There is no such thing as valid criticism of the LDS Church

[Oliblish]

50 minutes ago, Danzo said:

1.  You don't know it is incorrect, you were not there and their are reports from a eyewitnesses that the interpreters were used.

Were there actually eyewitnesses that saw Joseph translating with the Nephite interpreters?  From what I understand the eyewitnesses only reported seeing the stone in the hat method.  Who did Joseph allow to see the interpreters?  I thought they remained hidden from view like the plates.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am not saying I know what exactly happened, I am saying that there are reasons to believe both stories occurred (it doesn't even have to be one or the other).

I don't see anyone here saying that the interpreters weren't used by Joseph.  Just that the stone in the hat method was mainly used translating what we now have of the BofM.

Did anyone ever actually see the interpreters other than Joseph?  Any eye witness descriptions?  (I'm thinking maybe Lucy or Emma saw them, or maybe just felt them, but may be mixed up on that.)

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Were there actually eyewitnesses that saw Joseph translating with the Nephite interpreters?  From what I understand the eyewitnesses only reported seeing the stone in the hat method.  Who did Joseph allow to see the interpreters?  I thought they remained hidden from view like the plates.

Oliver Cowdery seems to report the use of the Nephite Interpreters.  His statement is much earlier than those of David Whitmer and Emma.

These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

 

 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Oliver Cowdery seems to report the use of the Nephite Interpreters.  His statement is much earlier than those of David Whitmer and Emma.

These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

 

 

But the seer stones were also called the Urim and Thummim.  Also did he actually see or ever describe the interpreters or just make assumptions about them?  

Was Oliver the one who said there was a curtain between them?  Maybe Joseph had his head in his hat, but Oliver assumed he was using the interpreters.

I'd love to know if he ever really saw Joseph use the ancient interpreters!

Edited September 5, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm beginning to think it's a parody account. Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan.

This is a scary thought...actually..I laughed out loud...because as an ex mormon, I am not only anti...but I am a big fan of historicity...shame on me!

[Danzo]

Just now, JulieM said:

But the seer stones were also called the Urim and Thummim.  Also did he actually see or ever describe the interpreters or just make assumptions about them?  

I'd love to know if he ever really saw Joseph use the ancient interpreters!

His statement seems to indicate plural "Interpreters".  He seems pretty sure of himself in the statement.  Unfortunately we can't cross examine him to find out exactly what he saw and experienced.  Sometimes we have to accept that we can't be sure exactly what happened.

I think he was as much in a position to know as anyone.

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

His statement seems to indicate plural "Interpreters". 

Yes, I agree.  But he did have more than one seer stone too.  So unless he actually saw Joseph using the interpreters, we can't really call him an eye witness like the others were who made statements.

This is all interesting though, so thanks again!

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I also thought they were taken from Joseph at that time, but were they returned?  Thanks for any info on that!

Found this regarding the interpreters being taken.  It's a statement by David Whitmer:

Quote

"[H]e used a stone called a “Seers stone,” the “Interpreters” having been taken away from him because of transgression. The “Interpreters” were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a “Seers stone” which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

Whitmer is indicating that the interpreters were taken from Joseph after the loss of the 116 pages and not given back to him. 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

The quote you supplied states nothing about the Jaredite Intepreters being used.  And, I see no connection between the two quotes you provided other than making some leaps of faith or assumptions (that Alma used the interpreters when inquiring of the Lord in those passages).  Also, as far as I know, nothing was recorded or stated that Lehi brought a Urim and Thummim to this continent.

Do you believe that the Nephite Interpeters were the ancient Israelite Urim & Thummim?

Either way, this has nothing to do with Joseph's seer stones.  He did not use the ancient interpreters other than for the 116 pages (iirc).  The seer stones were what became known as the Urim & Thummim after 1833 (and those terms weren't even used by Joseph Smith prior to that date as far as we know and did not originate with him).

I'll pass on this. It was a mistake to share it. You can think about it for a while. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'll pass on this. It was a mistake to share it. You can think about it for a while. 

Oh, I've read extensively on the topic and could see where you were most likely headed. I agree that it's probably wise that you pass unless you have something new to add.  Thanks, though...and I mean that.

(And I'll add that I certainly appreciate your insight and definitely respect your right to believe as you do.)

Edited September 5, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

But the seer stones were also called the Urim and Thummim.  Also did he actually see or ever describe the interpreters or just make assumptions about them?  

Was Oliver the one who said there was a curtain between them?  Maybe Joseph had his head in his hat, but Oliver assumed he was using the interpreters.

I'd love to know if he ever really saw Joseph use the ancient interpreters!

We've discussed this here before. Oliver was pretty consistent in claiming the U&T. The main point of contention is whether after the 116 pages were taken if Joseph used the U&T to translate or only used his seer stone. I think there's pretty good evidence that the U&T was given back and used at least a little. But the evidence is a bit ambiguous and ones conclusions tend to follow whether one sees Oliver's multiple accounts as outliers or not. Given how often he repeated his claims from a very early period I think it misleading to call him an outlier. I'd read that full thread I linked to. (I only linked to my last post in the discussion)

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Oliver was pretty consistent in claiming the U&T. 

Which again were terms used for the seer stones as well.

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The main point of contention is whether after the 116 pages were taken if Joseph used the U&T to translate or only used his seer stone. I think there's pretty good evidence that the U&T was given back and used at least a little.

I searched on that and found just the opposite.  But I'd really be interested to read the "pretty good evidence" you found regarding them being returned.  (Sincerely interested because I couldn't find much....)

The only clear statement I found was in Joseph's history, but it appears that is questionable.

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Given how often he repeated his claims from a very early period....

Often?  Do you have a source where his claims are all quoted?

I'll look as well....

I put a great deal of credence into the actual eye witness accounts.  As others have stated, it appears that Oliver Cowdery never actually witnessed Joseph using the ancient interpreters.  The witnesses state it was not used after the loss of the 116 pages.  

Edited September 5, 2017 by ALarson

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which again were terms used for the seer stones as well.

I searched on that and found just the opposite.  But I'd really be interested to read the "pretty good evidence" you found regarding them being returned.  (Sincerely interested because I couldn't find much....)

The only clear statement I found was in Joseph's history, but it appears that is questionable.

Often?  Do you have a source where his claims are all quoted?

I'll look as well....

I put a great deal of credence into the actual eye witness accounts.  As others have stated, it appears that Oliver Cowdery never actually witnessed Joseph using the ancient interpreters.  The witnesses state it was not used after the loss of the 116 pages.  

Are you saying that Oliver Cowdery was less of an eye witness than Emma or David Whitmere?

are you saying he spent less time during the translation process than Emma or David?

I seem to recall that Oliver was present during the vast majority of the translation of the Book of Mormon we have today, while David was an occasional onlooker.  What what I understand, Oliver would be the one who would have known about the process better than anyone.

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We've discussed this here before. 

Yes, I remember that but I don't remember anything being settled on that point.  That's why I'm asking again, but maybe we just can't know one way or the other for sure (?)!

Thank you for posting that link again though.  It was interesting to read through the comments about Oliver Cowdery's statement.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you saying that Oliver Cowdery was less of an eye witness than Emma or David Whitmere?

I'm saying that unless he actually saw Joseph using the interpreters, he was making assumptions rather than actually being an eye witness to the process.  (He could have still been a witness as far as being there, of course....just not to the actual method if Joseph didn't let him see that.)

However, the statements from the others (posted earlier on this thread) actually were eye witnesses to the method he used (head in the hat).

Hope that makes sense.

Or, do you believe that Oliver actually saw the interpreters? (Just trying to clarify....)

The thread that Clark linked to has some interesting observations regarding why Oliver may have wanted to avoid discussing the seer stones that Joseph used for treasure seeking.  I don't know if you read through it, but I did earlier and it's got some good insights and info in it.

Here is the link again:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68757-u-t-seer-stone-nothing-at-all/

 

[strappinglad]

Could someone please do an experiment ? Get a hat typical of one Joseph had. Put an I-phone in the hat( or some such device), draw the hat completely around your face and begin reading aloud to a scribe who writes out longhand what is being said. Do this for at least 10 pages ( 2500 words ) . Analyze the results.

Does anyone doubt the existence of the 116 pages ? I imagine so. But if Martin had not lost them and the entire BoM had been produced using them, would we still be fighting over the images of artists? Joseph said he found the interpreters too large and ungainly to use with comfort.

True or false, Oliver was scribe for the majority of the BoM ? He was there for months and yet some here claim they are quite sure he never saw the process at all. STRETCH !

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Could someone please do an experiment ? Get a hat typical of one Joseph had. Put an I-phone in the hat( or some such device), draw the hat completely around your face and begin reading aloud to a scribe who writes out longhand what is being said. Do this for at least 10 pages ( 2500 words ) . Analyze the results.

Does anyone doubt the existence of the 116 pages ? I imagine so. But if Martin had not lost them and the entire BoM had been produced using them, would we still be fighting over the images of artists? Joseph said he found the interpreters too large and ungainly to use with comfort.

True or false, Oliver was scribe for the majority of the BoM ? He was there for months and yet some here claim they are quite sure he never saw the process at all. STRETCH !

Except that Oliver never claimed to actually see the interpreters.  I don't know that anyone but Joseph actually saw them.  I think that Lucy described them (from feeling them), but no one saw them (other than Joseph and maybe some in visions).  So, that's what the discussion is about.   

[strappinglad]

And yet Oliver's quote implies he did see them, otherwise it seems like a throw away line.

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Could someone please do an experiment ? Get a hat typical of one Joseph had. Put an I-phone in the hat( or some such device), draw the hat completely around your face and begin reading aloud to a scribe who writes out longhand what is being said. Do this for at least 10 pages ( 2500 words ) . Analyze the results.

Does anyone doubt the existence of the 116 pages ? I imagine so. But if Martin had not lost them and the entire BoM had been produced using them, would we still be fighting over the images of artists? Joseph said he found the interpreters too large and ungainly to use with comfort.

True or false, Oliver was scribe for the majority of the BoM ? He was there for months and yet some here claim they are quite sure he never saw the process at all. STRETCH !

The question was whether or not Oliver saw the ancient interpreters used during the translation process.  

I was doing some reading on this last night and found a paper written that is excellent at describing the terms that became interchangeable and also analyzing all the statements regarding the translation process.  It's on The Interpreter Foundation website and was written by Stan Spencer.  It's well worth reading through the entire paper, but I'll quote some of the parts that apply here below:

Quote

 

Joseph Smith used the term the Urim and Thummim to refer to the pair of seer stones, or “interpreters,” he obtained for translating the Book of Mormon as well as to other seer stones he used in a similar manner. According to witness accounts, he would put the stone(s) in a hat and pull the hat close around his face to exclude the light, and then he would see the translated text of the Book of Mormon. 

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

The fact that the interpreter stones and Joseph Smith’s own seer stones were referred to in the same way (as seer stones, urim and thummim, and directors) and used interchangeably in translating suggests that they functioned in the same manner.

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

In January of 1849, Oliver Cowdery shared with Samuel W. Richards his understanding of how the Book of Mormon was translated. Over 58 years later, on May 21, 1907, Richards recorded his recollection of what Oliver Cowdery had said. According to that recollection, Cowdery told him that when Joseph Smith was translating, words appeared and “remained in the translator” until transcribed correctly.28 The “translator” could have referred to the interpreters or, alternatively, to Joseph Smith’s brown seer stone. The need for the seer to look “in” the stone agrees with the Book of Mormon’s description of how seer stones are used (Mosiah 8:13). A typed copy was soon made of Richards’s recollection and dated May 25, 1907. Because Richards’s original account did not read smoothly in some spots, someone (probably the typist) did some light editing. As a result of this editing, Oliver Cowdery is represented in the typed copy as saying that the words Joseph Smith saw while translating appeared and “remained on the ‘interpreter.’”29These changes in the text reflect assumptions both about what instrument was used and about how it functioned. There may be even greater differences between Richards’s May 21 account and what Cowdery actually said many decades previously — differences due to Richards’s own faulty recollection and assumptions. Because of such probable but unknowable differences, we must use Richards’s account and all other secondhand (and third-hand, and fourth-hand) accounts with caution, if at all.

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

The only firsthand statement describing the translation we have from Oliver Cowdery is equally spare and vague:

I … commenced to write the Book of Mormon. These were days never to be forgotten — to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould [sic] have said, ‘Interpreters.’35

In this description, Cowdery has Joseph Smith translating “with the Urim and Thummim” but also dictating “by the inspiration of heaven.” The means of divine inspiration is not specified, and could refer to either thoughts or visual images presented to Joseph Smith’s mind. Inspiration in a religious context is often equated with the direct instilling of thoughts by the Holy Ghost, but the word also has a more general meaning of influence, and it is unclear in which sense Cowdery is using it.

Cowdery’s statement is also equivocal regarding the instrument being used to translate. “The Urim and Thummim” could refer to the interpreters or to one of Joseph Smith’s own seer stones. By mentioning “interpreters,” Cowdery may have intended the reader to infer that Joseph Smith translated in his presence with the Nephite interpreters, but that is not exactly what he said. All he necessarily said was that the Nephite term for urim and thummim was interpreters: “the urim and thummim, or as the Nephites would have said, ‘interpreters.’” Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both avoided using the term “seer stone” in their public statements. Talk of revelation by seer stone in a society increasingly intolerant of folk religious practices would have only increased the hostility Joseph Smith and his followers faced because of their unconventional religious views. That may have been why, when Joseph Smith was asked during an 1831 conference in Ohio to relate information regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he opined that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon” and “it was not expedient for him to relate these things.”36 The Church has since made efforts to inform the public about Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone in translating.

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

In early June of 1829, Joseph, Emma, and Oliver Cowdery moved to the Peter Whitmer home in Fayette, New York, to complete the translation, with Oliver Cowdery as the principal scribe. The translation was conducted in plain view of others, as described in 1870 by Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, David Whitmer’s sister who later married Oliver Cowdery:

I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the Book of Mormon. He translated [Page 38]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.45

Both Elizabeth Cowdery and David Whitmer retained a firm belief in the Book of Mormon the remainder of their lives. David Whitmer, having given many interviews to newspaper reporters and other interested persons and often being misquoted, issued a corrective statement in 1879 through his friend, John Traughber:

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.

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

David Whitmer published a pamphlet in 1887 in which he testified that he was “an eye-witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon” and again shared his understanding of the translation process:

God gave to an unlearned boy, Joseph Smith, the gift to translate it by the means of a STONE. See the following passages concerning the “Urim and Thummin,” being the same means and one by which the Ancients received the word of the Lord. (1 Sam. xxviii:6. Neh. vii:65. Ezra ii:63. Num. xxvii:21. Deut. xxxiii:8. Exodus xxviii:30. Lev. viii:8). But this is a great stumbling-block to the people now. They cannot understand why God would work in this manner to bring forth his word; and why he would choose such a man as Joseph Smith to translate it; and they think the canon of scripture is full: and that angels do not minister unto men in these days..…

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 [Page 40]Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. 

 

 

 

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/

I highly recommend reading entirely through this paper for anyone interested in a more thorough look at the translation process and the statements we have regarding it.

Edited September 6, 2017 by ALarson

[SamuelTheLamanite]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No I'm saying you're positions are so unfalsifiable that I'm starting to think you're a critic just having fun here.

Are you serious? Well, I hope you don't think I am an Atheist because they are worst.   

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

Which again were terms used for the seer stones as well.

Yes but the evolution of using Urim and Thummim to unambiguously refer to seer stones comes after many of Oliver's statements. Typically we see that evolution as around 1833. (The earliest reference is "The Book of Mormon" in The Evening and the Morning Star, Jan 1833)

Quote

I searched on that and found just the opposite.  But I'd really be interested to read the "pretty good evidence" you found regarding them being returned.  (Sincerely interested because I couldn't find much....)

Lucy Smith wrote about it in her biographical sketches. "[Joseph] continued [his] supplications to God, without cessation, and...had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim." Later she wrote that Joseph told her that the angel "seemed pleased with me when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim, and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility." (Biographical Sketches, 126)  Her dating is slightly different from what's in the Joseph Smith History text. Lucy has them returned on September 22, 1828. Joseph says they were returned a few days after the July 1828 revelation.

Also note that contrary to what most people are familiar with, the plates and U&T were taken from him twice. The above is about the second return. Most of this is covered in depth in From Darkness Unto Light which is worth reading if you're interested in the topic. I thought I knew the history reasonably well but learned a lot of things I didn't know when I read that.

Quote

Often?  Do you have a source where his claims are all quoted?

From Darkness Unto Light has the most recent scholarship on the issue and is probably the must read on the subject. FAIR has a fairly comprehensive list of all statements by the date they were given. The most relevant are the early ones from before 1835.

The reason Oliver Cowdery's accounts are so significant is that he comes rather late to the process as a scribe. He continually describes the "spectacles" rather than the seer stone. He comes because God shows him the plates in a vision commanding him to go to Joseph to act as a scribe. He arrives April 5, 1829. Also note that during this period Joseph claims to receive non-Book of Mormon revelations via the U&T. (i.e. D&C 6)

There's a full chapter on Cowdery in From Darkness Unto Light that's worth reading.

Edited September 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm saying that unless he actually saw Joseph using the interpreters, he was making assumptions rather than actually being an eye witness to the process.  (He could have still been a witness as far as being there, of course....just not to the actual method if Joseph didn't let him see that.)

Note that an important context is D&C 6, received by the U&T and which is tied to Oliver wanting to translate himself. D&C 7 also was received by the U&T. So arguing he never saw Joseph use the U&T seems difficult to accept. Oliver was the main scribe for most of the process. Discounting Oliver requires believing all these other people saw what was going on when Oliver didn't. More significantly Oliver's attempt at translating most likely involved using the U&T. (See D&C 9) It's very hard to make sense of Oliver's translation attempt with a model that has Oliver ignorant of the process. Also note that it is likely when Oliver is writing down Mosiah 8 describing the interpreters that he starts to desire to translate. 

The more compelling argument is one of convenience. The spectacles were large and hard to use. The seer stone was smaller. There are some accounts that suggest one of the stones in the spectacles might have been removed from the frame and put in the hat. (Not all accounts of a stone describe the dark banded stone) 

Edited September 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ALarson]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes but the evolution of using Urim and Thummim to unambiguously refer to seer stones comes after many of Oliver's statements. 

No, Oliver's statement was given in 1834.

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically we see that evolution as around 1833.

Correct, that was the first usage of the terms "Urim and Thummim" in connection with any instruments used in the translation process (that we know of).  Once again, that was before Oliver used them in his statement.

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Lucy Smith wrote about it in her biographical sketches. "[Joseph] continued [his] supplications to God, without cessation, and...had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim." Later she wrote that Joseph told her that the angel "seemed pleased with me when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim, and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility." (Biographical Sketches, 126)  Her dating is slightly different from what's in the Joseph Smith History text. Lucy has them returned on September 22, 1828. Joseph says they were returned a few days after the July 1828 revelation.

Here's some information on that (she original states that Joseph only received "the record" or "the plates" back):

Quote

 

Furthermore, upon examining the original text of Lucy’s 1845 manuscript, we note some interesting alterations. The text was originally written by Lucy partially in the third person.

I then continued, Joseph, “my supplications to God without cessation that his mercy might again be exercised towards me and on the 22 of September I had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the record into my possession and I have commenced translating and Emma writes for me now but the angel said that if I get the plates again that the Lord would send someone to write for me and I trust that it will be so”—he also said that the angel seemed rejoiced when he gave him back the plates and said that he was pleased with his faithfulness and humility also that the Lord was pleased with him and loved him for his penitence and diligence in prayer in the which he had performed his duty so well as to receive the record and he [was] able to enter upon the work of translation again.50

[Page 152]After strikeouts and word replacements, the complete text reads as if it were written by Joseph himself, with all references to “the plates” and “the record” now replaced with “the Urim and Thummim.”

“I continued,” said Joseph, “my supplications to God without cessation that his mercy might again be exercised towards me and on the 22 of September I had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim into my possession and I have commenced translating and Emma writes for me now but the angel said that the Lord would send someone to write for me and I trust that it will be so – he also said that he was rejoiced when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim and that God was pleased with my faithfulness and humility and loved me for my penitence and diligence in prayer in the which I had performed his duty so well as to receive the Urim and Thummim and was able to enter upon the work of translation again.”51

[Page 153]Since Lucy is the one who originally wrote the text of Joseph’s statement, we have established this reference to the Urim and Thummim as a late second-hand statement. The use of the term to refer to the translation instruments is unsurprising, but its use as a replacement for references to the plates is unusual. By the time Lucy’s history was published in 1853, there was no indication that these “Urim and Thummim” references originally referred to the plates, and it now appeared that Joseph Smith himself had spoken these words.

“After the angel left me,” said he, “I continued my supplications to God, without cessation, and on the twenty-second of September, I had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim, with which I have again commenced translating, and Emma writes for me, but the angel said that the Lord would send me a scribe, and I trust his promise will be verified. The angel seemed pleased with me when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim, and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility.”52

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/

 

 

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

. FAIR has a fairly comprehensive list of all statements by the date they were given. The most relevant are the early ones from before 1835.

This is a good source, I agree.  There's only one statement from Oliver (other than a couple second hand statements that did not use the terms "Urim and Thummim").  We don't have a record supporting your statement above ("Given how often he repeated his claims from a very early period...")

If you have not read the article I quoted in my post above ("Seers and Stones:  The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer" by Stan Spencer), I think you'd enjoy it.  It gives an excellent analysis of the statements given by the eye witnesses to the translation methods and process.

Here's the link again:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/

Edited September 6, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note that an important context is D&C 6, received by the U&T and which is tied to Oliver wanting to translate himself. D&C 7 also was received by the U&T. So arguing he never saw Joseph use the U&T seems difficult to accept. 

I agree that Oliver saw Joseph using the seer stone to translate (these later were referred to as the Urim and Thummim as you state above):

Quote

The introductory headings of D&C sections 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 17 indicate that they were given by “the Urim and Thummim,” which was, at the time, the brown seer stone.85 Joseph Smith used his seer stones for other revelations as well. 

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/

Quote

Referring to the revelations in D&C sections 3 through 18, David Whitmer wrote, “The revelations in the Book of Commandments up to June, 1829, were given through the ‘stone,’ through which the Book of Mormon was translated.” David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ: By a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon(Richmond, MO: by the author, 1887)

(Footnote 2 in the article linked to above)

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

No, Oliver's statement was given in 1834.

Correct, that was the first usage of the terms "Urim and Thummim" in connection with any instruments used in the translation process (that we know of).  Once again, that was before Oliver used them in his statement.

Here's some information on that (she original states that Joseph only received "the record" or "the plates" back):

This is a good source, I agree.  There's only one statement from Oliver (other than a couple second hand statements that did not use the terms "Urim and Thummim").  We don't have a record supporting your statement above ("Given how often he repeated his claims from a very early period...")

If you have not read the article I quoted in my post above ("Seers and Stones:  The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer" by Stan Spencer), I think you'd enjoy it.  It gives an excellent analysis of the statements given by the eye witnesses to the translation methods and process.

Here's the link again:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/

I had a big reply which appears to have been lost somehow. I'll try replying again later tonight in depth.

Briefly though. By early I meant relative to Emma and Whitmer who were remembering 50-60 years after the fact. Also we have second hand accounts of Cowdery testimonies especially in trials. They're not as good, but I don't think can just be dismissed. I find the use of the Whitmer to prove the brown stone was used for the D&C sections question begging. It's not even clear Whitmer was there for all of those. (Although it's certainly possible given the use of the Whitmer home for translation)

I'd add that the term "Urim and Thummim" is a bit beside the point. The main issue is whether he was using the brown stone or the spectacles. So far as I know "spectacles" was never applied to the brown stone.

I didn't remember that bit about Lucy's account being changed. From Darkness Unto Light relies on it in a few places and that undermines that chapter. I'll reread Spencer - I'd read him back in the spring but I can't recall why I wasn't convinced by his argument. Glancing at it while I think he raises a valid interpretation with Oliver using his dowsing rod, I confess I don't see how that'd work for translation. The bigger issue is Oliver using the brown stone instead of the spectacles. Give me a bit to give a good reply. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by clarkgoble