New Piece On Interpreter Web Site: "The Spectacles, The Stone, The Hat, And The Book"

[Scott Lloyd]

Just became aware of this piece newly put up on the web site of "Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture."

Written by Roger Nicholson, it seems to be an excellent and enlightening summary and analysis of the known accounts pertaining to the translation of the Book of Mormon plates. (I've only had time to scan it so far; hence my use of the tepid phrase "seems to be".)

Here's a listing of Nicholson's summary points. But I'd recommend reading the entire article:

• Joseph Smith received the plates and the Nephite interpreters from the Angel Moroni.
  
• Joseph began the process of translation using the Nephite interpreters, with Martin Harris as scribe. A curtain separated the translator from the scribe, thus shielding the plates and the Nephite interpreters from view.
  
• Joseph may have placed the Nephite interpreters in a hat in order to shield them from the light, in accordance with the method that he used when utilizing his own seer stone.
  
• [Page 185]At times, Joseph may have switched to using his own seer stone, placing it in the hat. On one such occasion, Martin swapped the stones, which he would never have dared to do had Joseph been using the Nephite instrument.
  
• Upon completion of and subsequent loss of the 116 pages of manuscript, the Angel Moroni took back the plates and the Nephite interpreters.
  
• After a sufficient time of repentance, the plates were returned to Joseph, along with the Nephite interpreters.
  
• Joseph began translating using either the Nephite interpreters or his seer stone, either of which may have been placed in the hat. The witnesses would not necessarily have been able to determine which instrument he was using, although Martin Harris’s swapping of the stone to test Joseph indicates that the stone was used at some point. This translation process occurred in plain view of those around Joseph, including his scribe Oliver Cowdery. There was no curtain present during this period of the translation process.
  
• The translation process using the stone and the hat was observed directly by David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and Emma Smith, who shared their observations with interviewers many years later near the end of their lives.
  
• As early as three years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the term Urim and Thummim became applied to both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone. In the minds of the early Saints, they were essentially the same instrument used for the same purpose.
  
• The term Urim and Thummim subsequently became understood as representing the Nephite interpreters exclusively, and the use of the seer stone and the hat became pushed back in history. The lack of a need to use a [Page 186]curtain to shield the translator from the scribe likewise became buried in history. The translation process became represented within Church literature and artwork by its earliest iteration: Nephite interpreters and plates shielded from the scribe by a curtain.
  
• During much of the twentieth century, reports that the stone and the hat had been employed during the translation were dismissed with skepticism.
  
• Partially as a result of the Mark Hofmann forgeries, new publications brought documents related to the use of the stone and the hat back into the public eye.
  
• With the advent of the Internet, numerous documents related to the translation process became easily accessible to the general Church membership, once again highlighting the use of the stone and the hat. References to these items entered the popular media. The presence of this information made it appear that the story that we are familiar with in Church is contradicted by that provided by witnesses such as Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith.
  
• The Church initiated efforts to make early documents such as the Joseph Smith Papers easily accessible, further supporting these early accounts.
  

One thing it did for me is confirm my impression that the jury is still out on whether the Nephite interpreters were permanently withheld from Joseph after the loss of the 116 pages and whether he used them in the translation of the Book of Mormon as we have it today.

Another observation: Some things do get buried in history, things that might later come to light with greater accessibility such as Internet access. That might be the natural course of things, not necessarily attributable to a deliberate or sinister effort by an entity to "hide it's history."

Edited June 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

What's his source for saying the Nephite Interpreters were returned after 116 events?

Gardner concludes they were not returned and only the stone in the hat was used.

[Scott Lloyd]

What's his source for saying the Nephite Interpreters were returned after 116 events?

Gardner concludes they were not returned and only the stone in the hat was used.

I hope to read the article more thoroughly a bit later as I get time and opportunity to do so.

I suggest you do the same.

[bcuzbcuz]

Elder Neal A. Maxwell offers some wise advice against becoming too focused on the mechanics of, rather than the results of, the translation.

"To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."

That's two ways, from two different people, to say the same thing. (Roger Nicholson and Elder Neal A. Maxwell )

But would the same advice be given to someone seeking information from Tarot cards, or Ouija boards or fortune tellers? Is it the information or the source that should be questioned? Or does the source disqualify the information?

(And I did read Nicholson's article, all of it.)

Edited June 10, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[why me]

Another observation: Some things do get buried in history, things that might later come to light with greater accessibility such as Internet access. That might be the natural course of things, not necessarily attributable to a deliberate or sinister effort by an entity to "hide it's history."

What is extremely interesting is that those of us who were members of the church in the 1970's knew about all this except for the last 3 or 4 points in your summary. We discovered these things in the ensign and in our discussions in sunday school or priesthood. It was not until the late 80's that things were getting buried and more gospel oriented manuals were made and published.

[Calm]

But would the same advice be given to someone seeking information from Tarot cards, or Ouija boards or fortune tellers?

That would depend on what one meant by the process of production and the substance of such.

If one wants to prove or disprove the effectiveness of such, then all one needs to examine is the substance and compare it to one's actual experience...though it may take awhile to acquire enough data to make a decision.

[canard78]

I hope to read the article more thoroughly a bit later as I get time and opportunity to do so.

I suggest you do the same.

I'd also done a quick skim through when Bill Reel had linked to it on another thread. I agree that a proper read and source review is well worth the time investment.

[Scott Lloyd]

What is extremely interesting is that those of us who were members of the church in the 1970's knew about all this except for the last 3 or 4 points in your summary.

Just want to make clear it is Nicholson's summary, not mine. I did a direct copy-and-paste from his article.

We discovered these things in the ensign and in our discussions in sunday school or priesthood. It was not until the late 80's that things were getting buried and more gospel oriented manuals were made and published.

The impression I got (and I have yet to read the article thoroughly) is that the burying occurred in the earlier part of the century.

I don't fault the Church for publishing "more gospel-oriented manuals" since that fits the Church's primary role of teaching people about the gospel of Christ.

Perhaps the problem arises when people look to such sources for their academic or historical instruction when they really need to look elsewhere for that.

In short, I expect my gospel doctrine teacher, who only has 40 minutes a week, to facilitate my spiritual edification and resolve. That's the purpose for which I attend Sabbath meetings.

I'll see to my academic enlightenment on my own time, from the abundant sources that are available.

[bcuzbcuz]

That would depend on what one meant by the process of production and the substance of such.

If one wants to prove or disprove the effectiveness of such, then all one needs to examine is the substance and compare it to one's actual experience...though it may take awhile to acquire enough data to make a decision.

When I was very little I learned that a hot stove burns. I don't need to test every stove to see if my observation was correct. Nor do I place my hand on the heat platter, even when no lamps or indicators are displayed. In other words a cold stove warrants an equal amount of caution.

Despite hearing from friends about their interesting visits to fortune tellers or TV evangelists, I still do not seek information from such dubious sources. As a skeptic, I have a long list of "dubious sources", including a good number of news services and internet sites. It is my, very personal opinion, that some sources are not to be trusted and therefore the information is considered of poor account, as well. If, for example, one of the more famous or notorious people from the Creationist sites , like Ken Ham, were to tell me my house was on fire, I would ask for a second opinion.

So I repeat, I think the source does influence the value of the information. And I take issue with, "To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark." That is a comment that shots far wide of the mark.

[Scott Lloyd]

When I was very little I learned that a hot stove burns. I don't need to test every stove to see if my observation was correct. Nor do I place my hand on the heat platter, even when no lamps or indicators are displayed. In other words a cold stove warrants an equal amount of caution.

Despite hearing from friends about their interesting visits to fortune tellers or TV evangelists, I still do not seek information from such dubious sources. As a skeptic, I have a long list of "dubious sources", including a good number of news services and internet sites. It is my, very personal opinion, that some sources are not to be trusted and therefore the information is considered of poor account, as well. If, for example, one of the more famous or notorious people from the Creationist sites , like Ken Ham, were to tell me my house was on fire, I would ask for a second opinion.

So I repeat, I think the source does influence the value of the information. And I take issue with, "To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark." That is a comment that shots far wide of the mark.

Perhaps what Elder Maxwell was saying is that for one who already regards Joseph Smith as a divinely called prophet, thereby entitled to receive revelation from God (and that attitude arguably characterizes every believing Latter-day Saint), fussing over the precise mechanism by which that revelation is received amounts to putting process over substance. For such believers, the matter of the reliability of the source has already been settled in their minds. Once that has happened, what does it matter whether Joseph got the divine translation by looking through stones set into a bow and breastplate, viewing said stones (or others) placed into a hat to exclude the light, or directly receiving the translation as impressions to the mind?

Edited June 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Wiki Wonka]

Perhaps what Elder Maxwell was saying is that for one who already regards Joseph Smith as a divinely called prophet, thereby entitled to receive revelation from God (and that attitude arguably characterizes every believing Latter-day Saint), fussing over the precise mechanism by which that revelation is received amounts to putting process over substance. For such believers, the matter of the reliability of the source has already been settled in their minds. Once that has happened, what does it matter whether Joseph got the divine translation by looking through stones set into a bow and breastplate, viewing said stones (or others) placed into a hat to exclude the light, or directly receiving the translation as impressions to the mind?

That is the way I understand Elder Maxwell's quote as well. The article is written from a believer's perspective. In the end, as a believer, it doesn't really matter what instrument Joseph used. What matters is that the translation was accomplished by the gift and power of God.

We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma’s words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark.

Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

What's his source for saying the Nephite Interpreters were returned after 116 events?

Gardner concludes they were not returned and only the stone in the hat was used.

And Brant may be perfectly correct, and I may even agree with him on this. David Whitmer certainly stated that they were not returned. However, the current position within Church literature is that they were returned, therefore the article goes with the current Church position.

WW

[Calm]

If, for example, one of the more famous or notorious people from the Creationist sites , like Ken Ham, were to tell me my house was on fire, I would ask for a second opinion.

Are you serious in this comment? If so, I think that is rather sad.

Me, I am generally willing to take info from anyone who is willing to give it...then I study it to see if it has value. I've learned a lot of interesting things over the years, but have learned a lot more about interesting people.

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

When I was very little I learned that a hot stove burns. I don't need to test every stove to see if my observation was correct. Nor do I place my hand on the heat platter, even when no lamps or indicators are displayed. In other words a cold stove warrants an equal amount of caution.

I am not claiming one has to test each board, each tarot card reader, each fortune teller....if one was interested, a few of any would be likely enough to give a good base range of value just as one can learn about a hot stove by holding one's hand close enough to feel the heat a few times while learning what signs a hot stove gives off and then generalizing it to others. Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Brant Gardner]

And Brant may be perfectly correct, and I may even agree with him on this. David Whitmer certainly stated that they were not returned. However, the current position within Church literature is that they were returned, therefore the article goes with the current Church position.

WW

Actually, as I remember, I cite Whitmer and indicate that it is possible that what we have was translated with the seer stone rather than the interpreters. From my viewpoint, I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever. I don't the think the particular instrument actually did anything except provide Joseph a context in which he could learn to translate with divine assistance.

[Brant Gardner]

Is it the information or the source that should be questioned? Or does the source disqualify the information?

It isn't an either/or situation. If you want to know if something is valuable, you have to subject it to scrutiny. Source is always one of those. When the source is questionable, however, you are left with the specifics that you have to deal with. Thus there are lots of unprovenanced documents that purport antiquity, but cannot demonstrate that antiquity because of their source. An example I always reference is the Histoire du Mechique, a late French translation of a purported much earlier Spanish document. It is the wrong date, wrong language, and found in the wrong place. Therefore the source can't tell us if it should be used as history. The text itself meets the test, however.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, some assume that it should be dismissed because they associate the use of a seer stone with the occult. That is a modern designation that doesn't understand the position or use of such things in culture. That kind of dismissal is out of prejudice, not understanding.

So, what do we do with the Book of Mormon? The source is ultimately revelation, and that is sufficient for many to wonder if it qualifies for antiquity. Therefore, we are left with the text, and with Elder Maxwell's admonition.

[why me]

The impression I got (and I have yet to read the article thoroughly) is that the burying occurred in the earlier part of the century.

But I do remember the members knowing a great deal about all that was in the summary. Maybe the information was gotten from the books that were published by desseret books. Maybe the authors of the books related such information. And of course, this is another issue. The church does have bookshops where books are published with all sorts of information in them. I have not been in a desseret bookshop for a long time so I can't comment on the books now. But are the books by desseret so benign?

[Storm Rider]

Elder Neal A. Maxwell offers some wise advice against becoming too focused on the mechanics of, rather than the results of, the translation.

"To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."

That's two ways, from two different people, to say the same thing. (Roger Nicholson and Elder Neal A. Maxwell )

But would the same advice be given to someone seeking information from Tarot cards, or Ouija boards or fortune tellers? Is it the information or the source that should be questioned? Or does the source disqualify the information?

(And I did read Nicholson's article, all of it.)

For some reason I find a difference between a prophet using a device and you or I using such things. Does Jesus cursing a tree mean that he was a wizard even though the language was very similar to the language they used? For me, it makes a difference that Jesus said it and in so doing it has nothing to do with wizards, crystal balls, wands, etc.

[canard78]

Actually, as I remember, I cite Whitmer and indicate that it is possible that what we have was translated with the seer stone rather than the interpreters. From my viewpoint, I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever. I don't the think the particular instrument actually did anything except provide Joseph a context in which he could learn to translate with divine assistance.

I agree that the instrument was secondary to Joseph's ability to have the confidence to dictate.

But have I been quoting you to freely:

We all know that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon—except he didn't. The Book of Mormon mentions interpreters, but not the Urim and Thummim. It was the Book of Mormon interpreters which were given to Joseph with the plates. When Moroni took back the interpreters after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages, Joseph completed the translation with one of his seer stones. Until after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim belonged to the Bible and the Bible only. [51] The Urim and Thummim became part of the story when it was presented within and to the Great Tradition. Eventually, even Joseph Smith used Urim and Thummim indiscriminately as labels generically representing either the Book of Mormon interpreters or the seer stone used during translation. [52] [12]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/%22Rock_in_hat%22_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation

[cinepro]

Was Martin Harris involved with the translation process (or even in the same room?) after the loss of the 116 pages?

[bcuzbcuz]

For some reason I find a difference between a prophet using a device and you or I using such things. Does Jesus cursing a tree mean that he was a wizard even though the language was very similar to the language they used? For me, it makes a difference that Jesus said it and in so doing it has nothing to do with wizards, crystal balls, wands, etc.

The Bible, which I read often and studied intently, from my youth and during and after my mission, is clear about turning to astrology or fortune tellers:

From Deutronomy:- Do not be tempted to worship or serve what you see in the sky - the sun, the moon, and the stars (4.19). "...man or woman has sinned against the Lord and broken his covenant ; by worshipping and serving other gods or the sun or the

moon or the stars, contrary to the Lord's command." (17.2-3). Don't sacrifice your children in the fires on your alters> and don't let your people practice divination or look for omens or use spells or charms. and don't let them consult the spirits of the dead. The Lord your God hates people who these disgusting things. Be completely faithful to the Lord (18.10-13) From Leviticus:- Do not go for advice to people who consult the spirits of the dead.(l9*31). If anyone goes for advice to people who consult the spirits of the dead I will turn against him and will no longer consider him one of my People - 20.6. A prophet or an interpreter of dreams may promise a miracle, or a wonder, in order to lead you to worship and serve gods that you

have not worshipped before. EVEN IF WHAT HE PROMISES COMES TRUE, DO NOTPAY ANY ATTENTION TO HIM, THE LORD YOUR GOD IS USING HIM TO TEST YOU TO SEE IFYOU LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART. Follow the Lord and fear him; obey him and keep his commands; worship him and be faithful to him-(13.1-4) Deutronomy. He practiced divination and magic and consulted fortune-tellers and mediums. He sinned greatly against the Lord and stirred up his anger. 2 Kings 21.6 and 2 Chronicles 33.6. Read also Samuel 28.3-25. From Isaiah:- But people will tell you to ask for messages from fortune-tellers and mediums, who chirp and mutter. They 'will say, "After all, people should ask for messages from spirits and consult the deadon behalf of the living." You are to answer theme "Don’t listen to mediums - what they tell you will do you no good.." (8.19-20) I make fools of fortune-tellers and frustrate the predictions of astrologers. The words of the wise I refute and show that their wisdom is foolishness (44.25) Disaster will come upon you, and none of your magician stop it... Keep all your magic spells. and charms you have used them since

you were-young……. You are powerless in spite of the advice you get. Let your astrologers come forward and save you those people who study the stars, who man out the zones of the heavens and tell you month to month what is going to happen to you….. They will not even be able to save themselves... those astrologers, you consulted all your life.(47.10-15) From JEREMIAH :- Do not listen to your prophets or anyone who claims he can predict the future, either by dreams or by calling up the spirits of the

dead or by magic (27.9) I the Lord, the God of Israel, warn you not to let yourselves he deceived by the prophets who live among you or by any others who claim they can predict the future (29.. Curses cannot hurt you unless you deserve them., They are like birds that fly by and never settle. Proverb-26.2. I alone know the clans I have for you, plans to bring you prosperity and not disaster, plant to bring about the future you hope fork Then you will call to me. You will come and pray to me and I will answer you. you will seek me, and you will find me

because you will seek me with all your heart.' Jeremiah 29.11-13. See to it then that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless-deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by men and from the ruling spirits of the universe, find not from Christ., For the FULL content of divine nature lives in Christ, in

his humanit and you have been given full life in union with him.. He is supreme over every spiritual ruler and authority. From COLOSSIANS 2.8-10

You're undoubtedly correct that the "who" has great relevance, but I have trouble with any who use divination or magic stones

[Tacenda]

The Bible, which I read often and studied intently, from my youth and during and after my mission, is clear about turning to astrology or fortune tellers:

From Deutronomy:- Do not be tempted to worship or serve what you see in the sky - the sun, the moon, and the stars (4.19). "...man or woman has sinned against the Lord and broken his covenant ; by worshipping and serving other gods or the sun or the

moon or the stars, contrary to the Lord's command." (17.2-3). Don't sacrifice your children in the fires on your alters> and don't let your people practice divination or look for omens or use spells or charms. and don't let them consult the spirits of the dead. The Lord your God hates people who these disgusting things. Be completely faithful to the Lord (18.10-13) From Leviticus:- Do not go for advice to people who consult the spirits of the dead.(l9*31). If anyone goes for advice to people who consult the spirits of the dead I will turn against him and will no longer consider him one of my People - 20.6. A prophet or an interpreter of dreams may promise a miracle, or a wonder, in order to lead you to worship and serve gods that you

have not worshipped before. EVEN IF WHAT HE PROMISES COMES TRUE, DO NOTPAY ANY ATTENTION TO HIM, THE LORD YOUR GOD IS USING HIM TO TEST YOU TO SEE IFYOU LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART. Follow the Lord and fear him; obey him and keep his commands; worship him and be faithful to him-(13.1-4) Deutronomy. He practiced divination and magic and consulted fortune-tellers and mediums. He sinned greatly against the Lord and stirred up his anger. 2 Kings 21.6 and 2 Chronicles 33.6. Read also Samuel 28.3-25. From Isaiah:- But people will tell you to ask for messages from fortune-tellers and mediums, who chirp and mutter. They 'will say, "After all, people should ask for messages from spirits and consult the deadon behalf of the living." You are to answer theme "Don’t listen to mediums - what they tell you will do you no good.." (8.19-20) I make fools of fortune-tellers and frustrate the predictions of astrologers. The words of the wise I refute and show that their wisdom is foolishness (44.25) Disaster will come upon you, and none of your magician stop it... Keep all your magic spells. and charms you have used them since

you were-young……. You are powerless in spite of the advice you get. Let your astrologers come forward and save you those people who study the stars, who man out the zones of the heavens and tell you month to month what is going to happen to you….. They will not even be able to save themselves... those astrologers, you consulted all your life.(47.10-15) From JEREMIAH :- Do not listen to your prophets or anyone who claims he can predict the future, either by dreams or by calling up the spirits of the

dead or by magic (27.9) I the Lord, the God of Israel, warn you not to let yourselves he deceived by the prophets who live among you or by any others who claim they can predict the future (29. . Curses cannot hurt you unless you deserve them., They are like birds that fly by and never settle. Proverb-26.2. I alone know the clans I have for you, plans to bring you prosperity and not disaster, plant to bring about the future you hope fork Then you will call to me. You will come and pray to me and I will answer you. you will seek me, and you will find me

because you will seek me with all your heart.' Jeremiah 29.11-13. See to it then that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless-deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by men and from the ruling spirits of the universe, find not from Christ., For the FULL content of divine nature lives in Christ, in

his humanit and you have been given full life in union with him.. He is supreme over every spiritual ruler and authority. From COLOSSIANS 2.8-10

You're undoubtedly correct that the "who" has great relevance, but I have trouble with any who use divination or magic stones

I guess this is why the anti mormon EV's are unrelenting in their going after the LDS to save them from hell. This is pretty thought provoking and keeps me on the fence. Or keeps me on a weight scale that can't tip in either direction, one side is the people, the missionaries especially have this thing, lately it's the sister missionaries. I have a niece on my husbands side that is incredible and her sister that went also, I read her blog and it's amazing how she's transformed. But then I have to read this that you noted in the bible. Is this all a test, did God make it so the LDS are such intelligent, funny, good people to see how well we adhere to the bible rather than the people? Because clearly some LDS doctrine seem to contradict it. Edited June 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess this is why the anti mormon EV's are unrelenting in their going after the LDS to save them from hell. This is pretty thought provoking and keeps me on the fence. Or keeps me on a weight scale that can't tip in either direction, one side is the people, the missionaries especially have this thing, lately it's the sister missionaries. I have a niece on my husbands side that is incredible and her sister that went also, I read her blog and it's amazing how she's transformed. But then I have to read this that you noted in the bible. Is this all a test, did God make it so the LDS are such intelligent, funny, good people to see how well we adhere to the bible rather than the people? Because clearly some LDS doctrine seem to contradict it.

LDS doctrine does not contradict the Bible at all, let alone "clearly" doing so.

[tagriffy]

Was Martin Harris involved with the translation process (or even in the same room?) after the loss of the 116 pages?

I am not aware of anything involving Harris with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages. I have a vague memory of somebody mentioning Harris calling on Joseph and Oliver, but it could be misplaced.

[Tacenda]

LDS doctrine does not contradict the Bible at all, let alone "clearly" doing so.

"Clearly" as in the instance of bcuzbcuz's post, but there are other scriptures in the bible that tend to contradict like God being everlasting to everlasting, and God is spirit not flesh and bones, no marriage in heaven, no God before and no God after, in the bible it says God is not a man, Lucifer being a brother to Jesus verses Jesus as the creator of all things including Lucifer, if we are to have physical bodies before we are to become a God how did Jesus become a God without a body. These aren't contradictions?