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

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

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

.

Do you have references for the proposition that JSJR was indeed embarrassed or that his contemporaries were troubled? 

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Do you have references for the proposition that JSJR was indeed embarrassed or that his contemporaries were troubled? 

Read the thread and other comments.

Once again, I've never stated that he was "embarrassed".

And again, as far as I know, he made no statements regarding why he changed the terms.  Joseph was not on record as using "Urim and Thummim" before 1833.

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by ALarson

[longview]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

You are still implying embarrassment on JS's part.  We need documentation, NOT conjectures.  The historical record is FIRMLY on the side for JS's enthusiastic teachings concerning all things U&T.   Remember:  line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little . . .

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, longview said:

You are still implying embarrassment on JS's part.  We need documentation, NOT conjectures. 

For the last time.  I am giving my opinion based on the evidence available.  That's all that any of us can do since we have no statements regarding this from Joseph (why he began calling the seer stones the Urim & Thummim after 1833).  

.

Edited March 12, 2016 by ALarson

[CA Steve]

Quote

For the last time.  I am giving my opinion based on the evidence available.  That's all that any of us can do since we have no statements regarding this from Joseph (why he began calling the seer stones the Urim & Thummim after 1833).  

How many apologetic theories would have to be rejected outright if conjecture is not an acceptable explanation for past events?

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How many apologetic theories would have to be rejected outright if conjecture is not an acceptable explanation for past events?

Only those which there is insufficient evidence from the primary source, in this case JS.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Read the thread and other comments.

Once again, I've never stated that he was "embarrassed".

And again, as far as I know, he made no statements regarding why he changed the terms.  Joseph was not on record as using "Urim and Thummim" before 1833.

Fair enough.  Yet the implications that his contemporaries were troubled  ...  and he made changes  ...  means that something had to be going on in his mind.  And even though it would involve major mind-reading and significant post-hoc thinking, it leaves the impression that JSJr was embarrassed.  I don't see it as anything but inescapable, once you take the position that, in his milieu, JSJr having talismans [if he did] or scrying [if he did] or candling [if he did] or peepstoning [if he did] was something that was shocking to his contemporaries.

All I've read is that the criticisms came long after, and that nobody thought much about it at the time.

[longview]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

why he began calling the seer stones the Urim & Thummim after 1833

Don't you agree that JS and the Church had been gaining knowledge and insights by bits and pieces?  When he sat down to begin to write the history, he realized that he had been using the interpreters to ask questions of God.  That was a different function than using it for "translating" the BoM.  The Israelite U&T was only used for answering important questions from leaders of the day (I doubt it was ever used for translation).  Because JS received further knowledge about U&T, he felt it appropriate to apply the generic term to devices he had used back in the beginning (retrofitting terminologies).  Nephite prophets knew the interpreter could be used for both translation AND asking questions.  Abraham used his U&T for learning about the stars and controlling bodies.

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

All I've read is that the criticisms came long after, and that nobody thought much about it at the time.

Eminently reasonable.  Nothing to be uncomfortable or embarrassed about.  JS and the Church were enthusiastic in learning about the greater scope of U&T "devices" such as "White Stone" held in the palm of the hand to stellar objects that provide information to inhabitants.  Robert F. Smith is NOT justified in calling the U&T to be an "extreme anachronism" when applied to JS "interpreters" or "seer stones."  U&T is NOT exclusive to Israelite breast plates.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, longview said:

When he sat down to begin to write the history, he realized that he had been using the interpreters to ask questions of God.  That was a different function than using it for "translating" the BoM.  The Israelite U&T was only used for answering important questions from leaders of the day (I doubt it was ever used for translation).  Because JS received further knowledge about U&T, he felt it appropriate to apply the generic term to devices he had used back in the beginning (retrofitting terminologies). 

Do you have statements by Joseph stating what he "realized" regarding the interpreters when he sat down to begin to write the history?  Which history are you referring to here?

Do you have statements by Joseph stating that he felt it was "appropriate to apply the generic term" of Urim and Thummim to his seer stones and interpreters?  

CFR for these statements.

I'd love to read those (sincerely).

12 hours ago, longview said:

Robert F. Smith is NOT justified in calling the U&T to be an "extreme anachronism" when applied to JS "interpreters" or "seer stones."  U&T is NOT exclusive to Israelite breast plates.

You will have to take that up with Robert F. Smith.

.

Edited March 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Nevo]

On 3/11/2016 at 7:17 AM, USU78 said:

Do you have references for the proposition that JSJR was indeed embarrassed or that his contemporaries were troubled? 

"[M]any in Joseph’s day came to feel that the use of physical objects such as stones or rods was superstitious or inappropriate for religious purposes. In later years, as Joseph told his remarkable story, he emphasized his visions and other spiritual experiences. Some of his former associates focused on his early use of seer stones in an effort to destroy his reputation in a world that increasingly rejected such practices. In their proselyting efforts, Joseph and other early members chose not to focus on the influence of folk culture, as many prospective converts were experiencing a transformation in how they understood religion in the Age of Reason." (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng)

"In Ohio the Prophet and his chief spokesman Oliver Cowdery established an official position downgrading the New York money-digging practices" (Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 [1984]: 490).

[longview]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you have statements by Joseph stating what he "realized" regarding the interpreters when he sat down to begin to write the history?  Which history are you referring to here?

Do you have statements by Joseph stating that he felt it was "appropriate to apply the generic term" of Urim and Thummim to his seer stones and interpreters?  

CFR for these statements.

I'd love to read those (sincerely).

Earlier in this thread, I asked the question concerning JS's history in which he used the U&T to find out the will of God concerning his brother Hyrum.  You and another poster (Oliver_Cowdery) had explained that although this incident occurred in May 1829, the histories did not get written until 1838 (or 1839?) which was when JS started using the term U&T more extensively than in the past.  You also stated that the term U&T was NOT in the original "Book of Commandments" but was added in the 1835 edition.  My point is that JS knew more about U&T later than he did in the beginning.  This is pretty much the CFR I can provide to you, just our discussion in this thread (my attempts at correlation and conjectoring).

Thanks to Nevo (see his post immediately above), I read his link and include a few more extracts from it below:

By 1833, Joseph Smith and his associates began using the biblical term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to any stones used to receive divine revelations, including both the Nephite interpreters and the single seer stone. This imprecise terminology has complicated attempts to reconstruct the exact method by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. In addition to using the interpreters, according to Martin Harris, Joseph also used one of his seer stones for convenience during the Book of Mormon translation. Other sources corroborate Joseph’s changing translation instruments.

As Elder Pratt watched the Prophet translate, “Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit, and did not need the assistance of that instrument.”

David Whitmer wrote that “after the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, early in the spring of 1830, before April 6th, Joseph gave the stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the stone any more.”

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

"[M]any in Joseph’s day came to feel that the use of physical objects such as stones or rods was superstitious or inappropriate for religious purposes. In later years, as Joseph told his remarkable story, he emphasized his visions and other spiritual experiences. Some of his former associates focused on his early use of seer stones in an effort to destroy his reputation in a world that increasingly rejected such practices. In their proselyting efforts, Joseph and other early members chose not to focus on the influence of folk culture, as many prospective converts were experiencing a transformation in how they understood religion in the Age of Reason." (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng)

Nevo, thank you for your interesting quote and link.  I read the whole thing.  However your use of the above quote appears to be casting shame on the history of the "seer stones".   You have cut off the remainder of the paragraph at this sentence:  "In what became canonized revelations, however, Joseph continued to teach that seer stones and other seeric devices, as well as the ability to work with them, were important and sacred gifts from God."  Now, this would give the opposite impression.  That generic U&T "instruments" are desirable gifts from God.  What were your intentions in making the quotes the way you did?

Edited March 13, 2016 by longview

[Nevo]

22 minutes ago, longview said:

Nevo, thank you for your interesting quote and link.  I read the whole thing.  However your use of the above quote appears to be casting shame on the history of the "seer stones".   You have cut off the remainder of the paragraph at this sentence:  "In what became canonized revelations, however, Joseph continued to teach that seer stones and other seeric devices, as well as the ability to work with them, were important and sacred gifts from God."  Now, this would give the opposite impression.  That generic U&T "instruments" are desirable gifts from God.  What were your intentions in making the quotes the way you did?

USU78 asked for references "for the proposition that JSJR was indeed embarrassed or that his contemporaries were troubled." I provided two sources indicating that Joseph downplayed his money-digging past because it was widely seen as disreputable by the mid-1830s. I wasn't trying to conceal the fact that Joseph himself thought seer stones were perfectly okay. That much is obvious from D&C 130.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Earlier in this thread, I asked the question concerning JS's history in which he used the U&T to find out the will of God concerning his brother Hyrum.  You and another poster (Oliver_Cowdery) had explained that although this incident occurred in May 1829, the histories did not get written until 1838 (or 1839?) which was when JS started using the term U&T more extensively than in the past.  You also stated that the term U&T was NOT in the original "Book of Commandments" but was added in the 1835 edition.  My point is that JS knew more about U&T later than he did in the beginning.  This is pretty much the CFR I can provide to you, just our discussion in this thread (my attempts at correlation and conjectoring).

 

So, I'll consider that a complete fail on the CFR.  In the future you may want to state that "it is your opinion" after reading the available information, rather than stating what "Joseph realized" or that "Joseph felt" a certain way, since you cannot supply any quotes from him to backup or confirm either of those definite statements.

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by ALarson

[longview]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, I'll consider that a complete fail on the CFR.  In the future you may want to state that "it is your opinion" after reading the available information, rather than stating what "Joseph realized" or that "Joseph felt" a certain way, since you cannot supply any quotes from him to backup or confirm either of those definite statements.

 

OK, I used poor choice of words.  But do we agree that JS and/or the Church made a "retrofit" of terminologies to reflect their greater understanding of the generic concept of Urim & Thummim.  Which had nothing to do with embarrassment or discomfort.  There being no need to call the usage of U&T an "extreme anachronism."

Would you also agree that the Liahona is another one of the U&T?