The Interpreters: Inverted? Folding? Held By A Handle?

[Wiki Wonka]

I thought I saw a quote somewhere in the past year that Joseph Smith much preferred using the Interpreter than the stone from the well.  It seems he gained greater knowledge in a more rapid and comprehensive manner.  Did he lose the privilege of using the interpreter after giving away the 116 page manuscript?  Does anyone know the reference for this?

 

When Joseph first received the Nephite interpreters, he felt that they were more powerful than his seer stone. The following is from “Joseph Knight Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835-1847,” in Early Mormon Documents, 4:15. Note that Knight referred to them as the "Urim and Thummem." This account was written after 1833, when the term "Urim and Thummin" began to be used to refer to both the interpreters and the seer stone.

 

Joseph Knight Sr. said:

“After Brackfist Joseph Cald me in to the other Room and he set his foot on the Bed and leaned his head on his hand and says well I am Dissop[o]inted. well, say I[,] I am sorrey[.] Well, says he[,] I am grateley Dissop[o]inted, it is ten times Better then I expected. Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates[,] and[,] said he[,] they appear to be Gold But he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummem then [than] he Did of the Plates for[,] says he[,] I can see any thing[.] They are Marvelus[.] Now they are written in Caracters and I want them translated[.]“

[Robert F. Smith]

I think that the Church purposely worded the essay to allow the possibility that either the Nephite interpreters or the seer stone were in the hat during the translation process. There are a few accounts which indicate that Joseph placed the interpreters in the hat. For example, here is an account from Martin Harris (I am this time pulling text from the Interpreter essay "The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat and the Book," not the Church essay).

 

 

 

Footnote 12 references “Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859,” in Early Mormon Documents, 2:305.

The Church essay was probably doing just what you suggest, but erroneously.  From that same essay you cite, compare Roger Nicholson in Interpeter, 5 (2013):146-147, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/ ,

 

One possible explanation is that the size of the interpreters may have been a hindrance to their use. William Smith described the Nephite interpreters as “much too large for Joseph and he could only see through one at a time using sometimes one and sometimes the other.”  Charles Anthon, who had to have obtained his information from Martin Harris, provided additional detail when he wrote that “these spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.”

 

Under such circumstances, it seems impractical to put the Interpreters into the hat.  They were too big.

[Calm]

I get the impression from that description that the frame of the spectacles is too large and that if taken out of the frame they very well could have fitted into a hat...just like taking the lenses out of a glasses frame.

[MichelleD]

I get the impression from that description that the frame of the spectacles is too large and that if taken out of the frame they very well could have fitted into a hat...just like taking the lenses out of a glasses frame.

That does seem logical. But are there any statements by those involved that the stones were ever removed and used in this manner?

[Wiki Wonka]

The Church essay was probably doing just what you suggest, but erroneously.  From that same essay you cite, compare Roger Nicholson in Interpeter, 5 (2013):146-147, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/ ,

 

One possible explanation is that the size of the interpreters may have been a hindrance to their use. William Smith described the Nephite interpreters as “much too large for Joseph and he could only see through one at a time using sometimes one and sometimes the other.”  Charles Anthon, who had to have obtained his information from Martin Harris, provided additional detail when he wrote that “these spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.”

 

Under such circumstances, it seems impractical to put the Interpreters into the hat.  They were too big.

 

Which actually brings us back to the OP. Did they fold?  Did Joseph remove a stone from the frame? I've heard, but cannot recall seeing a source, that Joseph may have removed a stone from the Nephite interpreters. 

Edited January 13, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[ALarson]

Which actually brings us back to the OP. Did they fold?  Did Joseph remove a stone from the frame? I've heard, but cannot recall seeing a source, that Joseph may have removed a stone from the Nephite interpreters. 

These are all interesting questions and all we really have is speculation regarding this (unless other statements from witnesses are discovered).

 

Either way, this would only apply to the translation of the 116 pages.

 

If the interpreters were taken from Joseph as punishment and not returned, he couldn't have used them in his hat for the translation of the Book of Mormon we now have.  By logical deduction then, when the witnesses saw Joseph using his head in the hat method, he was using his own seer stone (that he'd previously owned and used). 

Edited January 13, 2014 by ALarson

[JulieM]

Which actually brings us back to the OP. Did they fold?  Did Joseph remove a stone from the frame? I've heard, but cannot recall seeing a source, that Joseph may have removed a stone from the Nephite interpreters.

If you find a source or quote for this (that the stones in the interpreters were ever removed and used in Joseph's hat), I'd love to read them. Thanks!

[DonBradley]

I don't have the sources off the top of my head, but there are a few that say he would remove a lens from the interpreters and use it apart from the device.  It's possible this just confuses his use of the two interpreters with his use of a single seer stone.  But one or two of these sources says he removed the lens because the spectacles were too wide for his eyes.  This would suggest it was not adjustable.

 

On the other, the spectacles were supposed to have been stored in a pocket in the breastplate.  And it's been suggested to me that this means they must have folded up.

 

There's a great deal about this that's fuzzy...

 

In any case...

 

Can anyone think of additional evidence that the interpreters did or did not fold like scissors?

 

Don

[DonBradley]

By the way, what do you make of the description of interpreters having triangular lenses?  Why triangles?

[Calm]

If they folded overreach other, would they make a star of David?

[Robert F. Smith]

By the way, what do you make of the description of interpreters having triangular lenses?  Why triangles?

Based on Lucy Mack Smith's personal examination, they were "two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows."  See http://oneclimbs.com/2013/03/18/the-nephite-interpreters/ .

[DonBradley]

And what in the world are the silver bows??

[Calm]

I had glass frames once that only wrapped around half of the lenses and I would have described them as 'bows' in shape (well, I could have, but probably wouldn't have....still they are what I think of when I hear the description), but the lenses were plastic and had holes drilled in it, not sure if that could have been done with the glass lenses.

[DonBradley]

Cal, the star of David idea is one I'm exploring. It's been suggested by Jerry Ainsworth and passed to me by Nosmelone.

[strappinglad]

This suggests that the Nephite stones were : 1. Made for a much larger person or 2. made to be used at a different distance from the eyes or 3. made for a much bigger hat.

[wenglund]

Another questions of interest may be, why two lenses rather than just one?

 

A plausible explanation might be that we have two eyes?

 

But, why do we have two eyes?

 

Hmmm...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

Another questions of interest may be, why two lenses rather than just one?

 

A plausible explanation might be that we have two eyes?

 

But, why do we have two eyes?

 

Hmmm...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Stereoscopic vision?

[volgadon]

Cal, the star of David idea is one I'm exploring. It's been suggested by Jerry Ainsworth and passed to me by Nosmelone.

 

If true, then you would need to explore the reason why of all shapes, that shape. I've got plenty of sourceson it, if you want to drop me a note on facebook.

 

-Allen.

[Robert F. Smith]

Cal, the star of David idea is one I'm exploring. It's been suggested by Jerry Ainsworth and passed to me by Nosmelone.

Check out this illustration:  http://moriancumr2.blogspot.com/2012/12/chapter-3.html .

[DonBradley]

Bob,

 

That image is the one created by Nosmelone that got me started on all this.

 

Don

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is seriously one of the more interesting threads as of late.

[iamse7en]

Thanks for this fascinating conversation. Don's 116 pages book is certainly one of my most anticipated books to read in years. 

[K-2]

The problem with the image that Robert linked to, is that if the triangular parts were positioned like a square and compass, they wouldn't form a Star of David when folded like the illustration indicates. I imagine the "lenses" of the Urim and Thummim to have fit into grooved bows on each side, sliding in either vertically or horizontally, and that they could be removed for use as lots, one being perhaps slightly darker than the other, allowing them to be told apart. (Google "urim and thummim" images to see pics of them as lots.) 

[Alvie J]

A few things should be considered, Don,

1. The context of the relics which Joseph removed from the stone box on 1 Tishri 1827 (Jewish New Year = Sept 22, Autumnal Equinox and New Moon) certainly included Gold Plates, Breastplate, and Jaredite & Nephite Interpreters (JS-H 1:34-35,52,59), but probably not the Sword of Laban and Liahona (Directors) -- D&C 17:1.

2. Based on the description of the Interpreters as "spectacles," one might want to observe that Galileo's telescope was termed "spectacles" during the Renaissance (F. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 107, citing G. Naude, Instruction [1623], 24).  Other definitions are available in the OED.

3. The description of the Interpreters, or Seers (2 stones in twisted silver bows and fastened to the Breastplate) does suggest a handle of some sort, and reminds me of the handle on a lorgnette (invented by optician George Adams in the 18th century), on which see the description and illustrations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorgnette , and http://www.google.com/search?q=lorgnette&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=o4TQUu32KMzzoATA5IDwCg&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1116&bih=709 .  The difference is the stones were, as you say, like three cornered transparent diamonds.  They were smooth.

4. Lucy even had Joseph receiving the spectacles again on Sept 22, 1828, after the Harris hiatus (Lavina Fielding Anderson, Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir [SLC: Signature Books, 2001], 428). 

5.  This is reminiscent of the looking-glasses supposedly found in the Amphitheater of Eternal Wisdom, i.e., the allegorical cave-tomb of an undecayed Christian Rosencreutz (the figure central to Rosicrucianism).

6.  Wikipedia says that "Cornelis Van Dam of the Theological Colleges of the Canadian Reformed Churches published a book titled The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel [Eisenbrauns, 1997], in which he examines a new possible role of these ancient Israelite objects. Van Dam puts forth the idea that the Urim and Thummim were actually used in ancient Israel as a means of receiving revelation from God." 

7. In the broader Mesopotamian context, Geo Widengren described the numinous heavenly tablets (dupšīmatī) which go together with the lot-casting equipment (nadū parsē).  In ancient Mesopotamian religion, these heavenly tablets were central to the annual royal enthronment ritual, the king receiving the book at his ascension into the assembly of the gods (puhru ilani), and also receiving the cedar staff (symbol of the Tree of Life) and oracles.  These tablets are the tablets of destiny, wisdom, of the mystery of heaven & earth, etc.  In the Babylonian Enuma elish IV, 121-122, for example, the assembly of the gods under Marduk meets at the New Year Festival in the Chamber of Destiny and "decides the fate of the coming year," having conquered Kingu (the husband of Tiamat) and taking the tablets from him (cf. Laban) and affixing them to Marduk's breast.  The numinous tablets are carried thus in a pouch or bag (takāltu), in which they are sealed (kunukku).  All rulers receive the cosmic relics at enthronement, as with Mosiah II (Mosiah 1:16) and Joseph Smith, Jr.  The ruler is thereby commissioned to slay the enemy, even Labbu.  Again the ritual association of the slaying of Laban by Nephi is inescapable, even including the similarity of name of the evil entity!  All of this likewise is part of the call of a prophet, as John W. Welch has shown in his study of the call of Lehi.  Geo Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950), 11, 87, 89; cf. the "taking of the lots (oracles)" (parsa lequ) ceremony = "consultation of the oracles" (šitūltu, parsi ilqi); Sumerian ME = Akkadian parsu (parsē),"oracle, lot, allotment, ordinance; plan of oracle" (tērēti = Hebrew tora).

If you’re really interested in the Book of Mormon and its connection to Masonry and the Rosicrucians perhaps you might look at this college research paper in which explores the Book of Mormon as a ciphered text.  It’s full of colored graphs and to pictures better help the reader discern the ciphers and their meanings. 

 

https://www.academia.edu/7892970/The_Mormon_Cipher   

 

Please stop advertising your paper. Your posts will be removed if the spamming continues.

[Calm]

Maybe I should be letting Scott L do some...

 

But I love my icon too much.  

 

                .........