Keq82 Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 One factor I think is extremely important in looking back on our history is transparency and maintaining an objective understanding of what actually took place, regardless if it is easy to accept or not. Over the last few years, the church has publically acknowledged that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat as the primary method in translating the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, there are numerous accounts that support the fact that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon (quotes/references can be found below). Additionally, I found it interesting that the seer stone Joseph Smith used was actually present during the dedication of the Manti Temple. Even years subsequent to the translation of the Book of Mormon, a prophet of the church found this seer stone important enough to bring it to a temple dedication. Granted the seer stone is currently in the church museum and various church leaders have acknowledged its existence/importance; nevertheless, it seems as if there is almost a taboo associated with brining to light that a rock in a hat was used to translate the Book of Mormon. The difficulty I have with this is: we try to fit so much of church history into a suitable, likeable mold in order to comply with creating the noblest legacy. In a lot of ways, so much of church history is, in fact, difficult to digest and extremely controversial/complicated. The use of seer stones in a hat falls under one of the “controversial” subjects, in my opinion. If this seer stone is such a pivotal relic in our history, why are there no pictures and/or photographs of it in our churches? Moreover, if the golden plates were not technically used in the translation process, why do we still have numerous pictures depicting an event that did not take place? Are we as members expected to embrace the use of talismanic objects to reveal God’s word? I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power. However, I do know some members who believe the notion that a rock in a hat could have served as a focusing device for Joseph Smith to utilize, in some unknown way. All-in-all, a lot of members I have talked to about this topic want transparency and an accurate representation of events (as they actually happened…not a whitewashed version). “In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” Emma Smith Bidamon Interview with Joseph Smith III, February 1879 Published as "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation.” An Address to All Believers in Christ, Part First, Chapter 1. Also, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300. https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/02/seer-stone-lessons/
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Keq82 said: The difficulty I have with this is: we try to fit so much of church history into a suitable, likeable mold in order to comply with creating the noblest legacy. In a lot of ways, so much of church history is, in fact, difficult to digest and extremely controversial/complicated. This is true. And it has taken the Church many years to correct that error in thinking. We should be grateful to live in an era where more openness in our history is the order of the day. Quote If this seer stone is such a pivotal relic in our history, why are there no pictures and/or photographs of it in our churches? Moreover, if the golden plates were not technically used in the translation process, why do we still have numerous pictures depicting an event that did not take place? Are we as members expected to embrace the use of talismanic objects to reveal God’s word? Give it time. It will be. There will be primary lessons on the subject one day I would wager. Quote I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power. I do. Very much so. If our bodies can be filled with the holy spirit why not other mortal elements? 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 A lot of people in church don't really know about the Seer stone or don't care. We have the scriptures today and they don't care how they got here. 2
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Keq82 said: One factor I think is extremely important in looking back on our history is transparency and maintaining an objective understanding of what actually took place, regardless if it is easy to accept or not. Over the last few years, the church has publically acknowledged that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat as the primary method in translating the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, there are numerous accounts that support the fact that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon (quotes/references can be found below). Additionally, I found it interesting that the seer stone Joseph Smith used was actually present during the dedication of the Manti Temple. Even years subsequent to the translation of the Book of Mormon, a prophet of the church found this seer stone important enough to bring it to a temple dedication. Granted the seer stone is currently in the church museum and various church leaders have acknowledged its existence/importance; nevertheless, it seems as if there is almost a taboo associated with brining to light that a rock in a hat was used to translate the Book of Mormon. The difficulty I have with this is: we try to fit so much of church history into a suitable, likeable mold in order to comply with creating the noblest legacy. In a lot of ways, so much of church history is, in fact, difficult to digest and extremely controversial/complicated. The use of seer stones in a hat falls under one of the “controversial” subjects, in my opinion. If this seer stone is such a pivotal relic in our history, why are there no pictures and/or photographs of it in our churches? Moreover, if the golden plates were not technically used in the translation process, why do we still have numerous pictures depicting an event that did not take place? Are we as members expected to embrace the use of talismanic objects to reveal God’s word? I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power. However, I do know some members who believe the notion that a rock in a hat could have served as a focusing device for Joseph Smith to utilize, in some unknown way. All-in-all, a lot of members I have talked to about this topic want transparency and an accurate representation of events (as they actually happened…not a whitewashed version). “In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” Emma Smith Bidamon Interview with Joseph Smith III, February 1879 Published as "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation.” An Address to All Believers in Christ, Part First, Chapter 1. Also, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300. https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/02/seer-stone-lessons/ I think that has been remedied. This information used to be much harder to find, now it is found on church sites. https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=seer+stone https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng Quote Nevertheless, the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.26 The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”27 The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”28 According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.” When asked if Joseph had dictated from the Bible or from a manuscript he had prepared earlier, Emma flatly denied those possibilities: “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.” Emma told her son Joseph Smith III, “The Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity—I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me for hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”29 Another scribe, Martin Harris sat across the table from Joseph Smith and wrote down the words Joseph dictated. Harris later related that as Joseph used the seer stone to translate, sentences appeared. Joseph read those sentences aloud, and after penning the words, Harris would say, “Written.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”30 The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”31 In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.”32 https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng Edited March 21, 2016 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 You might find this interesting: http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_Church_sources_discuss_either_the_use_of_the_seer_stone_or_the_stone_and_the_hat_as_part_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_process%3F 1
Calm Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Also: http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/04/27/book-notice-from-darkness-unto-light-joseph-smiths-translation-and-publication-of-the-book-of-mormon/ http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/04/30/artwork-of-joseph-smith-translating-the-book-of-mormon/
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I don't know what you are talking about https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=seer+stone https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng Oh, come on. Let's at least be fair to our friend Keq82 on this one. Can you find any pictures or teachings about the seer stone in any official Church publication, magazine or manual between 1940 & 1990? It's great that the Church isn't shying away from it anymore, but if we are being fair and honest, it was really rarely mentioned for decades. The information has always been out there for anyone to read, but it hasn't always been provided by the Church. 5
hope_for_things Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power. I would say that most of the early saints believed that objects had supernatural powers. Not everyone in society believed this, the 1826 trial against Joseph is evidence that many people were skeptical of this kind of practice. Look at the other physical objects that early saints believed were imbued with supernatural properties. Things like a handkerchief, or a cane, or the water, or dust from your feet. I think the world view of this generation was quite a bit different than our world view today, they didn't have the technology and understanding we have today. What would you think about looking at the stone as having a placebo effect on Joseph? Of course this begs the question, did Joseph actually believe he could see treasure under the ground with his stone, or was he just faking it. For the placebo effect to be a possibility, wouldn't there need to be some level of believe in Joseph's mind? Edited March 21, 2016 by hope_for_things grammar 1
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 30 minutes ago, Keq82 said: One factor I think is extremely important in looking back on our history is transparency and maintaining an objective understanding of what actually took place, regardless if it is easy to accept or not. Over the last few years, the church has publically acknowledged that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat as the primary method in translating the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, there are numerous accounts that support the fact that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon (quotes/references can be found below). Additionally, I found it interesting that the seer stone Joseph Smith used was actually present during the dedication of the Manti Temple. Even years subsequent to the translation of the Book of Mormon, a prophet of the church found this seer stone important enough to bring it to a temple dedication. Granted the seer stone is currently in the church museum and various church leaders have acknowledged its existence/importance; nevertheless, it seems as if there is almost a taboo associated with brining to light that a rock in a hat was used to translate the Book of Mormon. The difficulty I have with this is: we try to fit so much of church history into a suitable, likeable mold in order to comply with creating the noblest legacy. In a lot of ways, so much of church history is, in fact, difficult to digest and extremely controversial/complicated. The use of seer stones in a hat falls under one of the “controversial” subjects, in my opinion. If this seer stone is such a pivotal relic in our history, why are there no pictures and/or photographs of it in our churches? Moreover, if the golden plates were not technically used in the translation process, why do we still have numerous pictures depicting an event that did not take place? Are we as members expected to embrace the use of talismanic objects to reveal God’s word? I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power. However, I do know some members who believe the notion that a rock in a hat could have served as a focusing device for Joseph Smith to utilize, in some unknown way. All-in-all, a lot of members I have talked to about this topic want transparency and an accurate representation of events (as they actually happened…not a whitewashed version). He did not only use a "seer stone", so the pictures are a misrepresentation. Or, should we put a picture of a man with his head in his hat without a caption. Whitewashing is what we do to houses, not to hide the house but accent the truth of what is underneath.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 I always knew it involved putting his head in a hat from the South Park episode so this new stuff isn't shocking to me. 1
Keq82 Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I always knew it involved putting his head in a hat from the South Park episode so this new stuff isn't shocking to me. I've known about this for some time as well, but it seems that the church has downplayed the actual events.
Keq82 Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I would say that most of the early saints believed that objects had supernatural powers. Not everyone in society believed this, the 1826 trial against Joseph is evidence that many people were skeptical of this kind of practice. Look at the other physical objects that early saints believed were imbued with supernatural properties. Things like a handkerchief, or a cane, or the water, or dust from your feet. I think the world view of this generation was quite a bit different than our world view today, they didn't have the technology and understanding we have today. What would you think about looking at the stone as having a placebo effect on Joseph? Of course this begs the question, did Joseph actually believe he could see treasure under the ground with his stone, or was he just faking it. For the placebo effect to be a possibility, wouldn't there need to be some level of believe in Joseph's mind? I think he could have used the seer stone as a focusing device...not as a magic 8 ball-like object.
Keq82 Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 Interesting enough, President Woodruff placed the stone on the altar of the Manti temple when he dedicated it. Doesn't this suggest its overall importance (at least in his day)? I think the newer generations don't want to admit that a great deal is founded on a "magical/mystical" rock. But in churches throughout the world today, we see the standard pic of Joseph Smith touching/translating from the golden plates...this simply is not the case.
Keq82 Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 30 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: He did not only use a "seer stone", so the pictures are a misrepresentation. Or, should we put a picture of a man with his head in his hat without a caption. Whitewashing is what we do to houses, not to hide the house but accent the truth of what is underneath. I'm not sure how it should be depicted; however, the pics we have today in our churches are entirely incorrect.
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I'm not sure how it should be depicted; however, the pics we have today in our churches are entirely incorrect. That's a bit of a stretch. They may be incomplete, but multiple methods were used. Don't see dark motives where none were intended. 2
ksfisher Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Keq82 said: I think the newer generations don't want to admit that a great deal is founded on a "magical/mystical" rock. What is the "great deal" that is "founded on a magical/mystical rock?" As far as I've always been taught the church is founded on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice. The seer stone was a tool, nothing more. Yes, because it was used in translating the Book or Mormon it is special, but it was still just a tool.
mnn727 Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Is it a Seer Stone? or is it a "rock in a hat" (your words) The Bible talks of Seer Stones (the Urim and Thumin for example. (The description being they were seer stones attached to a bow (glasses perhaps?) then attached to a breatsplate) sort of like Google Glasses I suppose. I had a hard time with a 'rock in a hat' myself, then I realized God could use anything to focus his Prophets mind on what he wanted him to see. Today we use liquid crystal displays to view many things. In bright sunlight, putting your iPhone in a hat makes it clearer to read. Edited March 21, 2016 by mnn727 2
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I'm not sure how it should be depicted; however, the pics we have today in our churches are entirely incorrect. "Entirely incorrect" would mean a lie. Joseph used both methods to translate and we have the words of others and not just his. So if you are implying that the method of using the plates seated with translators or scribes...then that is entirely incorrect.
Calm Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Sweat talks in the appendix of From Darkness to Light about previous artists trying to portray the translation with the seer stone in the past for church related stuff and none of them being satisfied with how it turned out for them. Sweat is of sterner stuff and kept working at it (my opinion, not his).
mnn727 Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I'm not sure how it should be depicted; however, the pics we have today in our churches are entirely incorrect. That's your opinion, nowhere is it said that he only used 1 method. In fact Emma's version has it much more like the paintings depict.
strappinglad Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Did I not read somewhere that Joseph tried to use the Nephite U&T apparatus at the beginning , but due to a size problem , he found them uncomfortable/ungainly and preferred the seer stone ? I'm not sure why people criticize the Church for having artist depictions of the translation event that are not perfectly accurate. These are not photographs. They try to convey the idea and include as many of the key elements as necessary. In case you haven't noticed, one can go to the vast majority of paintings in the Church and out and find errors of fact. Case in point, Christ may not have worn clothing as depicted, or had long hair and a beard, or been crucified exactly as shown . The Church has tried to portray the concept in a dignified manner and may have erred in not encouraging artists to put more " head in the hat" drawings up for use . Don't we all smile when photos are taken even though we may not feel like it at the moment ? How deceptive of us. 2
Calm Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) The eye pieces were set too far apart and his eyes would get tired: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/ Edited March 21, 2016 by Calm
cdowis Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Keq82 Let me ask you a really relevant question -->> we know that JS put his face into a hat while he was translating. He would translat for hours without any corrections. Now the question What did he have in that hat of his? Was there a manuscript from which he was dictating? Well, that must mean there was a table in that hat with a candle. Or it had a window so that he could see the writing on the manuscript. The next time an antiMormon falls on the floor laughing over that bloody stone in the hat, ask him what was REALLY in that hat, and how Joseph Smith was able to dictate the Book of Mormon. How big was that hat. If he accepts the story of the stone in a hat, explain how Joseph Smith did it. Edited March 21, 2016 by cdowis 3
ERayR Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 31 minutes ago, Keq82 said: I've known about this for some time as well, but it seems that the church has downplayed the actual events. So.
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Just now, cdowis said: The next time an antiMormon falls on the floor laughing over that damn stone in the hat, ask him what was REALLY in that hat, and how Joseph Smith was able to dictate the Book of Mormon.
Recommended Posts