No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:225–26.

So I guess the 10th President of the Church didn't want to accept the fact that a seer stone was used? 

Joseph Fielding Smith does not say that he doesn't want to accept the use of the seer stone, that's putting words in his mouth.  What he says, from your own quote, is that "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of a stone was made in that translation."  That is true.

He then states "The information is all hearsay"  I believe this is true as far as the information he had before him went.

And then "and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose."  Based on what he knew he makes a statement of personal belief.  Nothing more.  No doctrinal pronouncement.

President Smitn wrote this based on what he knew and what he believed at the time.  

[Keq82]

16 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

So you are saying that Joseph never, not even once, sat at the table  and spent some time leafing through the plates ? Sorry, I don't buy it. I think he would have looked at the plates quite a bit , trying to see how they were put together and even marveling at the craftsmanship.

Yes, in so many words.  Why would he use the plates if we was using a seer stone in a hat? 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

 

Missing the point as usual.

[Keq82]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Joseph Fielding Smith does not say that he doesn't want to accept the use of the seer stone, that's putting words in his mouth.  What he says, from your own quote, is that "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of a stone was made in that translation."  That is true.

He then states "The information is all hearsay"  I believe this is true as far as the information he had before him went.

And then "and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose."  Based on what he knew he makes a statement of personal belief.  Nothing more.  No doctrinal pronouncement.

President Smitn wrote this based on what he knew and what he believed at the time.  

The problem is this, there were numerous statements made concerning the use of a seer stone (see below) during Joseph Smith's time. 

Why would the 4th President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, use the seer stone in a temple dedication, and thensome years later, the 10th President of the Church (JFS) make the comment mentioned above?  Are we really to believe JSF know absolutely nothing about the seer stone being used?    

For example:

"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.

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet 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, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

Reported by Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," Millennial Star, Volume 44, pp86-87.

"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.

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Keq82

[Keq82]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Missing the point as usual.

How so?  Please expound?

I think Richard Bushman in a FAIR Podcast put it best when he said the following:

"I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.

So I think we should just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked. It’s weird. It’s a weird picture. It implies it’s like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that’s a reading and so gives a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, what in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?”

- Richard Bushman, LDS Scholar, FAIR Podcast, Episode 3: Richard L. Bushman p.1, 47:25

 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

A Peaceful Heart  (Friend 1974)

"Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him."

By the GIft and Power of God" (Ensign 1977)

The Keystone of Mormonism—Little Known Truths about the Book of Mormon Paul R. Cheesman  (New Era 1974)

Fair enough.
Glad to see I was mistaken.  I never heard it in Church growing up, but I certainly knew about it.

3 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

So much for not mentioning it between 1840-1990, and so much for hiding in shame. 

Don't exaggerate the certainty with which I wrote.  It still wasn't spoken of much, but I am happy to be wrong it the fact that it was in fact spoken of.

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:225–26.

I think this makes Keq82's point nicely - not that it was never mentioned, but the Church didn't teach it in general.
And for the Church Historian from 1921-1970 to state "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation" just doesn't sound believable.

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

 It's okay to say "I don't know".

Interesting.  

I didn't know that, especially when you are trash talking a religion.  You mock the religion, but when asked a factual, reasonable question, you simply assume the pretense of being a drooling idiot.

[The Nehor]

On one hand we are told that the church is a domineering institution rife with micromanagement and oppression yet we are also told the church has failed utterly because they are not micromanaging the display of pictures about a specific event in church history.

[Keq82]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

On one hand we are told that the church is a domineering institution rife with micromanagement and oppression yet we are also told the church has failed utterly because they are not micromanaging the display of pictures about a specific event in church history.

Once again, this is much more than display pics about a specific even in history.

I will reference this FAIR quote again:

"I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.

So I think we should just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked. It’s weird. It’s a weird picture. It implies it’s like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that’s a reading and so gives a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, what in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?”

- Richard Bushman, LDS Scholar, FAIR Podcast, Episode 3: Richard L. Bushman p.1, 47:25

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.
 

You are right- I actually edited it probably around the same time you posted this, though I had not seen it. Sorry.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power.  

If you do or don't you are right.

It's the belief that gives it power either way.  

[strappinglad]

Actually we can not be absolutely sure exactly how the translation was done. We have statements from witnesses given sometimes decades after Joseph's death. The accounts are similar but not exactly the same and differ in details. For Bro Bushman to say the historians know exactly what didn't happen is also a bit of a stretch. They have a pretty good idea what happened most of the time , but no historian was present during the actual translation so they are at best making conclusions based on interpretations of evidence. We also have no specific details from the only one who knew the most about the process and it is my guess that even he wasn't given total knowledge of how it worked. I can run an iPhone and do lots of things but have me tell someone how it all works exactly is asking WAY too much. Joseph didn't explain it to all and sundry .

 As for why the plates were needed at all if it was done by seer stone while looking in a hat, I don't know. Perhaps the plates  needed to be nearby to facilitate the process. Maybe they were a psychological help to strengthen Joseph's faith. The actual plates were certainly necessary for the benefit of the witnesses.

One additional point. Few will say that Joseph was an unintelligent man. Uneducated yes , but stupid no. I wonder how long it took him before he began to recognize that a particular symbol meant a particular word or phrase. Every language has a limited number of symbols to use. Some are used often, some rarely. Such study of the symbols, if at least a couple of the descriptions of the process are accurate, would make the translation/transcription process easier as time went on.

Edited March 22, 2016 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Actually we can not be absolutely sure exactly how the translation was done. We have statements from witnesses given sometimes decades after Joseph's death. The accounts are similar but not exactly the same and differ in details. For Bro Bushman to say the historians know exactly what didn't happen is also a bit of a stretch. They have a pretty good idea what happened most of the time , but no historian was present during the actual translation so they are at best making conclusions based on interpretations of evidence. We also have no specific details from the only one who knew the most about the process and it is my guess that even he wasn't given total knowledge of how it worked. I can run an iPhone and do lots of things but have me tell someone how it all works exactly is asking WAY too much. Joseph didn't explain it to all and sundry .

 As for why the plates were needed at all if it was done by seer stone while looking in a hat, I don't know. Perhaps the plates  needed to be nearby to facilitate the process. Maybe they were a psychological help to strengthen Joseph's faith. The actual plates were certainly necessary for the benefit of the witnesses.

One additional point. Few will say that Joseph was an unintelligent man. Uneducated yes , but stupid no. I wonder how long it took him before he began to recognize that a particular symbol meant a particular word or phrase. Every language has a limited number of symbols to use. Some are used often, some rarely. Such study of the symbols, if at least a couple of the descriptions of the process are accurate, would make the translation/transcription process easier as time went on.

When I joined the church, I studied it.

I thought it was my duty.  I was not upset about seer stones and found the information readily and found it comforting that there was actual evidence that the BOM was actually revealed.

Same with the Book of Abraham.

I could not imagine believing that they were "translations" in any kind of literal way.  Altered perception is the basis for revelation.  I honestly do not know what the fuss is about.

Joseph "translated" swaths of the bible out of thin air, and we accept those.  I am baffled that this is a problem.

Edited March 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Joseph Fielding Smith does not say that he doesn't want to accept the use of the seer stone, that's putting words in his mouth.  What he says, from your own quote, is that "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of a stone was made in that translation."  That is true.

He then states "The information is all hearsay"  I believe this is true as far as the information he had before him went.

And then "and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose."  Based on what he knew he makes a statement of personal belief.  Nothing more.  No doctrinal pronouncement.

President Smitn wrote this based on what he knew and what he believed at the time.  

So a seer stone is weird but the Urim and Thummim were not?

I find THAT weird in itself.  I really see no difference!

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Keq82 said:

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:225–26.

So I guess the 10th President of the Church didn't want to accept the fact that a seer stone was used? 

He as not an eye witness, so he may (are used too) believe of him never seeing the process. You know "seer stones" are promised to all in Revealation (meaning the book of the Bible) as well as a "new name"...sound familiar? This is that the ugly wart on the face of the Chruch, though some many in and out of Church pray for anything to debunk the Church and all it books. I recognize this cut and past from anti-Mormon sites as a cross posting. We all all better than to believe what is found on such sites, and are smart enough to use our own thoughts. The OP, (if memory serves) comes from someone I have known for decades) and that person hates our faith and spends most of life writing such posts. Cross posting should not be here, but the source should be mentioned at least out of respect. Even though they think us unworthy of such. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Pa Pa

[Keq82]

6 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

He as not an eye witness, so he may (are used too) believe of him never seeing the process. You know "seer stones" are promised to all in Revealation (meaning the book of the Bible) as well as a "new name"...sound familiar? This is that the ugly wart on the face of the Chruch, though some many in and out of Church pray for anything to debunk the Church and all it books. I recognize this cut and past from anti-Mormon sites as a cross posting. We all all better than to believe what is found on such sites, and are smart enough to use our own thoughts. The OP, (if memory serves) comes from someone I have known for decades) and that person hates our faith and spends most of life writing such posts. Cross posting should not be here, but the source should be mentioned at least out of respect. Even though they think us unworthy of such. 

How is a quote from the President of the Church considered anti Mormon? 

[Keq82]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Actually we can not be absolutely sure exactly how the translation was done. We have statements from witnesses given sometimes decades after Joseph's death. The accounts are similar but not exactly the same and differ in details. For Bro Bushman to say the historians know exactly what didn't happen is also a bit of a stretch. They have a pretty good idea what happened most of the time , but no historian was present during the actual translation so they are at best making conclusions based on interpretations of evidence. We also have no specific details from the only one who knew the most about the process and it is my guess that even he wasn't given total knowledge of how it worked. I can run an iPhone and do lots of things but have me tell someone how it all works exactly is asking WAY too much. Joseph didn't explain it to all and sundry .

 As for why the plates were needed at all if it was done by seer stone while looking in a hat, I don't know. Perhaps the plates  needed to be nearby to facilitate the process. Maybe they were a psychological help to strengthen Joseph's faith. The actual plates were certainly necessary for the benefit of the witnesses.

One additional point. Few will say that Joseph was an unintelligent man. Uneducated yes , but stupid no. I wonder how long it took him before he began to recognize that a particular symbol meant a particular word or phrase. Every language has a limited number of symbols to use. Some are used often, some rarely. Such study of the symbols, if at least a couple of the descriptions of the process are accurate, would make the translation/transcription process easier as time went on.

Bro Bushman is one of the leading reaserches on the life of Joseph Smith, so to say that he is simply mistaken is a stretch.  He clearly states his position/reasoning on a FAIR podcast.  It's pretty hard to dispute that...

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So a seer stone is weird but the Urim and Thummim were not?

I find THAT weird in itself.  I really see no difference!

Seer stones are "weird" because they are connected with folk magic, and we don't believe in magic.

The Urim and Thummim is acceptable because it is in the bible, and we believe in the bible.

(By we I mean society in general including the LDS church.)

[Sevenbak]

18 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I personally do not believe in the idea that objects possess some mystical and/or supernatural power. 

You mean like Arron's rod turnining into a snake?

Or Joseph's (Egypt) silver cup helping him "divine"?

Brother of Jared stones?

liahona?

 

I'm sensing a pattern here...

 

 

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So a seer stone is weird but the Urim and Thummim were not?

I find THAT weird in itself.  I really see no difference!

I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that at least one of the seer stones was the same stone Joseph used for treasure seeking when he was younger.  Some members are just learning this.  They are fine with the Urim & Thummim scenario because they were with the plates.  At least that's what I think may be the difference. 

 

[Sevenbak]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Can you find any pictures or teachings about the seer stone in any official Church publication, magazine or manual between 1940 & 1990?
 

They were teaching primary kids in the children's friend about this in the 70s.

https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

"Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.

Martin Harris said that on the seer stone “sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [the one writing them down] and when finished [that person] would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another take its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates.”

Even with the help of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, it wasn’t easy to translate the sacred record. It required the Prophet’s greatest concentration and spiritual strength.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Sevenbak

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

They were teaching primary kids in the children's friend about this in the 70s.

https://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

"Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.

Martin Harris said that on the seer stone “sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [the one writing them down] and when finished [that person] would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another take its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates.”

Even with the help of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, it wasn’t easy to translate the sacred record. It required the Prophet’s greatest concentration and spiritual strength.

Yes, this has already been quoted.
 

[Sevenbak]

[Keq82]

36 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

You mean like Arron's rod turnining into a snake?

Or Joseph's (Egypt) silver cup helping him "divine"?

Brother of Jared stones?

liahona?

 

I'm sensing a pattern here...

 

 

Yep.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that at least one of the seer stones was the same stone Joseph used for treasure seeking when he was younger.  Some members are just learning this.  They are fine with the Urim & Thummim scenario because they were with the plates.  At least that's what I think may be the difference.

I think you are right.
I see an alternate view on Joseph's attempted use of the supernatural.  It has to do with having an open mind to things outside of our traditions.
It would be highly unlikely that God could have restored the gospel through men who believed the canon of scripture was closed, revelation had ceased, angels no longer appeared to men, etc.
But someone who believed in more than the end of his own nose could work and focus his mind and spirit to see beyond.  It took time and practice for Joseph to learn revelation.  If the seer stone is what started him on that journey of learning revelation then I too would consider it a sacred object.
 

• There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.  I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: