Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

No, I'm not amazed. I accept that a blanket or curtain was used, at least some of the time, to separate Joseph Smith and Martin Harris while Harris was acting as scribe.

And there was evidently a blanket in Fayette too. But not between Joseph Smith and his scribes. David Whitmer told the Chicago Tribune in 1885 that "in order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith's relatives besides" (see Welch, Opening the Heavens, 153).

In fact, there are no credible accounts of a blanket or curtain concealing Joseph Smith in Fayette, which is where nearly all of the translation of the Book of Mormon transpired. (Nathan A. Tanner's 1909 letter to his son, reciting from memory a visit with David Whitmer in 1886, is not such an account.) Whitmer, in his lifetime, explicitly and repeatedly declared that he was an eyewitness of the translation. As he put it in his letter to the Kansas City Journal in 1881: "My statement was and now is that in translating he put the stone in his hat and [put] his face in his hat so as to exclude the light and that then the light and characters appeared in the hat together with the interpretation which he uttered and was written by the scribe." 

David Whitmer saw Joseph Smith translating using a seer stone in a hat, as did "the entire Whitmer household." Not once, but "often" as Elizabeth Whitmer stated.

Yes , the blanket plays into my demonstration theory, there was a family demonstration for all to see, but the actual translation was done upstairs where nobody could see in.  We have witnesse who could see them go upstairs and here JS dictate, it was to provide privacy for Moroni had stated no one was to see the plates or the means of the translation.

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

My point being, just as with the rock in a hat, there are only two first hand accounts, JS and Cowdery.   Reason being is Cowdery was given the opportunity to translate and none of the others were.  Also I believe the plates needed to be open when translating and each carving translated individually.   If JS did the translation without the plates or the Urim and Thummim then why were they buried as a bundle and taken back as a bundle, meaning the plates, the Urim and Thummim, the compass and sword of Laban, but not he seer stone?

Joseph Smith is the only first hand account of the actual translation.  Oliver Cowdery never saw the plates until the 3 witness event.  Every time he testified of seeing the plates, it was about that event.  And after the 3 witness event, Joseph told his mother that "they will now have to bear a part and it does rejoice my soul that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world."  That is an odd idea if Oliver had already seen the plates.  (By the way, this is why I accept the seer stone in the hat as one of the means of translation.  It explains Oliver's attempt at translation while still preventing him from viewing the plates)

I get your theory needs the plates to be visible and open to Joseph Smith while translating.  The problem is that you reject the sources that say otherwise but accept those exact same sources when they talk about a blanket/curtain.

You've also never explained how the "demonstration theory" for the seer stone in the hat is supposed to work.  Why demonstrate the incorrect translation method?  Why mislead them?

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Chuckle... one at a time 😇😁

Then pick one, and answer it for us.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes, intentionally lying about anything, even knowing you know but don't want other to find out.... can you now answer my question

If you consider that lying, haven’t the leaders already acknowledged a culture of lying and influencing historians to not write everything but only the stuff the church deems “helpful” or “faith promoting”.  Read the quotes from Packer and Oaks.  
 

[Nevo]

9 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Yes , the blanket plays into my demonstration theory, there was a family demonstration for all to see, but the actual translation was done upstairs where nobody could see in.  We have witnesse who could see them go upstairs and here JS dictate, it was to provide privacy for Moroni had stated no one was to see the plates or the means of the translation.

Your "demonstration theory" (or is it Neville's?) is nonsense. You haven't engaged with any of the evidence presented in this thread. "We have witnesse who could see them go upstairs and here JS dictate" Really? That's your response? I've just given you eyewitnesses who saw the translation. Not a one-time demonstration, but who observed the translation on an ongoing basis over months. You dismiss those accounts because they don't fit your theory, and instead you point to "witnesse" who saw Joseph go upstairs. Okay, who are they? Ten bucks says one of them is David Whitmer.

You're either a troll or just wasting everyone's time. Joke's on me for taking the bait, though.

I await your careful, well-researched answers to the questions you say that youth are asking. Then we'll know if you're serious about helping people in faith crises.

[rjohnson7]

8 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Your "demonstration theory" (or is it Neville's?) is nonsense. You haven't engaged with any of the evidence presented in this thread. "We have witnesse who could see them go upstairs and here JS dictate" Really? That's your response? I've just given you eyewitnesses who saw the translation. Not a one-time demonstration, but who observed the translation on an ongoing basis over months. You dismiss those accounts because they don't fit your theory, and instead you point to "witnesse" who saw Joseph go upstairs. Okay, who are they? Ten bucks says one of them is David Whitmer.

You're either a troll or just wasting everyone's time. Joke's on me for taking the bait, though.

I await your careful, well-researched answers to the questions you say that youth are asking. Then we'll know if you're serious about helping people in faith crises.

Your frustration is apparent, I have no bones to pick with you.  This is of course Neville and I gave due credit to him in other posts.

I should ask why this attack on me and a creditable theory, saying nonsense is only you showing me your willingness to ignore another persons theory and research which takes me back 40 some years of studying anti Mormon claims.   I'm not your enemy, why not be friends and quit with the labeling...

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you consider that lying, haven’t the leaders already acknowledged a culture of lying and influencing historians to not write everything but only the stuff the church deems “helpful” or “faith promoting”.  Read the quotes from Packer and Oaks.  
 

Totally agree...

[rjohnson7]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

Joseph Smith is the only first hand account of the actual translation.  Oliver Cowdery never saw the plates until the 3 witness event.  Every time he testified of seeing the plates, it was about that event.  And after the 3 witness event, Joseph told his mother that "they will now have to bear a part and it does rejoice my soul that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world."  That is an odd idea if Oliver had already seen the plates.  (By the way, this is why I accept the seer stone in the hat as one of the means of translation.  It explains Oliver's attempt at translation while still preventing him from viewing the plates)

I get your theory needs the plates to be visible and open to Joseph Smith while translating.  The problem is that you reject the sources that say otherwise but accept those exact same sources when they talk about a blanket/curtain.

You've also never explained how the "demonstration theory" for the seer stone in the hat is supposed to work.  Why demonstrate the incorrect translation method?  Why mislead them?

You make good points, and must agree there are so many variable accounts.  Again you need to start with the hidden and buried plates, Urim and Thummim, etc.   All prepared for the day JS would be given access to them.  The rock came first (seer stone) and ask why there is nothing mentioned byMoroni about this.  Who named it a seer stone, did JS really see things in it before his visit by Moroni, why is it not used today?  Because its nothing more then a plain rock, not even transparent as mention time and time again in various accounts. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Then pick one, and answer it for us.

Why and how can you answer the question that the Church lied to us?    I don't believe they did, do you feel that the Church lied.   I think the church may have hid things which they felt we were not prepared for... 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Why and how can you answer the question that the Church lied to us?    I don't believe they did, do you feel that the Church lied.   I think the church may have hid things which they felt we were not prepared for... 

Yes, hid for sure. And it may have stemmed from Joseph Fielding Smith not wanting his family drug through the mud or protecting the family's name. I can't remember where I got this, thinking someone on this board mentioned it. 

His was church historian for a time, and he is Joseph Smith's grand nephew. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

You make good points, and must agree there are so many variable accounts.  Again you need to start with the hidden and buried plates, Urim and Thummim, etc.   All prepared for the day JS would be given access to them.  The rock came first (seer stone) and ask why there is nothing mentioned byMoroni about this.  Who named it a seer stone, did JS really see things in it before his visit by Moroni, why is it not used today?  Because its nothing more then a plain rock, not even transparent as mention time and time again in various accounts. 

You give a good questions for the critics to devour. (see my bold)

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I don't believe they did, do you feel that the Church lied.

No I don't think that the Church lied. Nor do I think that adopting the New Mormon History is tantamount to claiming that the Church lied. I think that it is completely understandable to recognize that the Church leaders did not know the history very well.

In any case, the LDS Church has now recognized that Joseph Smith used a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon. Do you think that the Church is wrong to endorse the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon?

Quote

During the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith apparently used both of these instruments—the interpreters and his seer stone—interchangeably. They worked in much the same way, and the early Saints sometimes used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the seer stone as well as the interpreters.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

You make good points, and must agree there are so many variable accounts.  Again you need to start with the hidden and buried plates, Urim and Thummim, etc.   All prepared for the day JS would be given access to them.  The rock came first (seer stone) and ask why there is nothing mentioned byMoroni about this.  Who named it a seer stone, did JS really see things in it before his visit by Moroni, why is it not used today?  Because its nothing more then a plain rock, not even transparent as mention time and time again in various accounts. 

Now you are ignoring all the people who proclaimed that Joseph Smith had seer stones.  You are throwing a lot of people under the bus to fit your theory.  Joseph Fielding Smith (which you had quoted earlier) stated that Joseph Smith had a seer stone.  Brigham Young has stated that Joseph Smith had a seer stone.

And yes, the plates and Urim and Thummim were buried so that Joseph Smith would be able to find them and utilize them to translate the Book of Mormon.  I have never denied that.  Neither have Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, etc.  I don't know why you keep bringing it up since it isn't related to whether he had a seer stone and whether he used it.

[rjohnson7]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

Now you are ignoring all the people who proclaimed that Joseph Smith had seer stones.  You are throwing a lot of people under the bus to fit your theory.  Joseph Fielding Smith (which you had quoted earlier) stated that Joseph Smith had a seer stone.  Brigham Young has stated that Joseph Smith had a seer stone.

And yes, the plates and Urim and Thummim were buried so that Joseph Smith would be able to find them and utilize them to translate the Book of Mormon.  I have never denied that.  Neither have Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, etc.  I don't know why you keep bringing it up since it isn't related to whether he had a seer stone and whether he used it.

Oh my! did you read what I posted?  I said he had a seer stone, which I call a plain rock, why before even meeting with Moroni... I have no idea where you are at or even if we are on the same page...  my question is do you believe JS could see thing in this rock, called a seer stone, before he ever got the gold plates?   Why are you making claims as if you upset about this?   This is just a conversation and I putting out their various ways to see the total picture of what really happened. 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No I don't think that the Church lied. Nor do I think that adopting the New Mormon History is tantamount to claiming that the Church lied. I think that it is completely understandable to recognize that the Church leaders did not know the history very well.

In any case, the LDS Church has now recognized that Joseph Smith used a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon. Do you think that the Church is wrong to endorse the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon?

Thx you, good post.   Even President Nelson in a video admitted that there were various accounts and one of them was that JS used the Urim and Thummim seer stones in a hat...I can find that video for you  if you want.

But why did he say stones and in plural meaning two and called them Urim and Thummim seer stones?

 

President Nelson video, pay close attention to his words.... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-05-0290-the-book-of-mormon-is-tangible-evidence-of-the-restoration?lang=eng

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You give a good questions for the critics to devour. (see my bold)

Thx you, you're so kind.  Some say I'm a troll which is far from the truth.  I'm a TRM and served in the Bishopric and now as Elder Quorum President... what I share here is not anything I would teach in church for reasons that I not trying to make members feel uncomfortable if the don't agree.... its important we stay positive and teach by the spirit.  

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, hid for sure. And it may have stemmed from Joseph Fielding Smith not wanting his family drug through the mud or protecting the family's name. I can't remember where I got this, thinking someone on this board mentioned it. 

His was church historian for a time, and he is Joseph Smith's grand nephew. 

He hid the different versions of the first vision.... but now we have them and I don't really see a problem... 

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Thx you, good post.   Even President Nelson in a video admitted that there were various accounts and one of them was that JS used the Urim and Thummim seer stones in a hat...I can find that video for you  if you want.

I want you to answer my question. Do you think that the Church is wrong to endorse the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon? By seer stone, the LDS Church document means, of course, a stone that Joseph had before he was given the gold plates and the Nephite Interpreters.

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I want you to answer my question. Do you think that the Church is wrong to endorse the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon? By seer stone, the LDS Church document means, of course, a stone that Joseph had before he was given the gold plates and the Nephite Interpreters.

Not at all, this is not a testimony breaker for me.... but again there are weak members, young folks and new converts that get sidetracked by the internet and other folks who are not friends of the Church... 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Totally agree...

Then I guess I am confused as to how you think your approach of keeping the Urim and Thummim narrative, contrary to what the current church leaders are teaching about the stone in a hat, is going to save anyone's faith.  You seemed to be concerned that if people found out that the church lied about its history, then they will lose their faith, so I wasn't expecting you to acknowledge that they have lied or intentionally concealed their history.  So what is your angle exactly?  I thought you were attempting to protect the church (and therefor the faith of its members) against accusations of lying, but now I am not so sure. 

Not only are you accusing them of creating a culture of lying about their history, but by pushing the old Urim and Thummim narrative which goes against what the church is currently publishing, you are accusing them of flat out getting it wrong and teaching false history.  How, again, is that approach going to help anyone's faith?  That seems to be more damaging of their reputation than helpful - not only have they lied, but they are also incompetent.  Is that the approach you want us to believe will protect faith?  

Edited September 8, 2023 by pogi

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Oh my! did you read what I posted?  I said he had a seer stone, which I call a plain rock, why before even meeting with Moroni... I have no idea where you are at or even if we are on the same page...  my question is do you believe JS could see thing in this rock, called a seer stone, before he ever got the gold plates?   Why are you making claims as if you upset about this?   This is just a conversation and I putting out their various ways to see the total picture of what really happened.

You said "Who named it a seer stone".  I took that to mean that you don't think it is a seer stone since you are asking who named it.  Also, why focus on the fact it is a rock?  The way you are describing it sounds like you don't believe it is a seer stone.  Do you believe it is a seer stone?  Do you believe that Joseph Smith could look into and see things?  Do you believe the statements from Brigham Young and others that talk about it being a seer stone?  If it is a seer stone, then why question whether he could use it at certain times in his life.

[rjohnson7]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

You said "Who named it a seer stone".  I took that to mean that you don't think it is a seer stone since you are asking who named it.  Also, why focus on the fact it is a rock?  The way you are describing it sounds like you don't believe it is a seer stone.  Do you believe it is a seer stone?  Do you believe that Joseph Smith could look into and see things?  Do you believe the statements from Brigham Young and others that talk about it being a seer stone?  If it is a seer stone, then why question whether he could use it at certain times in his life.

It's nothing but a brown rock, my question was, who named it a seer stone, was it because people gave JS the name of seer?  I have no idea and thought maybe you knew.  

 

Quote

The book also recounts how the Lord gave “two stones” to the brother of Jared, with a promise that they would aid future generations to recover his words. “Write these things and seal them up,” the Lord directs him, “and I will show them in mine own due time unto the children of men.” These stones, the Lord explains, “shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write” (Ether 3:24, 27).

 

Above it looks like nothing but a big brown stone... we know that JS also had a single clear white stone, like the ones we all will receive when we are celestialized. 

Rev 2:

 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’

 

Quote

 

Palmyra resident Pomeroy Tucker, who worked on the publication of the Book of Mormon, remembered that Joseph Smith’s seer stone had a “whitish, glassy appearance, though opaque, resembling quartz” in his 1867 book. Other late sources claiming to have interviewed early Palmyrans reflected Tucker’s description of the stone, making it difficult to know if they were original observations or mimicking his more informed, publicly declared opinion. Nevertheless, they stated that Joseph Smith used a white stone.

 

Unlike his brown stone, Joseph Smith did not give his white stone away. In fact, the Nauvoo Apostles remember him showing them his seer stone, and they imply that he may have been using it in some way. Joseph showed Wilford Woodruff his white stone in 1841, years before Woodruff ever saw the brown stone (which was presumably in Oliver Cowdery’s possession until 1850). During that time, Joseph had been working on the Book of Abraham and preparing the Nauvoo Temple endowment. On 27 December 1841, Wilford Woodruff wrote that Joseph showed him his seer stone at a meeting with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From the fall of 1841 to the summer of 1842, Wilford Woodruff called Joseph Smith “Joseph the seer” in his journal numerous times.

Joseph also showed the white stone to the Twelve Apostles when they met together, followed by a speech that described the white stone as his own personal stone. Brigham Young recorded, “I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim, which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters.”

Young also declared that Joseph “showed us his stone.” Joseph then explained “that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it.”

https://www.ldsliving.com/joseph-smith-had-a-second-seer-stone-heres-what-we-know-about-it/s/83084

 

Quote

 

Though the provenance of the white stone is less clear than that of the brown stone, Joseph Smith apparently said nothing of the brown stone to the Apostles in Nauvoo. The fact that Joseph showed them his white stone and then promoted the idea that everyone was entitled to a single stone implies that Joseph’s personal stone was the one he possessed at the meeting. Due to this statement, it is worth asking whether Joseph Smith valued his white stone above the brown stone. It is clear that Joseph had his white stone in the 1820s, along with the brown stone, but he was not willing to give his white stone away; by the time he reached Nauvoo, he was no longer concerned with the brown stone. One interpretation of these events is that the brown stone was apparently of less personal value to Joseph Smith. This interpretation is supported by the strong possibility that his successors also valued the white stone more.

There is also other evidence that the white stone was valued over the brown stone. In 1887, Wilford Woodruff succeeded John Taylor and was given possession of the seer stones (apparently the brown and the white). Soon after he became the new President of the Church, Woodruff carried one of the seer stones with him to Manti, Utah, where he consecrated it on the altar of the temple. That evening he revealed in his journal that before leaving the altar of the temple, he “Consecrated upon the Altar the seers Stone that Joseph Smith found by Revelation some 30 feet under the Earth Carried by him through life.” In other words, he consecrated the white stone on the altar, not the brown stone. The brown stone was presumably given to Cowdery, then to Phineas Young, and so on. The stone that Woodruff identified was “carried by [Joseph Smith] through life.” Woodruff had to make a conscious choice about which stone he took with him, and it is clear that he consecrated the white seer stone on the altar of the Manti Temple.

https://www.ldsliving.com/joseph-smith-had-a-second-seer-stone-heres-what-we-know-about-it/s/83084

Quote

 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Above it looks like nothing but a big brown stone..

So did he use this for a paperweight or kept it because it was nice looking or what?

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Then I guess I am confused as to how you think your approach of keeping the Urim and Thummim narrative, contrary to what the current church leaders are teaching about the stone in a hat, is going to save anyone's faith.  You seemed to be concerned that if people found out that the church lied about its history, then they will lose their faith, so I wasn't expecting you to acknowledge that they have lied or intentionally concealed their history.  So what is your angle exactly?  I thought you were attempting to protect the church (and therefor the faith of its members) against accusations of lying, but now I am not so sure. 

Not only are you accusing them of creating a culture of lying about their history, but by pushing the old Urim and Thummim narrative which goes against what the church is currently publishing, you are accusing them of flat out getting it wrong and teaching false history.  How, again, is that approach going to help anyone's faith?  That seems to be more damaging of their reputation than helpful - not only have they lied, but they are also incompetent.  Is that the approach you want us to believe will protect faith?  

They kept secret the different Vision JS had for reason I can only guess at... maybe the members were not ready for the confusion of which story was more true.   So I feel the Church maybe didn't lie but hid things... some would say that they lied.

What do I think, well I believe Jospeh Fielding hid it and my have lied about it... I don't know for sure, since LDS history is complex and skewered.  

Joseph Fielding Smith was in possession of the 1832 First Vision account sometime in the 1930s or 1940s and kept it suppressed by tearing it out of the letterbook it was written in. The only reason it was released in the 1960s was because word had leaked out that it existed, and early LDS critics such as former Mormons Sandra and Jerald Tanner began asking for a copy of the account. The church quietly gave the account to a BYU student to write a paper about, and then taped the pages back in the letterbook. You can actually see the tape marks on the Joseph Smith Papers project. There is a huge reason this account was suppressed for decades, which as noted above is due to Joseph Smith’s changing theology at the time.

Chuckle, I have never accused the Church of intentionally lying, are you someone that feels that only what the General Authorities and Prophet and apostles is infallible?  oh my!  I love this Gospel the restoration and everything about it... I have a strong testimony and am not trying to convert anyone to my particular beliefs about the history.... I find it only interesting to see how others may excuse the seer stone, which our enemies claim was magic and part of the occult.... we have many progressives who love to teach the seer stone, the hat and money digging (Bushman) and others.   I have to laugh at some of the ridiculous claims.  

 

 

https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/firstvision

[rjohnson7]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

So did he use this for a paperweight or kept it because it was nice looking or what?

I'm not here to me mocked, I have been nice and polite, I love the members of the Church and what I have so far found here is rudeness and judging of me... stop, please!