Seer Stone In A Hat

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Expand please... final form? or complete restoration?  

Do you believe as time goes on or ordinances and/or the revelation surrounding them will be added to or changed?

———

When you say complete restoration, what time period is the restoration occurring from?

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe as time goes on or ordinances and/or the revelation surrounding them will be added to or changed?

———

When you say complete restoration, what time period is the restoration occurring from?

Into the millennium and beyond.  

[Pyreaux]

Then an on-going restoration means there could well be expanded revelations about things. We don't want to put revelation into a box. The Three Witnesses had a rough time with new revelations like Temple ceremonies that weren't mentioned in the Book of Mormon, they presumed being witnesses made them keepers of Book of Mormon teachings and orthodoxy, even if that meant leaving the church.

------

There are no Eye witness accounts of the translation methods. Neither Joseph nor Oliver divulges that information. David Whitmer never scribed, he never explains his occasion or source, so it's at best secondhand information.

Though the accounts together vary, so either so they maybe contradictory or there was a progression of methods that seem logical. That the interpreters were used with the Jaredite breastplate, the Jaredite device was made for someone larger than Joseph, was a strain on his eyes, so he either removed them, a put then in a hat to exclude the light, like the Biblical Urim and Thummim were seers stones taken in the temple, in the dark, because they glowed. Or as William Smith who said Joseph wore the hat, using the brim of the hat to block the light coming out of the stones. Joseph’s brother William Smith claims that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate by a rod that held the seer stones set in the rims of a bow before his eyes, however “The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part” (Smith, Rod of Iron 1, 3 [February 1924]: 7).

The Interpreters, or his "gift" was taken from Joseph after losing the Book of Lehi, when it was returned, were the interpreters returned or he ended up with the seers stone? They seemed clairvoyant up to 5'. So, in a hat with the plates under a cloth nearby was still efficient. Before the end, there are accounts he didn't need any stone to translate, so at some point it was exactly like paintings Bushman hates depicts.

Do I believe the seer stone in a hat account? Maybe. All the variant accounts, too? Ummm, I don't know.

[rjohnson7]

On 8/30/2023 at 2:16 PM, rjohnson7 said:

New Mormonism is taught by some ar BYU.  Lenard Abington the LDS Historian for the Church wrote several progressive and revised history as did Richard Bushman.   If you google The New Mormonism it pretty much explains....

 

New Mormon history refers to a style of reporting the history of Mormonism by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars which departs from earlier more polemical or faith-based styles of history. Rather than presenting material selectively to either prove or disprove Mormonism, the focus of new Mormon history is to present history in a more humanistic and dispassionate way, and to situate Mormon history in a fuller historical context. Because it is a break from past historical narratives, new Mormon history tends to be revisionist. In many cases, the new Mormon history follows the perspectives and techniques of new history, including cultural history. The Mormon historian Richard Bushman described it as "a quest for identity rather than a quest for authority."^[1] New Mormon historians include a wide range of both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, the most prominent of which include Bushman, Jan Shipps, D. Michael Quinn, Terryl Givens, Leonard J. Arrington, Richard P. Howard, Fawn Brodie, and Juanita Brooks.

 

On 8/30/2023 at 6:39 PM, webbles said:

Seeing an angel and using the urim and thumim is also called occultism.

For historians to author books and declare JS used a seer stone in a hat is absolutely dangerous for it implies magic and the occult.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 

For historians to author books and declare JS used a seer stone in a hat is absolutely dangerous for it implies magic and the occult.

Maybe you need to have more faith in Joseph?

 

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

There are no Eye witness accounts of the translation methods.

That's not correct.

Emma was certainly an eyewitness. As was Martin Harris. Both were scribes for the Book of Lehi, with Emma perhaps writing the majority of it (see Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope, "Reconfiguring the Archive: Women and the Social Production of the Book of Mormon," in Producing Ancient Scripture, 129).

I think David Whitmer probably saw the translation in Fayette. His sister Elizabeth said she did. They all mention a stone in a hat, by the way. As do Emma's father and brother-in-law, who both stated that they personally witnessed the translation as well. This isn't an invention of E.D. Howe or modern historians.

E.g.,

• “Now the first that my husband translated was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but it was a rather dark color.”
  — Emma Smith letter to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.
   
• “In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” 
  — Emma Smith, Interview with Joseph Smith III, Saints’ Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289.
   
• “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 in 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.”
  — David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887), 13.
   
• “I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated 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 in his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light. . . ."
  — Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, in William E. McLellin, “My Dear Friends,” February 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.
   
• “[Martin Harris] stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the Book of Mormon with the seer stone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose. . . .”
  — Edward Stevenson, “The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon,” Millennial Star 25 (21 June 1886): 389.
   
• “The next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book . . . . The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!”
  — Isaac Hale statement, published in Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (1 May 1834): 1.
   
• “Says he many times called in at Jos[e]phs on business, when J. would be engaged [in] translating the plates. J. put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat, and then Dictate to his scribe, Sentence by Sentence.”
  — William W. Blair interview with Michael Morse, William W. Blair journal, 8 May 1879, 54, Community of Christ Library and Archives; see also, William W. Blair to Editors, 22 May 1879, Saints’ Herald 26 (15 June 1879): 190.

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 

For historians to author books and declare JS used a seer stone in a hat is absolutely dangerous for it implies magic and the occult.

Considering that many first hand witnesses talk about Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat, it would be dishonest for an historian to not mention it.

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe you need to have more faith in Joseph?

I have faith he was not a money digger or used a seer stone in a hat .....  magic and the occult is not acceptable to God. I have done the work and found nothing that can evidence any of this...

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Considering that many first hand witnesses talk about Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat, it would be dishonest for an historian to not mention it.

What did JS and Cowdery claim?    Both stated only means of translation was by the Urim and Thummim

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

That's not correct.

Emma was certainly an eyewitness. As was Martin Harris. Both were scribes for the Book of Lehi, with Emma perhaps writing the majority of it (see Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope, "Reconfiguring the Archive: Women and the Social Production of the Book of Mormon," in Producing Ancient Scripture, 129).

I think David Whitmer probably saw the translation in Fayette. His sister Elizabeth said she did. They all mention a stone in a hat, by the way. As do Emma's father and brother-in-law, who both stated that they personally witnessed the translation as well. This isn't an invention of E.D. Howe or modern historians.

E.g.,

• “Now the first that my husband translated was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but it was a rather dark color.”
  — Emma Smith letter to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.
   
• “In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” 
  — Emma Smith, Interview with Joseph Smith III, Saints’ Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289.
   
• “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 in 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.”
  — David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887), 13.
   
• “I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated 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 in his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light. . . ."
  — Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, in William E. McLellin, “My Dear Friends,” February 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.
   
• “[Martin Harris] stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the Book of Mormon with the seer stone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose. . . .”
  — Edward Stevenson, “The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon,” Millennial Star 25 (21 June 1886): 389.
   
• “The next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book . . . . The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!”
  — Isaac Hale statement, published in Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (1 May 1834): 1.
   
• “Says he many times called in at Jos[e]phs on business, when J. would be engaged [in] translating the plates. J. put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat, and then Dictate to his scribe, Sentence by Sentence.”
  — William W. Blair interview with Michael Morse, William W. Blair journal, 8 May 1879, 54, Community of Christ Library and Archives; see also, William W. Blair to Editors, 22 May 1879, Saints’ Herald 26 (15 June 1879): 190.

Nobody was allowed to see the translation and witness testified that there was a cloth or blanket which separated JS from the scribe.

[webbles]

7 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

What did JS and Cowdery claim?    Both stated only means of translation was by the Urim and Thummim

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are not the only first hand witnesses.  Martin Harris and Emma Smith were both scribes and both of them said he had his face in a hat.

Edited to add:

By the way, are you saying that Oliver Cowdery is a first handwitness because he attempted to translate (D&C 8 and 9)?  Or are you just saying that he is a first hand witness because he was a scribe most of the time?  And also, how do you account for Oliver's translation attempt?  Did he use the Urim and Thummim?  Was he allowed to look at the plates?  This is long before the 3 Witnesses experience.

Edited September 2, 2023 by webbles

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are not the only first hand witnesses.  Martin Harris and Emma Smith were both scribes and both of them said he had his face in a hat.

Edited to add:

By the way, are you saying that Oliver Cowdery is a first handwitness because he attempted to translate (D&C 8 and 9)?  Or are you just saying that he is a first hand witness because he was a scribe most of the time?  And also, how do you account for Oliver's translation attempt?  Did he use the Urim and Thummim?  Was he allowed to look at the plates?  This is long before the 3 Witnesses experience.

Yes, in the Whitmer home JS most likely he did a demonstration of how he translated, but nobody was allowed to see the actualy see  Urim and Thummim... that is a commandment by God spoken through Moroni to JS... the demonstration was with possibly the white stone he placed in a hat and then showed how he translated by having those around the table as scribes... it was a demonstration the evidence points to.    Nobody ever say past the blanket or partition the put up and the plates were alway covered when he was not translating.    Read the Book, "A Man That Can Translate" by Jonathan Neville.   You may want to change your mind about your post.  

Oliver Cowdery may have been the only one allowed to actually see the Urim and Thmmim since he requested JS to ask God if he could attempt the translation... You have to ask, why after doing possibly 90 percent of the scrible work did he testify that JS only used the Urim and Thummim... 

 

What purpose did the blanket or  partition accomplish if the scribes could see the process... common sense says that the purpose was so nobody could see the means of translation.  

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by rjohnson7

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, in the Whitmer home JS most likely he did a demonstration of how he translated, but nobody was allowed to see the actualy see  Urim and Thummim... that is a commandment by God spoken through Moroni to JS... the demonstration was with possibly the white stone he placed in a hat and then showed how he translated by having those around the table as scribes... it was a demonstration the evidence points to.    Nobody ever say past the blanket or partition the put up and the plates were alway covered when he was not translating.    Read the Book, "A Man That Can Translate" by Jonathan Neville.   You may want to change your mind about your post.  

Oliver Cowdery may have been the only one allowed to actually see the Urim and Thmmim since he requested JS to ask God if he could attempt the translation... You have to ask, why after doing possibly 90 percent of the scrible work did he testify that JS only used the Urim and Thummim...

What purpose did the blanket or  partition accomplish if the scribes could see the process... common sense says that the purpose was so nobody could see the means of translation.

Both Martin Harris and Emma Smith were talking about their own experience as a scribe and not a "demonstration".  For example, here's Emma's take (Nevo posted it earlier):

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.

And here's Martin's take (from a post that I put in another topic):

Quote

On Sunday, Sept. 4, 1870, Martin Harris addressed a congregation of Saints in Salt Lake City. He related an incident which occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone. Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used. Martin said that after continued translation they would become weary, and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing, on one occasion, Martin Harris found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, he put in place the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent, unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph excla[i]med, “Martin! What is the matter! All is as dark as Egypt!” Martin’s countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them, etc. Martin said further that the seer stones differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger. Martin said, there were not many pages translated while he wrote, after which Oliver Cowdery and others did the writing.

Also, if Joseph Smith demonstrated his translation by putting his head in a hat, than that would mean that is how he translated.  Otherwise, it makes no sense for him to demonstrate a false method.

19 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Oliver Cowdery may have been the only one allowed to actually see the Urim and Thmmim since he requested JS to ask God if he could attempt the translation... You have to ask, why after doing possibly 90 percent of the scrible work did he testify that JS only used the Urim and Thummim...

As Benjamin pointed out earlier, the term "Urim and Thummim" was used for both the seer stones and the Nephite interpereters.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Read the Book, "A Man That Can Translate" by Jonathan Neville.   You may want to change your mind about your post

Or not…
 

https://interpreterfoundation.org/an-unfortunate-approach-to-joseph-smiths-translation-of-ancient-scripture/
 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-rejoinder-to-jonathan-nevilles-response-to-recent-reviews/

Quote

In fact, Howe was not the first to claim that a hat was used in the translation process, with this detail found as early as 1829.³ Another important witness to the translation of the Book of Mormon came in 1830 from Josiah Stowell, a faithful friend of the prophet Joseph who staunchly defended the young prophet and never lost his faith in Joseph’s prophetic gifts. In 1830, as Joseph was (again) on trial for allegedly being a “disorderly person,” Stowell testified of the translation of the Book of Mormon in defense of Joseph, stating that: “as aforesaid, the prisoner [Joseph] said he translated the book of Mormon, prisoner put a certain stone into his hat, put his face into the crown, then drew the brim of the hat around his head to prevent Light—he could then see as prisoner said, and translate the same, the Bible, got from the hill in Palmyra.”⁴ Should Joseph had desired to clarify how the Book of Mormon was translated had this been a factually incorrect statement, that would have been the perfect opportunity to do so.

Quote

As evidence for his claim, Neville cites three instances of Joseph claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummim that Joseph had obtained with the plates (after possibly implying that I had purposefully left them out of the discussion), and then claims that “Joseph specified that the sole instrument he used to translate came with the plates.”⁷ Except, upon examination, it becomes obvious that this is a misreading of Joseph’s statements. He does not say that no seer stone was used or that only one instrument was used — Neville reads his own presuppositions into Joseph’s statements, as he has done in his books and as I have discussed at length in my two reviews.

Quote

Neville then mischaracterizes explanation 3 by asserting that it was historically a view of critics or unbelievers, only recently gaining acceptance by some believers, when in fact it is a form of miraculous translation compatible with the faithful belief that Joseph translated the plates through the power of God. This leads to another point of discussion raised in my reviews, which Neville also should have offered a response to in order to defend his work. I discuss two citations from Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer that state that Joseph read words off of his translation instruments. David Whitmer even describes that it was Joseph who related that information to him. From these citations, it would appear that Oliver, David, and likely Joseph himself saw no conflict between Neville’s first and third explanations, because none [Page 189]truly exists.¹² (Neville cited these statements in his book, which makes his false dichotomy all the more unconvincing.)¹³

This is further contrasted with Neville’s premise of believing Joseph and Oliver versus those who claimed “that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by dictating words that appeared on a stone he placed in a hat” — especially because Oliver and probably Joseph (indeed, there is little reason to doubt David Whitmer on this subject) both claimed that exact method of translation.¹⁴

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

What do you think of the Tzohar chain midrash, the Jewish commentary and lore that all the greatest prophets had divining rocks. Adam's Book of Raziel, a book or stone (sefer=book, sapphire=precious stone) that taught him how to read, Noah's Tzohar (Light) stone that provided light in the ark, and divined whether it was day or night, the same stone was passed on, Joseph of Egypt put it in his divining cup, buried his face in his cup to interpret dreams, Moses' Prescious Stones written upon by the finger of God. Then there was the Urim and Thummim, the High Priest divined answers to questions by sitting in the dark, and the two rocks would glow. Also, Jonah's Pearl inside the fish, through which he could clairvoyantly see everything.

How is Joseph's Seer Stone somehow more cringy magical than the Urim and Thummim, they're both either magic rocks or holy rocks. Just because the Seer Stone may exist doesn't validate the myths that Joseph was a witch instead of a prophet, nor money digger or some sort of con, which Joseph denied being a money digger, a rumor that only started after being hired to dig a silver mine at a location on a map.

Tzohar stones as depicted in the film Noah (2014)

Edited September 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, in the Whitmer home JS most likely he did a demonstration of how he translated, but nobody was allowed to see the actualy see  Urim and Thummim... that is a commandment by God spoken through Moroni to JS... the demonstration was with possibly the white stone he placed in a hat and then showed how he translated by having those around the table as scribes... it was a demonstration the evidence points to.    Nobody ever say past the blanket or partition the put up and the plates were alway covered when he was not translating.    Read the Book, "A Man That Can Translate" by Jonathan Neville.   You may want to change your mind about your post.  

Oliver Cowdery may have been the only one allowed to actually see the Urim and Thmmim since he requested JS to ask God if he could attempt the translation... You have to ask, why after doing possibly 90 percent of the scrible work did he testify that JS only used the Urim and Thummim... 

 

What purpose did the blanket or  partition accomplish if the scribes could see the process... common sense says that the purpose was so nobody could see the means of translation.  

 

 

[Calm]

Also this looks problematic:

Quote

198]My critique of Neville’s use of David Whitmer to argue for a large “demonstration,” when David’s statement Neville cites from does not support such a reading (this includes Neville’s erroneous belief that David described the seer stone in this purported demonstration, when the record states that the “spectacles” were used)61

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:06 PM, rjohnson7 said:

For historians to author books and declare JS used a seer stone in a hat is absolutely dangerous for it implies magic and the occult.

How about for Joseph's mother Emma, or his brother William? Or Oliver Cowdery, or Martin Harris?

When the Ancient Israelites used their Urim and Thummim as a tool of divination, does it imply magic and the occult? When Jesus walked on water, did it look like magic to those around him? I think that part of the problem here is that we can always use language in such a way as to create bias or problems. When you describe it in these ways, you are effectively agreeing with the critics of the LDS Church and accepting their way of building narrative around the historical record. When the LDS Church accepts the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon (which they do), do you think that they are describing magical or occult practices?

Quote

Another instrument Joseph used was a “seer stone” that he would look into, often by placing it in a hat. Joseph had found this stone earlier and had used it to find hidden or lost things. He used both the interpreters and the seer stone as he translated, always relying on the inspiration of heaven.

What you are suggesting is a very narrow perspective - one that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny, and one that doesn't help reduce the risk to belief but keeps that risk (or even makes it worse). By recognizing that history, and by creating better narratives and understanding of that narrative, the Church prevents people from discovering something that they didn't know, and because it is supported by the historical evidence, of then believing the narrative that is created around that evidence by critical sources.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

What you are suggesting is a very narrow perspective - one that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny, and one that doesn't help reduce the risk to belief but keeps that risk (or even makes it worse). By recognizing that history, and by creating better narratives and understanding of that narrative, the Church prevents people from discovering something that they didn't know, and because it is supported by the historical evidence, of then believing the narrative that is created around that evidence by critical sources.

☝️💯

[rjohnson7]

On 9/2/2023 at 3:22 PM, Tacenda said:

Thx you! yes I watched the whole video, pretty much what The New Mormonism progressives are trying to make as trure history.   I you want to see another side and are really interested in the seer stone in a hat then send of for that book I suggested, you will find some interesting historical truth you may not have ever realized... thx again... 

 

Richard. 

[rjohnson7]

On 9/2/2023 at 12:36 PM, webbles said:

Both Martin Harris and Emma Smith were talking about their own experience as a scribe and not a "demonstration".  For example, here's Emma's take (Nevo posted it earlier):

And here's Martin's take (from a post that I put in another topic):

Also, if Joseph Smith demonstrated his translation by putting his head in a hat, than that would mean that is how he translated.  Otherwise, it makes no sense for him to demonstrate a false method.

As Benjamin pointed out earlier, the term "Urim and Thummim" was used for both the seer stones and the Nephite interpresters. 

Great, thx for those quotes.   Emma Smith is being interviewed some 40 or 50 yrs. later and if I remember right these were recorded by her son, Jospeh Smith Jr.   So we don't have here own written account and we know that she once stated she felt the edges of the plates but never lifted the cover to see them... so two issues, Moroni stated no one was to see the plates or the urim and thummim.   So if Emma was stating she saw JS with the seer stone in a hat then why were all the scribes not allowed to see beyond the separation  put up by JS and what was the purpose of the separation if the scribes could later describe the means... common sense says Emma never really saw the stone in a hat or the Urim and Thummim. 

The account by Martin Harris is a second hand account, not useful for reason it was never recorded by Harris himself...  I have no issue  with folks believing either account, the BoM is the real issue and if one believes it the means of translation is immaterial...

 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

then send of for that book I suggested, you will find some interesting historical truth you may not have ever realized..

So you are just going to ignore the reviews pointing out his misuse of sources?

Tacenda, read the reviews before you order the book so you know what you are getting.  I have linked them a couple of places iirc.

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Great, thx for those quotes.   Emma Smith is being interviewed some 40 or 50 yrs. later and if I remember right these were recorded by her son, Jospeh Smith Jr.   So we don't have here own written account and we know that she once stated she felt the edges of the plates but never lifted the cover to see them... so two issues, Moroni stated no one was to see the plates or the urim and thummim.   So if Emma was stating she saw JS with the seer stone in a hat then why were all the scribes not allowed to see beyond the separation  put up by JS and what was the purpose of the separation if the scribes could later describe the means... common sense says Emma never really saw the stone in a hat or the Urim and Thummim. 

I don't see how it is "common sense" to say that Emma never say the stone in the hat.  How can you discount her testimony of what happened?  And why does it matter whether Joseph Smith III wrote it down?  It is still her testimony.  Joseph Smith III has no reason to lie or change Emma's testimony. (Edited to add: another quote that Nevo showed is “Now the first that my husband translated was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but it was a rather dark color.”  That is from a letter that she wrote to another person.)

When you say "separation", are you talking about the discussion about a cloth that was used to separate Joseph from others?  There aren't very many references to that so it would seem that it was rarely used.  I would think that is more "common sense" when you look at what all the first hand accounts say.  Did Oliver Cowdery ever mention a "separation"?

11 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

The account by Martin Harris is a second hand account, not useful for reason it was never recorded by Harris himself...  I have no issue  with folks believing either account, the BoM is the real issue and if one believes it the means of translation is immaterial...

He gave a speech at a ward building in Utah and it was written in the Church's publication, the Deseret News and Millennial Star.  How is it not useful?  There's enough specifics in it that show that Martin Harris did see the stone in the hat.  He even switched out the stone.  No reason for the Deseret News to make that up.  And if it was false, why would the Deseret News publish it?  Or why wouldn't it be retracted?

Edited September 4, 2023 by webbles

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Great, thx for those quotes.   Emma Smith is being interviewed some 40 or 50 yrs. later and if I remember right these were recorded by her son, Jospeh Smith Jr.   So we don't have here own written account and we know that she once stated she felt the edges of the plates but never lifted the cover to see them... so two issues, Moroni stated no one was to see the plates or the urim and thummim.   So if Emma was stating she saw JS with the seer stone in a hat then why were all the scribes not allowed to see beyond the separation  put up by JS and what was the purpose of the separation if the scribes could later describe the means... common sense says Emma never really saw the stone in a hat or the Urim and Thummim. 

The account by Martin Harris is a second hand account, not useful for reason it was never recorded by Harris himself...  I have no issue  with folks believing either account, the BoM is the real issue and if one believes it the means of translation is immaterial...

 

Why couldn’t the plates have been covered with the stone in the hat since Joseph was not looking at the plates?

[webbles]

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/welch/2016-04-11/welch_the_miraculous_translation_of_the_book_of_mormon_opening_the_heavens.pdf has possibly all of the first-hand, second-hand, third-hand, etc sources about the translation of the Book of Mormon.  The book is specifically about the timeline of the translation but starting on page 44, it lists 202 sources.