U & T, seer stone, nothing at all

[rongo]

What evidence is there that most of the Book of Mormon was translated/dictated without plates and without using the U&T or the seer stone? My understanding is that the U&T was mainly used for the 116 pages, the seer stone after that, but as Joseph gained experience discerning he didn't use the plates or the seer stone. 

Can this be documented?

Thanks!

[Guest]

There is a lot of confusion about it, to say the least. Emma and Oliver both spoke of the translation process, as being done with the U&T and a seer stone, the % of how much of each is unknown. It is clear that (according to Joseph's account) the U&T was still in possession during the Nauvoo yea s, and a the "Seer Stone" as well until he died. Seer Stones were used in Biblical Scripture, and even as all true believers will receive, a "new name and white stone" (seer stone) in the Book of Revelation. But Joseph would receive stunning revelation without either the U&T, or anything else other than prayer. 

[clarkgoble]

A lot of the evidence is fuzzy period. For instance the assumption that the Urim & Thummim wasn't returned really doesn't have a lot of evidence. The idea they were taken and not returned came from Whitmer almost 60 years later. So not an ideal source. He also doesn't have the plates being return.

Quote

Finally, when Smith had fully repented of his rash conduct, he was forgiven. The plates, however, were not returned, but instead Smith was given by the angel a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.

I think what Whitmer is describing is Joseph's 1822 brown seer stone. This is indicated not only by the description but his later comments:

Quote

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 anymore.

That appears to be the stone in the Church's possession that all the pictures are of.

Joseph didn't really discuss the method but wanted to focus on the product. Martin Harris's account about 25 years later has the Urim & Thummim in the hat, so it contradicts Whitmer but may also be conflating the U&T with the seer stone. His 1830 account mentions spectacles in a hat as well. (Some critics have used these account to argue the U&T just was the seer stone) A good contemporary, if oppositional, source is the 1829 Rochester Advertiser and Daily Telegraph that has the spectacles in the hat (but doesn't call them the U&T). That account appears to have been the basis for several other newspaper accounts. Most of the early accounts thus mention a white stone, needing darkness to see what was on the stone, the spectacles part, and no mention of the Urim and Thummim. 

The earliest known account tying the spectacles to the Urim and Thummim is the 1833 The Evening and Morning Star

Quote

It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)

Interestingly the original Book of Commandments and D&C chapter headings don't call them the U&T either.  The "perhaps" is perhaps significant. As time goes on up until the 1835 history we have, the designation as Urim and Thummim becomes more common.

Of course this isn't that surprising. The Urim & Thummim proper was tied to the high priestly artifacts in Palestine. The spectacles Joseph used were the Jaredite interpreters. Calling those the Urim & Thummim is apparently a reconstruction that assumes they were the same as what the high priest would have used in the Bible. It's not at all clear that's anything but a reconstruction by the early members and not based upon revelation.

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is clear that (according to Joseph's account) the U&T was still in possession during the Nauvoo yea s, and a the "Seer Stone" as well until he died.

I'm not sure of any real evidence that the original spectacles were had after the lost 116 pages. A lot of references can be explained by the later equating of the initial stones with the Urim & Thummim and conflating those with the brown or white seerstones. The early (1831) account of Cowdery says the original stones were transparent.

I think FAIR has the most exhaustive list of quotations on the subject.

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure of any real evidence that the original spectacles were had after the lost 116 pages. A lot of references can be explained by the later equating of the initial stones with the Urim & Thummim and conflating those with the brown or white seerstones. The early (1831) account of Cowdery says the original stones were transparent.

I think FAIR has the most exhaustive list of quotations on the subject.

In Nauvoo, while Joseph was having a lot of issues with polygamy, including with Emma, Hyrum encouraged him to dictate to his scribe, the revelation concerning the issue. He told Joseph that he would go at that moment and get the U&T so that Joseph could do so, and that he (Hyrum) would take it to Emma himself. Having (Joseph) known of it having first recieving the revelation within the first year of the Church (in 1831). Joseph told Hyrum that he would not need the U&T, because he it knew it by heart. He dictated it as if reading it from a paper. In a matter of moments, as fast as the scribe could record it...it became known as D&C 132. Throughout Joseph's life he had four methods of receiving revelation, the U&T (as Prophets of old), Seer Stones, (as Prophets of old) Prayer, (as Prophets of old did) and those who pondered over issues that needed answered, heavenly answers, (as prophets of old did) which in some cases came from Emma being his muse, as no doubt, the same with "Prophets of old". 

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

What evidence is there that most of the Book of Mormon was translated/dictated without plates and without using the U&T or the seer stone? My understanding is that the U&T was mainly used for the 116 pages, the seer stone after that, but as Joseph gained experience discerning he didn't use the plates or the seer stone. 

Can this be documented?

Thanks!

Part of the problem is many of the references to U&T are anachonistic and they are actually referring to one of Joseph's stones that he dug out of the ground, rather than the Nephite interpreters.  

I don't think we have much evidence that Nephite interpreters were used much if at all.  

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

In Nauvoo, while Joseph was having a lot of issues with polygamy, including with Emma, Hyrum encouraged him to dictate to his scribe, the revelation concerning the issue. He told Joseph that he would go at that moment and get the U&T so that Joseph could do so, and that he (Hyrum) would take it to Emma himself. Having (Joseph) known of it having first recieving the revelation within the first year of the Church (in 1831). Joseph told Hyrum that he would not need the U&T, because he it knew it by heart. He dictated it as if reading it from a paper. In a matter of moments, as fast as the scribe could record it...it became known as D&C 132. Throughout Joseph's life he had four methods of receiving revelation, the U&T (as Prophets of old), Seer Stones, (as Prophets of old) Prayer, (as Prophets of old did) and those who pondered over issues that needed answered, heavenly answers, (as prophets of old did) which in some cases came from Emma being his muse, as no doubt, the same with "Prophets of old". 

Are there any biblical references to "seer stone" aside from all the ones that refer to the U&T?

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Part of the problem is many of the references to U&T are anachonistic and they are actually referring to one of Joseph's stones that he dug out of the ground, rather than the Nephite interpreters.  

I don't think we have much evidence that Nephite interpreters were used much if at all.  

Agreed... that's the difficulty of interpreting the historical record on this:  If the account doesn't describe what they are calling U&T, seer stone, or stones - we just don't know what exactly what they are referring to.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure of any real evidence that the original spectacles were had after the lost 116 pages. A lot of references can be explained by the later equating of the initial stones with the Urim & Thummim and conflating those with the brown or white seerstones. The early (1831) account of Cowdery says the original stones were transparent.

I think FAIR has the most exhaustive list of quotations on the subject.

Considering what we talked about in the other thread with respect to written notes perhaps being used by Joseph and Oliver in the dictation process of the BoM and how you would view this as evidence of fraud, I wonder what you think about Oliver Cowdery's discussions of the seer stones (or lack thereof).

I'm trying to think of any references Oliver ever made to one individual seer stone, rather than alluding to the Nephite Interpreters and clothing the role of a seer in more scriptural terms.  In other words, I'm wondering if Oliver ever divulged that Joseph wasn't using the stones delivered to him by Moroni for his scrying.  I can't think of any off the top of my head.  

If there aren't any references to an individual seer stone by Oliver(and this would be quite curious considering Joseph actually gave one of his stones to Oliver), do you think Oliver was being fraudulent for not honestly explaining the type of stone and its origins that Joseph was using?  Just curious how your contemporary views of fraud would apply retroactively to Oliver in this case?  

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed... that's the difficulty of interpreting the historical record on this:  If the account doesn't describe what they are calling U&T, seer stone, or stones - we just don't know what exactly what they are referring to.

Of course since we don't have the Nephite interpreters anymore, its somewhat questionable that they ever existed.  But we do have a few witness accounts of people seeing or touching them, however it seems that most accounts of Joseph dictating show that he preferred his other stones.  

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are there any biblical references to "seer stone" aside from all the ones that refer to the U&T?

Not those words of course. But most scholars assume the silver chalice in Benjamin's pack in Gen 44:5 is skrying which is what using seer stones is. While probably not skrying there are casting of lots to get divine knowledge Numbers 26:55; Proverbs 16:33 Proverbs 18:18. There's also the casting of lots to select the apostle to replace Judas. Finally a lot of people assume the white stone of Rev 2:17 might be. (Joseph definitely interpreted it that way) Once you go out of the Bible into broader texts then there's a lot more.

[clarkgoble]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Considering what we talked about in the other thread with respect to written notes perhaps being used by Joseph and Oliver in the dictation process of the BoM and how you would view this as evidence of fraud, I wonder what you think about Oliver Cowdery's discussions of the seer stones (or lack thereof).

I'm trying to think of any references Oliver ever made to one individual seer stone, rather than alluding to the Nephite Interpreters and clothing the role of a seer in more scriptural terms.  In other words, I'm wondering if Oliver ever divulged that Joseph wasn't using the stones delivered to him by Moroni for his scrying.  I can't think of any off the top of my head.  

If there aren't any references to an individual seer stone by Oliver(and this would be quite curious considering Joseph actually gave one of his stones to Oliver), do you think Oliver was being fraudulent for not honestly explaining the type of stone and its origins that Joseph was using?  Just curious how your contemporary views of fraud would apply retroactively to Oliver in this case?  

I think it's significant that the earliest accounts mention the spectacles which is different from Joseph's seer stones. i.e. what holds them. There's indication that Joseph found it too big which may be why he preferred his own. It was simply easier as a practical matter. There are a lot of accounts mentioning the size in the earliest accounts which does differentiate them from Joseph's white or brown stones.

To your main point. I think the Oliver Cowdery reports are the strongest argument that the Urim & Thummim was still being used and had been returned with the plates since the descriptions of the translation describe it. Oliver Cowdery translated from April to the completion in June. As to whether he was being fraudulent by not describing the other stones, I don't think so although it does raise the question of how much the other stones were used. It's worth noting too that he may have mentioned the seer stone but we just don't have an account of it. Some of the early accounts mention a single stone instead of the spectacles. The press account of a trial Oliver was a witness in on April 9, 1831 does discuss the seer stone although it doesn't mention it as part of the translation. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To your main point. I think the Oliver Cowdery reports are the strongest argument that the Urim & Thummim was still being used and had been returned with the plates since the descriptions of the translation describe it. Oliver Cowdery translated from April to the completion in June. As to whether he was being fraudulent by not describing the other stones, I don't think so although it does raise the question of how much the other stones were used.

Many historians that I've read, believing and non seem to think that the evidence is strong that other stones were used primarily and not the U&T.  So what does that tell you about what Oliver was doing when describing the process of dictation/translation if he never mentions the individual stones and always clothes descriptions in terms of the Nephite interpreters?  

Doesn't this make it look like Oliver (most closely aware of Joseph's use of stones that he dug out of the ground) was intentionally crafting a very different story to avoid discussion of scrying and any implications of treasure digging from the historical narrative.  Why would Oliver do this?  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Agreed... that's the difficulty of interpreting the historical record on this:  If the account doesn't describe what they are calling U&T, seer stone, or stones - we just don't know what exactly what they are referring to.

When I found out about the seer stone..I was so confused because it sounded somewhat like the U&T...

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Many historians that I've read, believing and non seem to think that the evidence is strong that other stones were used primarily and not the U&T.  So what does that tell you about what Oliver was doing when describing the process of dictation/translation if he never mentions the individual stones and always clothes descriptions in terms of the Nephite interpreters?  

Doesn't this make it look like Oliver (most closely aware of Joseph's use of stones that he dug out of the ground) was intentionally crafting a very different story to avoid discussion of scrying and any implications of treasure digging from the historical narrative.  Why would Oliver do this?  

I tend to see it as more ambiguous, although I'd want to know the particular arguments. I don't claim to have read extensively on the subject so beyond the quotations on that FAIR site I listed and then a few other papers such as the ones in From Darkness Unto Light I may be missing some data and arguments.

I think part of the reason I don't see Oliver as deceitful is because fairly early on the seer stones and U&T were conflated. i.e. seemed the same thing. Think for instance of Woodruff's excitement of seeing the U&T (his words) in his diary of Dec 27, 1841. This was almost certainly the seer stone. Second you had pretty similar devices used apparently in identical ways. So I don't see any fraud at play although I'm completely open to an argument that it was.

The claim Oliver was trying to make a distinction between the U&T and skrying is odd since Oliver's discussion of the U&T is precisely that of skrying.

Interestingly the FDUL article makes a connection I'd not noticed which is that the original seer stone parallels the gazelem of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon which is separate from the spectacles that are Jaredite. Woodruff states that this seer stone is gazelem. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

My understanding is he had the plates vertically in front of them and juggled the three seerstones in front of the plates while looking at the patterns through the Urim and Thummim. This is why Joseph was exhausted from a day of translating. I hope that can end this debate.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not those words of course. But most scholars assume the silver chalice in Benjamin's pack in Gen 44:5 is skrying which is what using seer stones is. While probably not skrying there are casting of lots to get divine knowledge Numbers 26:55; Proverbs 16:33 Proverbs 18:18. There's also the casting of lots to select the apostle to replace Judas. Finally a lot of people assume the white stone of Rev 2:17 might be. (Joseph definitely interpreted it that way) Once you go out of the Bible into broader texts then there's a lot more.

Yes, I agree... the silver cup in Gen 44 does sound like it was possibly used like a seer stone.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I tend to see it as more ambiguous, although I'd want to know the particular arguments. I don't claim to have read extensively on the subject so beyond the quotations on that FAIR site I listed and then a few other papers such as the ones in From Darkness Unto Light I may be missing some data and arguments.

I haven't read the Darkness Unto Light book yet, or the other Seer Stones book.  I have recently started reading Mark Ashurst-McGee's Master's thesis on the subject which goes into quite a bit of detail on this subject, as did Richard Van Wagoner's Natural Born Seer.  I think from what I have read that a good portion of competent historians believe the U&T was not the primary means used during translation, and I tend to agree with that assessment from my reading as well. 

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think part of the reason I don't see Oliver as deceitful is because fairly early on the seer stones and U&T were conflated. i.e. seemed the same thing. Think for instance of Woodruff's excitement of seeing the U&T (his words) in his diary of Dec 27, 1841. This was almost certainly the seer stone. Second you had pretty similar devices used apparently in identical ways. So I don't see any fraud at play although I'm completely open to an argument that it was.

I would call it carefully crafting a narrative that didn't include the scrying stone that Joseph also used for treasure digging earlier in his career.  Think about this, more than any other person beside Joseph, Oliver knew what was happening when it comes to BoM translation, yet he never mentions an individual stone in any of his descriptions of the process?  Does that sound odd to you?  If Joseph was using his regular seer stones as the evidence suggests, then it must have been a deliberate effort by Oliver to speak in other terms.  Woodruff wasn't close to the BoM translation, and the words U&T (a biblical term) was first invented by W.W. Phelps I believe in 1833.  If Nephite interpreters and stones found by town scryers on treasure digs were interchangeable, it seems Oliver certainly didn't think so, or he would have talked about the individual stone at some point along the way.  Oliver was avoiding the use of this terminology for a reason.  

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The claim Oliver was trying to make a distinction between the U&T and skrying is odd since Oliver's discussion of the U&T is precisely that of skrying.

Personally, my suspicion is that Oliver was sensitive to how outsiders perceived glass looking and the court trials that Joseph was subjected to on that subject, so Oliver and Joseph made a calculated decision to write the history of the church very differently, to not only downplay treasure digging, but to clothe it with biblical and religious language to make it more palatable to a broader audience.  Scrying with a device delivered by the angel for the specific purpose of translation, a device that had been used anciently for the same purpose touched by the hand of God, is much different than scrying with a stone found through treasure digs that was being used to look for buried treasure that didn't exist (deception) and for which Joseph had been put on trial for at least twice.  Big difference.  

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Interestingly the FDUL article makes a connection I'd not noticed which is that the original seer stone parallels the gazelem of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon which is separate from the spectacles that are Jaredite. Woodruff states that this seer stone is gazelem. 

I believe Joseph used gazelem as a code name for himself at some point, and the reading of that verse in Alma 37:23 is ambiguous as to whether gazelem is the stone or a person.  There are many elements in the BoM text that look like Joseph is narrating stories from his own life into the text.  I'm don't think Woodruff's later recollections tell us much about the early BoM translation time period, they are interesting though, and the whole gazelem is kind of an interesting thing.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazelem

[Guest]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Are there any biblical references to "seer stone" aside from all the ones that refer to the U&T?

Yes

[rongo]

Thanks for the input, guys!

I know that most references to the U&T are referring to the seer stone, and not the breastplate with the glasses. What I'm more interested in are references to him translating with nothing at all, including plates. My understanding is that this is the lion's share of the translating, and I'd like to know how accurate (how well-founded) that is.

[Nevo]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

What evidence is there that most of the Book of Mormon was translated/dictated without plates and without using the U&T or the seer stone? My understanding is that the U&T was mainly used for the 116 pages, the seer stone after that, but as Joseph gained experience discerning he didn't use the plates or the seer stone.

I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that "most of the Book of Mormon was translated/dictated without plates and without using the U&T or the seer stone." All of the eyewitnesses of the translation of the Book of Mormon apart from Oliver Cowdery describe the stone-in-the-hat method. Nobody describes him just pacing back and forth dictating without any translation aids.

E.g.,

• "I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith's translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father's house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him" (Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, 1870, in EMD 5:260).
   
• "Now, the first part my husband translated, was translated by the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color" (Emma Smith, 1870, in EMD 1:532).
   
• "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, 1879, as recorded by Joseph Smith III, in EMD 1:541)
   
• "Says he many times called in at Jos[e]phs on busi=ness, when J[oseph]. would be engaged [in] translating the plates. J[oseph]. put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat, and then Dic=tate to his scribe, Sen=tence by Sentence" (Michael Morse, 1879, as recorded by William Blair, in EMD 4:341-342).
   
• "In translating he put the stone in his hat and putting his face in the hat so as to exclude the light" (David Whitmer, 1881, in EMD 5:82).
   
• "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..." (David Whitmer, 1887, in EMD 5:196).

Regarding Joseph Smith eventually not needing anything to translate, perhaps you're thinking of Orson Pratt's recollection from 1874:

Quote

Elder Pratt said he was present when [D&C 41] was given. No great noise or physical manifestation was made; Joseph was as calm as the morning sun. But he noticed a change in his countenance that he had never noticed before, when a revelation was given to him. Joseph's face was exceedingly white, and seemed to shine. The speaker had been present many times when he was translating the New Testament, and wondered why he did not use the Urim and Thummim, as in translating the Book of Mormon. While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, 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 the Spirit, and did not need the assistance of that instrument.

— "Two Days' Meeting at Brigham City, June 27 and 28, 1874," The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star (11 August 1874): 498–499.

As you can see, Pratt was referring to the "translation" of the Bible here, not the translation of the Book of Mormon. See also, E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 102.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Nevo

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't read the Darkness Unto Light book yet, or the other Seer Stones book.  I have recently started reading Mark Ashurst-McGee's Master's thesis on the subject which goes into quite a bit of detail on this subject, as did Richard Van Wagoner's Natural Born Seer.  I think from what I have read that a good portion of competent historians believe the U&T was not the primary means used during translation, and I tend to agree with that assessment from my reading as well. 

I would call it carefully crafting a narrative that didn't include the scrying stone that Joseph also used for treasure digging earlier in his career.  Think about this, more than any other person beside Joseph, Oliver knew what was happening when it comes to BoM translation, yet he never mentions an individual stone in any of his descriptions of the process?  Does that sound odd to you?  If Joseph was using his regular seer stones as the evidence suggests, then it must have been a deliberate effort by Oliver to speak in other terms.  Woodruff wasn't close to the BoM translation, and the words U&T (a biblical term) was first invented by W.W. Phelps I believe in 1833.  If Nephite interpreters and stones found by town scryers on treasure digs were interchangeable, it seems Oliver certainly didn't think so, or he would have talked about the individual stone at some point along the way.  Oliver was avoiding the use of this terminology for a reason.  

From Darkness Unto Light is surprisingly good. I'd not have though one could write that much on the subject and it's not belaboring the point of argument either. It reads very well and quickly. Very well done. The folks at the Joseph Smith Papers project are to be praised for it.

To your main point if we say crafting a narrative I'm fine with that. Oliver presumably would have known since he was the scribe during that time. I'm not sure I buy the idea the seer stone was used most of the time but that certainly is a common interpretation.

The tie to the U&T starts with W W Phelps although I don't think he necessarily invented it. I mean it is a pretty established Biblical term tied to a priestly breastplate. The parallels are pretty pronounced even if they don't make the tie until later. (Which to my eyes suggests it wasn't fraudulent since if you go to all the trouble to mimic a pseudo-breast plate and U&T you'd think you'd play it up from the start)

To the stones being interchangeable I think Oliver did think so otherwise he'd have mentioned it, wouldn't he? Unless you think he was part of the fraud. Not quite sure what you're arguing there.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/15/2017 at 6:19 AM, rongo said:

What evidence is there that most of the Book of Mormon was translated/dictated without plates and without using the U&T or the seer stone? My understanding is that the U&T was mainly used for the 116 pages, the seer stone after that, but as Joseph gained experience discerning he didn't use the plates or the seer stone. 

Can this be documented?

.........................

The frequent references in Mormon tradition to "Urim and Thummim" are all late, loose, and casual in nature.  That is a strictly biblical term and should have no place in Book of Mormon tradition.  Such a reference began as an analogy, and it did not begin with Joseph Smith.  The result is confusion and misinterpretation.

The Nephite "interpreters" (which came down from Jaredite times) were used for the first 116 pages -- they are also referred to in the BofM as "directors," and are described as “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow” (Mosiah 28:13),   After the 116 pages were stolen, both plates and interpreters were taken, and Joseph used a seerstone in a hat after that.

As for documentation, you can find it in the LDS Gospel Topics Essay on BofM translation at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true .  Unfortunately, that Essay continues the loose and incorrect references to the Urim and Thummim, but that should not interfere with your understanding of the references.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[churchistrue]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The frequent references in Mormon tradition to "Urim and Thummim" are all late, loose, and casual in nature.  That is a strictly biblical term and should have no place in Book of Mormon tradition.  Such a reference began as an analogy, and it did not begin with Joseph Smith.  The result is confusion and misinterpretation.

The Nephite "interpreters" (which came down from Jaredite times) were used for the first 116 pages -- they are also referred to in the BofM as "directors," and are described as “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow” (Mosiah 28:13),   After the 116 pages were stolen, both plates and interpreters were taken, and Joseph used a seerstone in a hat after that.

As for documentation, you can find it in the LDS Gospel Topics Essay on BofM translation at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true .  Unfortunately, that Essay continues that loose and incorrect references to the Urim and Thummim, but that should not interfere with your understanding of the references.

That's about how I see it.  There are two objects.  Nephite Interpreters and seerstone(s).  Both had a stone involved and both were used by putting object in hat and head in hat to look at.  The problem here is that each were referred to later as U&T.  But most people today think of the Nephite Interpreters as the U&T and the seerstone as something else.  For example, see the heading of D&C Section 7:  Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim as to whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried in the flesh or had died.

This is referencing the seerstone.  Random question.  What is meant by "they" in "they inquired"?  Is there any evidence that Joseph and Oliver looked in the hat together?  Or does together mean Oliver watched as Joseph looked in the hat?

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by churchistrue

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The frequent references in Mormon tradition to "Urim and Thummim" are all late, loose, and casual in nature.  That is a strictly biblical term and should have no place in Book of Mormon tradition.  Such a reference began as an analogy, and it did not begin with Joseph Smith.  The result is confusion and misinterpretation.The Nephite "interpreters" (which came down from Jaredite times) were used for the first 116 pages -- they are also referred to in the BofM as "directors," and are described as “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow” (Mosiah 28:13),   After the 116 pages were stolen, both plates and interpreters were taken, and Joseph used a seerstone in a hat after that.

As I mentioned he used the two stones in the spectacles in a hat for the first part of the translation. The evidence is strong they were returned and he used them at least occasionally in the second phase of translation even if there's debate over how often he used them.

I'd disagree with this only being a Biblical term. First off recall that the Nephites had the brass plates which had some semblance to our old testament. While the spectacles purport to come from the Jaredites, it appears they had a priestly function for them not that different from what plausibly the Urim & Thummim held for the levitical high priest. Both come with a breastplate. Both have a way of attaching to the breast plate. Both appear used for divinization in some fashion. The only thing missing from the Jaredite form is the 12 gems on the breastplates. That's unsurprising though given that the Jaredites predate the 12 tribes of Israel.

As I mentioned in one of the threads yesterday, what's remarkable isn't that people made a connection to the U&T but that it took until 1833 before anyone did and didn't become popular until 1835. If these are fraudulent items they clearly were designed to mimic the U&T from the Biblical account. If they weren't then it's hard to miss the parallels and think them different types of devices.