The Church Publishes Image Of Joseph's Seer Stone

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I remember reading something like that before. Of course, having the 11 witnesses doesn't make a lot of sense if people had seen the plates previously.

They were 11 official witnesses, not 11 exclusive witnesses. Link.

[Scott Lloyd]

You should pass this insight along to Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, because in their forthcoming article they state the following regarding Del Parson's illustration, Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon:

 

"Unlike what is depicted here, Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished. Witnesses of the process reported that during the translation, the plates were shielded from view, such as by being covered with a linen cloth."

Not even this states that it can be concluded definitively that the plates were never out in the open; it only reports what some witnesses observed,  presumably on occasions when they were present.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mapman]

Was this stone given to Joseph by an angel (instead of returning the original interpreters after the 116 pages were lost)?  I had not heard this before, but here is a quote from the Meridian Magazine today on this topic:

In some interviews, David Whitmer claims that after Martin Harris lost the 116 pages of manuscript, Joseph did not receive the original Urim and Thummim but “was given by the angel a Urim of Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.”  The Richmond Democrat reported in January 1888, that after the manuscript debacle, Joseph Smith “was presented with a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg but more flat, which it was promised should answer the same purpose.”

 

- Cook, Lyndon W. David Whitmer Interviews, A Restoration Witness. Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1991, p. 108.

I'm not sure what to make of that quote since I think it is pretty well-established that Joseph Smith had this seer stone long before he lost the 116 pages. For example the 1826 court trial mentions that Joseph Smith had both a brown and a white stone. Mark Ashurst McGee in his dissertation Pathway to Prophethood argues that the brown seer stone was the one found in an iron kettle some distance from his home (230, 237). He probably believed it to have come from an ancient Indian seer. People have generally believed that the brown stone was found in a well that he dug for the Chase family, but Ashurst McGee argues that this was actually the white stone, Gazelem (247).

Edited August 5, 2015 by mapman

[ALarson]

You should pass this insight along to Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, because in their forthcoming article they state the following regarding Del Parson's illustration, Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon:

 

"Unlike what is depicted here, Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished. Witnesses of the process reported that during the translation, the plates were shielded from view, such as by being covered with a linen cloth."

Thanks Nevo.  This is what I've remembered too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks Nevo.  This is what I've remembered too.

See #202.

[jkwilliams]

They were 11 official witnesses, not 11 exclusive witnesses. Link.

 

I've only heard of one other "unofficial" witness, Mary Whitmer. 

[ALarson]

If you want to structure your understanding totally on fragmentary reports, that's up to you..

"Fragmentary reports" such as these eye witness statements?

 

From Emma:

Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.” 

 

(If the above is true, then the Book of Mormon we have today was translated entirely from the seer stone.)  

 

More from Emma:

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

 

 

From David Whitmer:

"By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it was promised should serve the same purpose as the missing urim and thummim. ... With this stone all the present Book of Mormon was translated."

 

 

From David Whitmer again:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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."

 

 

 

From Martin Harris:

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by martin, and when finished he would say 'written' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

 

 

Michael Morse (Emma's brother-in-law):

. "The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."

Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

You mentioned the placebo effect. Some people like to insert God and say that anything we can't explain can be attributed to God. Are you saying that because Joseph believed he could get divine communications through a stone and that because the dictation of the BoM was the result of Joseph's belief, that therefore this is evidence of God. We can't explain it, so we attribute it to God?

God is a word. The placebo effect is two words. It's up to us to interpret the data. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena of this world.

[mfbukowski]

You mentioned the placebo effect. Some people like to insert God and say that anything we can't explain can be attributed to God. Are you saying that because Joseph believed he could get divine communications through a stone and that because the dictation of the BoM was the result of Joseph's belief, that therefore this is evidence of God. We can't explain it, so we attribute it to God?

God is a word. The placebo effect is two words. It's up to us to interpret the data. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena of this world.

[hope_for_things]

I don't suppose you spend much time viewing folk-art creche exhibits. I'm thinking they would send you into apoplexy.

 

 

Thanks for proving my point.  Their is no historical evidence for the nativity story.  The Matthew and Luke accounts are very contradictory on multiple points, and there isn't any corroborating evidence outside of those two conflicting narratives.  It is likely a creative fabrication similar to the fabrications of the paintings drawn about Joseph and the plates.  

 

I find the nativity story telling much more acceptable, because the Christian world celebrates the birth of Jesus, and this story has endured and been embellished to its current telling over the past 2000 years.  However, we have no reliable evidence from 2000 years ago to give us any reason to believe these events were historical.  We also don't have an alternate version of this story to use. 

 

With Joseph and the plates, we HAVE historical evidence that the those paintings are fallacious, so why do we continue to perpetuate the erroneous representations when we have solid evidence otherwise?  This is the disconnect, and why I find intentionally misrepresenting the story to be disingenuous.  

[ALarson]

With Joseph and the plates, we HAVE historical evidence that the those paintings are fallacious, so why do we continue to perpetuate the erroneous representations when we have solid evidence otherwise?  This is the disconnect, and why I find intentionally misrepresenting the story to be disingenuous.  

I agree.

 

I provided eye witness statements above that all state Joseph used the seer stone and his hat.  Why not portray that correctly in the lesson materials and with the art on display in visitor's centers, etc.?  

 

At least the church is making progress about being more transparent, so maybe they'll correct these images and portrayals too in the future.  As far as I can tell, the current ones are just not accurate (especially for the method of translation after the 116 pages were lost).

[hope_for_things]

God is a word. The placebo effect is two words. It's up to us to interpret the data. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena of this world.

Are you saying that placebo effect is basically the same thing as God?  You’re a philosopher if I remember right, maybe because I’m a business man I just can’t comprehend what you’re saying.

 

I too agree there are things we can’t explain.  Isn’t it important to distinguish between someone being acted upon from an external force(God), and something going on inside someone’s head(placebo effect).  Or are those two things indistinguishable from your perspective?  

[hope_for_things]

I agree.

 

I provided eye witness statements above that all state Joseph used the seer stone and his hat.  Why not portray that correctly in the lesson materials and with the art on display in visitor's centers, etc.?  

 

At least the church is making progress about being more transparent, so maybe they'll correct these images and portrayals too in the future.  As far as I can tell, the current ones are just not accurate (especially for the method of translation after the 116 pages were lost).

 

Totally agree with you.  Why is the church so hesitant to just admit a mistake and correct it and move on.  This is frustrating to me.  They will publish this article in the Ensign, and then how long until this actually gets talked about in Sunday School at church?  Apparently there are small references to the stone dating back for 40-50 years, but that never made its way into the official narratives that we talk about, that missionaries use, etc.  Seems like the more accurate representations are neglected for the fairy tale versions because someone feels these versions are more faith promoting?  

[mapman]

Richard Bushman commented on the seer stone photo here at BCC:

 

Why then does the picture of a brown, striated stone trouble us? I think because it crosses a boundary we had held on to between religion and superstition. We have known about the gold plates and the angel and the Urim and Thummim long enough to assimilate them into respectable religion. Those are the ways of God. On the other side of the boundary are witchcraft and spells and taro cards. Those are silly superstitions that the benighted believe in. We want none of that.

The seerstone, sitting there like it had just been dug up, drags across the line into the realm of the superstitious. Do we really want to be part of a religion that dredges up objects and symbols from folk magic? In doing so we join a battle that has waged for four centuries or more between magic and religion. In the seventeenth century lots of religious people believed in seerstones and various kinds of magical apparatus. They were instruments for reaching the divine. In the eighteenth century all such things were discredited by the Enlightenment, and Protestants (more than Catholics) sloughed them off. That process began at the top of society and only worked its way down gradually. In Joseph Smith’s time ordinary people were divided. Many of his neighbors believed in seerstones; others ridiculed them. He made them part of his religion.

Seerstones don’t trouble me. I rather like them. They are part of Mormon materiality. They suggest there is a technology of revelation, somewhat resembling ipads, that assist us in getting divine intelligence. I don’t subscribe to Protestant stuffiness about proper ways for God to act and disreputable ones. I am willing to go along with the ways of God even if they are unconventional by enlightenment standards.

 

What we call "magic" was just religion. The move to more abstract spirituality came due to Enlightenment thinking and anti-Catholicism. If you read John Dee's writings you can see that he was trying to achieve union with God through physical means. The division between religion and magic is a relatively recent concept. Also, Harry Potter magic was never thought to be real. In real life, people thought of themselves as channeling the power of God, angels, or spirits with specific rituals. It's not that much different than laying on hands to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost, for example.

 

God told Joseph Smith to stop seeking out wealth, but he never condemned the seer stones of the treasure seekers. Joseph Smith just turned to use it to look for heavenly treasure instead of earthly treasure (by the way, I don't believe that the seer stone would have ever worked to find money). I don't think that there is anything wrong with seer stones, but I also believe that they are unnecessary. Having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is sufficient for receiving the revelation that we need. I imagine that after he was baptized and the Holy Ghost descended upon him, Joseph Smith began to realize that he didn't actually need to depend on the seer stone.

Edited August 5, 2015 by mapman

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Perhaps, this is the LDS Church openly embracing it's mystical past? I'd be all for that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I've only heard of one other "unofficial" witness, Mary Whitmer.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

The point being that it cannot be definitively claimed that the 11 were the only ones to have seen and/or handled the plates besides Joseph.

[pogi]

I think the stone and hat were classic misdirection, and the KJV passages suggest a Bible was used, so no, I don't rely on the witnesses. 

 

Misdirection? really?  Was Oliver's enduring testimony part of the scheme as well, despite his emotionally painful estrangement from Joseph and the church, and despite his feeling of being wronged?

 

After accusing Joseph Smith of adultery and contending with Joseph over the economic and political program of the church, Oliver was estranged from the prophet.  In the 10 years after leaving the church and working as a lawyer, despite being ridiculed and tarnished in newspapers and pressured by friends to recount his testimony, he never did.  Oliver Cowdery's had nothing to lose and everything to gain by recounting his testimony after resigning from the church.  There was no monetary motivation or aspirations to power for such a fraud.  Cowdrey insisted that the truth of modern revelation was not the issue in leaving the church: "Take no view of the foregoing remarks, other than my belief on the outward government of this Church"

 

What motivation would Oliver have to return if he did not believe?  His conscience brought him back.  Who would return to a fraudulent church that demanded 10% of your income and hours of service for a fraudulent cause?  Wouldn't he have better things to do? There could be no other reason for his return as he did not seek office.  Oliver was a God fearing man and believer through and through.

 

Just before rejoining the Church, he penned his inner hopes to fellow witness David Whitmer: "Let the Lord vindicate our characters, and cause our testimony to shine, and then will men be saved in his kingdom" (Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, July 28, 1847, Ensign of Liberty, 1:92).  That doesn't sound like the words of a scheming man involved in "classic misdirection."  Private letters to other schemers, would not read like this!

Edited August 5, 2015 by pogi

[ALarson]

I'm not sure what to make of that quote since I think it is pretty well-established that Joseph Smith had this seer stone long before he lost the 116 pages. For example the 1826 court trial mentions that Joseph Smith had both a brown and a white stone. Mark Ashurst McGee in his dissertation Pathway to Prophethood argues that the brown seer stone was the one found in an iron kettle some distance from his home (230, 237). He probably believed it to have come from an ancient Indian seer. People have generally believed that the brown stone was found in a well that he dug for the Chase family, but Ashurst McGee argues that this was actually the white stone, Gazelem (247).

That's what I've found in my research on this too.  And that this same stone was used in Joseph's treasure seeking (or at least one similar to this one).

 

I hadn't read that Joseph received this brown seer stone from an angel prior to today.

[Scott Lloyd]

Totally agree with you. Why is the church so hesitant to just admit a mistake and correct it and move on. This is frustrating to me. They will publish this article in the Ensign, and then how long until this actually gets talked about in Sunday School at church? Apparently there are small references to the stone dating back for 40-50 years, but that never made its way into the official narratives that we talk about, that missionaries use, etc. Seems like the more accurate representations are neglected for the fairy tale versions because someone feels these versions are more faith promoting?

The article was mentioned yesterday before a crowd of newspaper reporters and bloggers. Richard Turley himself spoke about the seer stone and artistic depiction in interviews. I myself linked to the Ensign piece in a news story I wrote for the Church News.

I have the impression nothing will satisfy you, not even having it talked about in Sunday School.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

 

Misdirection? really?  Was Oliver's enduring testimony part of the scheme as well, despite his emotionally painful estrangement from Joseph and the church, and despite his feeling of being wronged?

 

After accusing Joseph Smith of adultery and contending with Joseph over the economic and political program of the church, Oliver was estranged from the prophet.  In the 10 years after leaving the church and working as a lawyer, despite being ridiculed and tarnished in newspapers and pressured by friends to recount his testimony, he never did.  Oliver Cowdery's had nothing to lose and everything to gain by recounting his testimony after resigning from the church.  There was no monetary motivation or aspirations to power for such a fraud.  Cowdrey insisted that the truth of modern revelation was not the issue in leaving the church: "Take no view of the foregoing remarks, other than my belief on the outward government of this Church"

 

What motivation would Oliver have to return if he did not believe?  His conscience brought him back.  Who would return to a fraudulent church that demanded 10% of your income and hours of service for a fraudulent cause?  Wouldn't he have better things to do? There could be no other reason for his return as he did not seek office.  Oliver was a God fearing man and believer through and through.

 

Just before rejoining the Church, he penned his inner hopes to fellow witness David Whitmer: "Let the Lord vindicate our characters, and cause our testimony to shine, and then will men be saved in his kingdom" (Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, July 28, 1847, Ensign of Liberty, 1:92).  That doesn't sound like the words of a scheming man involved in "classic misdirection."  Private letters to other schemers, would not read like this!

 

 

I generally don't have an opinion on what motivates other people. 

[ALarson]

The article was mentioned yesterday before a crowd of newspaper reporters and bloggers. Richard Turley himself spoke about the seer stone and artistic depiction in interviews. I myself linked to the Ensign piece in a news story I wrote for the Church News.

I have the impression nothing will satisfy you, not even having it talked about in Sunday School.

What illustrations were used in the article?  Were there any that depicted Joseph translating with his head in his hat and using the seer stone (the subject of this news conference)?

 

(I'll look at the article again too.)

Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

I generally don't have an opinion on what motivates other people.

Without suggesting a credible motive, your accusation of fraud seems vacuous

[Scott Lloyd]

What illustrations were used in the article? Were there any that depicted Joseph translating with his head in his hat and using the seer stone (the subject of this news conference)?

(I'll look at the article again too.)

The matter was clearly discussed in the text. Are you seriously saying you ignore the words and only look at pictures?

By the way, "the" subject of this news conference was publication of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon, a very momentous event. The seer stone was secondary to that, and only a matter of discussion because of the photos published in this latest Joseph Smith Papers release.

I think it a shame that the real topic of the news conference is getting overshadowed by this sensationalistic, National Enquirer style focus on the seer stone.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

The matter was clearly discussed in the text. Are you seriously saying you ignore the words and only look at pictures?

Never said that.  But are seriously saying that the illustrations included in the article are honest and accurate depictions of how Joseph used the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?  Have you even read the numerous eye witness statements?

Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

The October 2015 Ensign will include this:

 

 

Awesome.

I guess this makes it official...The LDS church believes as one of its a core doctrines that "Magic Rocks" exist