oneclimbs Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Hello, I'm the illustrator of the Interpreters that Don Bradley included in the original post. I came across this thread while looking at the traffic to my blog and thought I would weigh in on a few things and point you toward another post with some additional insight on why the seer stones were triangular in shape. (Here's that link before I forget). This last illustration is actually the third and most detailed version that I made as I tried to understand what they may have looked like. I posted here about this new version and what is factual vs. what are artistic interpretations to fill in the gaps. The illustration was made entirely in Photoshop and the animal skin behind it was used because it seemed to fit. It wasn't until later that I read the Fayette Lapham account where he mentioned something about the Lehities putting the interpreters "into a skin" to then hold up to their face to see what they were. It seems that even with the interpreters, the exclusion of light was important. Fayette's recollections of this account appear nowhere in the Book of Mormon, but as Bradley noted, were possibly in Lehi's book. It may be this very example of usage that gave Joseph the idea to put the seer stone in a hat because that is what he had at the time to help conveniently obscure light to use the stone in a fashion that would be similar to how the interpreters were used since he had lost them. Perhaps he figured that if he used the stone in a similar way as the interpreters were used, it might yield similar results. In my illustration, I did not attempt to visualize the breastplate or the interpreters attached to the breastplate, I decided to show them as if they were sitting on a table being examined. As I imagined the figure 8 configuration and the description of "bows" implies something curve but it also might convey the idea of "tension". I imagined that perhaps the figure 8 configuration held the interpreters together with tension and that the glass they were set in could have been fashioned with a groove to help hold them in place. This would be a simple and practical way of fastening the artifact together without the use of rope or twine that could break over the course of years. Someone along the lines set the seer stones in glass and then used a silver rod of some kind of fasten them into a side by side configuration: "A silver bow ran over one stone, under the other, arround [sic] over that one and under the first in the shape of a horizontal figure 8…" - William Smith (Tyrell Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, p.22) If you bent a piece of metal around two objects in this fashion, they would be held together with tension would they not? So in my illustration, I included a "hasp" that might have existed for the purpose of disassembling the whole thing for cleaning, etc. We know that Alma was picky about keeping the brass plates shiny and clean, so it stands to reason that the keepers of these relics might have fashioned them in a manner that would allow for cleaning. That doesn't mean that they could have been permanently fixed either. I had to illustrate it SOME way so that's the route I took in my visualization. As for the opposing directions of the stones, I remember hearing someone talk about the possibility of a connection between the seal of David and the urim and thummim. That is what made me think to make them opposing, I have no other evidence. The other reason I had for making them opposing is that it "felt" better than the other options. I could have pointed them both up or down but that looked weird. Up mimics the all-seeing-eye motif so up might be the better choice of the two. I could have pointed them left and right or both left or both right, but that didn't seem right. Up and down was the most intriguing because it conveys the idea of man inquiring upward to God and God condescending downward to reveal truth to man. To me it conveyed the communication that happens through seership and revelation. I think that another fascinating insight about the whole thing that is artifact consisted of two stones that came directly from God, positioned within a configuration that probably made by man. God gave the stones, but they had to figure out how to use them, how to position them and how to construct a frame to hold them which included a breastplate. Perhaps each of these elements was added one by one over time to suit the situation of the particular individual. Perhaps the breastplate was added by someone, maybe even a battle-worn Moroni, who needed extra help holding them in a particular position for an extended period of time. It all seems very crude but also very practical in a familiar sort of way. It seems like something I could see people doing. Another thought. The Liahona had two spindles and there were two interpreters. It seems that because they looked like spectacles that many assumed they worked that way, but what if they didn't. I don't see Moroni and the Nephites being these giants, I mean, to have eyes that far apart would have made them humongous, maybe 10 feet tall or more don't you think? The Liahona's one spindle pointed the way they should go in the wilderness. Fayette Lapham's account suggests that the second pointed to food and supplies. It makes you wonder why there wasn't just one spindle that simply pointed the single path that could have pointed to food, then back to the way they needed to go. Perhaps the two spindles gave them a choice and the ability to use their judgment. Maybe the interpreters worked in the same way. Maybe one showed one thing and the other showed another thing, maybe they were not meant to be looked into at the same time. Maybe when using them they were placed close enough together so that one might look back and forth through each stone, but far enough apart that you couldn't physically see through both at the same time. I wish we had the instruction manual and some accompanying illustrations, but oh well. It's fun to explore these things. 3
Recommended Posts