The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[pogi]

There it is again. Why do people say that?

You don't have to agree to disagree with anybody. You could agree with everybody by just changing your mind all the time depending on who you are talking to, always agreeing with them until somebody else came along who said something contrary and then agreeing with him, or her, or whatever it said. Or you could just disagree without having to agree to disagree, instead of changing your mind.

But you don't ever have to agree to disagree.

I wish people would just stop saying that.

It makes it seem like you agree when you actually do not agree. It's really a weird thing to be saying.

 

We will have to agree to disagree 

[Gervin]

There it is again. Why do people say that?

You don't have to agree to disagree with anybody. You could agree with everybody by just changing your mind all the time depending on who you are talking to, always agreeing with them until somebody else came along who said something contrary and then agreeing with him, or her, or whatever it said. Or you could just disagree without having to agree to disagree, instead of changing your mind.

But you don't ever have to agree to disagree.

I wish people would just stop saying that.

It makes it seem like you agree when you actually do not agree. It's really a weird thing to be saying.

I think it's simply a phrase of cordiality meaning, "let's end this conversation without a (self)-declared winner."

[canard78]

Dang, canard78, we agree again!

You're doing this deliberately; I know you are.

Don't worry I'll stop it. I can't keep doing this to you I'll go and say something pointless and snipey on the priestcraft thread.

As for this one... I just can't get worked up about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't worry I'll stop it. I can't keep doing this to you I'll go and say something pointless and snipey on the priestcraft thread.

As for this one... I just can't get worked up about it.

Actually, I haven't weighed in on the priestcraft thread -- except to issue a CFR to poor Jeanne, who seems to have gotten deceived by anti-Mormons who have faked a web page purportedly from Deseret Book advertising a souvenir replica seer stone. No response so far.

 

Other than maintaining the CFR, I doubt I'll post on that thread.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

IMO, OC was either "in on it" or JS was indeed a prophet of God. I'll list below (in no particular order) the evidences for my reasoning:

-Translation of the BoM was completed three or four times faster while OC was acting as scribe;

- In addition to his angelic visitation as one of the three witnesses, OC has received visits from Peter, James and John during the restoration of the priesthood and a third experience with Moses, The Savior, Elijah, and Elias;

- To my understanding, he was the only witness to never describe seeing the angel with "spiritual eyes"; and

- His connection to View of the Hebrews.

Except that it was Rigdon that had the supposed link to View of the Hebrews.

Do we really need to rehash the Joseph knew Sidney before 1830 conspiracy theory?

[Ahab]

I think it's simply a phrase of cordiality meaning, "let's end this conversation without a (self)-declared winner."

Just more silliness. Each person can consider themselves the winner of the conversation if tbey want to. They won't agree, but oh well. It's not as if people are not accustomed to disagreements.

[rockpond]

I'm sorry for jumping in late... but has anyone explained where this seer stone has been for the past century and a half and why it hasn't made an appearance until now?

[Tacenda]

I'm sorry for jumping in late... but has anyone explained where this seer stone has been for the past century and a half and why it hasn't made an appearance until now?

Well there is the Gospel Topics explaining the head in the hat, I guess they go hand in hand.

[Brian 2.0]

I'm sorry for jumping in late... but has anyone explained where this seer stone has been for the past century and a half and why it hasn't made an appearance until now?

 

When I was at BYU I worked in the Motion Picture Studio film vault.  At one point we went up to the church's Granite Mountain vaults (really cool).  As we went around our escort told us a bit of the history and such.  He pointed out one vault that was the First Presidency vault.  I asked what was in it and he said he could saying exactly, also because he didn't know exactly.  He did say it was mostly documents but that they did have some of Joseph Smith's seer stones (I don't remember if he said plural or not). 

[Nevo]

I'm sorry for jumping in late... but has anyone explained where this seer stone has been for the past century and a half and why it hasn't made an appearance until now?

 

It has been in the First Presidency vault. Joseph gave the stone to Oliver after the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished. At Oliver's death, his widow gave it to Phineas Young, who then gave it to his brother Brigham Young. At Brigham Young's death, one of his widows, Zina D.H. Young, donated it to the Church. Few people had seen it until now, even—apparently—among Church History Department staff (see, e.g., the inaccurate description of the stone on page 125 of the recent book, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by two former Joseph Smith Papers editors).

Edited August 6, 2015 by Nevo

[rockpond]

It has been in the First Presidency vault. Joseph gave the stone to Oliver after the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished. At Oliver's death, his widow gave it to Phineas Young, who then gave it to his brother Brigham Young. At Brigham Young's death, one of his widows, Zina D.H. Young, donated it to the Church. Few people had seen it until now, even—apparently—among Church History Department staff (see, e.g., the inaccurate description of the stone on page 125 of the recent book, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by two former Joseph Smith Papers editors).

 

I had read the history of how it got into the Church's hands.  So why wait until now to reveal its existence to church members (and apparently even the history department)?

[Scott Lloyd]

I had read the history of how it got into the Church's hands.  So why wait until now to reveal its existence to church members (and apparently even the history department)?

If you had read the story, apparently its existence was not concealed. Why do you say its existence is only now being revealed?

 

Please clarify.

[Scott Lloyd]

It has been in the First Presidency vault. Joseph gave the stone to Oliver after the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished. At Oliver's death, his widow gave it to Phineas Young, who then gave it to his brother Brigham Young. At Brigham Young's death, one of his widows, Zina D.H. Young, donated it to the Church. Few people had seen it until now, even—apparently—among Church History Department staff (see, e.g., the inaccurate description of the stone on page 125 of the recent book, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by two former Joseph Smith Papers editors).

I don't have the book at hand. Please identify the authors and explain how their description is inaccurate.

 

Edited to add:

 

The authors are Michael Hubbard McKay and Gerrit J. Dirmaat.

 

McKay is not listed on the Joseph Smith Papers project team. Perhaps he has left.

 

Dirkmaat is an assistant professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU. He was a historian/writer for the project from 2010 to 2014 and continues to work on it in a volunteer capacity.

 

Still wondering what they said about the stone that was inaccurate.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

I had read the history of how it got into the Church's hands.  So why wait until now to reveal its existence to church members (and apparently even the history department)?

 

Joseph Fielding Smith indicated that it was in the possession of the Church in Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 225, and the statement was repeated in Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, on p. 819, so it hasn't exactly been a secret. But few have seen it. Grant Palmer said he saw in the mid-1960s. Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, Hugh B. Brown's daughter, saw it ca. 1983. But I haven't heard of any others, apart from First Presidency secretaries. (Presumably there have been others but they haven't discussed it publicly).

[rockpond]

If you had read the story, apparently its existence was not concealed. Why do you say its existence is only now being revealed?

 

Please clarify.

 

Where did the Church ever publish an acknowledgement that they had it in their possession?  How would the average church member have known that we had the seer stone Joseph used to dictate the Book of Mormon?  (BTW:  I'm really glad to see the church using the word dictate rather than the incorrect "translate" that we've more commonly used for so long.)  Has a photo of it ever been published prior to this week?

 

Are you suggesting that there isn't a lot shock and surprise among the LDS membership at announcement that we have the seer stone?

Edited August 6, 2015 by rockpond

[strappinglad]

Just imagine what we would find in the Vatican Archives? The LDS Church has nothing compared to them.  .  IF and I repeat IF this stone is the actual one used by Joseph in translating, then it has historical and spiritual significance . Some here would have had it be on public display since the founding .That worked out so well with all the mummy scrolls . Do we have any reports that any prophet since Joseph has used this seer stone or perhaps one of their own choosing? 

  I wonder what the procedure would be if tomorrow an indecipherable record was unearthed at  a BYU dig in,say, Manti, Utah? Could the Prophet get an advanced look-see ?

[Scott Lloyd]

Where did the Church ever publish an acknowledgement that they had it in their possession? 

By now you've probably seen Nevo's post which answers this question.

 

 

How would the average church member have known that we had the seer stone Joseph used to dictate the Book of Mormon?

 

By consulting the sources identified by Nevo, or by hearing others speak of it who had seen those sources. Not everybody has been interested in it, even among those who are interested now.

 

 

(BTW:  I'm really glad to see the church using the word dictate rather than the incorrect "translate" that we've more commonly used for so long.)

 

"Dictate" accurately denotes what Joseph did so those who served as his scribes could write down the text. I don't get from this that the Church is dropping the term or concept of translating to denote how Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon. CFR that this is the case. (See addition at the bottom of this post.)

 

 

Has a photo of it ever been published prior to this week?

 

Not publishing a photo of it is not the equivalent of concealing its existence.

 

 

Are you suggesting that there isn't a lot shock and surprise among the LDS membership at announcement that we have the seer stone?

 

I've seen a lot of interest. I wouldn't call it "shock and surprise." And, as has been said above, those who were knowledgable -- or who cared enough to find out -- could be expected to have already known of its existence. I knew, and I have only casual interest in it.

 

Why are you so eager to see something sinister or nefarious in this matter?

 

Edited to add:

 

This is taken from Encyclpedia of Mormonism:

 

Joseph Smith often used the words "translated" and "translation," not in the narrow sense alone of rendering a text from one language into another, but in the wider senses of "transmission," having reference to copying, editing, adding to, taking from, rephrasing, and interpreting. This is substantially beyond the usual meaning of "translation." When he said the Bible was not translated correctly, he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission. Thus, the available texts of the Bible are neither as complete nor as accurate as when first written.

 

I have no problem with use of the verb in this sense to denote what Joseph did with the Book of Mormon.

 

In English, words are not typically restricted to only one meaning or connotation; you ought to know that.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Jude2]

Then you appear to agree with me that true scripture could come through people who might have character flaws, even major ones. In this case, I think we just disagree as to whether that's what happened.

 

 

mmm Sally Chase had a green piece of glass. I don't believe the claim Joseph used it to find his stone nor that it was found in that well. 

 

I'm not sure I like the direction of the Ensign article. 

 

"Joseph Smith accepted such familiar folk ways of his day, including the idea of using seer stones to view lost or hidden objects.."

I would say people were very close to their Bible and expected a true prophet to use a seer stone. And, I would say if the Lord raises up a true prophet with his seer stone Satan will imitate with many false prophets with crystal balls and peep-stones. 

 

I've been wondering if in our sophistication if we haven't lost something in our ability to communicate with the spiritual.   

[Nevo]

I don't have the book at hand. Please identify the authors and explain how their description is inaccurate.

 

The authors' names (as you know) are Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat. They write: "Apart from the spectacles, Joseph appears to have possessed two other seer stones—one that was dark brown and shaped like a baby's shoe and one that was white and shaped like a large chicken egg."

 

Their description of the brown stone as "shaped like a baby's shoe" is pretty clearly based on the descriptions in Mark Ashurst-McGee's thesis, "A Pathway to Prophethood":

 

"Lorenzo Saunders said the stone had the shape of a 'babies foot.' Pomeroy Tucker described Joseph's first stone as having a 'peculiar shape, resembling that of a child's foot.' The shape of a foot does not change with age. Saunders and Tucker may have meant that the stone exhibited the shape of a baby's shoe. Samuel Bateman, one of President John Taylor's bodyguards, wrote in his journal, 'On Sunday last I saw and handled the seer stone that the Prophet Joseph Smith had. It was dark, color, not round on one side. It was shaped like the top of a baby's shoe, one end like the toe of the shoe [flat], and the other round.' Purple described it having 'the shape of a high-instepped shoe.' In a report of an interview with David Whitmer, the stone is described as 'a small oval kidney-shaped stone.'' (Ashurst-McGee, "Pathway to Prophethood," 232–233)

 

I think you would agree that if the authors had actually seen the stone, they would have probably described it as "egg-shaped" rather than "shaped like a baby's shoe." That description in an artifact of 19th-century sources. In any case, the stone isn't foot- or kidney-shaped as far as I can tell.

 

 

Some of the other descriptions Ashurst-McGee collected seem a much better fit:

 

"On another occasion, David Whitmer described the stone as 'nearly egg shaped.' In another, he said it was 'a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat . . .' Joseph Anderson is reported to have said the stone was 'oval.' . . . [W]hen Utah Mormon Frederick Kesler observed the stone, he recorded in his diary that 'its color was mahoganey & was verry Smoothe.' . . . Hosea Stout heard it described as a 'dark color almost black with light colored stripes some what resembling petrified poplar or cotton wood bark[.]'" (233–235)

Edited August 6, 2015 by Nevo

[Brian 2.0]

mmm Sally Chase had a green piece of glass. I don't believe the claim Joseph used it to find his stone nor that it was found in that well. 

 

I'm not sure I like the direction of the Ensign article. 

 

"Joseph Smith accepted such familiar folk ways of his day, including the idea of using seer stones to view lost or hidden objects.."

I would say people were very close to their Bible and expected a true prophet to use a seer stone. And, I would say if the Lord raises up a true prophet with his seer stone Satan will imitate with many false prophets with crystal balls and peep-stones. 

 

I've been wondering if in our sophistication if we haven't lost something in our ability to communicate with the spiritual.   

 

Where you do think the stone came from?

 

Are you saying that you do not believe Joseph believed he could use a seer stone to view lost or hidden objects?

[Gervin]

Where you do think the stone came from?

 

Are you saying that you do not believe Joseph believed he could use a seer stone to view lost or hidden objects?

The Church, more often that not, speaks through its PR Department. I would wager that the statement "Joseph Smith accepted such familiar folk ways of his day, including the idea of using seer stones to view lost or hidden objects.." is intentionally ambiguous.  Joseph Smith accepted such familiar folks ways of his day, including using seer stones to purport to view lost or hidden objects.  

 

Nevermind.  Keep you eye on the stone and move along.

[Gervin]

Just more silliness. Each person can consider themselves the winner of the conversation if tbey want to. They won't agree, but oh well. It's not as if people are not accustomed to disagreements.

If being cordial is over your head then your point is probably important.

[Gervin]

It might make more sense to find small things to agree or disagree on.  Do you see any 18th or 19th language or theological ideas, or both, in the Book of Mormon, as some here have claimed?

Edited August 6, 2015 by Gervin

[omni]

Although I understand your thinking and logic, the part that never makes any sense is that several of the witnesses fell away from following Joseph Smith and/or the Church and yet retained a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith as a prophet. 

 

 

If OC were to expose Joseph as a con, he would essentially be exposing himself as a con.  By labeling Joseph as a fallen prophet while proclaiming a testimony of the BoM, he could have been attempting to salvage what remained of his reputation.   Based on his attempts and subsequent defeats at running for public office, it appears he may have been a bit too optimistic.  OC appeared to be a man lost between two worlds, the saints didn't want much to do with him and the same went for the gentiles, at least once they discovered his hand in the founding of Mormonism.  This is purely my own thoughts, but I suppose a combination of poor treatment from the non-Mormons and a genuine affinity for Mormons led to his re-baptism in the Church.

 

To me, if I were to have a falling out with another person AND they had a giant con going, I am talking and telling the truth.  I certainly would not go out of my way to confirm a witness to the truthfulness of such events. 

 

 

We're clearly looking at this from two different perspectives.  You see this story as faith promoting while I see it as faith demoting.  To me the question is why would a man who spent day after day witnessing the miracle of the translation of the BoM, experienced angelic visitations on three separate occasions, and was one of Joseph's closest confidants, leave the Church?  And then to top it all off he joins the Methodists. It just makes no sense to me.

 

Condescending attitude aside, you make the same mistake of others on the other side - you think in black and white.  You disallow, dismiss, or fail to recognize the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the discussion.  Honest individuals who seek truth do not abandon critical thinking just because it causes problems for their position.  Rather, the problems are acknowledged and, in so doing, retain a degree of humility about the topic.

 

 

And apparently you will see my condescending attitude and raise me one!

[carbon dioxide]

 

 You see this story as faith promoting while I see it as faith demoting.  To me the question is why would a man who spent day after day witnessing the miracle of the translation of the BoM, experienced angelic visitations on three separate occasions, and was one of Joseph's closest confidants, leave the Church?  And then to top it all off he joins the Methodists. It just makes no sense to me.

 

Why would Laman and Lemuel not see that the Lord was with Nephi?  After seeing an angel and everything else, they just kept rebelling?  Why would Judas betray Jesus after all the things he saw Jesus do?  Why would Satan rebel against God openly when He knew who the Father was?  He should have known it was a futile effort to go up against God the Father. Why would these people after witnessing a miracle performed through Joseph Smith all convert since not only did they witness it but Joseph answered their question

 

"Ezra Booth, of Mantua, a Methodist preacher of much more than ordinary culture, and with strong natural ablities, in company with his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and some other citizens of this place (Hiram), visited Smith at his home in Kirkland, in 1831. Mrs. Johnson had been afflicted for some time with a lame arm, and was not at the time of the visit able to lift her hand to her head.  The party visited Smith partly out of curiosity, and partly to see for themselves what there might be in the new doctrine.  During the interview, the conversation turned on the subject of supernatural gifts, such as were conferred in the days of the apostles.  Someone said. "Here is Mrs. Johnson with a lame arm; has God given any power to men now on the earth to cure her?"  A few moments later, when the conversation had turned in another direction, Smith rose, and walking across the room, taking Mrs. Johnson by the hand, said in the most solemn and impressive manner: "Woman, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command thee to be whole," and immediately left the room.

 

The company were awe-stricken at the infinte presumption of the man, and the calm assurance with which he spoke.  The sudden mental and moral shock-I know not how better to explain the well-attested fact-electrified the rheumatic arm-Mrs. Johnson at once lifted it up with ease, and on her return home the next she was able to do her washing without difficulty or pain." (A.S. Hayden, "Early History of the Disciples of the Western Reserve, [Cincinnati: Chase and Hall, 1876], p. 250 as cited in "1000 Evidence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints Part 1" by Allen Richardson, David Richardson, Anthony Bentley p. 315)

 

Yes God has given power on earth to heal her.  Joseph Smith was given that power.  Joseph heals her.  They get their answer but they have a spiritual disconnect that keeps them away. Many people say they would believe the Book of Mormon if they could see the plates.  They are not telling the truth.  They will find an excuse to not believe.   I don't know why he did what he did but I know that people think and do things differently than I do.  Just because I don't understand it does not mean it can't happen. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by carbon dioxide