was said previously that a seer stone or any other object is merely the means to focus so that the mind can be open to receiving inspiration.

Same thing with the Book of Breathing.

Does it say anything about the God these apologists believe in that would use trickery and deception to fulfill his word. I would hope if there is a God, he wouldn't be so devious to use trickery like this. And if the argument was that all he's stuck doing whatever he can get his mortal followers to do, then I would he wouldn't be so impotent to let men screw things up so obviously. What's the point of having a prophet if you can't get his attention? What else is in the Mormon church is a legacy of bungling prophets?

You have no reason to be rude and disrespectful. Take a break.

[Brant Gardner]

Whether it is called Scrying or witchcraft or divining doesn't matter. It's all humbug. It doesn't work.

Except you are using a different kind of definition of "work." Of course it worked. If it didn't, so many people in so many cultures wouldn't have done it. The problem is, that what is working isn't the way that it is explained. Seer stones don't work, but something works that they found inexplicable and was associated with the seer stones.

The problem comes when we mix cultures, definitions, and expectations. Declaring that something doesn't work because we don't believe the explanation simply says that the explanation was wrong. You really have to look more closely at human behavior. There are too many people for whom scrying is a real event to suggest that something isn't happening. It requires looking at different causes. I suggest the brain.

[Freedom]

Whether it is called Scrying or witchcraft or divining doesn't matter. It's all humbug. It doesn't work.

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

To equate magic sticks with revelation is to cheapen any scripture.

You would never know if you never witnessed it.

[Deborah]

And if the argument was that all he's stuck doing whatever he can get his mortal followers to do, then I would he wouldn't be so impotent to let men screw things up so obviously.

And I would argue that it's the sign of a loving parent that he will let men have their agency, and yes screw things up, so that they can learn. Joseph made lots of mistakes before he learned to fully trust the Lord.

It's like we do with our kids. We'll let them make the bed even if it isn't quite right because the important lesson is to do it and become more perfect.

[mfbukowski]

I am only starting the thread but I want to post this before I see much more because I do not want to be influenced by the comments.

How many of us receive our best thoughts while driving, or looking into a fire, (is that what Moses was doing?) or watching moving water? Why do you think so many people find fishing so peaceful?

At any rate, science has shown that visual activity- like those listed above, stimulate right brain activity and therefore would be useful in helping along any creative activity like receiving revelation.

That is why I am a believer it the "catalyst" approach to the Book of Abraham- I think Joseph was examining the papyri as a catalyst for his receiving revelation. Frankly, he could have been staring at the patterns on some wall paper and it would not bother me.

If you have not seen this video- I heartily recommend it. It's a bit long, but worth every minute.

Edited June 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

With a group of LDS scholars who had been speaking at a conference in Des Moines, I visited a portion of the Mormon Trail in Iowa during the Pioneer Sesquicentennial in 1996. We stopped at the home of a non-Mormon farmer who today owns the land on which the Mormon way-station of Mt. Pisgah was located. He was very eager to show us wagon ruts and the foundations of Mormon buildings and to demonstrate to us how he had found them with the aid of bent coat hangers he had shaped as divining rods.

In short, the tradition of divining and water witching is alive and well in the Midwest and, I'm sure, elsewhere in the country.

I know that in Western New York it was alive and well at least 50 or so years ago, when a dowser cut a "Y" out of a fresh willow branch and found the spot to dig a well on some property my father owned. I watched the whole thing, and he taught my father how to do it as well. As a little kid, I tried it, and sure enough the point of the rod dipped for me as well as the adults at the same place.

I will never know if I was just copying them and made it happen, or if there was something "real" there- but it certainly was real to me at the time. The key, according to the dowser, was in holding the rod the right way- very lightly and balanced on the finger tips so that any twitch would be transferred to the rod. Even he didn't know if it was him who was making the rod twitch or the rod itself.

Thinking about that now, I understand that it was probably both. But something was definitely happening.

That well is still working as far as I know.

Edited June 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Palerider]

I am convinced that there is an economy of effort in the way that the Lord typically works. There are certainly major miracles that we look to, but most of the time, the Lord simply influences in much more subtle ways. Personally, I think this is one of them. Scrying seems to be virtually universal among humans, with the object used varying. The folk tradition that Joseph was part of traced its roots to England, and that is where the stone as scrying object comes from. Others have used other objects, such as blood, a polished thumbnail, egg white suspended in a glass and the blade of a sword among others. In all cases, it was something that some people could do and others could not (if everyone could do it, it would be unremarkable and therefore not useful for "special" events).

As with most things in the past, the contemporary explanations for unusual phenomena are very different than the way we explain things today. I believe that scryers tapped into a way that the brain functions that some people access and others do not. The medium that trigger the vision was culturally dictated, but the experience was in the brain.

The Lord used what Joseph understood. I'm sure that the Lord understood things very differently, but simply used the available understanding.

Mosiah1 is the only other person who translated with stones (the Book of Mormon calls them interpreters). It is possible that it was also the way that Alma received the Information Captain Moroni requested of him. In modern times, Hyrum Page had carried a seerstone around his neck on a chain for years. It became controversial only when he used it to receive revelations for the church. That occasioned DC 28:11.

To my knowledge, Joseph never repudiated seeing in a seerstone, and eventually used a seerstone as a metaphor for revelation. He himself ceased to use one. In my opinion, it was after he learned that he was the instrument and not the stone (which is how it had been all along).

The process of seeing seerstones in the context of a magic that should be avoided began in England and had adherents among the more educated in the early US. Eventually, that worldview has become dominant and we are uncomfortable with such things. Morton Smith actually sees the same process occurring with the way the Gospel writers portrayed some of Jesus's more magical-seeming healing actions (such as mixing spit in dirt and applying it to the eyes to cure blindness).

By this time Joseph used the term as a metaphor for receiving revelation. Of course everyone has the right (responsbility!) to receive revelation for themselves and theirs.

Hypnosis is a very different animal, as are tarot cards and ouja boards. Divining rods have some similarities. The difference with divining rods is that there are still some who use them, though they tend not to advertise it because it isn't accepted. Most of the wells in the Ozarks up the the 1940s have been found with divining rods

.

In the same way the Lord used parables and symbolic picture stories to teach His disciples he also occasionaly used actual symbolic gesture to indicate what occurs here on earth.

The question posed in John 9: 2-7 was who had sinned the blind man or his parents that he was born blind. The Savior's response was "neither". The reality was that his blindness was incidental to an earthly existence, therefore the application of the symbolic clay representing an earthly condition was what was applied and then admonished to be washed away (along with his blindness) by the man's faith in Christ's words as he followed instructions to wash himself in the pool of Bethsaida.

Nothing magical going on here. Just power and teaching.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Palerider

[cinepro]

Oh, I don't know I think speaking in tongues is still pretty much in play. I asked a friend who was involved with teaching in the missionary training center what method was used to teach the missionaries so quickly. He said the gift of tongues. He said it really comes down to that because some of these guys leave not knowing the language and then soon pick it up.

I was talking about the real "Speaking in Tongues", which was the inspired utterance of an "unknown" language (assumed to be the Adamic language) and the accompanying interpretation of said utterance by a fellow worshiper.

Here is an observation from one church member in the 1904 Imrovement Era Magazine:

James X. Allen, an early Utah physician, expressed his concerns in an Improvement Era article entitled "Passing of the Gift of Tongues":

I was somewhat startled a few days ago, while in conversation with a young brother who had just returned from a mission to Scandinavia, by hearing him remark that he had never in his life heard anyone speak in tongues.... He has filled an honorable mission, and is today strong in the faith, and yet, he has never heard and experienced one of the most common gifts of the gospel, as enjoyed years ago.

The remark was somewhat of a shock to me; because in the early days of the Church--where I was reared—there were so many of the Saints who enjoyed the gifts, and there were none among my acquaintances who had not heard the sweet sound of the gift of tongues. Many times there would be both speaking and singing in tongues, in the same sacrament meeting. The interpretation of tongues was equally as common as the tongues themselves. In fact, we were wont to regard the speaking in tongues, the interpretation of tongues, the relating of dreams and prophesying, as an essential part of the latter-day gospel.

If men now think they can get along without the gifts of the gospel, may not the time come when they may believe they can get along without its ordinances? (Allen 1904, 109, 111)

(As quoted in Dialogue, Vol.24, No.1, p.25)

I think this thought from Teryl Givens is germane:

I think there's no question, just as the gifts faded in the primitive Church, so there seems to be a diminishment of the spiritual manifestations and gifts in the restored Church. To some extent, that's a function of any church that becomes institutionalized...normatized over time. And to some extent that was a deliberate strategy on the part of Church leaders who wanted to de-emphasize spiritual gifts.

I think it's a natural process, I think Mormons have accommodated themselves in some ways by changing the lexicon of scriptural resources that they use to identify or define the nature of spiritual experience. For example, instead of focusing on those BoM episodes where we have angelic visitations or interaction with angelic beings, we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

FAIR Podcast Interview,(15:18)

Edited June 19, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I suggest the brain.

Make sure you see that video I posted a link to, if you haven't already!

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

How would you suggest translating a text with no Rosetta stone and no dictionaries?

Hmm. The Rosetta Stone was actually (re)discovered in 1799 and deciphered over the next few decades, with an English translation published in 1858. The Book of Mormon plates supposedly were buried for about 1400 years until they were given temporarily to Joseph Smith in 1827 and translated in 1829. It would have been easy enough to wait just three decades more, until 1859, and then turn the Egyptologists loose on it. For that matter, the plates could have been placed in a museum in 1829 (say, the New York Historical Society, founded in 1804) and kept there until linguists were able to translate it.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a supposedly long-lost scripture written according to its inspired translator in Egyptian hieroglyphs showed up in the early 1800s, shortly after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone had fueled widespread interest in the idea of mysterious ancient Egyptian texts in Anglo-American culture and not long before anyone in that culture knew much about ancient Egyptian language.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited June 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Brant Gardner]

I don't think it's a coincidence that a supposedly long-lost scripture written according to its inspired translator in Egyptian hieroglyphs showed up in the early 1800s, shortly after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone had fueled widespread interest in the idea of mysterious ancient Egyptian texts in Anglo-American culture and not long before anyone in that culture knew much about ancient Egyptian language.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if that was the reason the word Egyptian shows up as an explanation in the text. It doesn't explain the rest of the text. I'm certain that the Book of Mormon's English translation contains vocabulary influenced by Joseph's time and place. I would be really surprised if it didn't. The vocabulary of a translation doesn't always tell us about the translation itself.

[volgadon]

I think scrying helped Joseph become accustomed to seeing what couldn't be seen with the "physical" eyes.