U & T, seer stone, nothing at all

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you for quoting the sources.  I have seen neither book.  However,  it seems clear to me from the best and  most immediate sources (those closest to Joseph) that the single stone-in-the-hat method was the only method used by Joseph in 1829 when dictating to Oliver.  That still does not answer the question of when the plates and interpreters were permanently taken away, which appears to have been in late 1828,  If Mackay and his colleagues cannot find the evidence pro or con, then perhaps it simply does not now exist.  We must extrapolate from the evidence (or lack of it) which we have.

I think the evidence they find is that they were returned but that if Joseph didn't use them it was because of their size. I think Mackay suggests the evidence, while wanting, is that Joseph either primarily used the brown seer stone ala the very late Martin Harris and Emma memories or else popped one of the lenses of the spectacles out and used those, thus confusing Emma and Martin. It's interesting that Oliver typically talked of the spectacles rather than the seer stone. Given his proximity to Joseph during the last half of the translation process I tend to think that's an indication Emma and Martin were wrong or conflating a single part of the spectacle with the brown seer stone. i.e. I tend to give more weight to the Cowdery accounts due to their very early dates and repetition.

Edited March 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the evidence they find is that they were returned but that if Joseph didn't use them it was because of their size. I think Mackay suggests the evidence, while wanting, is that Joseph either primarily used the brown seer stone ala the very late Martin Harris and Emma memories or else popped one of the lenses of the spectacles out and used those, thus confusing Emma and Martin. It's interesting that Oliver typically talked of the spectacles rather than the seer stone. Given his proximity to Joseph during the last half of the translation process I tend to think that's an indication Emma and Martin were wrong or conflating a single part of the spectacle with the brown seer stone. i.e. I tend to give more weight to the Cowdery accounts due to their very early dates and repetition.

Joseph’s own father-in-law, Isaac Hale, provided a corroborative description of the seer-stone-in-the-hat method for a local newspaper in early 1834, while Joseph's brother, William B. Smith, referred to the stone as “the Urim and Thummim”  in an 1883 account -- thus adding to the confusion.

In her 1870 letter to Mrs. George W. (Emma) Pilgrim, Emma Smith Bidamon stated what appears to be the most consistent account:

Quote

Now the first that my husband translated was translated by the use of 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.

In 1879, Emma likewise told her son Joseph III that

Quote

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.

In 1891, Dr. William E. McLellen said that “after the 116 pages were lost Joseph translated the rest of the Book of Mormon with a stone.”

Emma’s brother-in-law, Michael Morse, knew Joseph in Harmony, Pennsylvania, and saw him translating on several occasions.  He recalled in 1879 that Joseph would place

Quote

the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating, word after word, while the scribes – Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.

Also in 1879, J. L. Traughber, Jr., said:

Quote

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light.  Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.

When she was 55 years of age, David Whitmer’s younger sister, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery (Oliver’s widow), presented William E. McLellan with her own eyewitness testimony from the time when she was in her mid-teens:

Quote

 Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870

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 [lacuna       ] <to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him> [remainder of letter has been lost]

David Whitmer said that Joseph later gave the seer-stone to Oliver, whose widow (Elizabeth Anne) gave it to Phineas Young, who took it to Salt Lake City and the LDS Archives.  In 1885 David Whitmer stated:

Quote

The plates were never restored to Joseph – nor the spectacles, but a different Urim & Thummim – one oval or kidney-shaped – a seer’s stone, which he placed in his hat, and, face in hat, he would see character and translation on the stone.

  In 1886, David Whitmer said:

Quote

   The first 116 pages when completed were by permission intrusted to the hands of Martin Harris, who carried them home to his incredulous relatives in triumph, hoping by the exhibition to convert his family and kinfolk from their uncompromising hostility to the religious premises he had adoption.  . . .
    They were never found and were never replaced, so that the Book of Mormon is today minus just 116 pages of the original matter, which would increase the volume fully one-fourth of its present size.  This unpardonable carelessness evoked the stormiest kind of chastisement from the Lord, who took from the prophet the Urim and Thummim and otherwise expressed his condemnation.  By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it was promised, should serve the same purpose as the missing Urim and Thummim (the latter was a pair of transparent stones set in a bow-shaped frame and very much resembled a pair of spectacles).  With this stone all of the present Book of Mormon was translated.

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph’s own father-in-law, Isaac Hale, provided a corroborative description of the seer-stone-in-the-hat method for a local newspaper in early 1834, while Joseph's brother, William B. Smith, referred to the stone as “the Urim and Thummim”  in an 1883 account -- thus adding to the confusion.

The evidence seems pretty overwhelming that even when he was using the spectacles he was placing them in a hat or other such thing to make it dark enough to see. This may be partially why the brown seerstone and glassy spectacles get conflated somewhat.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The evidence seems pretty overwhelming that even when he was using the spectacles he was placing them in a hat or other such thing to make it dark enough to see. This may be partially why the brown seerstone and glassy spectacles get conflated somewhat.

Far too many quotes (which I cited) exclude that possibility.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the evidence they find is that they were returned but that if Joseph didn't use them it was because of their size. I think Mackay suggests the evidence, while wanting, is that Joseph either primarily used the brown seer stone ala the very late Martin Harris and Emma memories or else popped one of the lenses of the spectacles out and used those, thus confusing Emma and Martin. It's interesting that Oliver typically talked of the spectacles rather than the seer stone. Given his proximity to Joseph during the last half of the translation process I tend to think that's an indication Emma and Martin were wrong or conflating a single part of the spectacle with the brown seer stone. i.e. I tend to give more weight to the Cowdery accounts due to their very early dates and repetition.

I see the Cowdery accounts as specifically crafted to deflect criticism about treasure digging with scrying stones.  This is a possible explanation for why Cowdery, who remember he had the brown stone in his possession when he wrote these accounts of the Urim and Thummin being used.  He knew full well that Joseph was using a brown stone because he was there and watched it happen, and consequently was given this stone by Joseph I believe in the 1830/1831 time-frame is what the evidence shows.  

I find all of Oliver's writings about the history of the church to be well written and promoting a particular message about the origins of the church.  He was the most educated of the witnesses and good at writing.  I see his intentionally writing about interpreters in plural as opposed to a singular stone as an apologetic defense.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Far too many quotes (which I cited) exclude that possibility.

I'm not sure that's the case if they conflate a lens of the spectacles popped off with the brown seerstone. Ultimately the data isn't conclusive. Those who tend to see the brown seerstone as prime come from very late. Those that tend to see the spectacles are earlier. How you decide to adjudicate the strength of the quotes really depends upon somewhat arbitrary choices. I think it's significant that the earliest quotes emphasize the U&T whereas the seerstones aren't referred to as U&T until 1833. Likewise I think it very significant that Oliver says it's the spectacles when he was the main scribe and says it very early on. The main texts pushing the brown seerstone are reminiscing decades later.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's the case if they conflate a lens of the spectacles popped off with the brown seerstone. Ultimately the data isn't conclusive. Those who tend to see the brown seerstone as prime come from very late. Those that tend to see the spectacles are earlier. How you decide to adjudicate the strength of the quotes really depends upon somewhat arbitrary choices. I think it's significant that the earliest quotes emphasize the U&T whereas the seerstones aren't referred to as U&T until 1833. Likewise I think it very significant that Oliver says it's the spectacles when he was the main scribe and says it very early on. The main texts pushing the brown seerstone are reminiscing decades later.

I think you're ignoring any critical sources that corroborate the later reminiscences of a single stone being used.  The E.B. Howe sources have significantly important contemporary evidence, much of which has been corroborated by friendly accounts, so you can't dismiss these sources that also describe the single stone being used.  

Some people believe that the whole idea for the interpreters came from Samuel Lawrence one of Joseph's fellow treasure seeker who gave him this idea.  From E.B. Howe's Mormonism Unveiled 

Quote

if he had ever discovered any thing with the plates of gold; he [Smith] said no: he then asked him to look in his stone, to see if there was any thing with them. He looked, and said there was nothing; he told him to look again, and see if there was not a large pair of specks with the plates; he looked and soon saw a pair of spectacles, the same with which Joseph says he translated the Book of Mormon.

 

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're ignoring any critical sources that corroborate the later reminiscences of a single stone being used.  The E.B. Howe sources have significantly important contemporary evidence, much of which has been corroborated by friendly accounts, so you can't dismiss these sources that also describe the single stone being used.  

I don't think so. There are of course some critical accounts that mention a single stone. However as From Darkness Unto Light mentions, Joseph popping one of the lenses out of the spectacles can deal with this. If you look at the FAIR list of accounts fairly early on there are accounts of a single white stone being used. This might refer to Joseph's egg shaped white stone, might be an erroneous reference to the brown stone, or it might refer to the spectacle lens.

The E. D. Howe account is from 1833 after the U&T label starts getting applied. It also claims to have information from Martin Harris. But it doesn't really clarify the stone issue. The next major text is Mormonism Unvailed from 1834. Interestingly it claims the spectacles were never used.

"We are informed that Smith used a stone in a hat, for the purpose of translating the plates. The spectacles and plates were found together, but were taken from him and hid up again before he had translated one word, and he has never seen them since—this is Smith’s own story. Let us ask, what use have the plates been or the spectacles, so long as they have in no sense been used ? or what does the testimony of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer amount to?"

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some people believe that the whole idea for the interpreters came from Samuel Lawrence one of Joseph's fellow treasure seeker who gave him this idea.  From E.B. Howe's Mormonism Unveiled 

This is more tied to the accounts of Joseph finding the location of the plates with his brown seerstone. This is attested to in a fair number of faithful accounts as well - albeit typically late. Again From Darkness to Light goes through the finding of the plates with its associations with seer stones fairly early. There's even a suggestion that the brown seerstone was Mosiah's and the spectacles were the Jaredite ones.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's the case if they conflate a lens of the spectacles popped off with the brown seerstone. Ultimately the data isn't conclusive. Those who tend to see the brown seerstone as prime come from very late. Those that tend to see the spectacles are earlier. How you decide to adjudicate the strength of the quotes really depends upon somewhat arbitrary choices. I think it's significant that the earliest quotes emphasize the U&T whereas the seerstones aren't referred to as U&T until 1833. Likewise I think it very significant that Oliver says it's the spectacles when he was the main scribe and says it very early on. The main texts pushing the brown seerstone are reminiscing decades later.

It isn't only Joseph's father-in-law in 1834, but most of those closest to him.  I gave you the quotes, and they very clearly are not conflating any part of the spectacles with the seer stone -- which the LDS Church still has and which is now widely known.  I cannot account for why Oliver is the outlier, but you really need to take another look at the preponderance of evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see the Cowdery accounts as specifically crafted to deflect criticism about treasure digging with scrying stones.  This is a possible explanation for why Cowdery, who remember he had the brown stone in his possession when he wrote these accounts of the Urim and Thummin being used.  He knew full well that Joseph was using a brown stone because he was there and watched it happen, and consequently was given this stone by Joseph I believe in the 1830/1831 time-frame is what the evidence shows.  

I find all of Oliver's writings about the history of the church to be well written and promoting a particular message about the origins of the church.  He was the most educated of the witnesses and good at writing.  I see his intentionally writing about interpreters in plural as opposed to a singular stone as an apologetic defense.  

This is the most believable scenario.  it does adequately explain why Oliver is the outlier in all the first-hand testimony.

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It isn't only Joseph's father-in-law in 1834, but most of those closest to him.  I gave you the quotes, and they very clearly are not conflating any part of the spectacles with the seer stone -- which the LDS Church still has and which is now widely known.  I cannot account for why Oliver is the outlier, but you really need to take another look at the preponderance of evidence.

I don't think you can say they aren't clearly conflating stones - especially when most were from the 1870s many decades later. The Hale account doesn't even mention the spectacles as used, although we know they were used primarily for at least a time. There's no indication of how much he saw or even when. So I'm not quite clear how you can say that entails only the brown seerstone was used in the second phase. Please note I'm not saying the brown stone wasn't used. Quite the contrary. I'm merely saying the spectacles were also used in the Cowdery period.

Quote

This is the most believable scenario.  it does adequately explain why Oliver is the outlier in all the first-hand testimony.

Except he's not an outlier. Many others also say the spectacles were used including most of the early Martin Harris accounts (which is why his later accounts are problematic - they contradict his early accounts). In the early accounts we have the Aug 11, 1829 hostile news account, we have the Martin Harris Sept 5, 1829 account (which also mentions the spectacles in the hat), we have a secondary account of Harris in Feb 20, 1830 talking of the spectacles, we have the May 1830 hostile news account that talks of a white stone in the hat (the seerstone was brown), we have the June 2 1830 hostile news account that mentions the spectacles, we have the July 7, 1830 hostile news account that mentions the spectacles, we have the Aug 2, 1830 account also mentioning the spectacles, the Nov 20, 1830 hostile news mentioning spectacles, the Dec 4, 1830 account of spectacles, the 18 Dec 1830 hostile news that mentioned two semi-transparent stones, the Feb 7, 1831 account that mentioned stone spectacles, and so forth. Most accounts mention the spectacles. Even acknowledging most of the hostile news sources are probably ultimately from the same sources, clearly most thought he used the spectacles. The Joseph Smith accounts also only mention the Nephite interpreters or Urim & Thummim.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think you can say they aren't clearly conflating stones - especially when most were from the 1870s many decades later. The Hale account doesn't even mention the spectacles as used, although we know they were used primarily for at least a time. There's no indication of how much he saw or even when. So I'm not quite clear how you can say that entails only the brown seerstone was used in the second phase. ....................................

Isaac Hale is testifying only about what took place in Harmony, Pennyslvania, not about what took place earlier in New York (with the 1828 Martin Harris debacle).  As to the lateness of the other first-hand accounts, we could discount them if it were not for the powerful consistency which they exhibit.  They also make better rational sense.  I go with the preponderance of the evidence.

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Except he's not an outlier. Many others also say the spectacles were used including most of the early Martin Harris accounts (which is why his later accounts are problematic - they contradict his early accounts). In the early accounts we have the Aug 11, 1829 hostile news account, we have the Martin Harris Sept 5, 1829 account (which also mentions the spectacles in the hat), we have a secondary account of Harris in Feb 20, 1830 talking of the spectacles, we have the May 1830 hostile news account that talks of a white stone in the hat (the seerstone was brown), we have the June 2 1830 hostile news account that mentions the spectacles, we have the July 7, 1830 hostile news account that mentions the spectacles, we have the Aug 2, 1830 account also mentioning the spectacles, the Nov 20, 1830 hostile news mentioning spectacles, the Dec 4, 1830 account of spectacles, the 18 Dec 1830 hostile news that mentioned two semi-transparent stones, the Feb 7, 1831 account that mentioned stone spectacles, and so forth. Most accounts mention the spectacles. Even acknowledging most of the hostile news sources are probably ultimately from the same sources, clearly most thought he used the spectacles. The Joseph Smith accounts also only mention the Nephite interpreters or Urim & Thummim.

Of course the interpreters (spectacles) get mentioned.  They also existed, but are part of an earlier stage of description.  Also they are sexier than mentioning just a plain old stone.  You say it yourself:  "most of the hostile news sources are probably ultimately from the same sources"  We need to unpack the sources and weigh them properly.

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Isaac Hale is testifying only about what took place in Harmony, Pennyslvania, not about what took place earlier in New York (with the 1828 Martin Harris debacle).  As to the lateness of the other first-hand accounts, we could discount them if it were not for the powerful consistency which they exhibit.  They also make better rational sense.  I go with the preponderance of the evidence.

But it's only a preponderance of evidence if you dismiss all of Oliver Cowdery's many accounts and those that agree with him.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But it's only a preponderance of evidence if you dismiss all of Oliver Cowdery's many accounts and those that agree with him.

Have you considered why Oliver is the outlier?

 

Quote

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see the Cowdery accounts as specifically crafted to deflect criticism about treasure digging with scrying stones.  This is a possible explanation for why Cowdery, who remember he had the brown stone in his possession when he wrote these accounts of the Urim and Thummin being used.  He knew full well that Joseph was using a brown stone because he was there and watched it happen, and consequently was given this stone by Joseph I believe in the 1830/1831 time-frame is what the evidence shows.  

I find all of Oliver's writings about the history of the church to be well written and promoting a particular message about the origins of the church.  He was the most educated of the witnesses and good at writing.  I see his intentionally writing about interpreters in plural as opposed to a singular stone as an apologetic defense.  

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Have you considered why Oliver is the outlier?

Again, outlier relative to what? There are others who say the same thing he does. Just to be clear again what is at dispute is whether the spectacles were used after the 116 pages.

Portraying Oliver as the only one making that claim is just factually false.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, outlier relative to what? There are others who say the same thing he does. Just to be clear again what is at dispute is whether the spectacles were used after the 116 pages.

Portraying Oliver as the only one making that claim is just factually false.

Then it is obvious that you did not consider my quotes as part of the preponderance of evidence.  Ignoring them will not make them go away, clark.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then it is obvious that you did not consider my quotes as part of the preponderance of evidence.  Ignoring them will not make them go away, clark.

I think I addressed those. Of the quotes you provided only one was within a decade of the events. Of the rest the earliest was Emma's in 1870 -- more than 41 years after the events. So, yes, I find statements from 40 - 60 years much more problematic than repeated claims the year of events. The one early quote you give is 5 years later by someone not present for most of the events and who considered Joseph a fraud. So I'm sure he did think Joseph was merely repeating his youthful activities, but I'm not sure that's a great source for what was going on. Second he doesn't even give a period. So if Joseph merely used the seer stone occasionally it'd be equally compatible with his statement. i.e. it doesn't address the question at hand which is the use of the spectacles after the 116 pages. Again to repeat myself, I'm not denying the brown stone was used merely disputing it was all that was used.

Contrast this to repeated and consistent claims by Cowdery over the first few years. Ditto Martin Harris' statements in the early years. Ditto what Nancy Towle was apparently told by Joseph in 1832. We don't hear any claims of only using the seer stone after the lost 116 pages until 40 years later with Emma Smith.

You're also simply dismissing the official accounts under Joseph's direction. That is the 1838 Elder's Journal account, the Mar 1 1842 Times and Seasons, the April 15, 1842 Times and Seasons, the May 16, 1842 Times and Seasons, and the June 1, 1842 Times and Seasons. 

Again let me note that I don't think we know what happened with the translation under Cowdery. It all depends upon how you balance the contradiction between what Cowdery and Harris said at the time with these extremely late reminisces. My point isn't that we know -- quite the contrary -- but rather that people are simply dismissing Cowdery (who after all was the scribe in this era) too fast. Especially when we have explicit early accounts saying that the spectacles were used in the hat like the seer stone and that the spectacles were returned (contrary to the usual folk view).

Edited March 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, outlier relative to what? There are others who say the same thing he does. Just to be clear again what is at dispute is whether the spectacles were used after the 116 pages.

Portraying Oliver as the only one making that claim is just factually false.

I'm just thinking another thing that I can't recall Oliver ever mentioning is the hat.  Did he ever make reference to a hat being part of the translation process, I can't think of any time this was referenced by Oliver.  Come to think of it, I can't remember Joseph ever mentioning a hat either.  Could the deliberate omission of the hat as part of the process, be similar to the deliberate referencing of the Nephite interpreters as well?   

The answer for me, is yes.  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just thinking another thing that I can't recall Oliver ever mentioning is the hat.  Did he ever make reference to a hat being part of the translation process, I can't think of any time this was referenced by Oliver.  Come to think of it, I can't remember Joseph ever mentioning a hat either.  Could the deliberate omission of the hat as part of the process, be similar to the deliberate referencing of the Nephite interpreters as well?

The hat wasn't so much part of the process as it was shielding the light. It didn't really do anything beyond that from what the other accounts suggest. Martin Harris and others mention the hat though. Cowdery's daughter mentions it though also along with not having a curtain between them. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The hat wasn't so much part of the process as it was shielding the light. It didn't really do anything beyond that from what the other accounts suggest. Martin Harris and others mention the hat though. Cowdery's daughter mentions it though also along with not having a curtain between them. 

I think you're missing my point, the description of the process, i.e. putting a stone into a hat to translate the BoM, is a description that was mocked by critics and caused troubles in the early years for Joseph and Oliver.  When the narrative was constructed about beginnings of the church, they intentionally didn't discuss the mechanics of the process partly to deflect the criticisms they were receiving from Joseph's treasure seeking days.  

Unless you have another plausible explanation for why accounts of an individual seer stone and the hat were not mentioned by Oliver and Joseph.  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I addressed those. Of the quotes you provided only one was within a decade of the events. Of the rest the earliest was Emma's in 1870 -- more than 41 years after the events. So, yes, I find statements from 40 - 60 years much more problematic than repeated claims the year of events. The one early quote you give is 5 years later by someone not present for most of the events and who considered Joseph a fraud. So I'm sure he did think Joseph was merely repeating his youthful activities, but I'm not sure that's a great source for what was going on. Second he doesn't even give a period. So if Joseph merely used the seer stone occasionally it'd be equally compatible with his statement. i.e. it doesn't address the question at hand which is the use of the spectacles after the 116 pages. Again to repeat myself, I'm not denying the brown stone was used merely disputing it was all that was used.

Joseph was translating in Isaac Hale's home in 1829.  Did you miss that point?  Indeed, the fact that his father-in-law did not approve of him and may have considered him a fraud makes his testimony all the more credible -- another point you missed.  You need to reread those quotes I provided:  They lay to rest your nonsense about the use of interpreters (spectacles) after the loss of the 116 pages in 1828.  You need to place the comments in proper sequence.

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Contrast this to repeated and consistent claims by Cowdery over the first few years. Ditto Martin Harris' statements in the early years. Ditto what Nancy Towle was apparently told by Joseph in 1832. We don't hear any claims of only using the seer stone after the lost 116 pages until 40 years later with Emma Smith.

You're also simply dismissing the official accounts under Joseph's direction. That is the 1838 Elder's Journal account, the Mar 1 1842 Times and Seasons, the April 15, 1842 Times and Seasons, the May 16, 1842 Times and Seasons, and the June 1, 1842 Times and Seasons. 

Again let me note that I don't think we know what happened with the translation under Cowdery. It all depends upon how you balance the contradiction between what Cowdery and Harris said at the time with these extremely late reminisces. My point isn't that we know -- quite the contrary -- but rather that people are simply dismissing Cowdery (who after all was the scribe in this era) too fast. Especially when we have explicit early accounts saying that the spectacles were used in the hat like the seer stone and that the spectacles were returned (contrary to the usual folk view).

I am not much interested in folklore, clark.  I am very interested in the views of the first-hand witnesses, most of whom agree with each other, and against Oliver.  Moreover, you still haven't responded to Oliver as the obvious outlier.  Why?  You do not even address the most likely scenario.

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph was translating in Isaac Hale's home in 1829.  Did you miss that point?  Indeed, the fact that his father-in-law did not approve of him and may have considered him a fraud makes his testimony all the more credible -- another point you missed.  You need to reread those quotes I provided:  They lay to rest your nonsense about the use of interpreters (spectacles) after the loss of the 116 pages in 1828.  You need to place the comments in proper sequence.

I am not much interested in folklore, clark.  I am very interested in the views of the first-hand witnesses, most of whom agree with each other, and against Oliver.  Moreover, you still haven't responded to Oliver as the obvious outlier.  Why?  You do not even address the most likely scenario.

Because (1) he's not the outlier as I've noted several times and (2) there are other quotes saying the spectacles were returned. You could just as easily say Emma and David Whitmer are the outliers as there are more accounts for the spectacles than against. Even Knight sometimes says the spectacles were primarily used (acknowledging the admitted problem of the term U&T by the late 1830's as encompasses both the brown stone and the spectacles):

Quote

Now the way he translated was he put the Urim and Thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes, then he would take a sentence and it would appear in bright Roman letters, then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away, the next sentence would come, and so on. But if it was not spelled right it would not go away till it was right, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the whole translated. Joseph Knight Sr., Reminiscence, Circa 1835–1847,” in Early Mormon Documents

While some translation was done at the Hale home most was done at Joseph and Emma's home. As I explicitly said Hale can testify of what he saw but not what was going on when he wasn't around. I never said he wasn't a witness and indeed said the opposite. To repeat yet again, evidence that Joseph used the brown seerstone is not evidence that he didn't also use the spectacles. Most of your quotes don't establish that point.

The only claims for no spectacles are extremely late. But even there, contra your claims, they don't all say no spectacles. Quite the contrary. 

Martin Harris 1870 "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." (emphasis mine)

The vast majority of eyewitness accounts list the spectacles. So to call Cowdery an outlier is again factually false. Even the late Whitmer account (1867) says it was the Urim and Thummim even as he talks about a stone in the hat.

We also have multiple explicit accounts that the spectacles were given back to Joseph after being taken away. 

Again I'm not alone in this. That's why the authors of From Darkness to Light say we don't know and speculate that some of the confusion might be due to popping one of the stones from the spectacles and using that.

Once again to be explicitly clear, the issue is the use of the spectacles after they were initially taken. We should note that Martin Harris' comments about the inconvenience of the spectacles was repeated to others. Again to quote from From Darkness to Light

 

Quote

Still, it is difficult to determine exactly which instrument Joseph was using to translate at any given time while translating with Oliver Cowdery. While Emma and Joseph Knight Sr. later described Joseph using a single stone for the majority of the process, Joseph apparently told Jonathan Hadley in 1829 that the translation was accomplished by using the spectacles buried in the bottom of a hat.30 Regardless, Emma explained that her husband would read the words off the stone and that the scribe would record the words Joseph dictated. She further explained that during that process Joseph would pause and spell out unfamiliar words and “proper names he could not pronounce.”31 David Whitmer, who was at his father’s house when Joseph and Oliver were translating there, described the process by calling the words appearing on the stone the “spiritual light.” He gave a detailed account of the entire translation process: “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.” Though it is not known if Whitmer ever saw the words appearing on the stone himself, he was present at his father’s house, where he witnessed the translation for days at a time.

[...]

When Cowdery told others how Joseph translated the plates, he apparently primarily referred to the spectacles, rather than an individual seer stone. An early convert, Josiah Jones, explained that Cowdery “affirmed while [Joseph] looked through the stone spectacles another sat by and wrote what he told them.”33 Jones’s account is important because it does not confuse the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters by calling them the Urim and Thummim. Instead, he clearly eliminates the seer stone by calling the device “the stone spectacles.” Similarly, on his first missionary journey after the Church was established in 1830, Cowdery apparently explained the translation process in an attempt to convince Shakers of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling. He told a Shaker in Union Village, Ohio, that “The engraving being unintelligible to learned & unlearned. there is said to have been in the box with the plates two transparent stones in the

It is unknown whether Cowdery saw Joseph using both the spectacles and the individual seer stones, as Emma did. Josiah Jones, for example, an early parishioner of Sidney Rigdon, was baptized by Cowdery and his missionary companions when they passed through Kirtland, Ohio, on their way to proselytize Native Americans west of Missouri. He wrote that “In the last part of October, 1830, four men appeared here . . . with a book, which they said contained what was engraven on gold plates found . . . about three years ago by a man named Joseph Smith Jr. who had translated it by looking into a stone or two stones, when put into a dark place, which stones he said were found in the box with the plates.”35 Charles Anthon was apparently told by Martin Harris that Joseph stopped using the spectacles because they were too big, arguing that they “were so large, that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.”36 Anthon’s account may also explain why Cowdery generally described the translation process as involving the “interpreters” or spectacles, while others stated that the latter part of the translation was done with only a single seer stone. In fact, it is possible that Joseph may have even removed one of the lenses from the spectacles in order to more easily use it. He also may have simply focused upon one of the two lenses while the spectacles lay in the bottom of the hat.37 The earliest account, apparently informed by Joseph Smith, was printed in the Palmyra Freeman in August 1829 by Jonathan Hadley. It simply declared that Joseph placed the spectacles in the hat in order to translate, but this article does not eliminate the possibility that only one part of the spectacles was placed in the hat.38 Jones seemed to think that Joseph used one or two seer stones that were all provided to Joseph with the plates. If he is being clear, he is suggesting that sometimes Joseph used just one of the two seer stones that constituted the Nephite interpreters. In any case, some of those who were present during the later period of translation when Oliver Cowdery was acting as a scribe, like David Whitmer, wrote that they believed that Joseph was using a single brown seer stone when he translated. Whitmer explained that “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face.”39 To make things more complicated, Joseph Smith and members of the Church generally stopped differentiating between the seer stones and the spectacles by simply calling all of them the Urim and Thummim. By 1833, for example, W. W. Phelps published an article in the Church newspaper in Missouri, The Evening and the Morning Star, that declared that Joseph translated the plates “by the gift and power of God . . . through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).”40 By the time Joseph Smith’s later history was written in 1839, Joseph was using the term Urim and Thummim to reference any seer stone. Thus it is impossible to tell from his own later accounts precisely which device he was using to translate the Book of Mormon or to receive revelations.

Mackay, Michael Hubbard; Dirkmaat, Gerrit J. (2015-06-11). From Darkness Unto Light (Kindle Locations 2949-2961, 2980-3008). Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition. 

An interesting way to reconcile Emma and David's accounts with the majority of other accounts can be seen in the Zenas H. Gurley account. (Zenas H. Gurley, quoting “Dr. Robinson,” Source: Zenas H. Gurley, “The Book of Mormon,” Autumn Leaves 5 (1892): 451-54)

Quote

That Joseph had another stone called seers’ stone, and “peep stone,” is quite certain. This stone was frequently exhibited to different ones and helped to assuage their awful curiosity; but the Urim and Thummim never, unless possibly to Oliver Cowdery. . . . Elder David Whitmer’s idea was that the translation was made by the seers’ stone, as he calls it, not the Interpreters, and Emma Smith’s (Bidamon) statement accords with Whitmer as published in Herald some years since. The only discrepancy between the statements of the witnesses is that relating to the detail of the translation; and, as shown above, David and Emma, in the nature of things, did not know just how the Urim and Thummim were used, as they had never seen them. The reader will please bear in mind that no one was allowed to see either the plates or the Urim and Thummim, except as God commanded. The Eight Witnesses were allowed to see the plates and handle them as shown above; none else.

The problem with this is of course that there are accounts that the curtain was just to hide the process from a visitor who appeared at the door. Emma said she could see everything.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because (1) he's not the outlier as I've noted several times and (2) there are other quotes saying the spectacles were returned. You could just as easily say Emma and David Whitmer are the outliers as there are more accounts for the spectacles than against. Even Knight sometimes says the spectacles were primarily used (acknowledging the admitted problem of the term U&T by the late 1830's as encompasses both the brown stone and the spectacles):

Among the eye-witnesses, Oliver is definitely the outlier, and we already have an explanation for that -- which you fail to acknowledge.  At the same time you confuse 1828 and 1829 throughout your discussion.  Of course the Nephite interpreters (spectacles) were returned in 1828, but you fail to acknowledge that they were taken away again.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While some translation was done at the Hale home most was done at Joseph and Emma's home. As I explicitly said Hale can testify of what he saw but not what was going on when he wasn't around. I never said he wasn't a witness and indeed said the opposite. To repeat yet again, evidence that Joseph used the brown seerstone is not evidence that he didn't also use the spectacles. Most of your quotes don't establish that point.

The only claims for no spectacles are extremely late. But even there, contra your claims, they don't all say no spectacles. Quite the contrary. 

Martin Harris 1870 "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." (emphasis mine)

Once again you confuse 1828 and 1829, and then you leave open the possibility of interpreters (spectacles) just because they are unmentioned.  Not a good basis for any argument.  In addition, we are once again treated to misuse of the term Urim and Thummim.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Again I'm not alone in this. That's why the authors of From Darkness to Light say we don't know and speculate that some of the confusion might be due to popping one of the stones from the spectacles and using that.

I am very disappointed in Mackay & Dirkmaat for coming up with that completely uncalled for speculation, merely adding more confusion to what already exists.  We have no such suggestion from the 19th century at all.  What we do have is Joseph's mother describing the Nephite interpreters as two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses set in silver bows, connected like old-fashioned spectacles (Lucy’s Book, ed. Lavina F. Anderson (2001), 379).  No one is going around "popping" anything out of the bows, nor would that be necessary in 1829 in the presence of Joseph's well-known seer stone.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

The problem with this is of course that there are accounts that the curtain was just to hide the process from a visitor who appeared at the door. Emma said she could see everything.

Correct.  The misinformation on the curtain has prevented a full understanding that family members saw directly what was going on and their testimony is of prime importance.

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Among the eye-witnesses, Oliver is definitely the outlier, and we already have an explanation for that -- which you fail to acknowledge.  At the same time you confuse 1828 and 1829 throughout your discussion.  Of course the Nephite interpreters (spectacles) were returned in 1828, but you fail to acknowledge that they were taken away again.

And they were returned again.

Also, again, among eyewitnesses Oliver isn't the outlier. I mentioned several eyewitnesses who agreed with him including Harris. 

I'm not sure what you mean by mean confusing 1828 with 1829. I don't see any place where I made that confusion although maybe I'm missing something.

Quote

I am very disappointed in Mackay & Dirkmaat for coming up with that completely uncalled for speculation, merely adding more confusion to what already exists.  We have no such suggestion from the 19th century at all.  What we do have is Joseph's mother describing the Nephite interpreters as two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses set in silver bows, connected like old-fashioned spectacles (Lucy’s Book, ed. Lavina F. Anderson (2001), 379).  No one is going around "popping" anything out of the bows, nor would that be necessary in 1829 in the presence of Joseph's well-known seer stone.

That's not the only description. Some call them polished white stones rather than diamond like with streaks in them.

Further to say one couldn't pop out the stone seems questionable. Why couldn't one? They were popped in at some time presumably.

The speculation wasn't to push that as the answer merely to note the contradiction in accounts. You're theory is that Oliver apparently is lying. Their theory is that people are describing different phases and noting that several accounts have the spectacles in the hat and noting that if the problem was the inconvenience of doing so there's an easy solution that would help cause confusion over what stone was being used. As I've said multiple times we don't know what happened for sure, but their speculation seems at least as plausible as your speculation.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And they were returned again.

Also, again, among eyewitnesses Oliver isn't the outlier. I mentioned several eyewitnesses who agreed with him including Harris. 

I'm not sure what you mean by mean confusing 1828 with 1829. I don't see any place where I made that confusion although maybe I'm missing something.

That's not the only description. Some call them polished white stones rather than diamond like with streaks in them.

Further to say one couldn't pop out the stone seems questionable. Why couldn't one? They were popped in at some time presumably.

The speculation wasn't to push that as the answer merely to note the contradiction in accounts. You're theory is that Oliver apparently is lying. Their theory is that people are describing different phases and noting that several accounts have the spectacles in the hat and noting that if the problem was the inconvenience of doing so there's an easy solution that would help cause confusion over what stone was being used. As I've said multiple times we don't know what happened for sure, but their speculation seems at least as plausible as your speculation.

Coming up with pure, uncalled for speculation is anathema to good historical research, which is why I am disappointed.  I have the same disappointment with those who think that Urim and Thummim is a legitimate term -- even though those using it were not professional historians.

The rule is that one never makes unnecessary proposals.  Professionals just don't do it, unless it becomes necessary.  The actual descriptions of eyewitnesses surrounding the translation are coherent in and of themselves and do not need additional confusing elements inserted.  In that respect, Oliver is definitely the outlier.  Confusing 1828 with 1829 does no help at all.