The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[Stone holm]

The devastation comes not from details of church history (though details can be very important) but from the broken trust members like me feel when we discover the stories are intentionally inaccurate.

 

I'm still curious about those who always knew about the rock/hat translation method. Did you teach that in classes or on your mission? If so, what was the reaction? If not, why not? If you knew the true translation method why would you ever teach anything else?

 

And despite a few references in the Ensign that blew past my generation because we were too busy playing Atari, why would the church continue teaching something they clearly knew was incorrect? That's the important question.

It was part of the cult of normalcy campaign. Someone got the idea that if made ourselves out to be just like other social conservatives, but with more Scriptures that the world would love us. Course at the same time we were saying that we were not of the world because the world was in that great and spacious building and our GAs are not influenced by popular culture....it gets a bit confusing at times.

[sunstoned]

The real issue here (IMO) is that a lot of members didn't know about such things. Some are quite shocked and upset when they find out. There seem to be two popular responses: "You shouldn't be surprised by that. The church has acknowledged it for a long time" or "The church is to blame for not letting people know about this."

 

Neither response helps the shocked member work this out.

 

I believe there are a lot of members who are, and who will be surprised by the Seer stone article and pictures.  The reason being, it was never part of the church's translation narrative.  

Edited August 7, 2015 by sunstoned

[JAHS]

 

I believe there are a lot of members who are, and who will be surprised by the Seer stone article and pictures.  The reason being, it was never part of the church's translation narrative.  

I think it's mostly because they did not study church history. It's in the history books.

[bcuzbcuz]

Does consecrated oil have special healing powers? Is it the oil itself that heals? Or is it the act and ritual of applying that increases the faith of the recipient and person giving the blessing?

I once made a comparison between the oil and the stones in a class and it seemed to go down well.

Then the seer stone is nothing other than a regular, smooth, oval, pretty, striped stone. Any stone would do. And each prophet and "seer" would need his own, smooth and pretty, seer stone. As far as I know, no prophet since Joseph has used the stone to "see" with, or nothing they have been willing to proclaim, at least.

[why me]

 

I believe there are a lot of members who are, and who will be surprised by the Seer stone article and pictures.  The reason being, it was never part of the church's translation narrative.  

I think that I have proved you wrong about this. My links have demonstrated that in the ensign the seer stone was the main translation process. Have you read the links? The artist rendition of the process comes from a person who claimed that oliver told him that this was the way it was done. However in 1997, here is what the ensign said about the translation process. And as you can see the seer stone is mentioned. So what is the problem? Did you read the ensign?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/01/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

 

The Prophet Joseph alone knew the full process, and he was deliberately reluctant to describe details. We take passing notice of the words of David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and Martin Harris, who were observers, not translators. David Whitmer indicated that as the Prophet used the divine instrumentalities provided to help him, “the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language … in bright luminous letters.” Then Joseph would read the words to Oliver (quoted in James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News, 25 Mar. 1884, 2). Martin Harris related of the seer stone: “Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin” (quoted in Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, 6 Feb. 1882, 86–87). Joseph Knight made similar observations (see Dean Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” BYU Studies 17 [Autumn 1976]: 35).

Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that the Urim and Thummim enabled Joseph “to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates” (“Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, 9 Apr. 1831). If these reports are accurate, they suggest a process indicative of God’s having given Joseph “sight and power to translate” (D&C 3:12).

If by means of these divine instrumentalities the Prophet was seeing ancient words rendered in English and then dictating, he was not necessarily and constantly scrutinizing the characters on the plates—the usual translation process of going back and forth between pondering an ancient text and providing a modern rendering.

The revelatory process apparently did not require the Prophet to become expert in the ancient language. The constancy of revelation was more crucial than the constant presence of opened plates, which, by instruction, were to be kept from the view of unauthorized eyes anyway.

While the use of divine instrumentalities might also account for the rapid rate of translation, the Prophet sometimes may have used a less mechanical procedure. We simply do not know the details.

 

Why do you keep giving disinformation?

 

And in this ensign article the head in the hat is mentioned with the seer stone:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

 

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

 

So why continue blaming the lds church? Why do you do it? And why do other critics continue to spread disinformation?

Edited August 7, 2015 by why me

[why me]

 

I believe there are a lot of members who are, and who will be surprised by the Seer stone article and pictures.  The reason being, it was never part of the church's translation narrative.  

Here is the testimony where this artist rendition comes from:

 

The manner of translation was as wonderful as the discovery. By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi,[sic] he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on till he came to the part of the plates which were sealed up.¹

 

Truman Coe, Presbyterian Minister living among the Saints in Kirtland, 1836

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-joseph-the-seer-or-why-did-he-translate-with-a-rock-in-his-hat

 

The ariticle is a great read. Being on limited, I have used my 12 posts. But I will be back another day.

Edited August 7, 2015 by why me

[Brian 2.0]

Here is the testimony where this artist rendition comes from:

The manner of translation was as wonderful as the discovery. By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi,[sic] he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on till he came to the part of the plates which were sealed up.¹

Truman Coe, Presbyterian Minister living among the Saints in Kirtland, 1836

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-joseph-the-seer-or-why-did-he-translate-with-a-rock-in-his-hat

The ariticle is a great read. Being on limited, I have used my 12 posts. But I will be back another day.

That's the testimony it was based on? I figured it wouldn't say anything about seer stones or the Urim and Thummim... you know... since there are none in the drawing.

[Stargazer]

Does anyone honestly believe that this stone had magical properties?  Please, lets not discuss BoM historicity or origins, just focus on the stone itself and whether any actual metaphysical properties are inherently part of this stone or any other seer stones for that matter.  

 

I personally find it hard to believe being raised in these modern times, but I'm curious what others think.  

 

I invite you to consider Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Clarke's Three Laws

 

There are laws of nature which nature's God has been using right in front of our eyes for millennia, and we don't recognize it for what it is.  Apparently, Joseph believed the stone was imbued with power, and that faith likely gave it power.  I believe that one of his secretarys (Oliver Cowdery?) once substituted a similar stone for this one, and when Joseph went to use it found that it didn't work.  He did not catch on to the substitution, which suggests to me that the stone had actual power apart from Joseph's faith.

 

I'm pretty sure the stone is a simple rock, and it has no power at this time, simply because it isn't needed.  My understanding is that toward the end of the BoM translation process Joseph used neither the Urim and Thummim, nor the stone, nor even the plates themselves to deliver the text of the Book of Mormon.

 

So I think that the stone was a temporary aid to revelation, that's all.

[jkwilliams]

 

I believe there are a lot of members who are, and who will be surprised by the Seer stone article and pictures.  The reason being, it was never part of the church's translation narrative.  

 

Of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the last time the stone-in-hat method was mentioned in an official church publication was when Russell Nelson mentioned in back in 1993. So, no, it hasn't been part of the narrative or any curriculum, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that members haven't heard of this before and are at least a bit shocked and upset by it. My point to Scott has been that we can spend a heck of a lot of time and effort assigning blame, but that doesn't help those members who are upset. 

[jkwilliams]

I think it's mostly because they did not study church history. It's in the history books.

 

Have members been encouraged to study church history outside of official publications? I seem to recall President Hinckley endorsing Rough Stone Rolling, but other than that, I can't think of any such encouragement. The only reason I started studying church history was that I was working in the Church Office Building and sometimes spent my lunch hour in the historical library on the first floor. I love history, and I couldn't pass up such an opportunity. Most people I know aren't as interested in history as I am and, at least until the arrival of the Internet, didn't have access to a lot of materials.

 

As for the artistic renditions, here's my guess (and it's just a guess, based on my interactions with people who work on church magazines): the illustrators probably didn't know anything about the stone in the hat, as it wasn't, as sunstoned put it, part of the church's translation narrative. Who do we think should or would have told them about the stone in the hat? I doubt very much that many people other than historians knew about it. Heck, I get the impression that most of the general authorities don't know many details about church history. Narratives take hold, and no one thinks to question them until there's a reason to do so. The simple answer is that no one questioned the standard narrative until there was a reason to.

Edited August 7, 2015 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

I think it's mostly because they did not study church history. It's in the history books.

That would be great if we're all historians. But we're not. We're members of a church and therefore trust that church.

We are religionists, not historians. Expecting us to be historians is assigning blame to the victim.

 

ETA- I think it's definitely getting to the point where members feel the need to fact check the church by studying outside sources. It's sad this is necessary and the lost trust will be hard to regain.

Edited August 7, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

I think that I have proved you wrong about this. My links have demonstrated that in the ensign the seer stone was the main translation process. Have you read the links? The artist rendition of the process comes from a person who claimed that oliver told him that this was the way it was done. However in 1997, here is what the ensign said about the translation process. And as you can see the seer stone is mentioned. So what is the problem? Did you read the ensign?

 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

 

 

So why continue blaming the lds church? Why do you do it? And why do other critics continue to spread disinformation?

Why Me, You still haven't answered any of my questions.

 

1- If the stone/hat was taught as the primary method of translation, why is that still not taught in the church 22 years after Nelson's Ensign article?

2- If you always knew the stone translation story, did you teach it? I would love an answer to this and this is the 3rd time I've asked it of you. Did you teach it on your mission and in classes, or did you teach the traditional narrative you KNEW wasn't accurate?

3- How can 2-3 Ensign articles spread out over 4 decades be considered adequate teaching about the real method of translation when every other talk, lesson, manual taught an innacurate history.

 

What you've done is prove that the church has always known about the rock translation method and sprinkled in a few mentions over many decades. What you haven't done is explain why the church, and members in the church who knew the error, continued teaching an erroneous story.

[Nevo]

Of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the last time the stone-in-hat method was mentioned in an official church publication was when Russell Nelson mentioned in back in 1993.

It's been mentioned exactly twice over 40-plus years, the last time being in 1993. In the meantime, there have been dozens of references in Church magazines, manuals, and conference talks to the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters included with the plates) being the means of translation.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Nevo

[jkwilliams]

It's been mentioned exactly twice over 40-plus years, the last time being in 1993. In the meantime, there have been dozens of references in Church magazines, manuals, and conference talks to the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters included with the plates) being the means of translation.

 

As HJW said, for a lot of people, the issue is one of broken trust. Do two mentions in 40-plus years counter that loss of trust? Not for a lot of people I know, but as long as people want to blame the members and absolve the church (or vice versa), that broken trust is unlikely to be healed.

[CA Steve]

Not true. It was common knowledge and openly discussed. It was in the ensign long ago. Maybe the church dropped the ball with the ensign discarding such articles such as I linked above. For example here is another great historical article from the late 80s.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/the-alvin-smith-story-fact-and-fiction?lang=eng

 

We were much informed thoughout the 70s and 80s about many interesting things in church history. But for some reason, the church switched gears in the middle 90s, leaving many members a little ignorant of the facts.

Are there any other artifacts the church possess which members should know about?

[Stone holm]

Have members been encouraged to study church history outside of official publications? I seem to recall President Hinckley endorsing Rough Stone Rolling, but other than that, I can't think of any such encouragement. The only reason I started studying church history was that I was working in the Church Office Building and sometimes spent my lunch hour in the historical library on the first floor. I love history, and I couldn't pass up such an opportunity. Most people I know aren't as interested in history as I am and, at least until the arrival of the Internet, didn't have access to a lot of materials.

 

As for the artistic renditions, here's my guess (and it's just a guess, based on my interactions with people who work on church magazines): the illustrators probably didn't know anything about the stone in the hat, as it wasn't, as sunstoned put it, part of the church's translation narrative. Who do we think should or would have told them about the stone in the hat? I doubt very much that many people other than historians knew about it. Heck, I get the impression that most of the general authorities don't know many details about church history. Narratives take hold, and no one thinks to question them until there's a reason to do so. The simple answer is that no one questioned the standard narrative until there was a reason to.

 

I have experienced very little encouragement from the Church to read anything but the Scriptures and the prescribed manuals.  I do not think the Church has been encouraging outside reading, in fact it is frequently condemned in classes as leading people astray.

[Avatar4321]

Am I the only one who isn't that impressed? Don't get me wrong it is cool to see the seer stone. But people are acting as though it's some controversial or important thing. What's more important, the tools used for translating or the translation?

Also we hold tools that give us vast information everyday in the palm of our hands. What is so difficult about believing God could give us far more information via a stone? Just because we've seen one more often in life doesn't make it crazy or anything.

[Stone holm]

Am I the only one who isn't that impressed? Don't get me wrong it is cool to see the seer stone. But people are acting as though it's some controversial or important thing. What's more important, the tools used for translating or the translation?

Also we hold tools that give us vast information everyday in the palm of our hands. What is so difficult about believing God could give us far more information via a stone? Just because we've seen one more often in life doesn't make it crazy or anything.

 

Gave you a bump, you are correct, but on the other hand, seeing the stone is sort of cool!

[jkwilliams]

Am I the only one who isn't that impressed? Don't get me wrong it is cool to see the seer stone. But people are acting as though it's some controversial or important thing. What's more important, the tools used for translating or the translation?

Also we hold tools that give us vast information everyday in the palm of our hands. What is so difficult about believing God could give us far more information via a stone? Just because we've seen one more often in life doesn't make it crazy or anything.

 

My guess is that people are troubled that the stone was used for two different activities: seeking treasure for hire, and translating the Book of Mormon. Most people don't consider the former a legitimate activity, and in fact, it could get you prosecuted even back in Joseph Smith's day. So, it's the association of the translation with something a little shady that bothers a lot of people. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Am I the only one who isn't that impressed? Don't get me wrong it is cool to see the seer stone. But people are acting as though it's some controversial or important thing. What's more important, the tools used for translating or the translation?

Also we hold tools that give us vast information everyday in the palm of our hands. What is so difficult about believing God could give us far more information via a stone? Just because we've seen one more often in life doesn't make it crazy or anything.

I think you're missing the main reason for the controversy. It's not that this stone is less believable than the other stones we had been told were key in translation. The controversy swirls around the intentionally inaccurate narrative. It's about losing trust in a church that intentionally teaches something they know isn't accurate. We can't be sure why they took this approach but it is clear they did. So without assigning motives we can at least see that the church knew the true method of translation but told a different story on purpose. Institutional honesty is at the heart of the controversy.

[jkwilliams]

I think you're missing the main reason for the controversy. It's not that this stone is less believable than the other stones we had been told were key in translation. The controversy swirls around the intentionally inaccurate narrative. It's about losing trust in a church that intentionally teaches something they know isn't accurate. We can't be sure why they took this approach but it is clear they did. So without assigning motives we can at least see that the church knew the true method of translation but told a different story on purpose. Institutional honesty is at the heart of the controversy.

 

Again, I think what makes people squeamish is the stone's connection to the less-savory activity of treasure-seeking for hire. Even Joseph Smith himself downplayed his activities in his official history, so it's not a surprise the church has followed suit for all these years.

[Brian 2.0]

Again, I think what makes people squeamish is the stone's connection to the less-savory activity of treasure-seeking for hire. Even Joseph Smith himself downplayed his activities in his official history, so it's not a surprise the church has followed suit for all these years.

 

I remember having that reaction.  I had always knew about the Urim and Thummim and breastplate and tried to envision what it was like and how he would have used those.  Seemed odd, but whatever, it was an ancient instrument that God uses.  

 

When I read that he found a seer stone in a well and used that stone via the hat method to try and find lost treasure (something I considered superstition and without merit), but then later used that same stone and same method for translating the Book of Mormon (something I did NOT consider superstition and without merit)... that gave me pause.  That didn't sit well.

[CA Steve]

Again, I think what makes people squeamish is the stone's connection to the less-savory activity of treasure-seeking for hire. Even Joseph Smith himself downplayed his activities in his official history, so it's not a surprise the church has followed suit for all these years.

That may be part of it, but I suspect some of those that are surprised by that fact the church even has the stone are probably also unaware of its other uses by Joseph. I know that I recently had a conversation with my BIL (member for over 40 years - returned missionary)  who was adamant that Joseph was not involved in treasure hunting.

[stemelbow]

Again, I think what makes people squeamish is the stone's connection to the less-savory activity of treasure-seeking for hire. Even Joseph Smith himself downplayed his activities in his official history, so it's not a surprise the church has followed suit for all these years.

Your talking about a pretty small population of Mormons. Probably a few more will be troubled by this when they realize what they've thought their whole lives about the translation was different. But even more will glance over this and not care a bit.

[Nevo]

My guess is that people are troubled that the stone was used for two different activities: seeking treasure for hire, and translating the Book of Mormon. Most people don't consider the former a legitimate activity, and in fact, it could get you prosecuted even back in Joseph Smith's day. So, it's the association of the translation with something a little shady that bothers a lot of people. 

 

Plus ça change...

 

The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time in the woods!

 

— Isaac Hale, 1834 (source)