Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why haven’t you provided a link to where you got this quote?  Some may be confused thinking it’s a transcript of the Bill Reel podcast instead of a Faith Again meeting from 2016.  
 

Link won’t work, so posting Bushman’s response to the “kerfuffle”:

https://www.Mormon*******.***/podcast/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

My point was he was on Bill Reel's anti Mormon program which can be taken as strange.  You like Bushman, I have no issue with that.

My issue which is true, he has pushed members out of the church and most likely did damage to those investigating.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:10-11 (Apr 2, 1843) we read:

Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

The ‘new name’ is part of the temple ceremony, and has been since the Nauvoo period.  It is known that Joseph treasured his white seer stone.  Based on these references, it appears that he may have been intended to use it or similar stones as part of the temple ceremony. Shortly after Lyman Wight was endowment into the Quorum of the Anointed on May 14, 1844, Joseph Smith confirmed Wight’s mission to take a group of settlers to Texas.  As part of this ordination, Wight received a white (seer?) stone[13].   As Smith was killed prior to the Nauvoo temple being completed, his exact intentions regarding distribution of white seer stones may have been lost to history.

Later apostles taught that the Urim and Thummim would be used in temples in order to divine the names of past anscestors to allow temple work to be done for them[14].

Among these hidden things that are to be revealed are the books of genealogy, tracing individuals and nations among all people, back to ancient times.

It may be inquired—“How can all this be done?” We answer, by the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord God has ordained to be used in the midst of his holy house, in his Temple.

The Manti temple was dedicated in May 1888, and the “Urim and Thummim” (seer stone) was placed on the alter during the dedication[15].  The holy of holies was located in this temple until the completion of the Salt Lake temple in 1893 and may have housed a seer stones during that period.

 

This is a copy/paste of another website without any attribute to it.  If all you are planning on doing is copying/pasting stuff from other sites without even discussing what you are copying/pasting, I really don't see the point in discussing this with you.  Have a good day.

[rjohnson7]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

 

This is a copy/paste of another website without any attribute to it.  If all you are planning on doing is copying/pasting stuff from other sites without even discussing what you are copying/pasting, I really don't see the point in discussing this with you.  Have a good day.

Sorry you feel that way, this topic is definitely not for you,  God bless....

I Also apologize for leaving out the web site.... my bad 😥 

Edited September 9, 2023 by rjohnson7

[webbles]

44 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Sorry you feel that way, this topic is definitely not for you,  God bless....

I Also apologize for leaving out the web site.... my bad 😥 

I don't know why you needed to say the bolded.  I'm very comfortable talking about the translation method.  If you are willing to actually answer the questions I asked and not just copy from a site which doesn't even prove your point, I'd go on.  I'm not even sure what you point is at this time.  You seem to say Joseph has a seer stone and then you say he doesn't.  You seem to say that he "demonstrated" his translation but you have never explained how that is supposed to help the situation.  You seem to say that he did use the seer stone in the hat and then you don't.  You seem to say there was a blanket there and then turn around and say those sources are to be ignored.

[Calm]

On 9/8/2023 at 9:26 PM, rjohnson7 said:

Who is Mike?

A poster who created a bunch of sock puppets because he kept getting banned for rule breaking behaviour.   He has a certain highly frustrating style. 

Acts indignant a lot. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Sorry you feel that way, this topic is definitely not for you,  God bless....

From what I was seeing, weebles, pogi, and everyone else are handling the topic just fine. From what I am seeing several posters, including myself, are having issues with you, not the topic. We all have engaged with the topics lots of times as a search of the board will show, even with those who disagree with us.  My guess (since I am experiencing it) is they feel frustration with your posts, your lack of actual engagement with points being made, repetition of the same misinterpreted material, lack of precision in citation and interpretation, lack of explanation of details, contradictions in your method (there appears not be much consistency in what you accept and what you don’t), massive dependency on a poorly written book while refusing to engage with reviews of that book, mislabeling sources as secondhand or whatever, and then most annoying complaints that other posters are rude when they point out errors in your posts and slanders of faithful members or push you to give substantive responses. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

My point was he was on Bill Reel's anti Mormon program which can be taken as strange.  You like Bushman, I have no issue with that.

My issue which is true, he has pushed members out of the church and most likely did damage to those investigating.

Going into the Lion’s Den is a good way and sometimes the only way to reach out to those who are missing to show one can be a faithful, very well informed scholar and a gentleman and still be fully committed to the Church.
   

 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Who is Mike?

Someone who posts as different people. You just seem a little fishy. I hope you're for real. I'd like to believe it, but you won't accept facts it seems.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Really, why are you being rude, the following is all Bushman

 

 

 

Richard Bushman on New Mormon History:  

  Quote

 

Richard Bushman:  “I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative.  The dominant narrative is not true;  it can’t be sustained.  The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do, and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially.  But I think it has to change.”

 

 

 

Expand  

"The downside of that is that there is developing in the scholarly world a view of church history. It’s out of kilter with the church version, what’s told in Sunday school class. All sorts of things that don’t fit together such as the seer stones in the hat, or many, many other things.

That was a very dangerous situation because there came a time when the stuff is collected, it’s made available online. And people trying to prepare a Relief Society lesson would go online to try to collect some information get suddenly hit with this counter story that they’ve never heard before, that was authenticated, it’s got footnotes behind it, it’s got authority behind it. Not only do you have this disjuncture, things are not fitting anymore, but a question of Why wasn’t I told this before? A sense of betrayal and even rage, anger, and this somewhat illogical but understandable view, they’ve been lying to you all along. As if the church authorities knew it all and they were just concealing it.

There was a little bit of that. They did hide Mountain Meadows for a while. But on the whole the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history. So it’s put us in this difficult position where we are being asked to change very rapidly to a new construct of our own history and it’s put a lot of strain on a lot of people. It’s quite amazing how over the last few years the church is formally and informally trying to adjust to that, with all these gospel topic stories that deal with the difficult issues all being assimilated in the church curriculum and Elder Ballard saying we all have to learn this material, we have to be ready, our kids have to learn it. We don’t want any more surprises.

 So the big question in my mind with all these things we’ve being doing, you’ve got that, you’ve got all these books that are coming out, Terryl Givens book Principles of God [?] and Patrick Masons book, Laura Hales has a new book out on the reasoning about our church history. With all these things that are happening and groups like this, will we actually be able to instruct the rising generation of Latter Day Saints? I would say those who are say 12 or 13, sufficiently so that there will be no surprises. There may be issues and problems — this doesn’t solve the problem of gay marriage — but it’s attempting to deal with the problems of historical incongruities and are we going to be successful in [unintelligible] that along so there will no longer be that shock or that anger, that they had been cheated on, that they haven’t been told the whole story. So I may not live long enough to see that happening but everyone else in the room will [laughter] attest that.

 I think for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds, and that’s what it’s trying to do. And they’ll be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. Elder Packer had the sense of “protecting the little people.” He felt like the scholars were an enemy to his faith, and that of the grandmothers living in Sanpete County. That was a very lovely pastoral image. But the price of protecting the grandmothers was the loss of the grandsons. They got a story that didn’t work. So we’ve just had to change our narrative."

"When I arrived in Cambridge (Mass.), the mission president, a professor of agriculture from Utah State [University] and so wise, asked, “Do you have a testimony?” I said, “No, I’m not sure I believe in God.” But he didn’t send me home.
He said, “Would you read this book and tell me what you think of it?” He handed me a Book of Mormon and sent me on the train to Halifax, which took 20 hours to get there from Boston. I spent the next three months asking every question I could about the Book of Mormon witnesses — Were they deceived? Were they hypnotized? Were they in on the game? After that three months, the mission president came up and asked us to bear our testimonies and, when he came to me, I just said, “I know the Book of Mormon is right.” I was prepared to commit myself, which I did, and never wavered from that. But I have had continual questions ever since. They’ve never gone away."

Bushman.  

Driving Members Away: Bushman

I have been told that we should never discuss our true and complete history and doctrine at church.  It can cause people to lose their testimonies.

What a weird thing to say!  So, it’s better to hide the truth so that a person will continue to believe the “truth” that’s really not true?  I know that there are adults in the church who want to be treated this way.  Not this adult.  In fact, most adults would say this is not adult behavior.  “When I became a man, I put away childish things.”

I now see the other side.  Not discussing our complete history and doctrine at church is causing members to lose their testimony.  It has driven my friends right out of the LDS church. The church whose “dominant narrative is not true.”

Teaching and embracing falsehood is not good…at least, not in my neighborhood.  My church is good, it’s time to get better.

 

 

 

 

 

-1

•  
•  
• Quote

 

Very sporadic post here, can't tell if you're speaking or the article is. You or they, posted about hiding Mountain Meadow Massacre, and others. 

There's actually a huge list of things I'd never known and Mountain Meadow Massacre is a biggie. And it's pretty sad, but just like families that want to hide things away and keep secrets about members in their family that do horrendous things, maybe that's what the church did. But secrets are not always good to stay hidden. 

 

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

From what I was seeing, weebles, pogi, and everyone else are handling the topic just fine. From what I am seeing several posters, including myself, are having issues with you, not the topic. We all have engaged with the topics lots of times as a search of the board will show, even with those who disagree with us.  My guess (since I am experiencing it) is they feel frustration with your posts, your lack of actual engagement with points being made, repetition of the same misinterpreted material, lack of precision in citation and interpretation, lack of explanation of details, contradictions in your method (there appears not be much consistency in what you accept and what you don’t), massive dependency on a poorly written book while refusing to engage with reviews of that book, mislabeling sources as secondhand or whatever, and then most annoying complaints that other posters are rude when they point out errors in your posts and slanders of faithful members or push you to give substantive responses. 

I am sorry you feel that way Calm. This topic obviously isn't for you or anyone else who disagrees with the OP. You clearly are not concerned enough with the youth, the sick and the poor or those who drink coffee, and have been misled by sheep in wolves clothing, or something like that. God bless you for your feeble attempts.

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am sorry you feel that way Calm. This topic obviously isn't for you or anyone else who disagrees with the OP. You clearly are not concerned enough with the youth, the sick and the poor or those who drink coffee, and have been misled by sheep in wolves clothing, or something like that. God bless you for your feeble attempts.

 

Thank you for your most sincere pity, CA.  It makes me feel so much better about complaining.  I think I will do it much more often so I can work less, but still feel good about what I put up.  Reading people’s post, why bother?  I have better things to do. I know if I dig deep I can pull up some high quality victimhood.    

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This topic obviously isn't for you or anyone else who disagrees with the OP.

I don't think that I agree with you. The OP was whether or not anyone here believes that Joseph Smith translated via a seer stone. @rjohnson7 doesn't believe that it happened (despite the broad acceptance within the LDS Church and amongst professional historians). They have also been terribly coy about their own position here - and part of that comes out in what feels like an unwillingness to publicly challenge the leadership of the Church while maintaining a private disagreement with what they see as a capitulation on the part of the Church to the evils of the New Mormon History.

I am not sure what they were expecting in these forums, but in their effort to condemn the New Mormon History, they have done so with a one-size fits all criticism, lumping faithful members of the LDS Church (like Bushman, and Givens, and Arrington) with the Church's vocal critics (like the Tanners, or Quinn, or Vogel, and so on). Their willingness to accept the conclusions of the critics - is problematic. And if they are a real believer (I think that their coyness about their own position leaves this in question), they are certainly someplace on the ultra-conservative side leaning into fundamentalism. An unwillingness to change in light of new information is an indicator of such a belief set. The constant googling without real understanding gets tiresome too ... and I think you are right, this is not the topic for me - I have said my two cents - but @rjohnson7 hasn't really explained to us whey they are posting here, and what their intention really is. I am still in the dark as to what their expectation is for this topic. The question seems to have been rhetorical, since the point they are trying to make is that there isn't any first hand accounts of the seer stone. And recently, they have shown that they are quite capable of creating imaginative ways to dismiss any potential first hand evidence ...

[rodheadlee]

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am sorry you feel that way Calm. This topic obviously isn't for you or anyone else who disagrees with the OP. You clearly are not concerned enough with the youth, the sick and the poor or those who drink coffee, and have been misled by sheep in wolves clothing, or something like that. God bless you for your feeble attempts.

 

That was sarcasm right?

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

That was sarcasm right?

Those who have eyes to hear and ears to see will understand.

For everyone else, yes of course it was.

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Very sporadic post here, can't tell if you're speaking or the article is. You or they, posted about hiding Mountain Meadow Massacre, and others. 

There's actually a huge list of things I'd never known and Mountain Meadow Massacre is a biggie. And it's pretty sad, but just like families that want to hide things away and keep secrets about members in their family that do horrendous things, maybe that's what the church did. But secrets are not always good to stay hidden. 

 

I totally agree, secrets versus transparency, well I will take transparency everyday... the Mountain Meadow Massacre is a very complex issue, so little information. 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Someone who posts as different people. You just seem a little fishy. I hope you're for real. I'd like to believe it, but you won't accept facts it seems.

I have a feeling this topic is more about me then the topic.... I'm not a proffesional historian or researcher.   All my life I have been in construction, a General Contractor in San Diego California, retire and live in Florida.... you can ask me anything as long as its not personal, and I will respond the best I can...😀😇

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Those who have eyes to hear and ears to see will understand.

For everyone else, yes of course it was.

I have to say I adored the “sheeps in wolves’ clothing”.  It sucked me into the dark side. 

[rjohnson7]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Going into the Lion’s Den is a good way and sometimes the only way to reach out to those who are missing to show one can be a faithful, very well informed scholar and a gentleman and still be fully committed to the Church.
   

 

Appreciate your post, thx. 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

From what I was seeing, weebles, pogi, and everyone else are handling the topic just fine. From what I am seeing several posters, including myself, are having issues with you, not the topic. We all have engaged with the topics lots of times as a search of the board will show, even with those who disagree with us.  My guess (since I am experiencing it) is they feel frustration with your posts, your lack of actual engagement with points being made, repetition of the same misinterpreted material, lack of precision in citation and interpretation, lack of explanation of details, contradictions in your method (there appears not be much consistency in what you accept and what you don’t), massive dependency on a poorly written book while refusing to engage with reviews of that book, mislabeling sources as secondhand or whatever, and then most annoying complaints that other posters are rude when they point out errors in your posts and slanders of faithful members or push you to give substantive responses. 

Quandary!  I have tried but this Forum is full of making this all about me... I never claimed to be a expert on anything, I've only had two years of College and my trade is as a General Contractor, I build houses, remodel and had a cabinet shop.

I would be more then happy for anyone who has issues to take the time and work with me so I can improve, but your above post has noting to do with the topic and you have made it all about me... consider that I'm new and be patient.  So far I have no friends and a lot of people here are freaking out about this topic, why is that?   I honestly am not a troll. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't know why you needed to say the bolded.  I'm very comfortable talking about the translation method.  If you are willing to actually answer the questions I asked and not just copy from a site which doesn't even prove your point, I'd go on.  I'm not even sure what you point is at this time.  You seem to say Joseph has a seer stone and then you say he doesn't.  You seem to say that he "demonstrated" his translation but you have never explained how that is supposed to help the situation.  You seem to say that he did use the seer stone in the hat and then you don't.  You seem to say there was a blanket there and then turn around and say those sources are to be ignored.

I was very clear that JS did have a stone, but he did not translate with it... go back and read my other posts.   I have answered many question and appreciate it very much then when someone disagrees the also provide a reason and a source for validation. 

Speculation and opinions are not suitable for this topic, we need facts and evidence and who made the claim or quote.   Thx for your input. 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that I agree with you. The OP was whether or not anyone here believes that Joseph Smith translated via a seer stone. @rjohnson7 doesn't believe that it happened (despite the broad acceptance within the LDS Church and amongst professional historians). They have also been terribly coy about their own position here - and part of that comes out in what feels like an unwillingness to publicly challenge the leadership of the Church while maintaining a private disagreement with what they see as a capitulation on the part of the Church to the evils of the New Mormon History.

I am not sure what they were expecting in these forums, but in their effort to condemn the New Mormon History, they have done so with a one-size fits all criticism, lumping faithful members of the LDS Church (like Bushman, and Givens, and Arrington) with the Church's vocal critics (like the Tanners, or Quinn, or Vogel, and so on). Their willingness to accept the conclusions of the critics - is problematic. And if they are a real believer (I think that their coyness about their own position leaves this in question), they are certainly someplace on the ultra-conservative side leaning into fundamentalism. An unwillingness to change in light of new information is an indicator of such a belief set. The constant googling without real understanding gets tiresome too ... and I think you are right, this is not the topic for me - I have said my two cents - but @rjohnson7 hasn't really explained to us whey they are posting here, and what their intention really is. I am still in the dark as to what their expectation is for this topic. The question seems to have been rhetorical, since the point they are trying to make is that there isn't any first hand accounts of the seer stone. And recently, they have shown that they are quite capable of creating imaginative ways to dismiss any potential first hand evidence ...

Maybe we can hook up on another topic, hope you and I can continue to disagree but still be good acquaintances.  I seem to  have stepped into a beehive and that really amazes me.  I admit to being conservative and a traditionalist.  I feel the topic is current and important to the well being of helping those facing a faith crisis... whether the truth is still out there somewhere, I myself am secure in my testimony of some 60 plus years after being baptized.  The sun is setting for me and my time is limited and I  hold know grudges with anyone on this forum... its to bad that a lot of folks here are trying so hard to make this all about me and ignore the topic, I wonder why?    I never claimed to be a professional, historian or having a high degree in anything other then my trade as a General Contractor.   I have witnessed miracles, heard the voice of the Lord and had amazing dreams.... so again, lets be kind to each other and work to bring our neighbor to the truth of the restored  Gospel 

Edited September 9, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

So far I have no friends and a lot of people here are freaking out about this topic, why is that? 

This is why there is a problem with your posts.  You are completely misinterpreting people’s reaction.  No one is freaking out about the topic,  If you keep making that claim and believing it, this thread will stay stuck where it has been since the beginning.

You are the one making it about you because you are the one assuming false motivations and feelings in others.  Stop attacking scholars’ faithfulness, stop making assumptions that posters here are freaking out instead of just tired of your repeatedly avoiding responding to our substantive posts and you might find a more interesting discussion going on.  Let’s just talk about the stones for now, all of them.   But you have to do your part.  A discussion is not a monologue by two sides, neither talking to the other.

I would suggest making three posts, one about each of the stones.  Identify what stone you are talking about in each case and start with a summary of what Joseph did with each stone in your opinion.  You haven’t completed a lot of your thoughts but just give a minimal answer in many cases.  That is why it appears you are saying Joseph had a seer stone in one post, but appear to be dismissing it in another, when I am guessing you are talking about the brown seer stone…or if you don’t want to label it a seer stone, then please just call it the brown stone each time and give us the details on what you think Joseph used it for.  You don’t have to start out with documentation unless you want to because these are your ideas, but you may be asked to supply the evidence that persuaded you to hold this position.

Do the same for the white stone, please…any speculation on where he got it, when he got it and why and how he used it.

The Nephite Interpreters…since we all know where he got them and where they went, how about identifying when he used them for trans

sting the BoM and how…in the bow part of the breastplate or did he use them loose and put one or two in his hat or just had them on the table or over the plates somehow and used the hat to shield light from shining on it or to block the scribe from seeing them…or something else.

PS:  please do my request first and then weebles’.  Let’s get the number and kind down and then go to eyewitness accounts, please.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I was very clear that JS did have a stone, but he did not translate with it... go back and read my other posts.   I have answered many question and appreciate it very much then when someone disagrees the also provide a reason and a source for validation.

Speculation and opinions are not suitable for this topic, we need facts and evidence and who made the claim or quote.   Thx for your input.

You weren't very clear that Joseph Smith had a seer stone.  The fact that you say "did have a stone" just now is an example.  You've pointedly said it was a "rock" multiple times and then "stone" here.  That feels like you are saying it isn't a seer stone.  So, did Joseph Smith have a seer stone?  Did Joseph Smith have more than one seer stone?  I'm going to assume you say yes to both of those questions but please be more clear.

Now, can you be clear on why multiple eyewitnesses of the translation (including 2 scribes) said that Joseph Smith used his seer stone in the hat?  You've previously said that you don't accept their testimony because it isn't first-hand.  But I've shown you first-hand accounts from Emma (written in a letter by her) and many of the testimonies that aren't first-hand were written down by faithful believers of Joseph's ability to translate.  In addition, you accept their testimony about the blanket even though it also isn't first-hand.  Why do the eyewitnesses talk about Joseph Smith using a seer stone in the hat?  Please be clear.

Edited to add: Answer calm's request first before you answer this one.

Edited September 9, 2023 by webbles

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Appreciate your post, thx. 

When you say you appreciate a post without explaining why when it includes disagreement with you, it doesn’t seem like you actually considered the post much, if at all. You are providing no information when you say that or “good post”.

Perhaps a brief comment as to why you appreciated it so we know the direction your thought went on it.  Even just a sentence.

It is not a big deal to use rep points to respond or post what appears to be the equivalent by saying you appreciated it when you are not in the middle of what should be, if I understand your goal correctly, a thorough discussion about seer stones and the role they are currently playing in church history discussions.  But when you don’t want flippant responses, more than a thumbs up would be a good idea. 
 

PS:  you said you wouldn’t mind some pointers if I understood correctly on how to discuss more effectively here so you will be taken seriously. 
 

rjohnson a few posts up:  “I would be more then happy for anyone who has issues to take the time and work with me so I can improve”

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

When you say you appreciate a post without explaining why when it includes disagreement with you, it doesn’t seem like you actually considered the post much, if at all. You are providing no information when you say that or “good post”.

Perhaps a brief comment as to why you appreciated it so we know the direction your thought went on it.  Even just a sentence.

It is not a big deal to use rep points to respond or post what appears to be the equivalent by saying you appreciated it when you are not in the middle of what should be, if I understand your goal correctly, a thorough discussion about seer stones and the role they are currently playing in church history discussions.  But when you don’t want flippant responses, more than a thumbs up would be a good idea. 
 

PS:  you said you wouldn’t mind some pointers if I understood correctly on how to discuss more effectively here so you will be taken seriously. 
 

rjohnson a few posts up:  “I would be more then happy for anyone who has issues to take the time and work with me so I can improve”

 

 

Do you really feel you were actually helping with a post like above?   I said patients not a blistering hit on me, are you sure you're a member of the LDS Church or the Church of contention and variance, point advanced is noted. 

So what do you have other then the witnesses of seeing JS put a stone in a hat do you have.   Did JS ever claim to use a stone to translate, did Cowdery ever state a stone was used instead of the Urim and Thummim?

Jospeh Smith Papers: 

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the  plates , from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in  Manchester , Ontario County New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them,

 and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.

Jospeh Smith Papers:  

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “ Urim and Thummim ,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.  

Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.

Do you want more, I can get them if you're interested?  

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

You weren't very clear that Joseph Smith had a seer stone.  The fact that you say "did have a stone" just now is an example.  You've pointedly said it was a "rock" multiple times and then "stone" here.  That feels like you are saying it isn't a seer stone.  So, did Joseph Smith have a seer stone?  Did Joseph Smith have more than one seer stone?  I'm going to assume you say yes to both of those questions but please be more clear.

Now, can you be clear on why multiple eyewitnesses of the translation (including 2 scribes) said that Joseph Smith used his seer stone in the hat?  You've previously said that you don't accept their testimony because it isn't first-hand.  But I've shown you first-hand accounts from Emma (written in a letter by her) and many of the testimonies that aren't first-hand were written down by faithful believers of Joseph's ability to translate.  In addition, you accept their testimony about the blanket even though it also isn't first-hand.  Why do the eyewitnesses talk about Joseph Smith using a seer stone in the hat?  Please be clear.

Edited to add: Answer calm's request first before you answer this one.

I made it abundantly clear, you failed to read all the post by me.  I said rock because it was just a rock and even today in the Church vaults its still remains just a rock.  Why the criticism, just reply with your evidence and quit making this about me. 

Yes, JS had a white stone, which in any historical account its called by that label, and he has several more stones also.   You want to call it a seer stone is okay with me, but I won't because it wasn't.  I explained the theory that because of all the question about the translation the family asked (Whitmer's and others) JS put on a demonstration with the witnesses sitting around watching.   So first hand account of the demonstration, now  can you show me any evidence that Moroni said anything other then the gold plates and the Urim and Thummim were not to be show to anybody.... also the translation took place with the Gold Plates open to JS vision which plates laid before him is only my opinion and have not yet found any evidence that it was otherwise closed and hidden from his view.