Mormon Infobia...

[_Drifting]

Head in a hat would be an awkward and confusing presentation. You wouldn't know who's head in the hat,

Well, that's such I strong argument I completely reverse my position...

[_Runtu]

Well, that's such I strong argument I completely reverse my position...

Not only that, but you wouldn't know whose hat it was, either. So confusing.

[_MCB]

This appears to be a satire on one of our anti-Mormon posters (who I have on ignore). LOL

[_Fence Sitter]

Ben.
I am enjoying the thread and your contribution.
Take it easy.

Ben,

You are getting responses from all sides and patiently responding to them. I want to second what Drifting says here.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting - I apologize if this is a bit thrown together and let me know if some of it is a bit incoherent.

I think that in church publications we have a wide range of views that are given. I want to note one thing before I start to provide some citations and discussion. The reason for the hat we are told was to exclude the light. More on that in just a moment. There was, I think, a sudden interest in these issues around 1875 (using a rough figure here - it was before and after - really centering around the fact that the original witnesses were dying and a sudden renewed interest in accounts by them and about them) and we get a number of accounts at that point attempting to describe what was going on. They are all at least a bit different (including the ones talking about the hat), but, there are enough to give us a pretty good idea that a seer stone in a hat was used. So we start with an account in the newspaper The Saints Herald, from 15 November 1875. I am not going to try to include all the material, small bits will be there, you can look up the context if you want - I am going to try to avoid biasing the material I quote by being too narrowly selective.

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

Ok, so here we have the stone, the hat - but the thing I want to point out is that the role of the hat is, itself, not particularly interesting. It's sole purpose is to make it dark so that Joseph can see.

I add, by the way, that while members haven't always been too keen on the idea of seer stones, they haven't tried too hard to hide this. So, for example, the Friend magazine from September 1974 includes this bit:

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.

Perhaps the most interesting account was given in the Millennial Star (Volume 44, Issue 5, starting on page 86). Most of the time we are interested in the part that talks about how Joseph would read something, the scribe would write something, and so on (the mechanics of the process are described in some detail - perhaps more detail than any other account). But, then, we get a very popular story. This story assumes the existence of the hat, but doesn't mention it specifically. Here it is (coming from page 87):

Martin said, 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 doing so on one occasion, Marin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin 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 exclaimed, "Martin! What is the matter? All is dark as Egypt!" Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so.

Now, this story, in my opinion, can only be understood in terms of the seer stone in the hat, although the hat isn't mentioned explicitly. And this story actually has experienced a fair amount of popularity in LDS sources (they like the same sort of "proof" aspect that appealed to LDS in 1882 when it was published). This story was published in the Jan. 1988 Ensign (the article was "A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon"). It doesn't mention the hat, but then neither did the source.

A September 1977 article ("By the Gift and Power of God") also provides an account from S. W. Richards from a letter in 1907. The article expresses some reservations of the account but here is the part of relevance:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.”

It footnotes to a Personal Statement of Samuel W. Richards, 25 May 1907, at Harold B. Lee Library, BYU, Special Collections. This is more of an aside - but I wanted to point out that this reflects that traditional view we see in most of the artwork (minus the Urim and Thummim of course). The article also provides a quote from the Deseret Evening News, 13 Dec. 1881 - a statement made by Edward Stevenson and attributed to Martin Harris:

He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.

There are a few more references in that article. One more worth quoting is this one from David Whitmer's 1887 Address to All Believers In Christ (Richmond, Mo., 1887):

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe. And when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.

At any rate, the point is, these aren't common references, but they are there. I think that in light of competing scenarios, people often choose the ones they like the most (as I feel the 1977 article does). Without some significant research, its easy to pick the narrative that conforms to your bias. And it is perhaps easier to run something like that by correlation. But I go back to the point that the hat itself isn't terribly important to the "method" of translation. And I think that the insistence that it be there isn't necessarily realistic.

So, lets summarize:

The historical record tells us the Book of Mormon was translated primarily by Joseph placing his face in a hat and reading words off a rock.

I think that this is contestable. I would tend to agree with you. But, I don't think that the historical record tells us this, we infer this. The historical record tells us that at times the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph placing his face in a hat and reading.

The Church, in all it's material about how the Book of Mormon was translated, mentions this method once back in a single talk by Russell Nelson in 1993.

I contest this statement first on the basis that we can find more than one instance, and second on the basis that the hat itself seems to be a secondary detail that isn't always included in various historical accounts, but seems to be implied in some that have also been published. Do you think that its fair to say that the church recognizes that it wasn't just the Urim and Thummim (referring to the Nephite interpreters) but also at least the brown seer stone used to translate the Book of Mormon?

In all other specific references to the way the Book of Mormon was translated, the Church reports usage of the Urim & Thummim which are understood to be spectacle like attached to a breastplate.

I don't think I agree with this. Further, I think that this particular issue is muddled by the fact that "Urim & Thummim" was used to refer to the seer stones.

We can conclude that the Church knows what the accurate historical account is and therefore that the Church deliberately excludes this information in favour of an alternative description.

I don't think that the Church (in this case) is such a monolithic entity that we can speak of it "knowing" what the historical reality is in light of the range of views and opinions and accounts, and the preferences of various members of the Church.

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

Good morning Ben,

Thank you for your post, I found it very informative and it included some things I haven't come across.

The article in the 1974 Friend says:

Because of his spiritual nature and his willingness to learn the truth, Joseph Smith was tested and found worthy to be the translator of the Book of Mormon. To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”
Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.
Martin Harris said that on the seer stone “sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [the one writing them down] and when finished [that person] would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another take its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates.”

Am I correct when I say that there were no eye witness accounts of Joseph Smith ever using the Urim & Thummim (as described in this article)?

Am I correct when I say that all eye witness accounts say that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone on which words would appear (this last bit would probably be an assumption on their part based on what Joseph told them was happening in the hat)?

Am I correct that the brown egg shaped stone was not found deposited with the plates, but was in fact found earlier when digging a well and subsequently used in attempts to find buried treasure?

If that is correct then the current narrative that should be used when teaching investigators, primary, seminary, institute and Sunday School classes is one about a treasure seeking stone used with a hat to exclude the light. The pictures used in conjunction in these lessons and manuals should also reflect this.

This is how the method of production is taught to Primary Children.

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.(Joseph Smith History referenced in Primary 4: Book of Mormon)

The same is taught to Seminary students and Adult Sunday School students, during the Doctrine & Covenants and Church History courses. The method is not mentioned during the Book of Mormon courses.

As previously mentioned, Institute students are only exposed to Emma's testimony in the Book of Mormon course. It refers to Russell M Nelson's talk but stops short of quoting the relevant parts on how the translation actually happened.

Preach My Gospel also references the Urim & Thummim account in the canonised Joseph Smith History, as per the Primary, Seminary and Adult Sunday School manuals. It displays the picture of Joseph and Oliver sat at a table with the Golden Plates on display where Joseph is reading (unaided) from the plates and Oliver is writing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here in lies the point.
Not a single one of the main teaching programmes of the Church explains accurately how the Book of Mormon was produced.

Most members are happy with that, they don't know any different. If I were to ask every single member of the Church in every ward I've ever been in 'How was the Book of Mormon translated?' They would, without exception tell me it was done by using the Urim & Thummim (which they would describe as spectacles attached to a breastplate) and they would refer me to the Church's canon which supports this description.

The canon of the Church does not protray an accurate narrative of how the Book of Mormon was produced. It misleads members into assuming it was done with magic spectacles attached to a breastplate, which was an instrument called a Urim & Thummim that was found alongside the buried gold plates.

You, yourself are very knowledgeable about the translation method. But only because you have gone looking outside of the Church teaching programmes, outside of the Church canon and outside of official Church sources. Exactly what Elder Jensen doesn't want you to have to do and what, in my experience, members are discouraged from doing.

See this from the LDS Church News article entitled 'Using Proper Sources' January 2010 which supports what I am saying:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said in his October 1999 general conference address that as he traveled the Church he had been pleased and impressed with how Relief Society and priesthood lessons were presented and received.

"However," he added, "I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher's choice. That is not acceptable.

"A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord's revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point."

I agree with your point that, in terms of believability, magic spectacles found alongside hidden gold plates and word producing rocks in hats are of equal incredulity. So why not just correct the teaching manuals and canon and educate the Missionaries to reflect a more honest narrative?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

Am I correct when I say that there were no eye witness accounts of Joseph Smith ever using the Urim & Thummim (as described in this article)?

I am a bit unclear as to what you mean by this.

The earliest "method" of translation according to the accounts of others was that Joseph took the gold plates, and copied sequences of characters from off the gold plates onto paper. He then took those copied characters and looked at them using the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters). I haven't included any discussion of that form of translation because it generally had nothing to do with the hat around which this conversation has evolved. But there are accounts that describe this. As to the question of eye-witness accounts, I think that many of our accounts are late, are second-hand, and so on - even the ones that deal with the brown stone.

Am I correct when I say that all eye witness accounts say that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone on which words would appear (this last bit would probably be an assumption on their part based on what Joseph told them was happening in the hat)?

No. I think that we have reliable accounts that detail the use of the Nephite interpreters. Additionally, Martin Harris gave some very detailed descriptions of the Nephite interpreters and discussed how they were used. The information that we have about why they stopped being used and the discomfort they caused Joseph seems reliable enough.

Am I correct that the brown egg shaped stone was not found deposited with the plates, but was in fact found earlier when digging a well and subsequently used in attempts to find buried treasure?

No. You are confused about the well. That was a white stone. And it was certainly used to look for lost objects. The one that he used in the translation may have been an earlier stone, or it may have been an altogether different one. However, at some point we start asking questions that the various accounts aren't always able to answer with the clarity we would like.

If that is correct then the current narrative that should be used when teaching investigators, primary, seminary, institute and Sunday School classes is one about a treasure seeking stone used with a hat to exclude the light. The pictures used in conjunction in these lessons and manuals should also reflect this.

And now we get back to the rub.

There is no picture used in current manuals and lessons. There is no description used in current lessons and manuals of this aspect of the translation. It isn't considered terribly important. And I personally don't think it is terribly important. One of the things is very clear - the historical account does not present a unified picture of a single descriptive process (even though you keep trying to return to this notion). I think that at this point I come to the rather awkward conclusion that you aren't terribly familiar with the historical record - perhaps you ought to do a bit of reading about it.

This is how the method of production is taught to Primary Children.

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.(Joseph Smith History referenced in Primary 4: Book of Mormon)

This isn't a method. This is simply describing what was found in the stone box. It doesn't describe how they were used. And you seem to be forgetting at this point that at the beginning, this was exactly what was used to translate the Book of Mormon. It shifted over time. Eventually, even the seer stone was abandoned (although not, I think, during the Book of Mormon translation but in later revelations and such).

As previously mentioned, Institute students are only exposed to Emma's testimony in the Book of Mormon course. It refers to Russell M Nelson's talk but stops short of quoting the relevant parts on how the translation actually happened.

I don't agree with you. The hat actually has NOTHING to do with how the translation actually happened. The singular role the hat plays is excluding light. What the Emma account does is to actually talk about what was happening during the translation and why some feel that the translation was a reliable thing. It may refer to Russell M. Nelson's talk, but as I noted, it quotes less than 10 percent of the talk. It doesn't skip the material in an ellipses. I don't see conspiracy here.

Not a single one of the main teaching programmes of the Church explains accurately how the Book of Mormon was produced.

Any account which focuses on the hat, will not accurately explain how the Book of Mormon was produced either. An accurate explanation may not be available. Any account which provides all of the details of the historical record and evaluates them, and produces some kind of harmony or attempts to provide the most accurate version (which would naturally have to include a wide range of assumptions) would not be terribly suitable for any of these teaching programmes of the Church, whose goal is to provide religious and theological instruction, and not coherent exhaustive historical understanding.

The canon of the Church does not protray an accurate narrative of how the Book of Mormon was produced. It misleads members into assuming it was done with magic spectacles attached to a breastplate, which was an instrument called a Urim & Thummim that was found alongside the buried gold plates.

If there is misleading going on, it is misleading members to think that this was perhaps the only instrument of translation. And I can see where this might be misleading, and also inconsequential.

You, yourself are very knowledgeable about the translation method. But only because you have gone looking outside of the Church teaching programmes, outside of the Church canon and outside of official Church sources. Exactly what Elder Jensen doesn't want you to have to do and what, in my experience, members are discouraged from doing.

I don't agree with you (repeatedly now in this thread) that the church doesn't want us to do this or that it discourages it. You aren't going to change my mind by merely reasserting it.

See this from the LDS Church News article entitled 'Using Proper Sources' January 2010 which supports what I am saying:

This is a non-sequitor. This refers to teachers (not to typical members in their personal study) and it deals with what the church wants presented as lessons where it wants the focus to be on the religious and theological instruction. I don't have any problem with this, and it is not a symptom of a larger attempt at keeping members from personal study and investigation.

So why not just correct the teaching manuals and canon and educate the Missionaries to reflect a more honest narrative?

I think eventually we see a change, but it won't be of the magnitude that you would like to see perhaps, and it certainly isn't as consequential as you are suggesting that it is.

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

Ben,

I'm not trying to change your mind and I do appreciate your responses.

Based on the available, reliable, historical record and official Church teaching materials:

Q. Was using the Urim & Thummim (specatcles & breastplate) the exclusive method for producing the Book of Mormon?
Yes/No

My Answer: No

Q. Was using the Urim & Thummim (spectacles & breastplate) the predominant method for producing the Book of Mormon?
Yes/No

My Answer: No

Q. Do all of the main Church teaching programmes (where the method is taught) exclusively teach using the Urim & Thummim (spectacles & breastplate)?
Yes/No

My Answer: Yes

From just these three questions we can see that the Church hides/ignores/misses the accurate historical narrative. That may not be of any consequence to your mind, but it is to mine. And it is to those numbers of members that are venturing off piste, away from the inaccurate...no let's say incomplete, official Church material to factually satisfy their questioning minds.

The canonised Joseph Smith History is presented as an accurate historical account of, amongst other things, how the Book of Mormon was produced. It isn't. When members discover that the Church has glossed over or missed some things they start to wonder 'why?'. And what else isn't the Church telling them? Jensen's problem is that they discover these errors and omissions from sources other than the Church. This external discovery propogates the feeling that the Church is hiding something or has a fear of this information becoming common knowledge amongst the members.

I'm not expecting to change your mind. But hopefully I am clearly expressing mine and why I, and all those apostasising members, feel that way.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Q. Do all of the main Church teaching programmes (where the method is taught) exclusively teach using the Urim & Thummim (spectacles & breastplate)?
Yes/No

My Answer: Yes

I don't agree with you on this point. But in any case, you still haven't answered the real issue. You write:

From just these three questions we can see that the Church hides/ignores/misses the accurate historical narrative. That may not be of any consequence to your mind, but it is to mine. And it is to those numbers of members that are venturing off piste, away from the inaccurate...no let's say incomplete, official Church material to factually satisfy their questioning minds.

And I don't think that in this case, this is a bad thing to have incomplete material on this topic. What I see in you is this jump from - the record is incomplete - to the church is trying to hide something - to the church doesn't want people to look for more information. The thing is, the church provides additional information, easily discoverable on their website (the search engine is terrific and it even includes now the Joseph Smith papers). So, the church does provide more detail, does provide discussion elsewhere. Just as we might expect given the nature of the teaching that the church wants to see in their Sunday services.

The other problem you have is this. You want to focus on these absolutes, you want to focus on what is missed, but I have yet to see you really offer a reasonable alternative. You want a picture of Joseph looking into a hat, but you haven't really produced a coherent notion of what that is supposed to accomplish (that isn't accomplished already).

The canonised Joseph Smith History is presented as an accurate historical account of, amongst other things, how the Book of Mormon was produced. It isn't.

I am going to keep disagreeing with you on this point. The fact that the JSH includes a description of what was in the stone box isn't inaccurate. It does say that he used the Urim and Thummim (twice - once as Joseph speaking, and once as Oliver Cowdery). But it doesn't describe any of the conditions - was there a curtain, did they sit at a table, how did they deal with words Joseph didn't know, and so on. What you are asking for seems entirely unreasonable given the context. The canonized part of the JSH was written way back in the day with Joseph Smith's participation. Do you think, at that point, that they were somehow embarrassed by the use of a seer stone? Your discussion on this point seems at least a little incoherent. The JSH was canonized in 1880 - the same time that we are seeing circulation of these other details in church publications. What you want to see isn't what they wanted to put there - and you ought to consider for a moment that the bit you think is of such great import has really no significant value relatively speaking. To go back to the parable, you are so obsessed with the mirror, that you aren't actually interested in looking into it.

I'm not expecting to change your mind. But hopefully I am clearly expressing mine and why I, and all those apostasising members, feel that way.

To be frank, I think this is a smokescreen. I think that this example is useful to people like yourself - because it has (even with the concerns) a relatively uncontested historical reality. But, in fact, it is the much murkier issues that people have real concerns over. This one gets used for a sound bite, I believe, because you have an easier argument to make. What makes this situation useful to me is that it allows us to try and hash out the issues of what the church ought to be trying to do and what should be reasonably expected of it - and these are issues that you seem to be trying to avoid.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I do have one more comment to make Drifting.

You talk about people wanting to know and looking - and yet, you yourself seem to be woefully unaware of the material that is out there. And it seems to me that perhaps whatever your sources of information were, you uncritically accepted them. That seems to me to be just as much an issue here in this discussion (at least where it has traveled). At what point should I expect that you apply the same critical eye that you do to the church to the sources you have read?