Deseret News: "[Joseph Smith] read words of light in English from the seer stone"

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What point are you trying to make with this? I don't see anything substantive.

Are you saying Joseph invented the Urim and Thummim and stuck it in the scripture only because Phelps had suggested it? I think that's a pretty tenuous contention.

Yeah...it must have just been a coincidence that the terms hadn't been used prior to 1833 and before Phelp's article appearing.  (And of course Joseph didn't invent the terms.  I've not stated that nor do I believe that.)

Robert F. Smith also posted about this above:

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A major defect of this LDS Church essay is the repeated use of the phrase "Urim and Thummim," which is a major anachronism -- and still causes confusion today.  It is solely a biblical term which some of Joseph's associates began to use in the 1830s, long after translation of the Book of Mormon.  The term is never used in the BofM for the very good reason that it is inapplicable.

(I have the above quote saved in my computer files under "Urim and Thummim" with this link....but that link isn't working for me and I'll try to find another source if I can for the quote):

http://mormoncanon.com/articles/Urim-and-Thummim

Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

My problem with it is if Joseph read the words in English from the seer stone, they clearly Oliver Cowdery could do this when he was trying to translate.  But perhaps when Oliver tried it the words came up in French or Chinese so he could not translate.

I'll have to go back and check, but if memory serves, when Oliver attempted to translate, he did not use the Urim & Thummim or seer stone.  Maybe someone  else knows.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See my prior post, including the addition.

What point are you trying to make with this? I don't see anything substantive.

Are you saying Joseph invented the Urim and Thummim and stuck it in the scripture only because Phelps had suggested it? I think that's a pretty tenuous contention.

 

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yeah...it must have just been a coincidence that the terms hadn't been used prior to 1833 and before Phelp's article appearing.  (And of course Joseph didn't invent the terms.  I've not stated that nor do I believe that.)

 

 

You didn't answer the question.

Did Joseph stick it in the scripture only because of Phelps's speculation? is that your story.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, longview said:

But have you forgotten D&C 17:1?   The LORD Himself refers to the "interpreters" which He gave to the Brother of Jared as being the "Urim and Thummim" which was later given to Mosiah (I&II), to Moroni, to Joseph Smith (remember our previous discussion in 

?)  The "Urim and Thummim" was NOT merely limited to the use of Temple priests in OT times but by prophets and seers for gaining intelligence and insights (such as Abraham using the U&T to learn about the governing stars in the Universe).  There are/will be many kinds of U&T to be used for obtaining information.  U&T is FAR from being a "major anachronism."  Here are more illuminating scriptures:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. 8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. 9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.  10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;  11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

The problem is that D&C 17 originally said "interpreters" and not Urim and Thummim, and you are reading the much later edited version.  This only adds to the confusion, and you are a further victim of it.  Terminology should be restricted to original sources.  I myself have written a good deal on Urim & Thummim, but I am always careful to apply actual, original terminology to each source.  See http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64909-use-of-the-urim-and-thummim-in-masonic-tradition/ , and http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66040-church-now-teaching-stone-in-hat-translation/#comment-1209536671 .   You might also want to see my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10)” (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at https://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You didn't answer the question.

Did Joseph stick it in the scripture only because of Phelps's speculation? is that your story.

 

My story?  I haven't stated that.  I posted above what my recollection was just going from memory and then returned to post more.  I stated that I'm sure Joseph ok'd the change in the Book of Commandments.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here. 

Phelps speculated about the seer stone possibly being the Biblical Urim and Thummim in 1833.  After that it began being used interchangeably (causing confusion) for the seer stones.  The 1835 Book of Commandments had the words inserted.  That's it.

Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

My story?  I haven't stated that.  I posted above what my recollection was just going from memory and then returned to post more.  I stated that I'm sure Joseph ok'd the change in the Book of Commandments.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Why did Joseph OK it?

 

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Why did Joseph OK it?

 

I'm not sure he left a record of the reason it was inserted.  If you have something, I'd love to read it (sincerely).  (Read my addition above in my last quote...that's what I know regarding this.)

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem is that D&C 17 originally said "interpreters" and not Urim and Thummim, and you are reading the much later edited version.  This only adds to the confusion, and you are a further victim of it.  Terminology should be restricted to original sources.  I myself have written a good deal on Urim & Thummim, but I am always careful to apply actual, original terminology to each source.  See http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64909-use-of-the-urim-and-thummim-in-masonic-tradition/ , and http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66040-church-now-teaching-stone-in-hat-translation/#comment-1209536671 .   You might also want to see my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10)” (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at https://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .

Excellent post.  (And you state things better than I've been attempting to do!)

I'll read what you've linked to above as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure he left a record of the reason it was inserted.  If you have something, I'd love to read it (sincerely).  (Read my addition above in my last quote...that's what I know regarding this.)

I'm asking why you think he inserted it.

I've already expressed my view that a prophet, acting in his office and under inspiration, is entitled to make corrections and additions to scripture. It's my belief that's what happened here.

Do you have some reason to think otherwise?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

Any thoughts on the shape or source of that "shoe?" 

I can completely understand advancing on this topic with some caution as it seems such a big departure from anything else that has previously been proposed. 

In the absence of anything other than the language within the book, I'm not sure how this theory is going to be able to be taken any further. 

Yes, I agree. I just meant that we could accept that the 16C-isms are credible and anachronistic for an 18thC author (and therefore more supporting evidence for Joseph as translator, not author)... but at some point it would be nice if someone were able to offer a theory of why they're in the there at all. 

 

A new poster offered the theory earlier in the thread that God delegated the translation of the plates to a committee of spirit-translators (Tyndale, thanks... not Tinsdale, potentially among them). It seems such an "earthly" description of a translation process that I struggle to give it any credibility. God, being to busy to translate it, delegates it to a committee of translators who retain their mortal dialect while making the translation. 

 

The poster hasn't theorised when "Tyndale and co" had time to learn reformed Egyptian.

The 16th century human translators had no more reason to know Egyptian than did Joseph.  All they needed were their seerstones.  Did they have such?  Of course.  In fact, the Renaissance magus John Dee (1527-1608) possessed an Aztec obsidian mirror which was characterized as "The Devil's Looking Glass: The Magical Speculum of Dr. John Dee" (now in the British Museum).  Dee was chief astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm asking why you think he inserted it.

Unless he left a record, we can't know for sure why he added the terms. We can speculate, of course.   It did cause confusion (see the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith above regarding that).  

Do you believe the interpreters were the same Urim and Thummim that were spoken of in the Old Testament?

Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm asking why you think he inserted it.

I've already expressed my view that a prophet, acting in his office and under inspiration, is entitled to make corrections and additions to scripture. It's my belief that's what happened here.

Do you have some reason to think otherwise?

He certainly did have that right, and he freely exercised it.  For example, he immediately began editing what he regarded as ungrammatical or infelicitous phrases in the Book of Mormon, not knowing that they were not ungrammatical or wrong in Early Modern English (a language he did not know).  Others have continued to update the language of the Book of Mormon to this day.  Nothing wrong with that, and the Hebrew Bible itself is the product of such linguistic updating in ancient times.

That does not prevent confusion and misunderstanding in studying the original sources, as you can see on this board, and within this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Unless he left a record, we can't know for sure why he added the terms. We can speculate, of course.   It did cause confusion (see the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith above regarding that).  

Do you believe the interpreters were the same Urim and Thummim that were spoken of in the Old Testament?

Is there any reason why they would need to be?

 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there any reason why they would need to be?

Nope.  Just trying to clarify what you believe here.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope.  Just trying to clarify what you believe here.

Never really thought much about it. It's not very important to me. Should it be?

 

[ERMD]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

Apart from D&C 9 of course, where Joseph/the Lord give a very clear description of how the translation process happened. 

D&C 9 says nothing about the mechanics of translating.

[longview]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I believe that the words "Urim and Thummim" were not in the original Book of Commandments, but were added in the 1835 edition (after W.W. Phelps first used them in 1833, iirc).  I need to look this up again, but that's what I remember.

Interesting.  Maybe you and Robert and @Oliver_Cowdery can help me out.  I looked up an entry on pages 44-45 of "History of the Church Vol 1" which seems to be in Joseph Smith's personal journal as follows:  "Not many days afterwards, my brother Hyrum Smith came to us to inquire concerning these things, when at his earnest request, I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and received for him the following:"

This revelation is Section 11 given in May of 1829.  He used the term "U&T" because the Heavenly messengers used this term back in the beginning.  It was NOT some afterthought in 1835 or later.

Edited March 10, 2016 by longview

[Oliver_Cowdery]

14 hours ago, longview said:

Interesting.  Maybe you and Robert and @Oliver_Cowdery can help me out.  I looked up an entry on pages 44-45 of "History of the Church Vol 1" which seems to be in Joseph Smith's personal journal as follows:  "Not many days afterwards, my brother Hyrum Smith came to us to inquire concerning these things, when at his earnest request, I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and received for him the following:"

This revelation is Section 11 given in May of 1829.  He used the term "U&T" because the Heavenly messengers used this term back in the beginning.  It was NOT some afterthought in 1835 or later.

I can't track down any journal that would verify the use of the term "Urim and Thummim" before 1833.

That passage from the History of the Church was derived from this October 1839 Draft.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-june-october-1839-draft-1?tm=expanded&dm=image-only&zm=zoom-right&s=&sm=none&locale=eng&p=2

It uses the term "Urim and Thummim", but this document is from 1839. That is well after 1833.

Early Church histories were notorious for taking things written by someone else and recording them as if they were first person statements given by Joseph Smith.

As best as I can figure the term "Urim and Thummim" was retrofitted back into narrative after WW Phelp's observation.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

14 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

As best as I can figure the term "Urim and Thummim" was retrofitted back into narrative after WW Phelp's observation.

See FAIR for confirmation of this problem with the "History of the Church".

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Why_is_%27%27History_of_the_Church%27%27_written_in_first-person,_as_if_Joseph_Smith_himself_wrote_it%3F

Also see the last section on this wiki page

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Narcissism/Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I can't track down any journal that would verify the use of the term "Urim and Thummim" before 1833.

That passage from the History of the Church was derived from this October 1839 Draft.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-june-october-1839-draft-1?tm=expanded&dm=image-only&zm=zoom-right&s=&sm=none&locale=eng&p=2

It uses the term "Urim and Thummim", but this document is from 1839. That is well after 1833.

Early Church histories were notorious for taking things written by someone else and recording them as if they were first person statements given by Joseph Smith.

As best as I can figure the term "Urim and Thummim" was retrofitted back into narrative after WW Phelp's observation.

Correct.  I believe this history project by Joseph wasn't even started until 1838 (again, going from memory here).

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Never really thought much about it. It's not very important to me. Should it be?

If it's not a detail you care that much about, then it's most likely not a topic you are interested in researching.  That's a personal choice, of course. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

If it's not a detail you care that much about, then it's most likely not a topic you are interested in researching.  That's a personal choice, of course. 

I am interested only insofar as some critics might accuse the prophet of dishonesty or chicanery in making or approving alterations. My response, I repeat, is that a prophet, when acting in the authority of his office and under inspiration from God, is entitled to make whatever changes to scripture or written record of revelation as he deems necessary.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Oliver_Cowdery]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am interested only insofar as some critics might accuse the prophet of dishonesty or chicanery in making or approving alterations. My response, I repeat, is that a prophet, when acing in the authority of his office and under inspiration from God, is entitled to make whatever changes to scripture or written record of revelation as he deems necessary.

That seems like a fair position.  I also think that God's words should be changeable.  Seriously, I know this board gets snarky at times, but I held out hope for a long time prophets would be get new revelation from God and correcting to our scriptures as soon as problems were identified.

However, If one's understanding of church history is built on reading of the D&C those changes can lead to all sorts of difficulties. If we printed a change log in the scriptures we'd get the best of both worlds. We should be publishing and highlighting each change to the D&C. If God has actually reveled fixes for his words than that ought to be a really important things to get in front of the eyes of the members.  And the guys who uses the D&C as study of Church history would also benefit by seeing what the originally text said.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

That seems like a fair position.  I also think that God's words should be changeable.  Seriously, I know this board gets snarky at times, but I held out hope for a long time prophets would be get new revelation from God and correcting to our scriptures as soon as problems were identified.

However, If one's understanding of church history is built on reading of the D&C those changes can lead to all sorts of difficulties. If we printed a change log in the scriptures we'd get the best of both worlds. We should be publishing and highlighting each change to the D&C. If God has actually reveled fixes for his words than that ought to be a really important things to get in front of the eyes of the members.  And the guys who uses the D&C as study of Church history would also benefit by seeing what the originally text said.

True about the value to the study of Church history.

That said, when I have seen such change logs in the past, I have observed that in almost every instance, the changes have been of no great moment in terms of altering doctrinal understanding as opposed to clarifying or bolstering existing understanding.

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That said, when I have seen such change logs in the past, I have observed that in almost every instance, the changes have been of no great moment in terms of altering doctrinal understanding as opposed to clarifying or bolstering existing understanding.

 

I've previously read the D&C (and the manuals that go with them) dozens of times before I tried comparing each section against the earliest known version of the text.

In my study the below URL has been the most useful bookmark I've ever added to my bookmarks.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/correlation-of-current-doctrine-and-covenants-with-earliest-sources-on-the-joseph-smith-papers-website

The D&C isn't as tidy as it appears. I've had also heard the narrative that the changes to the D&C were all minor spelling and grammar fixes.  There are a number of spelling and grammar fixes.  However, the are some bigger changes as well. The history behind the those changes tells a story that most members are unfamiliar with.  In many cases large sections of text were added.

I think that the idea of a "Urim and Thummin" was more palatable than a seer stone for Bible reading Christians.  I think that is why Joseph adopted that terminology and discouraged talk of the seer stone.