Why Use A Seer Stone?

[cinepro]

Actually, on a different thread, I showed that the seerstone was a basic part of the translation process. There were articles about it in the ensign. So, it was not erased. And we do know that the witnesses to the book of mormon certainly believed in seer stones. A couple of them even attempted to use it. They failed. And I don't believe that people were laughing at it during joseph's time. And the stone was saved by the church and I am also sure that joseph showed the stone to quite a few people. Nothing to be ashamed of. Such was the time in which he lived.

 

Why do you continue to use the church hid its usage? Or attempted to erase it? Should I go back to the other thread and link where it was mentioned in the ensign? I do believe that critics need to be honest and stop attempting to mislead people as you have just done.

 

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

 

I see no erasure in this link. Now will this force you to change your MO? Maybe not. You will again repeat the erasure part. I have more links from the ensign.

 

Here is the seer stome and the head in the hat:

 

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

 

My point has been simple. The church at some time stopped relating it in its periodicals. And it was a mistake. But now they are catching up with lost time.

 

I certainly acknowledge that the seer stone has been mentioned in official Church publications at least a few times over the past century.  But as a counterpoint, I would suggest looking at the CES manual "Church History in the Fulness of Times"

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual?lang=eng

 

This is a college-level survey of LDS Church history.  There are entire chapters devoted to the period of 1823-1829 and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  This book was fist published in 1989.  Yet I can't find a single mention of the seer stone.

There is this summary of Joseph Smith's adventure with Josiah Stowell.  But Joseph's role is somewhat...diminished.  

 

And the subsequent trial isn't mentioned at all.

 

 

 

Following Alvin’s death the Smiths experienced economic difficulties. Joseph and his brothers hired out by the day at whatever work was available. Treasure hunting, or “money-digging” as it was then called, was a craze in the United States at this time. In October 1825, Josiah Stowell, from South Bainbridge, New York, a farmer, lumber mill owner, and deacon in the Presbyterian church, came to ask Joseph to help him in such a venture. Stowell had relatives in Palmyra and probably heard of Joseph from them. Stowell was looking for a legendary lost silver mine that was thought to have been opened by Spaniards in northern Pennsylvania. Stowell had heard that Joseph was able to discern invisible things and desired his assistance in the project. The Prophet was reluctant, but Stowell persisted, and since Joseph’s family was in need, he and his father together with other neighbors agreed to go. It was a decision that would have great importance to Joseph’s life and the future of the Church.

====================================================================

 

Since the time of this episode Joseph’s detractors have used what they call his “money digging” to attack his character, to question his motives, and to cast doubt upon the validity of the church he organized. The circumstances are best understood in the context of their time and place. In New England and western New York, such activities were not frowned upon the way they came to be later. Years later, Joseph candidly acknowledged his participation in the venture but pointed out that it was insignificant.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32502_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

Ahh, poor Joseph, the reluctant day-worker who got caught up in the national craze of treasure-digging!  

Edited August 10, 2015 by cinepro

[why me]

I certainly acknowledge that the seer stone has been mentioned in official Church publications at least a few times over the past century.  But as a counterpoint, I would suggest looking at the CES manual "Church History in the Fulness of Times"

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual?lang=eng

 

This is a college-level survey of LDS Church history.  There are entire chapters devoted to the period of 1823-1829 and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  This book was fist published in 1989.  Yet I can't find a single mention of the seer stone.

There is this summary of Joseph Smith's adventure with Josiah Stowell.  But Joseph's role is somewhat...diminished.  

 

And the subsequent trial isn't mentioned at all.

 

 

 

 

Ahh, poor Joseph, the reluctant day-worker who got caught up in the national craze of treasure-digging!  

And yet, we have the seminary manual referring to the urim and thummin as a translation process. But there are no details what these are. I do believe that it is up to the teacher to relate this to the students:

 

“After I had obtained the above revelation [D&C 3], both the plates and the Urim and Thummim were taken from me again; but in a few days they were returned to me, when I inquired of the Lord, and the Lord said thus unto me: [D&C 10].

“I did not, however, go immediately to translating, but went to laboring with my hands upon a small farm which I had purchased of my wife’s father, in order to provide for my family. In the month of February, 1829, my father came to visit us, at which time I received the following revelation for him: [D&C 4].” (History of the Church, 1:23, 28.)

 

What was the urim and thummin? And these are joseph's words. And if I remember correctly, Joseph was a teenager at the time of the treasure digging. And the business was a family business...treasure digging which was not so uncommon in his day and age. I  do believe that his neighbor was also involved in such a business. But how old was Joseph as he tried to support his mom and dad with treasure digging?

Edited August 10, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Here is Bushman's take on it:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2814998-155/trib-talk-mormon-scholar-richard-bushman

 

Interesting. It would have been nice to start a thread about this video but I can't start threads because of my limited status. But maybe someone can do this for me since I think that it would make an interesting conversation. He was wrong however in the beginning. As I have showed, the seer stone was in the ensign in the past. I think that he misspoke in the beginning.

Edited August 10, 2015 by why me

[CA Steve]

And yet, we have the seminary manual referring to the urim and thummin as a translation process. But there are no details what these are. I do believe that it is up to the teacher to relate this to the students:

 

“After I had obtained the above revelation [D&C 3], both the plates and the Urim and Thummim were taken from me again; but in a few days they were returned to me, when I inquired of the Lord, and the Lord said thus unto me: [D&C 10].

“I did not, however, go immediately to translating, but went to laboring with my hands upon a small farm which I had purchased of my wife’s father, in order to provide for my family. In the month of February, 1829, my father came to visit us, at which time I received the following revelation for him: [D&C 4].” (History of the Church, 1:23, 28.)

 

What was the urim and thummin? And these are joseph's words. And if I remember correctly, Joseph was a teenager at the time of the treasure digging. And the business was a family business...treasure digging which was not so uncommon in his day and age. I  do believe that his neighbor was also involved in such a business. But how old was Joseph as he tried to support his mom and dad with treasure digging?

Your arguments would make more sense if you took the time to differentiate between the U&T which Joseph received at the same time he got the plates and then later lost due to loosing the 116 pages and the other stones he used to translate and find treasure. As it is, you and your references constantly conflate those same items and it is not clear what you are even trying to say.

[why me]

Your arguments would make more sense if you took the time to differentiate between the U&T which Joseph received at the same time he got the plates and then later lost due to loosing the 116 pages and the other stones he used to translate and find treasure. As it is, you and your references constantly conflate those same items and it is not clear what you are even trying to say.

Actually no. I put two links from the ensign that refers to seer stones. But for some reason, even bushman has forgotten that the  ensign has mentioned it in the past. And these articles were written by GAs. Now I do admit that the manual should have the seer stone. But as bushman stated in the interview, Joseph never mentioned them as a translating process. He seems to only have mentioned the urim and thummin. But I could be wrong on this. Maybe the church did not want to teach about them because it only comes from second parties. Much better to have it from the horses mouth.

Edited August 10, 2015 by why me

[HappyJackWagon]

We need to remember that time frame of the seer stone. It was used because for those present it was believeable. It cemented their faith. Likewise for the head in the hat when using the stone. It showed the people present that the process was real and not faked. Many people believed in such things as they did with treasure hunting. I can no better way to speak faith than by using a seer stone.

 

It would not fly today because people have moved beyond such things and it would not be believeable.

I asked you on that other thread the same question 3 times and you never answered. I'll give you another shot.

 

You stated that you have long known about the hat/stone method of translation. My question is this... Since you knew the true method of translation, did you teach it on your mission, in sunday school classes or family home evening, or did you teach the traditional, false narrative? I'm assuming that everyone who claims they've always known about this method taught this method so I'm curious how it was received at church. If you didn't teach the true method, why not?

[Bobbieaware]

Endlessly haggling over the method of Book of Mormon translation rather than discussing it's miraculous, inspiring and holy contents. Comgratulations to all!

[JAHS]

As I have said on one of the other half dozen threads about this, Joseph did not have a "peep stone", he had a "seer stone". However, his seer stone was still nothing more than a rock that he happen to find in the ground, but which God decided to allow Joseph to use as a means to help him effect translation, so long as he had faith that he could use it as such.   During his work on his Bible translation, Smith told Orson Pratt he had stopped using the stone because he had become acquainted with "the Spirit of Prophecy and Revelation" and no longer needed it. (Millennial Star 36 [1874]:498–99.).  It wasn't the stone, it was joseph Smith's faith and spirit of prophecy and revelation that made it posssible for him to translate. He could have done it all without the stone from the beginning, but God knows our mortal minds sometimes need something tangible that we can hold on to, to help spark the faith in our ability to call on the powers of God to receive revelation.

Edited August 11, 2015 by JAHS

[KevinG]

As I have said on one of the other half dozen threads about this, Joseph did not have a "peep stone", he had a "seer stone". However, his seer stone was still nothing more than a rock that he happen to find in the ground, but which God decided to allow Joseph to use as a means to help him effect translation, so long as he had faith that he could use it as such.   During his work on his Bible translation, Smith told Orson Pratt he had stopped using the stone because he had become acquainted with "the Spirit of Prophecy and Revelation" and no longer needed it. (Millennial Star 36 [1874]:498–99.).  It wasn't the stone, it was joseph Smith's faith and spirit of prophecy and revelation that made it posssible for him to translate. He could have done it all without the stone from the beginning, but God knows our mortal minds sometimes need something tangible that we can hold on to, to help spark the faith in our ability to call on the powers of God to receive revelation.

 

Thank you I was looking for that quote.  It says a lot about the relative importance of the artifacts used versus the process of revelation.  A more parsimonious interpretation than "the church lied to me" would be that the brethren guiding the church publications felt the stone in the hat, while part of our history, was more of a distraction from the important subject of revelation, than it was a help to students understanding.  It was never denied, it was not emphasized.  Interpreting that as intent to deceive sounds pretty cynical to me.

[CA Steve]

Actually no. I put two links from the ensign that refers to seer stones. But for some reason, even bushman has forgotten that the  ensign has mentioned it in the past. And these articles were written by GAs. Now I do admit that the manual should have the seer stone. But as bushman stated in the interview, Joseph never mentioned them as a translating process. He seems to only have mentioned the urim and thummin. But I could be wrong on this. Maybe the church did not want to teach about them because it only comes from second parties. Much better to have it from the horses mouth.

Right back to conflating them.

 

Even in your post above, I cannot tell when you are referring to the stones Joseph retrieved from the stone box and the one he used for treasure hunting or the bulk of the Book of Mormon transcription. You do realize that the term Urim and Thummin refers to multiple devices/stones, right?

[ttribe]

Endlessly haggling over the method of Book of Mormon translation rather than discussing it's miraculous, inspiring and holy contents. Comgratulations to all!

 

Are you being forced to participate?

[HappyJackWagon]

Endlessly haggling over the method of Book of Mormon translation rather than discussing it's miraculous, inspiring and holy contents. Comgratulations to all!

Details about the Restoration and the truth claims of the church matter. Some details matter more to me than you but I suspect you too have your limit about which details can be altered and then mistaught.

 

For example, WHAT IF the church came out with an essay saying that Joseph didn't have a vision/visitation where he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, he had a dream/vision where he saw angels. The message was the same. Would you be fine with the church taking the approach of saying, Joseph was inspired by the power of God even though the details of the First Vision didn't happen the way we've been teaching. And by the way, we've known for decades but didn't know how to break it to you. Would you be okay with that?

 

My only point is that details matter. Honesty matters. Every time the church is less than honest trust erodes.

[Brian 2.0]

You all remind me of when people were endlessly haggling over if Rob and Fab actually sung the vocals for Milli Vanilli or not, rather than discussing the euphoric way you felt while watching Rob and Fab on stage a the concert.  Kudos!

 

[Bobbieaware]

Details about the Restoration and the truth claims of the church matter. Some details matter more to me than you but I suspect you too have your limit about which details can be altered and then mistaught.

 

For example, WHAT IF the church came out with an essay saying that Joseph didn't have a vision/visitation where he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, he had a dream/vision where he saw angels. The message was the same. Would you be fine with the church taking the approach of saying, Joseph was inspired by the power of God even though the details of the First Vision didn't happen the way we've been teaching. And by the way, we've known for decades but didn't know how to break it to you. Would you be okay with that?

 

My only point is that details matter. Honesty matters. Every time the church is less than honest trust erodes.

Here's what I'm finding difficult to understand: Why is it that critical and/or skeptical Church members -- who are very well aware of the fact that the scriptures repeatedly indicate the only way the things of God can be discerned, understood and confirmed is through the revelations of the Spirit of God -- somehow expect that the things of God should to be revealed and confirmed in some other way? I'm wondering if it has ever even dawned on the skeptics that God has deliberately allowed the history of the Church to unfold in the somewhat murky way it has as a trial of faith, to see who will learn to trust in the voice of the Spirit and who will fail that test of faith by learning to trust more in the arm of flesh?

In the days of the Savior, it was much easier and much more reasonable for someone to believe the Lord was born as a consequence of an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman centurion surnamed Panthera (that was the rumor) than it was to believe Mary was the one and only woman in the history of the world who gave birth to the Son of God. If I could travel back in time, I bet I could find snickering thousands who guffawed and mocked when the Christian missionaries bore witness that the Lord was born of a virgin. And from the point of view of the skeptics, who can blame the ancient naysayers? After all, the story was absolutely preposterous. So preposterous, in fact, that the ancient hearers could walk away from the whole "Christianity thing" with absolute confidence it was nothing but a load of fanciful hogwash. But the reality was that while they confidently walked away from the "gullible" Christian missionaries they deprived themselves access to God's divine light and the peace of conscience they might otherwise have obtained through a remission of sins.

In our day, though the process seems equally preposterous to those who trust in the arm of flesh, when one has followed through on Moroni's challenge, and by means of a sincere heart, real intent and living faith in Christ gained a sure witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, all doubt and controversy come to an end and the heart is anchored in peace. Meanwhile, until the skeptics are finally able to gain a sure witness through the Spirit, there will be an endless series of issues that will cause them to continually doubt, complain and waver.

My suggestion to the skeptics: Why not try to develop a deferential attitude and admit to yourselves there just may be a possibility, no matter how remote that possibility may seem, that Moroni's challenge is a real promise from God that some have been able to realize while, as yet, for various reasons others have not. By simply admitting the possibility Moroni's challenge might actually be a genuine promise from God, much of the frustration and angst the skeptics feel could be allayed.

An interesting question for you: If the angel Moroni appeared to you and testified that the Book of Mormon is true and accurately translated, would you continue to have doubts and continue to spar with TBMs on this board?

[SmileyMcGee]

Endlessly haggling over the method of Book of Mormon translation rather than discussing it's miraculous, inspiring and holy contents. Comgratulations to all!

I personally find church history more fascinating than the contents of the BOM, so this thread is intriguing. Also, I find church and american history make the contents of the BOM more interesting. If you don't approve then ignore the thread. No need for your condescending opinions.

Edited August 12, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Bobbieaware]

I personally find church history more fascinating than the contents of the BOM, so this thread is intriguing. Also, I find church and american history make the contents of the BOM more interesting. If you don't approve then ignore the thread. No need for your condescending opinions.

You have me wondering if a greater fascination with the more contentious issues of LDS Church history rather than with the contents of the Book of Mormon is a common thread among most doubters and skeptics?

"Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it." (Ezra Taft Benson)

Edited August 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Maedros]

Is there any teaching anywhere that explains how a seer stone aids in the revelatory process? How and/or why would it be better than God just speaking to one's mind? It seems seer stones were once all the rage but now superfluous to the revelatory process...

We don't actually know that they are now superfluous, we assume that the prophets don't use them but we actually don't know everything about the inner workings of the temple and the prophetic process because it is so sacred. It is unlikely that the prophets will testify to the ministration of angels or a visit from the Saviour so it is likely seer stones still form part of the revelatory process, why wouldn't it? If a new record is to come forth, how will it be translated, likely in the same way that it always has been from the days of Enoch, the first scribe. A seer stone seems like such a simple thing in this day and age but that is exactly how the Lord works - the simple things confound the wise; but beside that I think that it is an absolute requirement for translation, perhaps not for revelation.

[SmileyMcGee]

You have me wondering if a greater fascination with the more contentious issues of LDS Church history rather than with the contents of the Book of Mormon is a common thread among most doubters and skeptics?

"Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it." (Ezra Taft Benson)

Well, I don't find any historical issue to be contentious since I don't feel threatened by inquiry and skepticism. i guess I don't understand why you feel a need to view skepticism as an attack.

[HappyJackWagon]

Here's what I'm finding difficult to understand: Why is it that critical and/or skeptical Church members -- who are very well aware of the fact that the scriptures repeatedly indicate the only way the things of God can be discerned, understood and confirmed is through the revelations of the Spirit of God -- somehow expect that the things of God should to be revealed and confirmed in some other way? I'm wondering if it has ever even dawned on the skeptics that God has deliberately allowed the history of the Church to unfold in the somewhat murky way it has as a trial of faith, to see who will learn to trust in the voice of the Spirit and who will fail that test of faith by learning to trust more in the arm of flesh?

...

 

My suggestion to the skeptics: Why not try to develop a deferential attitude and admit to yourselves there just may be a possibility, no matter how remote that possibility may seem, that Moroni's challenge is a real promise from God that some have been able to realize while, as yet, for various reasons others have not. By simply admitting the possibility Moroni's challenge might actually be a genuine promise from God, much of the frustration and angst the skeptics feel could be allayed.

An interesting question for you: If the angel Moroni appeared to you and testified that the Book of Mormon is true and accurately translated, would you continue to have doubts and continue to spar with TBMs on this board?

Many times we recognize the spirit through the emotions we feel or a thought that comes into our mind. Sometimes those emotions and thoughts are influenced by trust and deference to the authority teaching it to us. But what if I have an emotional experience I recognize as the spirit, but it is based on something that is untrue?

 

For example, when I was taught about the miraculous way the book of mormon came forth with a U&T that was included in the stone box with the plates, and taught about how JS used those in the translation and what a miracle it was and then realize that the spiritual witness I had was based on incorrect facts, it causes me to question whether it was a spiritual experience or simply an emotional reaction to a good story and an abiding trust for the person telling it.

 

Recognizing the difference between spiritual promptings and our own thoughts is a real struggle. There's another thread going right now on that topic. We can watch videos of people from various faiths bearing fervent testimony based on spiritual witness that their church is true. Are they all lying, or are they misinterpreting the spirit, or are they all right? Basing knowledge only on experiences we interpret to be the spirit can be confusing at best and inconsistent or misleading at worst.

 

Answer to question- If an angel told me it was true and explained what it means for it to be true (true doctrines and concepts, historicity) then I'd believe it. Somehow I don't think that will happen since I can't even get a spiritual confirmation from praying about it. Moroni's promise doesn't always work.

[Bernard Gui]

from the Temple Institute essay on the Urim and Thummim:

"The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question.

"Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

"Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

[ALarson]

from the Temple Institute essay on the Urim and Thummim:

"The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question.

"Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

"Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

Those are interesting quotes, thanks for posting them.  I think the topic and study of the Urim and Thummim history is fascinating.

 

I have a sincere question for you.  Do you believe Joseph's seer stone (that he used in his hat) was actually a Urim and Thummim?  If so, was it also a Urim and Thummim when he used this same stone for treasure seeking?

Edited August 12, 2015 by ALarson

[SmileyMcGee]

We don't actually know that they are now superfluous, we assume that the prophets don't use them but we actually don't know everything about the inner workings of the temple and the prophetic process because it is so sacred. It is unlikely that the prophets will testify to the ministration of angels or a visit from the Saviour so it is likely seer stones still form part of the revelatory process, why wouldn't it? If a new record is to come forth, how will it be translated, likely in the same way that it always has been from the days of Enoch, the first scribe. A seer stone seems like such a simple thing in this day and age but that is exactly how the Lord works - the simple things confound the wise; but beside that I think that it is an absolute requirement for translation, perhaps not for revelation.

But that's my point. Prior to the press release seer stones were hardly, if ever, discussed in an official context. And we know nothing of why God ordains their use from time to time. We only know that early leaders used them because they say they were helpful.