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

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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 haven't claimed that the changes "were all minor spelling and grammar fixes," nor do I believe that. My position is as I have stated it: that a prophet acting in the authority of his office and calling and under inspiration from God, can make whatever changes to scripture He deems necessary.

Quote

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. 

This strikes me as pure conjecture.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven't claimed that the changes "were all minor spelling and grammar fixes," nor do I believe that. My position is as I have stated it: that a prophet acting in the authority of his office and calling and under inspiration from God, can make whatever changes to scripture He deems necessary.

This strikes me as pure conjecture.

Sure there is some amount of conjecture.  I don't know that I wouldn't call it pure conjecture.  Certainly a lot less conjecture than the lesson manuals we've been using over the past few decades.

Here is what I base my thoughts on:

We know of no use of the term "Urim and Thummim" prior to 1833.

We know that after 1833 that terms start appearing in the recorded history.

We know that older revelations were amended. This was possibly by God's divine command. But isn't that a really big conjecture?

As Joseph left his home town he encounter more and more people who objected to seer stones and folk magic. It was a sketchy business to be in.

We know that Joseph Smith was uncomfortable when one of the three witnesses started talking about the seer stone. 

We know that WW Phelps publicly made an observations about this thing he read about in the bible called a "Urim and Thummim".

 

As taken together I see a good case to be made that Joseph adopted the term "Urim and Thummim" because the idea of seer stones was weird and problematic to many people.  And we continued that tradition of talking about the "Urim and Thummim" and staying silent on seer stones even through correlation.  

[Mars]

does that change the divinity of the source for you, oliver_cowdery?  do you feel that the terminology change would indicate a charlatan who is making up the story as he goes, or someone who is trying to remove barriers for belief in the greater claim; that the Book of Mormon is part of the restoration and an essential part of the teachings that bring salvation?

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Sure there is some amount of conjecture.  I don't know that I wouldn't call it pure conjecture.  Certainly a lot less conjecture than the lesson manuals we've been using over the past few decades.

Here is what I base my thoughts on:

We know of no use of the term "Urim and Thummim" prior to 1833.

We know that after 1833 that terms start appearing in the recorded history.

We know that older revelations were amended. This was possibly by God's divine command. But isn't that a really big conjecture?

As Joseph left his home town he encounter more and more people who objected to seer stones and folk magic. It was a sketchy business to be in.

We know that Joseph Smith was uncomfortable when one of the three witnesses started talking about the seer stone. 

We know that WW Phelps publicly made an observations about this thing he read about in the bible called a "Urim and Thummim".

 

As taken together I see a good case to be made that Joseph adopted the term "Urim and Thummim" because the idea of seer stones was weird and problematic to many people.  And we continued that tradition of talking about the "Urim and Thummim" and staying silent on seer stones even through correlation.  

You call it "a good case." I call it post hoc propter hoc.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Sure there is some amount of conjecture.  I don't know that I wouldn't call it pure conjecture.  Certainly a lot less conjecture than the lesson manuals we've been using over the past few decades.

Here is what I base my thoughts on:

We know of no use of the term "Urim and Thummim" prior to 1833.

We know that after 1833 that terms start appearing in the recorded history.

We know that older revelations were amended. This was possibly by God's divine command. But isn't that a really big conjecture?

As Joseph left his home town he encounter more and more people who objected to seer stones and folk magic. It was a sketchy business to be in.

We know that Joseph Smith was uncomfortable when one of the three witnesses started talking about the seer stone. 

We know that WW Phelps publicly made an observations about this thing he read about in the bible called a "Urim and Thummim".

 

As taken together I see a good case to be made that Joseph adopted the term "Urim and Thummim" because the idea of seer stones was weird and problematic to many people.  And we continued that tradition of talking about the "Urim and Thummim" and staying silent on seer stones even through correlation.  

I agree.  We know these were not the Israelite Urim & Thummim and it seems that Joseph's seer stone(s)  (from his youth) apparently became known as a Urim & Thummim after Phelp's speculation in 1833.  I do believe that Joseph's treasure hunting days that were associated with the same stone was problematic and still is for some.  

It caused confusion as shown by Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that I posted earlier.  Here's his quote:

Quote

'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 March 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/9/2016 at 4:04 PM, canard78 said:

On the other hand, the interpolation could also have been done "as a man."

True enough, but Prof. Richard Bushman once told a crowd at UVU that. as a stake patriarch, he regularly gave blessings in his home and typed them up himself and mailed them to the recipients.  During that final typing he sometimes found it necessary to make a small change here or there based on the inspiration he had felt when initially receiving the blessing.  It was just that, at that initial time, he had not quite been able to find the truly correct wording.  During the typing he was able to improve it.  Joseph Smith was both man and prophet.  He could bring his human or prophetic powers to bear at any time.  He used to say that a prophet was only a prophet when acting as such.

Just so, the Bible has many parallel but variant passages.  Who is to say which of those parallel passages is the more correct?

Edited March 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Oliver_Cowdery]

3 hours ago, Mars said:

does that change the divinity of the source for you, oliver_cowdery?  do you feel that the terminology change would indicate a charlatan who is making up the story as he goes, or someone who is trying to remove barriers for belief in the greater claim; that the Book of Mormon is part of the restoration and an essential part of the teachings that bring salvation?

I don't see it as any type of smoking gun one way or the other. I am just curious what happened.  

[canard78]

On 10 March 2016 at 1:21 AM, ERMD said:

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

Sections 6 and 9 describe Oliver getting permission to attempt translation followed with an explanation of why he failed and how he should have gone about doing it to have been successful. 

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng

[Mars]

11 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I don't see it as any type of smoking gun one way or the other. I am just curious what happened.  

fair enough.

i sometimes find myself having to explain very technical things to non-technical people.  very often i need them to understand how something works without so much worrying about the exact details.  the general inputs and outputs are what's important, not what the internals are.  it's common for me to compromise on not fully correct understanding when the benefit is that the person in front of me gets the big picture.

as such, it makes sense to me that in order for someone to understand and furthermore, accept as valid, the translation method without having any experience doing it, nor familiarity with seer stones or peep stones, that joseph smith would employ terminology like 'urim and thummim.' 

"i used this rock used as an instrument of revelation!"

"that sounds like the occult!"

"oh, ok...  well, remember 1 Sam 14:41-42?"

"yes."

"i used a urim and thummim, like in 1 Sam 14:41-42"

"that works!"

(PS - the division into halves to identify which group has the sinner, and then dividing again in half until you find the sinner is a binary search!  hooray for algorithms in the OT!!!)

[ALarson]

51 minutes ago, Mars said:

fair enough.

i sometimes find myself having to explain very technical things to non-technical people.  very often i need them to understand how something works without so much worrying about the exact details.  the general inputs and outputs are what's important, not what the internals are.  it's common for me to compromise on not fully correct understanding when the benefit is that the person in front of me gets the big picture.

as such, it makes sense to me that in order for someone to understand and furthermore, accept as valid, the translation method without having any experience doing it, nor familiarity with seer stones or peep stones, that joseph smith would employ terminology like 'urim and thummim.' 

"i used this rock used as an instrument of revelation!"

"that sounds like the occult!"

"oh, ok...  well, remember 1 Sam 14:41-42?"

"yes."

"i used a urim and thummim, like in 1 Sam 14:41-42"

"that works!"

(PS - the division into halves to identify which group has the sinner, and then dividing again in half until you find the sinner is a binary search!  hooray for algorithms in the OT!!!)

I can see your reasoning here, but why didn't he just continue calling them the "Interpreters"?  That would have alleviated the confusion that followed for many (even today).  But, I do understand why he didn't want the negative that was associated with the occult and the seer stone or peep stone.  Again, that makes complete sense to me.  And also, maybe Joseph did believe they were a Urim & Thummim even if they were not the Israelite Urim & Thummim.

Edited March 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Mars]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can see your reasoning here, but why didn't he just continue calling them the "Interpreters"?  That would have alleviated the confusion that followed for many (even today).  But, I do understand why he didn't want the negative that was associated with the occult and the seer stone or peep stone.  Again, that makes complete sense to me.  And also, maybe Joseph did believe they were a Urim & Thummim even if they were not the Israelite Urim & Thummim.

"what's an interpreter?"

"it's like a urim and thummim."

"so it's a urim and thummim?"

"sure, that works."

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Mars said:

"what's an interpreter?"

"it's like a urim and thummim."

"so it's a urim and thummim?"

"sure, that works."

But it only caused confusion.  That's my point.  They were already using the word "interpreters", so he must have felt there was another reason (other than distancing himself from the seer stone since that was already being done) to even change the terminology further.  That's all I'm saying.

Edited March 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Mars]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But it only caused confusion.  That's my point.  They were already using the word "interpreters", so he must have felt there was another reason (other than distancing himself from the seer stone since that was already being done) to even change the terminology further.  That's all I'm saying.

fair enough.

[longview]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, I do understand why he didn't want the negative that was associated with the occult and the seer stone or peep stone.

We need a source to prove that Joseph Smith felt that way.  You might be laboring under the fallacy of "presentism."  Most people TODAY would consider such things as "weird" but back in the early centuries of America it was more common and acceptable.  You would also need to provide reference for what proportion of the people in colonial times were divided between accepting certain skills (such as wicking) and against.

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And also, maybe Joseph did believe they were a Urim & Thummim even if they were not the Israelite Urim & Thummim.

NOT maybe.   JS clearly knew the nature of "U&T" and that there are several kinds.  As I have already posted in this thread, there is the "White Stone" that fits in the palm of the hand (more powerful than the "peep stone"), the "Interpreters" (the one used by Brother of Jared, Mosiah, Moroni, JS), Levitical Breastplate, Earth in its glorified state (the Crystal Planet), and various stellar objects (including the "Throne of God").  They are ALL "U&T".  They are divine communication devices.  "U&T" is a generic term.

I suppose we may not be able to determine at what point JS started using the term "U&T" but I do agree with Scott Lloyd that JS did revise revelations on an on going basis (even adding material to existing sections or combining revelations into a section) for many doctrines besides this topic.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  That "U&T" is an important concept which will be used by the righteous throughout the eternities.

Additional information about the "Israelite breastplate" - - -

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/10/i-have-a-question?lang=eng
Does Jewish tradition or history give any clues as to what the breastplates look like mentioned in Exodus 28?

Victor L. Ludlow: Because the breastplate of judgment and its accompanying Urim and Thummim were sacred, later Jewish traditions emphasized their role as instruments of judgment and decision rather than their physical description. However, Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish Talmudist and philosopher, and some Talmudic sources, do provide some ideas as to the possible physical appearance of the breastplate.
According to these traditions, 12 stones, each engraved with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel, were the focal point of the breastplate. Each stone was square and set in gold, attached to a fabric skillfully woven out of 28 threads. One thread of pure gold was spun or folded with six threads of sky blue to make a larger thread. A second gold thread was joined with six purple threads, another with six threads of scarlet, and another with six threads of fine linen. Then these four larger threads were woven into a fabric one span wide and two spans long, a span being one hand width. The fabric, folded double, became a pouch, one span square. The four rolls of gold settings were attached to the outer surface, and the Urim and Thummim was placed in the fabric pouch.

A gold ring was placed in each corner. The two upper rings were attached by gold chains to similar gold rings on the shoulder of the ephod (shieldlike garment worn over the robe). The two lower rings of the breastplate were joined to gold rings of the ephod near the waist by blue ribbons.

When clothed with the breastplate and the other priestly garments, the high priest was prepared to perform his functions. The breastplate fulfilled one important role that Mormons would usually associate with the Urim and Thummim. When the king, the head of the Sanhedrin, or some other accepted person had a special question, he would go to the high priest. The high priest would then look down at a breastplate to see which of the engraved letters would shine out most brightly, and he would then construct the answer out of these letters. For example, when David asked the Urim and Thummim if Saul would continue his pursuit, the high priest Abiathar saw three bright letters: Yod in Judah’s name, Resh in Reuben’s name, and Dalet in Dan’s name. Thus the answer was given: YERED, “He will pursue.”

Jewish tradition indicates that the Urim and Thummim ceased to exist when the first temple was destroyed and the Jews were taken captive.

Centuries later, when the Jews were scattered across Europe, many Jewish communities made breastplates and placed them in front of the mantel of the Torah in their synagogues. These symbols, similar to the breastplate of the high priest, would often contain reproductions of the 12 precious stones. Otherwise, the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim are lost to the Jews.

Victor L. Ludlow, assistant professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University

= = = = = = =

The book of Exodus mentions the Urim and Thummim. What was its place in Moses’ time? Where did it come from? Can its history and usage be traced through the rest of the Old Testament?

Keith H. Meservy: We first learn of the Urim and Thummim in Israel when it was given as a right of the priesthood to Aaron, the first high priest in the Levitical Priesthood. (Ex. 28:31; Lev. 8:8.) Part of his ministry was gaining the knowledge pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, which administered the Mosaic law. (D&C 68:14–21; D&C 84:18–27.) Kings were to submit to the counsel he received from the Lord though various means. One of the most important was the Urim and Thummim. When Moses called and set apart Joshua as his successor, the Lord instructed that Joshua should “stand before Eleazar the priest who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his [Eleazar’s] word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he [Joshua and, impliedly, subsequent rulers] and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.” (Num. 27: 21. Italics added.)
This suggests that the Urim and Thummim was the appointed instrument through which divine revelation and decisions should be obtained.

Through its means, Saul once sought to fix guilt for an offense (1 Sam. 14:41; see the Greek and Hebrew texts); David sought divine guidance to know in advance what kinds of situations would develop (1 Sam. 23:6–13); we infer that the Urim and Thummim were in the Ephod. Saul complained that the Lord neither spoke to him nor revealed his will to him by any means, including the Urim. (1 Sam. 28:6.)

We hear nothing more of the Urim and Thummim in the history of Israel until it becomes obvious after the Babylonian captivity that the Jews no longer are in possession of it. We would take it for granted, however, that until then, righteous kings and peoples used the Urim and Thummim when they sought counsel from the Lord. It is interesting to note that if a Urim and Thummim had been available to the Jews after exile, the problem of lost genealogy could have been solved. This problem was significant for those Jews since priesthood prerogatives were based upon descent from Levi or Aaron. (Ezra 2:62–63.)
    
We do not know exactly when the Jews lost use of the Urim and Thummim. However, the people were rejecting the prophets in Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s time, although the Lord warned them that a time was coming when they would no longer enjoy the light of revelation. Thus one wonders if they lost the Urim and Thummim through wickedness rather than conquest or carelessness. (See Documentary History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 21–23, for an experience of Joseph Smith. Cf. D&C 3:11; D&C 10:2.)

Keith H. Meservy, assistant professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University

= = = = = = =

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng
As I read the Old Testament, I find the term “ephod.” What is an ephod?

Richard O. Cowan
Professor of Church History and Doctrine Brigham Young University
The ephod was an article of sacred clothing worn by the high priests of the Levitical Priesthood. The Lord directed that they were not to wear ordinary clothing during their service, but they were to have “holy garments” made by those whom the Lord had “filled with the spirit of wisdom.” (Ex. 28:2–3.) These sacred garments were to be passed from father to son along with the high priestly office itself. (Ex. 29:29.)

The ephod, worn over a blue robe, was made of blue, purple, and scarlet material, with designs of gold thread skillfully woven into the fabric. This garment was fastened at each shoulder and had an intricately woven band with which it could be fastened around the waist. In gold settings on each shoulder were onyx stones engraved with the names of the 12 sons of Israel as a “memorial” as the priest served before the Lord. (See Ex. 28:6–14 and Ex. 39:2–7). Fastened to the ephod was a breastplate into which the Urim and Thummim could be placed. (Ex. 28:15–30.)

The exact function of the ephod is not known. As President Joseph Fielding Smith observed, information concerning these ancient ordinances “was never recorded in any detail, because such ordinances are sacred and not for the world.” (Improvement Era, November 1955, p. 794.)

There are later references to a linen ephod; the boy Samuel, for example, wore such a garment when he served the Lord.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, longview said:

We need a source to prove that Joseph Smith felt that way.  You might be laboring under the fallacy of "presentism."  Most people TODAY would consider such things as "weird" but back in the early centuries of America it was more common and acceptable.  You would also need to provide reference for what proportion of the people in colonial times were divided between accepting certain skills (such as wicking) and against.

As far as I know, we have no quote or statement by Joseph regarding why he changed the terminology.  I'd love to read it if you have found one.

I'd recommend reading some of Robert F. Smith's links above (and some of what he has written).  This is an interesting topic to study.  Each of us can read all that is available (for now) on this and then form our own opinions and conclusions.  I'm fine if you disagree with mine and respect your right to form your own.  (Thanks for the additional information in your post, it was good to read over again.)

I'm not sure why you're asking me to provide references (last sentence above) as I haven't stated anything regarding colonial times or "wicking", etc., here.  Maybe you have me confused with someone else?  

.

Edited March 11, 2016 by ALarson

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, longview said:

We need a source to prove that Joseph Smith felt that way.  You might be laboring under the fallacy of "presentism."  Most people TODAY would consider such things as "weird" but back in the early centuries of America it was more common and acceptable.  You would also need to provide reference for what proportion of the people in colonial times were divided between accepting certain skills (such as wicking) and against.

 

CFR that people in the early 1800s found such things "common and acceptable" to a greater degree than people today.  I think you are seriously underestimating the thinking of people back then, and seriously overestimating the thinking of today.

[omni]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

CFR that people in the early 1800s found such things "common and acceptable" to a greater degree than people today.  I think you are seriously underestimating the thinking of people back then, and seriously overestimating the thinking of today.

I think it was "common and acceptable" in the same way that psychics are "common and acceptable" today.

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

CFR that people in the early 1800s found such things "common and acceptable" to a greater degree than people today.  I think you are seriously underestimating the thinking of people back then, and seriously overestimating the thinking of today.

Brant Gardner devotes the first eight chapters in his book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon to exploring the various views of magic and scrying (did I spell that right?) in rural New York at the time of Joseph Smith.  Gardner finds that folk magic persisted among rural New Yorkers longer than it did among the more urban.  Joseph Smith's use of a seer stone was a known form of folk magic at the time, but was looked down on by the more educated and urbanized elements of society.  Its no surprise that as the church moved beyond it's rural roots that members of the church would want to disassociate the term seer stone from the translation and use a more culturally acceptable biblical term when talking about the translation process.

[canard78]

5 hours ago, Mars said:

"what's an interpreter?"

"it's like a urim and thummim."

"so it's a urim and thummim?"

"sure, that works."

My Dad once broke his reading glasses, knocking a lens out, by being a bit heavy handed while getting them out of their case. 

He looked at the crestfallen and then held them up. 

"Oh dear," he said "I've broken my Urim with my thumb in."

He didn't stop retelling the joke for the rest of the week. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

CFR that people in the early 1800s found such things "common and acceptable" to a greater degree than people today.  I think you are seriously underestimating the thinking of people back then, and seriously overestimating the thinking of today.

Ever take a drive through rural Pennsylvania?  Whole lotta hexes on the sides of barns and other buildings.

Are we to conclude that everybody in rural Pennsylvania is a practitioner of the occult?  I know people in XXth Century Utah who hired a water witch to help them locate the spot to dig a well  ...  and danged if they weren't successful.  Is this the occult or a spiritual gift or just a knack of unconsciously knowing how topography affects water tables?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Ever take a drive through rural Pennsylvania?  Whole lotta hexes on the sides of barns and other buildings.

Are we to conclude that everybody in rural Pennsylvania is a practitioner of the occult?  I know people in XXth Century Utah who hired a water witch to help them locate the spot to dig a well  ...  and danged if they weren't successful.  Is this the occult or a spiritual gift or just a knack of unconsciously knowing how topography affects water tables?

Use of divining rods to finding water and below-ground objects such as utility lines is still widely practiced in the Mid-West to this day.

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Brant Gardner devotes the first eight chapters in his book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon to exploring the various views of magic and scrying (did I spell that right?) in rural New York at the time of Joseph Smith.  Gardner finds that folk magic persisted among rural New Yorkers longer than it did among the more urban.  Joseph Smith's use of a seer stone was a known form of folk magic at the time, but was looked down on by the more educated and urbanized elements of society.  Its no surprise that as the church moved beyond it's rural roots that members of the church would want to disassociate the term seer stone from the translation and use a more culturally acceptable biblical term when talking about the translation process.

Exactly.  This isn't an issue of "presentism" (perhaps the biggest apologetic canard of the last decade) as longview theorized.  It's an issue of there have always been people who had "superstitious" beliefs (perhaps usually less educated and/or rural), and those that don't (perhaps more educated and/or urban).  Such beliefs are just as alive and well today, and I don't suspect that the percentage has changed much (only the flavor of superstition).

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Use of divining rods to finding water and below-ground objects such as utility lines is still widely practiced in the Mid-West to this day.

 

As is homeopathy, acupuncture, tarot card reading, and many other folk-superstitions.  As a society, we have not progressed beyond such things.

[longview]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you're asking me to provide references (last sentence above) as I haven't stated anything regarding colonial times or "wicking", etc., here.

Because you said this (implying that JS was embarrassed):

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

But, I do understand why he didn't want the negative that was associated with the occult and the seer stone or peep stone.

I have yet to see actual statements by JS indicating any "discomfort."

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

CFR that people in the early 1800s found such things "common and acceptable" to a greater degree than people today.  I think you are seriously underestimating the thinking of people back then, and seriously overestimating the thinking of today.

I recall reading an Ensign article about such activities in those days but I have not be able to zero in on it.  I will keep trying.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Such beliefs are just as alive and well today, and I don't suspect that the percentage has changed much (only the flavor of superstition).

But science has advance considerably since then.  Surely the proportion has diminished to a fair degree among the superstitious.

On 3/10/2016 at 3:00 PM, Oliver_Cowdery said:

We know that Joseph Smith was uncomfortable when one of the three witnesses started talking about the seer stone.

I would really appreciate it if you could cite sources.  If JS went to the trouble of updating the histories to reflect the importance of "U&T" in the Gospel and scriptures, why would he be embarrassed or uncomfortable?  See my earlier post above describing the many kinds of "U&T" (from hand held to stellar objects).

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Because you said this (implying that JS was embarrassed):

 

I never stated that Joseph was "embarrassed".  I simply stated that I can understand why he'd want to distance himself from the negative that was associated with the occult and the seer stone or peep stone.  And I can certainly understand that especially since it was associated with his treasure hunting in his past.

12 hours ago, longview said:

I have yet to see actual statements by JS indicating any "discomfort."

As far as I know, Joseph made no statements regarding why he changed the terminology.  Have you found one?

.

Edited March 12, 2016 by ALarson