canard78 Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 We know that from accounts, the Angel Moroni took the plates...but we have accounts as late as 1844 that the U&T and other items were in Church possession at that time. Not sure of later years, except for this one...I think that the U&T and the Sword of Laban are still in the possession of the Church or CoC.And they hide that because...??? Surely that would be an amazing set of artefacts to share with world. I'm guessing you didn't read the article which specifically gives a date by when Joseph said the Nephite interpreters had been taken back. The problem with the phrase "U&T" is that it was used for several "seer" devices and not just the ones that came in the stone box.
Nevo Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 As Mark is now on staff at the Church History Department as a volume editor in the Joseph Smith Papers project, I'm going to guess he has had ample opportunity since then to view the seer stone. It's my understanding that the stone was in the First Presidency vault so I'm not sure how accessible it would have been even to Church History Department employees. Access used to be quite restricted but maybe that's changed now.
why me Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 With all due respect, the size of the stone is the least difficult thing to believe in the translation story.But that is not the point. South Park made a splash with the head in the hat. But if the stone was the size of an egg, how could JS have his head in a hat translating the plates? Obviously, he wouldn't have his head directly in the hat as some pictures claim. That was my point. What we do know is that we have a book of mormon. How it got here is the debate.
ALarson Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Well, of course there is a problem with the hat. Did it actually happen or was it just a joke told years later. So do you think the witness statements we have regarding Joseph using the seer stone in his hat are false statements? I'd need to look this up again, but I believe that the accounts we have by witnesses state this was the method of translation used for the Book of Mormon that we have today (after the loss of the 116 pages). IIRC, (and according to Emma's statment) the breast plate & spectacles were only used to translate the lost 116 pages. They were taken from Joseph when that occurred and although he got them back, I don't believe that he used them after that. Also, the term Urim & Thummim only came into use after 1833 after W.W. Phelps speculated that the ancient Nephite interpreters may be the Urim & Thummim (in the January, 1833 edition of "The Evening and Morning Star"). That term was also used interchangeably with the seer stone which caused and still causes confusion. Here's a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith regarding this confusion: Joseph Fielding Smith: "The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.'" Edited August 4, 2015 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 It seems that the stone is the size of an egg. Just doesn't seem likely to be placed in a hat with joseph's head in it. Too big. Most likely if a hat was used, he looked at it from a little distance and not exactly in it. http://nypost.com/2015/08/04/mormons-publish-photos-of-seer-stone-used-by-joseph-smith/ And if it is the size of an egg, this would explain why there was no illustration of his head in a hat. How to explain a head in a hat attempting to read words from stone the size of an egg? Maybe it was a hoss cartwright type of hat.His face would have to be far enough in the hat to exclude the light.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 And they hide that because...??? Surely that would be an amazing set of artefacts to share with world.I'm guessing you didn't read the article which specifically gives a date by when Joseph said the Nephite interpreters had been taken back. The problem with the phrase "U&T" is that it was used for several "seer" devices and not just the ones that came in the stone box.Dang, canard78, we agree again! You're doing this deliberately; I know you are.
why me Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 His face would have to be far enough in the hat to exclude the light.The only way that this could be done would be that his face was outside the hat. But certainly not in the hat. One can be in a dark room with the head outside the hat and still see the translation. This was my point. His head could not have been in the hat with a stone the size of an egg. That being said, translating a book from a stone in a hat and having a scribe record it, is quite a feat.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 The only way that this could be done would be that his face was outside the hat. But certainly not in the hat. One can be in a dark room with the head outside the hat and still see the translation. This was my point. His head could not have been in the hat with a stone the size of an egg. That being said, translating a book from a stone in a hat and having a scribe record it, is quite a feat.In a dark room, what would be the point of putting it in a hat if the stated purpose was to "exclude the light"? 2
ttribe Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) It seems that the stone is the size of an egg. Just doesn't seem likely to be placed in a hat with joseph's head in it. Too big. Most likely if a hat was used, he looked at it from a little distance and not exactly in it. http://nypost.com/2015/08/04/mormons-publish-photos-of-seer-stone-used-by-joseph-smith/ And if it is the size of an egg, this would explain why there was no illustration of his head in a hat. How to explain a head in a hat attempting to read words from stone the size of an egg? Maybe it was a hoss cartwright type of hat. It wasn't a baseball cap. Also, the size of an egg is not the size of a watermelon. I believe the hat was described as a "stovepipe hat" which would have ample room for both the stone and enough of the face to block out said light. Example below: Edited August 4, 2015 by ttribe 3
ALarson Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 The only way that this could be done would be that his face was outside the hat. But certainly not in the hat.Again, do you dispute the eye witness accounts we have (there are several who saw Joseph using the head in the hat translation method)?
why me Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Smac, Would you have any problem if the Church published pictures like this? If we take a look at these pictures, the stone is obviously not the size of an egg. So something will have to change in the story. Maybe the stone is not the size of an egg. We need confirmation. I have no idea how it was translated. We have more than one story. And joseph did not make the proess public. However, I am sure that he told the story to people who asked him. It would certainly be a question that I would have for him. But these pictures do not portray a stone the size of an egg. However, I would go with the picture where his head is just outside the hat. Edited August 4, 2015 by why me
Zakuska Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 If we take a look at these pictures, the stone is obviously not the size of an egg. So something will have to change in the story. Maybe the stone is not the size of an egg. We need confirmation. I have no idea how it was translated. We have more than one story. And joseph did not make the proess public. However, I am sure that he told the story to people who asked him. It would certainly be a question that I would have for him. But these pictures do not portray a stone the size of an egg. However, I would go with the picture where his head is just outside the hat.Depends on what kind of "egg" you are talking about. Bird Eggs range in size from a dime clear up to a cantalope.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Is there some controversy here with the OP? I mean 6 pages of not a whole lot of,.... well....... anything, but maybe the OP and Zak's story. Carry on. 1
strappinglad Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Matthew 3: 9 speaks of God's ability to raise children of Abraham from stones. We then limit him from turning a stone from a chocolate marble to a clear Android-like device, and do it instantly. "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." I do not claim that is what happened, but I won't limit God's power. Joseph said he translated by the Gift and Power of God. Edited August 4, 2015 by strappinglad 2
Thinking Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) The point was made today at the news conference that the term Urim and Thummim was used to refer both to the Nephite interpreters, or "spectacles," and to the seer stone. Disney has the Urim and Thummim and used them in the movie National Treasure. Link Edited August 4, 2015 by Thinking
Guest Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 And they hide that because...??? Surely that would be an amazing set of artefacts to share with world. I'm guessing you didn't read the article which specifically gives a date by when Joseph said the Nephite interpreters had been taken back. The problem with the phrase "U&T" is that it was used for several "seer" devices and not just the ones that came in the stone box.Well they were being spoken of until the death of the Prophet. Also, if the U&T is a stone, now you have it...but wait and see how much the Church is belittle after this, it matters little when the world and Christian would are equally ready as always to defame. Either was the world would want the just like of the artifacts, even if made available for testing, testing would be inconclusive leading to eave more ridicule. Even so a Sword is of value as a religious artifact how?
SmileyMcGee Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 And they hide that because...???....because the church learned something from the kinderhook plates fiasco...I don't believe the church has the sword of Laban or the u&t, but if they do, I would guess that upon further investigation the "artifacts" would turn out to be a 19th century fabrication.
Nevo Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I believe the hat was described as a "stovepipe hat" which would have ample room for both the stone and enough of the face to block out said light. It was described that way in 1880 by Frederick G. Mather. He got his information, he said, from "a number of aged persons now living in [the vicinity of Harmony, Pennsylvania]." I don't put a lot of credence in it. Joseph was a poor farmer and day-laborer. I find it hard to believe that he walked around in a white stovepipe hat in the 1820s. 4
ttribe Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 It was described that way in 1880 by Frederick G. Mather. He got his information, he said, from "a number of aged persons now living in [the vicinity of Harmony, Pennsylvania]." I don't put a lot of credence in it. Joseph was a poor farmer and day-laborer. I find it hard to believe that he walked around in a white stovepipe hat in the 1820s. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
JAHS Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I have seen a few photos like this claiming to be one of Joseph Smith's seer stones. Anyone know the origin of this claim and where this stone is?
mapman Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) The stone is said to be 5.5 cm x 3.5 cm x 4 cm (this is from a comment by Jonathan Stapley, I guess he probably got it from the book). It seems to me that there would be plenty of room for an egg in a hat. Also, is anyone here a geologist? The stone resembles petrified wood to me, but perhaps someone else here knows better what kind of stone it is? Edited August 5, 2015 by mapman
mapman Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) I have seen a few photos like this claiming to be one of Joseph Smith's seer stones. Anyone know the origin of this claim and where this stone is? Rick Grunder had this seer stone in his possession at one time and then sold it to a collector.http://www.rickgrunder.com/HistoricalArchive/belchersmithdibble.htm He says that it was given by Joseph Smith to Philo Dibble. I think I've seen another photo of this seer stone, but I can't find it right now. Edited August 5, 2015 by mapman 1
Brian 2.0 Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 If we take a look at these pictures, the stone is obviously not the size of an egg. So something will have to change in the story. Maybe the stone is not the size of an egg. We need confirmation. I have no idea how it was translated. We have more than one story. And joseph did not make the proess public. However, I am sure that he told the story to people who asked him. It would certainly be a question that I would have for him.But these pictures do not portray a stone the size of an egg. However, I would go with the picture where his head is just outside the hat.How big do you think and egg is? How big do you think the stone in the picture is?I don's see an issue in placing the stone in the photo into a top hat, then placing your head in the hat.
carbon dioxide Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Smac, Would you have any problem if the Church published pictures like this? I would welcome it as well as a challenge from the Church to those who think Joseph Smith made the BOM up. That challenge would be to stick your face in a hat and dictate almost word for word entire chapters of Isaiah that match the KJV without looking at the KJV at all with no do overs. Joseph Smith did it. Hard to copy from the KJV when the face is planted in a hat. 2
Recommended Posts