The same seerstone was used in treasure digging which has many sources backing it up. The Smith family had a very bad reputation in the area long before the Book of Mormon situation happened. Joseph was known as a conman and treasure digger. We can use semantics to say he was merely fascinated with treasure digging... but regardless, he took money from people. Claimed to find treasure. People dug. And then it magically was moved. Repeatedly. This was a relatively common folk magic idea prominent in the midwest and frontier states. He took people's money---one researcher said there are 18 instances of this being documented but I haven't looked up all the sources. Some sources point to Joseph Smith using a local folk magic practitioner's stone to find his stone---Sally Chase was her name. Statements made by her brother, Willard, indicate Joseph Smith used the seerstone also to find the Book of Mormon. The story of the First Vision wasn't publicly told until the 1830's. Many years after it happened. The lost 116 pages were a history of the people of the Americas---much less religiously based... it is theorized by many that Joseph realized after the pages went missing that he could redo the history to begin a religious movement. As someone who sought fame and fortune, this makes sense historically. The stories he recorded and told of the First Vision are varied and the church knows this---it is published in the gospel topics essays... The Book of Abraham scrolls have nothing to do with Abraham. The church acknowledges that. The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms... elephants, chariots, scimitars (these swords weren't even invented at the time) as well as cattle and horses. Similarly, if you found a photograph of Albert Einstein holding an Iphone, you'd know it was incorrect. The Book of Mormon contains things which hadn't been invented or weren't present in the Americas. No evidence in archaeology either. The story of the Book of Mormon doesn't work historically, linguistically or via DNA. Extensive DNA testing has been done worldwide and scientists can pinpoint origins from thousands of years ago---but no evidence is anywhere of a Jewish origin for any people of the Americas. The fact that Joseph Smith used folk magic to translate the Book of Mormon? If your kids wanted to use a ouija board at a birthday party, you'd freak out---the fact a prophet used a magical stone used to con people isn't a concern or red flag, at all? And the fact that he used the same method---the rock in the hat. The fact that we have to go over every one of these facts and alter them is a red flag. "Oh, its not a big deal he used the seerstone because..." Or we have to rewrite the narrative. Or come up with some excuses. "The DNA hasn't been found yet but it exists..." or "All the nephites died out... God changed their DNA with the curse..." or "Science just hasn't caught up with the church yet!" or "There is so much evidence! Just hasn't been found. Or we just don't know it yet!" or "The Book of Abraham scrolls don't mention Abraham but that doesn't matter because..." And then we make excuses. Why? To save our brains the heartache or realizing that possibly the whole situation is not true. Our worldview and our dedicate lifepath might be incorrect. That is a scary thought. So our brains migrate back to a safety zone or finding ways in which it is all still true. It makes us feel safe. It makes us feel protected. Rather than question, we retreat. And of course there's a cultural idea that to believe in something even with negative evidence is somehow superior---- At the end of the day, there's an awful lot of negative aspects of Joseph Smith. But we focus on the faith promoting. We focus on the fact that we can use semantics to excuse past church leaders' actions. We can find excuses for the DNA, the scrolls, the lack of evidence, the polygamy, the teenage brides, the folk magic, the translations, the historical anomalies... all to keep our faith secure and safe because without it, the world is a scarier place. Confronting reality is scary without a testimony that we already have the answers.
We all grew up seeing church pictures of JS translating unaided and reading directly from the Golden Plates. These pictures are inaccurate. For some reason when some people find out it did not happen like in the pictures, they get upset.
@@brettmajeske3525 There's "accurate", and there's "downright false". Pretending that Joseph sat at a table with plates in hand is simply a fabrication, and a fabrication the church hung in the foyer for years and years. If the church is willing to prop up a fabrication with respect to the Book of Mormon, what else might they be willing to prop up?
@@BrendonKing It is called artistic representation, as anyone who has ever taken an art appreciation class should be able to understand. The artist was not even trying to be historically accurate; it was always understood as symbolic. You have no understanding or appreciation of art at all do you? Do you complain about Washington crossing the Delaware, which is even more egregious?
@@brettmajeske3525 Did I make mention ever of artist's intent, or of the church's intent as the one displaying the piece en masse across the globe? The artist is free to express themselves in any method appropriate, but that doesn't mean whoever commissioned the piece has to accept it, let alone hang it in the lobby.
Although this video is a good effort to respond to some critics, the title of this video is misleading because the issue isn't whether "the Church" hid "the truth" but whether Joseph Smith "hid the truth." One reason people consider this issue important is that it goes directly to the credibility and reliability of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who always said (including in published statements) that Joseph translated the record with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Those who claim instead that Joseph found a stone in a well, used the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) to produce the text, and didn't even use the plates, are explicitly repudiating what Joseph and Oliver said. People can believe whatever they want, but no one can make informed decisions without considering all the relevant information. Notice that this video and the SITH sayer references in the notes (including the Gospel Topics Essay) all ignore the simple, clear, and unambiguous answer Joseph gave to this question, a question which he said arose daily as he traveled from Kirtland to Missouri in 1838. The question persisted partly because of the 1834 publication of Mormonism Unvailed, which clearly distinguished between the seer stone (peep stone) and the Urim and Thummim (contrary to the MacKay/Dirkmaat theory mentioned in the video that the terms were interchangeable). "Question: How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon? Answer: Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead; and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were, and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon." (Elders’ Journal, July 1838) This clear, definitive answer should suffice for believers. There is no room in that answer for a seer stone (or peep stone) he found in a well. All the obfuscation efforts of the SITH sayers cannot overcome the direct, consistent statements from Joseph and Oliver on this question. Bottom line, do we believe what Joseph and Oliver said and published, or do we believe the contradictory statements of others?
Personally don't care. Edison invented the first viable light bulb but I don't care that he failed a 1000 ways to produce it when I turn on the light. Perhaps he will fade away as LED lights eliminate the incandescent? I.e. we should focus on the resulting Book of Mormon rather than the process.
Actually Joseph normally used the term "interpreters". "Urim and Thummin" were Cowdery and Phelps, and was used interchangeably for any tools. Most of Joseph's journals were dictations, and the scribes were known for clearing up Joseph's frontier rhetoic.
This was a very brief response from Joseph. Yes if he also used the seer stone, he could have quickly included it in his brief statement. But maybe if someone asked him a follow up question, "did you use any other means of translation?" Maybe he would have added the seer stone. Or maybe he was just leaning on the most authoritative method in his response. In statements by Martin Harris or others, they basically said that he often used the seer stone because it gave the same result as the urim and thummim , but was more comfortable and possibly faster. People don't usually talk in public in a way that would give future historians all the details. The urim and thummim were both stones, not eyeglasses, so if Joseph asked the lord if he could use his own stone and it worked, why not? History of anything is messy but very interesting. At the end of the day, the Book of Mormon is a marvelous work, that's all that matters.
I like to think of the seer stone as serving the same function as Dumbo's "magic" feather. Timothy the mouse convinces Dumbo that using the feather gave him the ability to fly, even though he knew all along that it was just a totem. Dumbo could fly all on his own, but until he realized that for himself and learned how, he was allowed to believe that the feather was what made him special. God always comes to where we are before lifting us to higher and nobler truths.
From reading Don Bradley's book "The Lost 116 Pages", it appears that the Urim and Thummim were used primarily during the translation of the part that was lost-- the initial set of pages. Also, that the Urim and Thummim are a sort of "training wheels" for learning to receive revelation, so it's possible that after Joseph continued translating he was by that point better at it so it was easier to just use the seer stone than it was the Urim and Thummim which he had gained proficiency from earlier.
There was never any "Urim & Thummim." That term was not used in Mormonism until 1833. Before then, the "translation devices" were called the "interpreters." What happened was, Joseph's disciple WW Phelps found the term while reading the Old Testament. Joseph thought that using the term would be a good Biblical "proof-text" for his "translation" method. Joseph began using it as a way to distance himself from his 1820s peep-stone practices. He even altered the wording in a pre-1833 "revelation" to retrofit his newly-discovered term "Urim & Thummim" to make it appear that the term had been there all along. All Joseph ever had were his "seer stones." This is demonstrated by William Clayton's account of Joseph dictating the revelation on celestial marriage in July 1843. Hyrum asked Joseph if he was going to use the U&T to receive the revelation. Joseph replied that he didn't need to, because he knew it by heart. Because the story goes that the angel Moroni took back the U&T after Joseph finished the BOM in 1829, then the object that Hyrum referred to as the U&T was his seer stone. As LDS scholar Stephen Ricks wrote: "The term Urim and Thummim (first used by W. W. Phelps in 1833, which is generally associated with the Nephite interpreters, is frequently used in a rather undifferentiated manner to indicate either the seer stone or the interpreters." In addition, every person who was present during the BOM production said that Joseph used the seer-stone-in-the-hat business. So he never even needed any "two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate" device. On top of that, some witnesses said that Joseph didn't even need the golden plates present while he did his stone-in-the-hat thing. So he never needed a "Urim & Thummim" or the golden plates at all.
We were taught growing up in the church that the Urim and Thummim were used along with the breastplate. There was even a children's reader with a drawing of JS using "glasses" to translate the golden plate. Now the narrative says a top hat and seer stone were used. There were letters from Emma Smith, Martin Harris, John Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery all pointing to a top hat and seer stone being used.
@@JLM1883 Exactly. People who claim the Church was hiding this or obscuring it are so uninformed. It was mentioned in many, many other places in general Church history.
You are deliberately misleading, deliberately twisting and shading the truth. Nowhere is it taught or revealed in credible history that the separate "seer stone" - separate from the Urum and Thummin (the "interpreters") was the PRIMARY translation tool - it was not. (This is not to say that a separate seer stone was never used, we just don't know how frequently.) There is a volume of evidence (I have it, but it's available to anyone) that proves this. And you still haven't answered the question: Why are you out here on this faith channel attempting to tear apart the testimony of the Book of Mormon, that it was translated by the gift and power of God?
I was at church history sites in April 2022 and expressed, "My entire life! My entire life we were taught about the urim and thummin, breastplate, etc". The senior missionary said, "Yes, many were taught that, but does it matter? Does it really matter how it was translated? Aren't we just glad we have the Book of Mormon?" And you know what? He's right. It doesn't matter! And yes, I'm SO GRATEFUL we have the Book of Mormon, no matter how it was translated. 💛
David, this stuff is really fun. It sounds like you have seen the Stoddard/Joseph Smith Foundation "debunk seer stone video". I don't know where I really stand but lean towards the Stoddard theory. It really doesn't matter to me much. I know it was translated by a Prophet of God through revelation.
Hannah is great at following sources, and has traced the sources used by church leaders to support the seer stone translation account, finding they ultimately trace back to the dubious sources.
This breaks my heart. The scriptures, Joseph and Oliver only talk about the gift and power of God and the Urim and Thummim translating the B of M. They never said they thranslated by the SITH. Giving made up stories, lies, 3rd hand information, accusations, etc. as much weight as what the Prophet said is wrong. The intellectuals promoting this are just looking to make a name for themselves with the newest "shiny object." Some of them have to much influence on the brothren, too. Members are losing their testimonies over this stuff. We have enough attacks and accusations from outside the church. The Lord made the U and T for the Brother of Jared. They were handed down from generation to generation until Moroni gave them to the Prophet. The plates of 1000 years in the making. Why all that effort if a stone in the hat is all that was required!?
Studying Mormon history so often feels like an episode of Keystone Cops. Even the most fundamental and simple questions lead one through a mess of confusion, incompetence, deceit, contradiction, and goofiness. I guess that’s part of what makes it so interesting. This is not a comment on Saints Unscripted’s work. I think you guys usually do a great job with a pretty difficult task.
I agree- saints unscripted- you are awesome and I appreciate all you do. My issue is with 60 years of church--seminary, mission, leadership- never once was I told nor did I teach about the rock in the hat (among dozens of other things). I felt like I lied to those people on my mission. Some here say it doesn't matter, except it does. Why say the urim and thummim were used if they were not? why not just say "rock in a hat". It matters.
@@mtsaz100well…. Both methods were used. 🤷🏻♂️ So I think you didn’t lie to the people on your mission. He used multiple methods. The Urim and Tummin are rocks too.
@@mtsaz100 The church has known about this stuff the entire time. The church has known definitively since about 1912 that the Book of Abraham scrolls and papyri have nothing to do with Abraham and the translation Joseph made was false. Thats over 110 years of knowing the truth. Members are just finding out about that now. To me, withholding that information is dishonest. The church created shell companies to hide money though---why should it be honest about its history? The fact that he used the hat is an odd story, makes the church seem a little crazy, and then to add to it... it opens up the treasure digging questions. The church discredited Fawn Brodie's book for many years. But now the church acknowledges much of the information was true. I have yet to find anything in her book which doesn't have a source and which isn't accepted by the church today. The church is upset because they cannot control the narrative anymore---its easier to control a narrative when most members don't question, look into archives, have the internet, etc. Now that the church has opened its doors to this information in a last ditch effort to keep members from leaving, we're seeing a can of worms opening up. But... there's still the idea that the church is huge and growing and amazing and perfect.
In that regard it isn't really all that different from studying history in general. Most people do not realize how problematic getting historical details right can be. Most of what is learned in High School History class are good guesses at best.
I think you needed to compare the times where the seer stone was mentioned and what publication was used vs the times that it was taught that Joseph Smith used the plates and the publications/prophets that taught that. Just because there were instances throughout history where it was mentioned doesn’t mean that was the main theory taught or believed.
Don Bradley discusses this extensively in his book The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon's Missing Stories. I find his explanation very instructive.
After watching a couple of these, it seems the modus operandi of the program is to provide a short incomplete sketch of subjects that are deeply problematic, provide a plausible touchstone of answers to the doubting faithful, and dismiss an incomplete picture of what the criticisms are. The ‘art’ subject is tossed off casually toward the end of the video, but is actually hugely important. The church published and produced inaccurate depictions of the translation of the BoM for many years, all while the seer stone was stored in the First Presidency’s vault. The producers of this content seem to forget that the church itself was holding the cards for most of the historical information and documents. It decided what would get out. And it excommunicated scholars for writing the truth about LDS history, some of which it has now been forced to discuss in its gospel topic essays. I didn’t hear that mentioned. And the same Joseph Fielding Smith who have his ‘opinion’ regarding the seer stone also suppressed an account of his famous relative’s First Vision to protect the faith. The division of church leaders statements into ‘opinion’ and dogma is a clever, though easily refuted, apologetic expedient. When past doctrinal statements are problematic, just throw them in the opinion bucket. All of Joseph Fielding Smith’s abhorrent teaching about race was presented as doctrine, without a doubt. But instead of honestly grappling with each statement, the church makes big, blanket proclamations about past racial ‘policy.’ The bottom line with the church has seldom been truth. It has been protecting its own wealth and good name.
Glad you were able to repost this! I agree that these are short and incomplete. In order to be "complete" they would need to be very very long (you could write volumes on this topic alone, depending on how expansive a view you want to take). I've found that very few people consume content of that length, but there's certainly a place for it! To help remedy the issue, though, I always leave a rather long list of resources in the TH-cam description that people can turn to if they are looking for a more complete picture. I don't see any issue with the seer stone having been stored in the vault. There doesn't seem to be any debate among leadership regarding the existence of the seer stone (even Joseph Fielding Smith acknowledges that it existed), but rather how the stone was used. I also freely acknowledge that I didn't address the art issue. I mention it, because it's important, but the aim of this video was very specific -- to outline instances where the Church has talked about the seer stone as a tool of translation. In the book I list in the description, "From Darkness unto Light,” by Michael MacKay & Gerrit Dirkmaat, there is an appendix by Anthony Sweat that addresses the subject of artwork, if people are interested. It probably does deserve its own video, though. We agree that it is important. I am also fully aware that the Church has been in possession of at least a lot of the historical information regarding this subject. But even with all of the historical information available, as noted in the video, people still come to different conclusions about it. Having possession of documents and information doesn't necessarily equate to having a clear picture of what was going on, which I think this topic is good evidence of. I didn't mention scholars being excommunicated for their writing about LDS history because I didn't feel the need to. But yes, you're certainly correct that some people have been excommunicated at least in part for teaching things that are now widely accepted. The standards for excommunication have fluctuated greatly over the years. You brought up the First Vision accounts -- this was tangential to the topic of the video and was therefore not addressed here. You also brought up differentiation between opinion, doctrine, policy, etc. That's also the subject of a separate video. I think it seems immensely clear, though, from that Joseph Fielding Smith quote, that he was stating his opinion. He says, "I believe..." and even leaves room for being wrong by stating, "It may have been so...." You also brought up Joseph Fielding Smith's statements on race. Again, this was not the subject of this video, and was therefore not addressed (we have another video about that topic). It seems to me that you might enjoy longer-format content than what we usually offer. I'd be happy to make recommendations if you're interested in any topics in particular (or, again, there are usually a variety of longer-format resources listed in the TH-cam descriptions). As always, happy to chat personally if you so desire. I'm much less attentive to TH-cam comments than I am to personal messages. Thanks for the comment and sorry that it was deleted for whatever reason! My guess is that another user reported it and for whatever reason YT took it down, but idk.
@@davidsnell2605 My point in bringing up the vault, statements on race, and first vision accounts was not to point out that they should have been covered in the video. I only used them to illustrate issues with the kind of reasoning the video espouses. The fact that the church had the stone in the vault all those years is not the problem in se, but rather the kind of narrative they presented in spite of the knowledge of it they had. If the church wants to keep up with the Exmormon community, it and its apologists will need to start producing much more long-form content than they do currently. And serious tackling of issues not just the millennial showmanship that popular creators have put forward. Complex issues require and deserve comprehensive untangling. I’m not saying that this channel is the place, but I disagree that most people dislike longer content. Long-form podcasting has a large audience. My personal opinion is that those more open and extended forums are avoided because there are not good, supported answers to the issues. But LDS scholars are subtly beginning the great shift away from traditional truth claims so it will be interesting to see where things stand in a decade or so.
@@salvatorecollura2692 I would hope that the information and research presented in my videos would be considered more than mere "showmanship." There is certainly an entertainment aspect to it, but I do at least try to engage these topics critically in the short time I have. Personally I haven't found it particularly difficult to find long-form research (relative to my short videos) regarding tough topics. If not from official Church publications, at least from believing Church scholars producing content with reputable publishers. In my experience, I feel like it's more common that people just don't know where to look to find that long-form content (because again I personally think *most* people simply won't take the time to read a long academic article, thesis, or book). But as examples of long-form content, I would suggest... Paul Reeve's book, "Religion of a Different Color," as a great exploration of the race issue. It's published by Oxford. Or you could turn to Reeve's Deseret Book publication, "Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood." For the First Vision topic I'd recommend Steven Harper's book, "First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins" (Oxford). Steve is a believing member heavily involved in the Joseph Smith Papers Project, BYU Studies, and producing the Church's new history volumes, "Saints." (see also the JSPP podcast, "The First Vision"). Brian Hales addresses pretty much every early polygamy-related topic under the sun in his 3-volume series, "Joseph Smith's Polygamy." See also Brittany Chapman Nash's work in this field. Richard Turley has now helped produce two substantial volumes on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. BYU Studies Quarterly recently came out with an entire volume all about the Book of Abraham controversies (free to read online). Gerrit Dirkmaat and Michael MacKay have covered Book of Mormon translation topics in multiple books. "Mormons and Masons" by Matthew Brown. "Evolution and Mormonism" by Trent D. Stephens & D. Jeffrey Meldrum. If you're looking for long-form content from a faithful perspective regarding any other topics I'd be happy to give you some recommendations, if they exist (I admit, I don't know of any long-form content regarding the First Presidency vault). If there's nothing in full-book format, I can usually find the topic addressed via BYU Studies, etc. There are also several podcasts I'd be happy to recommend (Maxwell Institute Podcast, Y Religion, The Standard of Truth, The Priesthood Restored, LDS Perspectives Podcast, etc). Of course, you may not agree with what believing members have to say, but there certainly is *some* substantial long-form content out there regarding at least the major issues people have with our history. That said, I do hope and believe that we'll continue to see even more long-form content about these topics in the future.
@@davidsnell2605 But those are all texts are they not? What I was referring to was videos and podcasts and live open-forum discussions. I don’t think scholarly articles and books are usually referred to as ‘content.’ They are closed-format and non-interactive, though also extremely important in their way.
As someone that's been in the comments as long as David has been doing this (and has watched every single video in its entirety), I don't think that's necessarily a fair assessment. Long-format videos on TH-cam just do not do well, no one watches them, if they do the bail after 30 seconds. I've always seen SU as a platform that provides a starting point for people with questions to go do their own research, including the convert/return videos. Given this specific subject, it is always going to have some amount of speculation like virtually everything that has happened throughout history. Even now when an event happens in the world opinions vary wildly even with some video or audio because we only see part of the picture. Specifically when it comes to Church history I give a HUGE benefit of the doubt due to the time period, the general lack of meticulous record keeping, the situations in which the early Saints were in where their property was seized or destroyed and on multiple occasions they were forced to flee with effectively what they could carry. Even now in the Church records aren't always kept well, when I was ward clerk I had several mystery records for our ward that no one knew anything about, I had an infant's record get entered with the wrong gender that I discovered and had to correct, another that accidentally had the middle name as the first name, etc. Personally: stone, no stone, spectacles, no spectacles, none of these things change the message of the Book of Mormon or instruction from ongoing revelation. I either choose to believe it, or I don't, but these specifics personally have no impact on my choice to believe or not. I can witness the same thing as my wife, say an incident in traffic, and we will have two entirely different versions of how that thing went, you have to look at history with that in mind.
Just as you point out, it’s not testimony-shaking material, here. We’re supposed to build our house on the Rock- Jesus Christ. Any details about human actions and quotes on this planet should never take away our faith in Jesus Christ. Anyone who reads the Bible clearly sees Prophets have been imperfect and made huge mistakes- God still managed to use them as Prophets. Seer stone in a hat, Urim and Thummim, words given by revelation- who cares! None of the methods hurt anyone, none of them contradict God’s ways, I’m so grateful the Book of Mormon is here in my life. Actually reading it changes lives- that’s why Satan attacks it so hard.
And I thought South Park was just peddling anti-Mormon lies; “Really, a rock in a hat? How absurd! That’s not how it happened.” Then I saw that article in the October 2015 Ensign; turns out South Park was right all along.
@@davidsnell2605 true, and the video also says the seer stone wasn’t part of the dominant narrative for decades. It wasn’t taught throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s through the correlated materials in Sunday school and seminary. Nor was it taught by missionaries or depicted in official artwork. I think that’s why so many were blindsided when the church changed the story in 2015.
@@Mubooza yep I agree that many people were understandably surprised when this information started to become more popular again. I'm grateful to belong to a faith that is willing to adjust as new research sheds light on more accurate ways of understanding the history. I understand the frustration over the artwork. I wish the approach there had been different as well. I'm glad there's been a shift there and that the next generation won't have to worry so much about that kind of thing.
@@brettmajeske3525 Speaking of Ann Arbor. Small world. I was in the Detroit mission and in your ward for a number of months I believe for at least part of 1990. I remember you and your family fondly. My memories are a bit vague, though, now that it's been over 30 years. I'm sure we enjoyed one or more meals in your home. Beginning in the fall of 1991, I started dating the sole BYU roommate of your sister (Kayla?) and we (your sister's roommate and I) got married the next year. Of course, your sister was at our wedding reception and may have been one of the bridesmaids. My username is a nom de plume (being an obvious reference to the person who was killed at the direction of John Calvin), and on my mission I was Elder Corbett.
No Church manual from the 80's on up has any mention of the Stone in a Hat. Southpark was the first time and place I EVER heard of this. I thought it was false and twisted. Turned out Southpark writers were on to something.
David, these videos continue to impress and inform! Thank you so much for taking the time and doing the research. I love the consistent approach of presenting both sides of the argument in a fair and unbiased way, then allowing if you were to reach their own conclusion. Rock on!
Great finish. It does not matter. It was by the gift and power of God. Nobody can seriously comment who hasn't translated by the gift and power of God or heard details from someone who has.
Its about time we had a CHURCH COURT for the First Presidency how they Judge us Members. This should be on an International Level. Its them that should held Accountable. to all aspects of LDS Church History.
In my book, if you are not God or JS. Nobody knows the real truth except the Holy Ghost? Why? Because he was there in the 1800s. I rely on the Holy Ghost for salvation information. All the other mistakes, truths, or distortions are for the faithless to struggle with. Satan loves struggle. Christ loves us to simply be believing. Faith is a yea or ney proposition. The spirit speaks truth and all historic speculation goes out the window.
I believed to seer stone accounts just as most in the church do including our leaders but if Hannah Stoddard is correct in her research then we have been misled. Despite all statements on the subject is isn't doctrine and our testimonies don't need to hang on weather he did or didn't used the stone.
I was suprised to learn recently that people were clutching their pearls over the seer stone, as it was something I had heard of since I was a kid, maybe first in the 70s. In fact I remember seeing it, or probably a replica, in the church history museum years ago, along with the story of how Joseph put it in the hat to translate. I guess I didn't know it was news.
In my 30 years as an active member the first time I heard of the seer stone was during my mission when someone tried to 'deceive' us with an anti-mormon pamphlet that showed an illustration of Joseph Smith with a 'peep stone' and his face down in hat. It was laughable to us that anti-mormons thought they could 'get us' with these comical lies. Another time was about 11 years ago while sitting in Elders Quorum a newer member was giving a lesson on Joseph Smith and after he mentioned a seer stone and hat, the president quickly stopped him, gently admonished him to use church approved sources, and then took over the class to prevent anymore 'wayward ideas' from entering the church. The 15 or so of us in attendance didn't speak up because we knew the EQ president was right! A few years later (2015 I think?) the church released pictures for the first time of ThE AcTuAL SeEr StOnE!! Oops! Whether Joseph used the urim and thummim, a stone, or a toothpick! It does not matter. What matters here is that many of us were taught one narrative and now we are being told a different narrative. The narrative that was taught to me over and over is in contradiction to the narrative the church uses today. Furthermore, we are being told that this information has always been available as if it were common knowledge. This is textbook gaslighting.
Can you please describe when and what you saw in the church history museum. I know of no record that they have displayed anything associated with the brown seer stone prior to 2015, nor am I aware of any depiction of a hat in the church history museum prior to that time. There is only one reference to the seer stone which is accurate in the 1970s (Friend, Sept 1974, a peaceful heart). Even church historian Kate Holbruck has noted that she didn't know about the seer stone growing up in the 1970s/80s. My mother (Born 1939) served multiple missions and raised 7 children. When she was told about the seer stone in 2016 she said "I have never heard that before". Your experience knowing about the seer stone and the hat (if true) is exceptionally rare.
Soooooo many people are thrown off by even the possibility of the hat story being true. They immediately think that if true that its overwhelmingly quirky and mystical nature then disproves everything about the Church.
@@CMZIEBARTH I think you might have a point, but it doesn't feel that way to me. All religions are full of miracles, including the restoration. Angel Moroni comes, gold plates. Urim and thummim. No one has a problem with that, but a rock in a hat is somehow too weird?
It's just somewhat more comforting to believe that the tools of translation came to Joseph from an angel rather than to believe that he dug it up in the process of digging a well for somebody, or however the story goes.
And what did the manuals ever say about how it was translated? Didn't say seer stones. Urim and Thummin was the only explanation, but even using the term "Urim and Thummin" is anachronistic, as they were called "spectacles" originally, which is also, in turn, something another treasure digger, Lawrence, saw while helping Joseph hunt for the plates on the hill. Another treasure seer saw them first in his own stone ... before Joseph. Go figure.
A lot of people need to catch up on info, it is the LDS CHURCH that need to go to the LDS Church Courts , Case Brought by the Non Members an answer to these allegations on a World Wide Forum.
Joseph could have translated it directly from the plates. He could have used the urim and thummin.... which are rocks, aren't they? He could have used the seer stone. Who cares ? We all bury our faces in our own rocks. It's called a cell phone.... which are made from refined rocks and sand.... If someone has a problem with the Book of Mormon, then I challenge them to write one under the same conditions that Joseph translated the book.
Yeah, growing up, we were only familiar with the Urim and Thummim being used alongside the breastplate, as that was what was popular and well-known at the time. So, when I first heard about the seer stone and its use in a hat, it caught me off guard and seemed a bit funny and odd. I believe many of us would have felt the same way, as it wasn't something we were accustomed to hearing about. However, I've come to realize that our acceptance or rejection of things often depends on how they are presented to us. After spending time studying and considering it, I've come to the conclusion that it's not as big of a deal as some may have initially thought. The church's members, culture, and our romanticized version of the church change over time, and that's natural. It's truly amazing to see how hard the church has been working to make our history more transparent. In this effort, we've come across things we haven't heard before, not because they are untrue or evil, but simply because they haven't been the primary focus for various reasons. Our history contains incredible things - people's experiences and miracles - but it also includes some unfavorable events that have occurred both from within and outside the church. When it comes to the "questionable things of the church," I always think about the Bible and how the prophets were treated. They were seen and rejected, often thought of as lunatics. I also think of the Apostles and the many mistakes they made, like Peter denying the Savior three times or asking who was the greatest amongst them. There were also instances of the Apostles not initially wanting to share the gospel outside of the Jews, which you might call racial prejudice. And then there's Paul, who persecuted and murdered saints before his conversion and call. These are things we know from the scriptures, but there isn't much recorded in reality. Here we have a history that is quite recent, and the church has done a great job of keeping records and doing their best to preserve them. And now, they have shared all they have with the world, which doesn't sound like someone trying to keep things hidden or lie to others. The Gospel is amazing, and I'm so grateful we have it. It helps us navigate this crazy, amazing world we live in. Thanks for making another great video.
What people don't realize is the Urim and Thumium ARE seer stones. Beside scripture there has been many things that have been revealed to Joseph through the Urim and Thumium. But also the Lord isn't against prophets using tools they are already and formerly accustomed to, as long as their efforts are for the building up of the Kingdom of God.
David! You are the man! Love these videos! Can you please do more on Brigham young and his polygamy? It seems like that is one thing that is dividing the church currently.
They use an app that when you type in a word or phrase it will show you all of the movies it was used in. Everyone and their dog does that on TH-cam videos, All they can say is "thanks"? How dishonest of them.
Why couldn't have Joseph Smith just used the seer stone at time and the Urim at others? Its okay if he used both methods at different times. I never really understood why this is was ever a big deal. However it came to be, we have the Book of Mormon and another testimony of Jesus Christ and of the mercy, goodness, and power of God over all the earth. Edit: fixed some grammar
@@BrendonKing We don't have to believe in the exact method, that's of little relevance. That he used the power of God to give us the Book of Mormon in more than good enough, which we can read and judge for ourselves.
@@violettasauveterre5100 Oh cmon now you don't believe that. Why does the Bible get slapped with "as far as it's translated correctly" if the process is unimportant?
It matter because people were excommunicated from the church for stating there was a seer stone and top hat used. If the church knew this part of history then the lives of those people were shattered. The church has only recently become transparent in the early history of the church including translation methods. They only admitted a few years ago to both polygamy and polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith. It becomes a big deal because one narrative taught in the past is different now with no explanation from the church. They are not really transparent about history and that offends church members who have invested their entire life to the church.
My faith grew more in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when i started looking toward what the book is about and not about how it came to pass. There are 3, 925 times Jesus Christ is mentioned that equates to 1.7 verses on average. Translated or not! The purpose to help us to get to know Jesus Christ and believing in Him and his Gospel can change lives. That is what its doing for me. If dont believe me then read it. I lots of faith why its true besides the mentions of Christ, especially after reading JS journal entries years after the BOM was translated. The prophet could barely spell and write a complete sentence. This can all be read in the JS papers.
Yes, two stones fastened into “bows” (or glasses). However, I’ve seen them described as crystals in appearance. This is different from the single chocolate-colored seer stone passed down through Oliver Cowdery’s family.
@@Irvingdector Yes, both. That is the conclusion I've reached anyway. The seer stone was like a compact viewing device, whereas the giant spectacles in big metal frames attached to a breastplate might have been harder to work with.
Think of the majesty and beauty of the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Angels, gold plates, enemies, ancient languages, scribes, long hours of toil and sacrifice. Truth or not, sticking your face in a hat to interpret is contradictory to the elements in the story. The Urim and Thummim maintain the dignity and balance of the storyline. It human nature to look for balance and consistency in a story, so the Urim and Thummim would “feel right.” The reality is Joseph probably found the practice of reading off a stone with his head down and covered by a hat, more comfortable and relaxing for his eyes. Long, hard working days followed by low, candlelight translating could really do havoc on the eyes. And what does it matter if the Lord printed it on a rock or an etch a sketch, the rock made it convenient for Joseph and fit in the hat too!
My testimony of the restored gospel came years even before I first knew characters of it, like the name of the church, name of the prophet, angels etc....
Easy answer is that JS first told everyone about the spectacles and the breastplate thinking they would be a great way to show God giving him translation powers. But once he tried to actually use them he realized they were super awkward and a hassle to use so he switched to his tried and true rock method which was much easier to do all day long. Faithful answer: we don't know and it's not important so stop asking.
What about all the art work, and illustrations in the wards that suggest Joseph read directly from the plates to translate? Most historical accounts show he never directly interacted with t he plates?
Art is meant to be representational. As High School students learn in Art Appreciation classes. Every High School American History text book I have seen includes "Washington Crossing the Delaware" and "The Signing of the Declaration of Independance" two paintings that have far more historical inaccuracies than any of the images used by the Church. You seem to have grossly unrealistic expectations of how art works.
The big problem here is not seer or not seer stone. .The problem is, if LDS Prophets really had revelation they should have known the truth. They clearly don't have a clue.
The Angel Moroni told Joseph Smith he would be destroyed if he showed the plates and the U&T to anyone unless commanded to do so. Then some historians conflate the U&T and the seer stone as if they were the same object. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never stated a seer stone was used. JSH in the PGP is clear on that and the reason why the footnote by Oliver cowdery was added, because Oliver Cowdery also stated the same. Oliver Cowdery’s statement in the footnote was in response to “Mormonism Unvailed” written by an excommunicated member of the Church. And how is it then that Joseph Smith allowed others to observe the translation with a seer stone, (when he was commanded not to) when the same observers never saw the gold plates at the same time? Why then are we relying on statements by others claiming a seer stone was used when they never saw the plates? No one else saw the Angel and the gold plates together until the Three Witnesses. David Whitmer was never involved with the translation. He claimed in his book that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet due to polygamy, but that he fell only after translating The Book of Mormon. Whitmer who again was never involved with the translation, likely stated a rock was used just to diffuse criticism from “Mormonism Unvailed.” Whitmer started his own Church. Why rely on him over the translation process?
Very well said! Moreover, do we really think that after losing the ability to translate due to Joseph's disobedience related to the lost 116 pp, that Joseph would go rogue and translate using a simple stone thereby not using a tool prepared by the hand of the Lord for the express purpose of bringing fourth the BOM? If all that Joseph needed for this work was a simple stone from a river, why the trouble to get the Nephite Interpreters to Joseph?
@@livingtruth2374 Yeah, when I was clerk last year and had bishopric at 6:30am meaning I had to leave the house by 5:50, then ward council, then sacrament and sunday school, then my wife would have YW presidency or youth presidency meetings after, I'd keep snack cakes in the car so when we would finally get out around noon haha.
@@livingtruth2374 Decades ago, when I was in the bishopric, and used to spend 6-7 hours at the chapel on Sundays, I would go home with what I called a "Sunday headache." It took me awhile to realize that it was caused by stress and lack of eating.
Great episode. Maybe take a deeper dive into Gazelem. And how stones have been used since the Old Testament. How many stones were used on the ancient breastplate of the priests? In time, will the Lord give us a personal stone?
The Seer Stone in the Hat method leads to his work as a paid treasure hunter, because he used exactly this method. As such, however, he had never found anything of value, and this leads to the conclusion that the treasure hunting thing, as well as the translation of the Book of Mormon, is a hoax. Therefore, although this method was occasionally mentioned, it was not generally taught.
I'm convinced that believing LDS will never move their position about the church being true so long as they feel the book of mormon is correct or that it happened. Really bizarre. I was talking scientology w/ a believing mormon and they said they could never believe that church or its claims. The irony was shocking and even more shocking they didn't pause about their own comment.
Saying that the Church currently teaches that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon is not accurate - in fact, it is a bit misleading, because what the Church has actually said would lead us to believe that if the "seer stone" was used, it still was not the primary translation instrument. For proof of this, simply look at the Come Follow Me manual for the Doctrine and Covenants. It mentions the Urim and Thummin as the primary translation tool - also mentioning a seer stone, then makes it clear that the Lord simply hasn't revealed how the Book of Mormon was in fact translated, except by the gift and power of God. (also includes no paintings/pictures of the actual translation process) The manual also has a footnote to the important quote from the Prophet Joseph where he made it clear that the Lord was not revealing "all the particulars" of how the book was translated, other than "by the gift and power of God."
@@BrendonKing And your point? Couldn't resist coming out here to take a shot at the Church of Jesus Christ, could you. You missed my whole point. The Lord, to the Church, made it clear that He was not going to reveal "all the particulars" as the how the book was translated, except to declare that it was accomplished "through the gift and power of God." The Church isn't going to go beyond what the Lord himself has indicated He will or will not do. Common sense.
@@livingtruth2374is it possible for Mormons to have any less expectation of transparency and clarity on their background and history? Why can’t the ‘one true church’ declare with any amount of confidence how the Book of Mormon came to be?
I’ve never really understood people getting so upset over this issue. It happens frequently that multiple sources give information and over time some details are emphasized over other ones. This is what happened here. There was no church wide conspiracy to hide the fact of using the seer stone,like some suggest. If I were to choose one method to promote over another, the Nephite triangle glasses attached to a breastplate is not the option I would go with. That sounds way more far fetched than a small stone found while digging a well that we still have in our possession. Furthermore, I find no contradiction. He appears to have used both. He started with the urim and thummim, but stated the were large and uncomfortable as they didn’t fit his face, so he switched over to the seer stone. So artwork showing use of the urim and thrumming is not inaccurate.
@@JasonP313 I understand. Yet the challenge with the claim of "treasure digging" is that very much has been made out of very little - we don't know from the credible, documented facts, that this ever happened. It's interesting to me that in "Rough Stone Rolling," after painting a picture of magic and seer stone stuff & etc. in the local culture, over a large section of the chapter in question, the author concedes in the end that the actual documented record shows Joseph only employed in such digging for two weeks! And Joseph's own record (the only first-hand account we have) indicates that he persuaded Josiah Stowell to stop the practice. Largely out of this one incident, miles of storytelling and stretching and characterization has taken place.
@@JasonP313 Actually there's no record of a conviction, the whole thing was spurious, and David covers this in detail in another very good episode of Saints Unscripted: th-cam.com/video/czi5uTl1ztM/w-d-xo.html
@@JasonP313 There is a record of a hearing. While enemies of Joseph have made the claim he was found guilty, the state of New York does not have a record of a trial even happening. Only the precourt hearing, which suggests the case was dismissed. What people claim as being the transcripts of the trial are actually the reconstructed memories of people at the hearing, not original court records. While it could be possible the frontier court just forgot the paperwork, it seems more likely that the whole thing was dismissed. Equally important is that the charges were about being a nuisance, not explicit fraud, which again is a detail many critics seem to conflate.
@@BrendonKing Slight correction: Joseph used his seer stone to LOOK for gold. But he never found any. That's because he knew that no such gold existed. He was only in the game for the money that Josiah Stowell paid him.
The Cows in the Jurassic era had no use for seer stones neither did the huge Bulls, they deposited them out their rear end, it was fossilized an later found by JS , who used it for translating Bull. interestingly enough was the Nephites when searching for material, they put their heads down the Lavatory an came up with gold nuggets between their teeth, later used for the Golden Plates. Please dont say the time line is anachronistic.
Martin Harris’ account looks like he’s saying, in a few words, that the Urim and Thummim was used the most to translate but the Seer Stone was used for convenience. Thank you for sharing this information.
There is a lot to unpack with this, particularly when it comes to the sources used here. David, you and I spoke a bit on Emma's accounts (particularly when it comes to her letter to Emma Pilgrim). To keep things short, anything by David Whitmer after 1838 should be taken with a lot of salt as far as its truthfulness is concerned. When it comes to Martin Harris, a single second-hand account that not only was originally printed more than 10 years after the conversation occurred but also 6 years after he died leaves a lot to be desired, especially since it contradicts all firsthand statements given by him, including an interview he gave right before he got on the train to Utah to the Daily Iowa State Register (later becoming the Des Moines Register). Elder Stevenson, in a book he printed shortly after the editorial was printed, published a book where he only gave maybe 3 sentences to the river stone but then goes on for pages about the exclusive use of the interpreters, ending with the conclusion that they were the exclusive method of translation. The biggest issue that proponents of the stone-in-the-hat narrative seem to leave out is what the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants has to say on the matter. And I'm disappointed that this wasn't addressed in this video.
I've been to both Harmony and Fayette. In Harmony, Joseph had a separate house for translation, so using the urim and thummim would have been easier. But in Fayette the house was very small and since there are accounts that state Joseph and the plates weren't hidden from others in the room, using the stone may have been the best method. There are so many things to consider and we just don't have the details.
@@mp112501 Perhaps, but we have to remember that David admitted to barely being around at his father's house in Fayette when the translation was happening, so suggesting he knew what was fully happening is more than a stretch. David's statements about the translation method is also contradicted by John and Christian Whitmer who were around and scribed for Joseph when Oliver was unable.
(Since you commented again on this video I'll just reply to this one instead of on our other discussion if that's OK with you) I'm still looking into this and haven't been able to pinpoint what happened to your comment, or why. It doesn't appear that any of our moderators deleted anything (me and two others have been looking into it). I hope it's apparent from our comments section (which tend to be very critical) that we do allow for respectful discussion and disagreement. I will keep you updated though on whether or not I find anything regarding your comment. Perhaps another user reported your comment and YT took it down? I'm sorry if that happened. I don't know what else to tell ya. Feel free to make your comment again if you'd like. If it's removed, it won't be from us.
@@davidsnell2605 Comments get dropped all the time. Especially long posts, I have had to repost comments at least once a month. It is just part of You Tube.
I find it interesting that you discounted Joseph Feilding Smith's words just because it was his opinion as if he pulled it out of a hat:) It is obvious, if you listen to what he said, that he did his research; that's why he was compelled to make an official statement to correct what he had once erroneously believed. AND Just because he admitted that Joseph had a seer stone he used for other purposes doesn't mean we should assume Joseph used it for the Book of Mormon translation. I think what Joseph Smith and Oliver Coward said themselves about the Book of Mormon translation should be the end of the discussion. Why should the accounts of two apostates who had personal issues with Joseph and sought to discredit him have more creditability? Please interview Hannah Stoddard from the Joseph Smith Foundation regarding this issue. We deserve to hear all sides fully.⁷
He's done that in other videos as well. They like to dismiss things if they don't follow the narrative they believe or are pushing. There are many many people that use religion to make money, and this channel is no different, unless their channel isn't monetized.
Emma was not an apostate, but she clearly acknowledged the seer stone. I don't have a problem that he used both. We have no details. The only proof is the Book of Mormon. It is true and it is a miracle.
Which ever method he used, or both, Joseph did what was necessary to complete the work that God had for him. I think we ought to be careful when we try to put limits on what *we* think God could or should do with His work. Joseph could have translated in a chicken suit for all I care, if that’s what God ultimately required. Interpreters or SITH, the Book of Mormon was translated by the power and gift of God. Let’s not get so caught up in the method at the expense of really appreciating the gift and all it has to teach us.
Great video, but you really should get Hannah on. As you note in your timeline, are no contemporaneous seer stone accounts, and they all contradict Oliver and Joseph’s statements. They are consistent, however, with anti-Church garbage.
You are downplaying this quite a bit. Here is where it gets important. Either Joseph translated the plates as the church has said in pictures etc. with the Urim & Thummim or he did not. In fact all accounts say that he did not, as he never had the plates present he wrote the Book of Mormon, there is a difference. To translate he would have to have the plates in front of him, read them, and then dictate the translation that the Lord gave to him. In fact from all accounts even the ones you gave here he did not. Those who disagreed merely stated opinions that had no citations. When you dictate words to a scribe without an original copy of the book in another language in front of you then you are "writing" a book and not translating a book. Given the issues with the Book of Abraham this is widespread among Joseph's writings and they could as Richard Bushman says "be called Pseudepigrapha at best. The Book of Mormon is an "allegory not scripture", and each passing decade takes us closer to that final determination as more and more facts pop up.
Your understanding of the word "translation" is incomplete. Like many words in the English language it has many possible meanings, including "the transmission of scripture or Holy Relics", as well as "explanation of an unknown concept". You choose a definition that requires he had the plates in front of him, that is something you are adding to the meaning, not something the word itself requires. By your definition using Google Translate, is only translation if one has the original paper version of the text. Reading off the screen would not count if your understanding is correct. I used to work as a professional translator, and no one in the industry would accept your limited definition.
@@brettmajeske3525 My definition of translate is actually having something to translate. Now if they had said I received this revelation from God about an early people living in the Americas that would be more believable. I have translated for US embassies in Germany and abroad I guess that makes me a professional translator just like you.
@@randallwall2745 Then you should be aware of how language works. You seem to think that revelation and translation are unrelated concepts, whereas contextual analysis of the writings of Joseph Smith clearly shows that he treated them like synonyms. According to the OED up through the mid 1800's translation was used more often in a religious sense than in a secular one, which is clearly how Joseph Smith used it. The Etymology of the English word comes from transporting Holy Relics from one diocese to another. It then came to be used when Bishops moved their seats. The first linguistic usage dealt with sermons given by Bishops explaining scripture. It is from that origin that the modern sense of interpreting any text from one language to another develops. Joseph Smith's only claim was that he translated by the Gift and Power of God. You seem to want to add to that. Using a seer stone or interpreters would be no different than using any other tool, like Google or the OED. Your claim is that because Joseph Relied on outside assistance one should not call what he did translation. Did you ever use any tools when you translated?
As a professional paid translator in two languages working for the government for 5 years I am well aware of all the nuances of translation. Your trying to denigrate my understanding does little to change the fact that any logical person looking at this realizes there is a problem here. The Book of Mormon for all intents is Pseudepigrapha. There was nothing to translate. Emma, Oliver David Whitmer all said that the plates weren't even in the house most of the time and Joseph put his face in his hat and dictated or authored the book. He claimed to be the author and so I take him at his word.. Sadly LDS have to twist and turn what would be logical to the rest of the world to try and support the unsupportable. What they wouldn't and couldn't support if it were the Catholics or any other church saying it. @@brettmajeske3525
@@randallwall2745 By your logic if I didn't have a paper copy of the Comte de Monte Christo if front of me when using Google Translate, I would be the author? That doesn't make sense. The claim is that Joseph Smith studied the Plates for months before attempting to us a tool that already had the text imputed. If I have text that needs to be translated in my computer, which I then use to help me translate, I do not also need a physical text. I doubt you would insist that you could only translate from physical text sources either. I also never use pen and paper any more. Insisting that only pen a paper count as translations is not normal in the industry as far as I can tell.
Justifying ideology or theology is older than any of us. Beliefs in things that don't make sense, and using God for the answer goes a long way in that process. It's what gave Kings Carte Blanche authority. Joseph Smith told stories in his business dealings, in his personal relationships to his wife and to others. The Book of Mormon was only the beginning 📖 and it continues to be proven flawed, with corrections occasionally added when necessary. It's a Book that starts out with a false narrative and an explanation for the original natives. Like most flim-flams, “greater light and knowledge” revealed the American Indian wasn't genetically linked to the middle east. Further evidence of the errors in the Book came about when a more accurate translation of text found in the Old Testament, which was copied into the B of M, left the “inspired text”, appearing to just be plagiarism. I don't recall if Joseph Smith claimed his Book of Abraham translation from the ancient papyrii sold to him by a traveler pedaling “ancient documents”, used the Urim and Thummim, or a seer stone 🪨. It was later proven he didn't get anything like what was written on that set of scrolls. Another fabrication. There are many anachronisms within the B of M, but church leaders have an explanation, however unsatisfactory, for those errors too. At some point in your life, you have to make several serious decisions. Do you accept only the answers you want, or do you dig deeper? Once you gain that knowledge, of course you must weigh it for its accuracy. Unfortunately most people go about their lives in a comfortable track and won't bother to confront what they think they might know. The facts won't help perpetuate myths of seer stones, curelom, cumom, magical future kingdoms, ceremonies, or incantation. “Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying…There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”
This video has been super helpful to me personally. I’m in my mid-40’s and I remember sitting in a primary class (maybe 10-11 years old) and learning about the seer stone. Recently, after being called a liar about that memory, I did some light research to see if I could find the primary manual where that came from but came up empty handed. The research was mainly for me because I don’t bother proving things I already know so I let it go. Long story short, thank you for the resources. Even if it wasn’t in a manual, my primary teacher would have had the knowledge of it to teach it from one of the quotes you mentioned.
We all know about the seer stone and they totally blow over what the real question is, being the use of a hat. I have no problem with any of it, but only have a problem if they've been hiding how it was actually done.
My opinion on this too is why would a prophet say that it was not so he believed, why would he take that to God, and find out for himself instead of saying something like that why explain that to me
This is a really impressive piece of archeology. Whoever researched and wrote this podcast has done an excellent job of unearthing every reference to the seerstone as translation method in the 200 year history of LDS literature. Nonetheless, in the end, when looked at in the context of the entirety of that literature, these references are still infrequent and obscure. However, there is a reason for this, and it is not that the Church was trying to hide the seerstone. It was that most believers accepted Joseph and Oliver's repeated written near contemporaneous statements that the Book of Mormon was translated using the interpreters which came with the plates (see JS-H 1:35). As the podcast correctly points out, the seerstone story traces to the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, and a few very late (and very problematic) sources. Believers had, and continue to have, very good reasons to dismiss the seerstone translation theory.
But totally didn't bother showing the historical proof of using the stones in a hat. We already knew about the seer stones for decades. I grew up learning about that.
Yes he was digging a long drop, but found an old one all the seer stone went to rock, yet to be confirmed from these LDS church scholars may indicate that possibility was right.
I heard the seer stone was in the church vaults for safe keeping, and yes the sealed portion needs translating, if one can keep the translated manuscripts from saintly thieves . , well thats one how about translate the 116 lost pages, you dont need the Plate in front of you. Such ho hum fair weather me, reply is not needed. In answer yes Pres Nelson needs the seer stones. seems he cant see anything
they not only hid it they LIED about it. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS. Notice the art work has disappeared showing him with the plates. There were not even plates, no one saw them and they were not needed because he had a rock in hat now.
Eek! Oh no. He uses an item (in this case both) to translate. That's how your testimony cracked? Or were you one that just looks for anything "wrong" with JS to justify your feelings toward the lds church?
Great presentation. Not at all what 'they' say about the church 'hiding' the information. To me this nonsense about seer stone vs Urim and Thummim is akin to finding a dead fly in the Celestial room. The key note to the translation process is that Joseph saw the translation in vision. That is what seers do. That he needed a crutch of some sort in the beginning is of no matter to me. Having personal revelation is the greatest part of the restoration next to authority, keys and ordinances. The Book of Mormon is my crutch and seer stone. [up# 345]
The urim and thumim ARE seer stones, so is it too far fetched to say an ancient prophet's seer stones are no better or worse than a modern prophet's seer stones? No matter which method of translation you prefer, both require you to believe a stone is capable of assisting in an inspired translation.
Couple of questions: Why go to the effort of producing golden plates if the Book of Mormon came from a seer stone while the plates were gathering dust somewhere? Why did Joseph or Oliver never confirm these stories?
That is one of the problems that Joseph's father-in-law, Isaac Hale, had with the whole thing. He said that Joseph would pretend to "translate" while the alleged golden plates were hidden in the woods. So even during the production of the book, Isaac could tell that Joseph's story didn't add up. An anti-Mormon writer named M.T. Lamb sarcastically wrote of this inconsistency: "Finally, according to the testimony of Martin Harris, Mr. Smith often used the "seer stone" in place of the Urim and Thummim, even while the latter remained in his possession using it as a mere matter of convenience. It seems almost too bad that he should thus inadvertently give the whole thing away. You must understand that the Urim and Thummim spoken of, and called throughout the Book of Mormon "the Interpreters," had been provided with great care over 2500 years ago by God himself, for the express purpose of translating these plates. They are often mentioned in the Book of Mormon as exceedingly important. They were preserved with the greatest care, handed down from one generation to another with the plates, and buried with them in the hill Cumorah over 1400 years ago; as sacred as the plates themselves. So sacred that only one man was allowed to handle or use them, the highly favored prophet, Joseph Smith himself. But now, alas! After all this trouble and pains and care on the part of God, and on the part of so many holy men of old, this "Urim and Thummim" is found at last to be altogether superfluous; not needed at all. This "peep stone" found in a neighbor's well will do the work just as well and is even more convenient, "for convenience he used the seer stone." So we are left to infer that when he used the Urim and Thummim at all, it was at some inconvenience. And probably he only did it out of regard to the feelings of his God, who had spent so much time and anxiety in preparing it so long ago, and preserving it to the present day for his special use! ("The Golden Bible", 1887, pages 250-51)
David, who are you? I would like to learn more of your credentials. Are you a professional historian? I think you have been on Saints Unscripted longer than anybody now. You have been on since before it was changed to saints unscripted and was called three Mormons. You forgot to add the part in this video that the seer stone was used by Joseph Smith to fraudulently help people find buried treasure.
We've talked about the treasure-digging question in other videos. Specifically, this recent one: th-cam.com/video/NpFer0PsqjM/w-d-xo.html I've got a degree in communications (journalism), but I am not a professional historian. I consult professional historians for some videos, when needed, and I certainly integrate research from professional historians into these videos, but I myself am not formally trained in those fields. I would understand if people find me less credible for that reason, but hopefully the research presented in these videos can stand on its own two feet and speak for itself.
I am agnostic on this topic. I don't care. If there was a narrative going around that JK Rowlings produced Harry Potter using a typewriter and a counter narrative that she used a computer, does it matter? The end product is all that matters. Whether he used one object or another or both in the translation process, the Book of Mormon is the end product. This is just a smoke screen for people to deflect from it. If information comes up that he used a shoe, it still does not matter. God can use any object he wants to accomplish a task.
I saw a TH-cam video once a while ago where this Jewish scholar or Rabbi, or both, was describing the Urim and Thummim and he described them as the Priest would wear the ephod and behind the breastplate with all the different stones on it representing the 12 tribes was a pocket and one stone was white and the other was black. The stones were placed in the pocket and the priest would ask a yes or no question and then reach into the ephod and draw a stone that would determine the answer. Now, this is Jewish culture. Does it sound pretty rediculous? It would, it sounds like pure chance. Why not flip a coin then? Or roll a dice? The point is, the Urim and Thummim were STONES. It was clearly an every day stone. One was like obsidian and the other was as glass, but if God told them that was one of his methods of communication that he would make it so and that's the instruction they were given. Theres a lot of "preposterous" things out there that we would see as such, but so the saying goes "my ways are not your ways" and "God works in mysterious ways". What is consistent in the stories, even from a different culture which, no mainstream Christian denomination talks about the Urim and Thummim, at least not from anyone I've ever heard, but mainstream Christianity descends from Judaism, yeah, because Judaism was the old law and once Jesus came, Christianity was the next step, so what's perfectly consistent is there WAS ALWAYS A STONE. What if President Nelson always carries a stone in his pocket? Would it matter? Would it seem odd? It would, but would anyone really care? Only if they don't know him, then they'd say he was senile. What I gather from it, is that the Urim and Thummim were still seer stones, that fact didn't change. So, if Joseph Smith used a stone, that was his and not an ancient artifact, it's still an Urim or a Thummim. It's kind of an embarrassing way to describe to people: "You don't trust me, I'm telling you about a book that was dug out of the ground that a man was directed by a ghost to, and by-the-way, he put a stone in a hat and put his face in it and dictated the Book of Mormon that way...." Thats embarrassing. But it's no different than explaining to people that have never heard of it "Yeah, Joseph was led to a hill where he pulled out gold plates, and by the way there was this really heavy piece of armor and some sticks that's the sticks snapped into and then connected to a pair of ancient eye glasses and Joseph Smith strapped this heavy thing on every time he translated and looked through these glasses and these ancient Egyptian hyroglifics were seen in English." To the uninitiated, that's sounds pretty crazy, like you need to see a doctor and get medicated. It's not going to change the effect someone would have if you told them His face was in a hat. It's only shocking to LDS because it follows the same folklore that Joseph Smith was trying to combat as a teenager as to why there was all this confusion, that he followed right along. There's also the story of pharaoh of Egypt who had his men cast down rods that became snakes like Aarons. Its always been said Satan is the great Immitator and that this folklore in Joseph Smiths time was the devil's immitation of the Urim and Thummim, maybe so, but I guess if God found a way to turn the tables and beat Satan at his own game, I guess it doesn't really matter. Is it confusing and frustrating that we hear so many contradicting statements? Sure. It seems God would deal with that to eliminate confusion but as Elder Holland said once: "God works with mortal men, foulable, that must be incredibly frustrating, but it's all he has to work with." Joseph Smith taught that the prophet Mohammed was inspired by God. We're told that, for now, Mohammed was inspired by God because God works line up on line, and mainstream Christianity doesn't like that because the Qu'ran seems to say Jesus isn't the son of God, I don't know, haven't read it. But maybe it's not in the Qu'ran that was inspired, maybe Mohammed taught that as a personal belief, that obviously in line with what he was supposed to be teaching, only way to know is to read their book, but Mohammed was said by Joseph Smith to be an inspired man so, how do you reconcile that? Truth is, you're never going to know. I had a man I worked with once who said: "I don't care what they worship or what symbol they wear, if they want to worship a rock, let them worship a rock if it makes them a better person." Even if you die tomorrow and it's pitch black, even if you learn that there really isn't anything beyond this life, one you'll be dead and you wouldnt know any different. But take a good look at the rest of the world going on around you. If you need to be like those of the Amish community that send their kids out when they're 18 to escape the bubble and see the real world, if you need to leave Utah to see what the real world really is like, to meet "Christians", you'll look at your upbringing and say "wow, we're exactly like the kind of person Jesus taught us to be". Even if we learn Joseph Smith was a complete and total fraud, well, he didn't gain much of anything, monetarily from it so that plan failed miserably, and he died at a really young age so, what a way to go, but compared to the rest of the world, look at the kind of people he bred. I live around people that wear crosses and are gang bangers, because their pastor wanted to make money, full his collection plate, but they treat people horribly and lie and cheat and steal and beat each other to near death, and proudly wear their cross. That's not what Joseph Smith taught. He said show them through your actions. Pastors want to teach that their members show it through their actions, and the cross is a symbol, but that's not what I see everyday. I see people that say, "I'm saved" and they do whatever they want. Joseph Smith would teach: "If you're saved, then you would live like you're saved." Grace would change you to be better, not be an excuse to do what you want and then excuse the behavior. Even if Joseph Smith is a fraud, there's no better a people organized to take care of others and actually treat people like people and be what Jesus would've taught and expected, it makes the most sense. If you're offended by it, well, okay, but there's no better an organization than this. Even those that leave the church have to respect the Church because it's the closest thing to the New Testament. Get outside your bubble, in mainstream Christianity, in the real world, it's every man for himself but in church on Sunday we'll play nice, but then nobody associates with each other. They show up to "fellowship" sit with people they know, and when the hour is up, they head to the store or go out to eat...... What happened to keep the Sabbath holy, six days shalt thou work but on the Sabbath rest? How about let others rest? Don't be offended by it. Latter-day Saints are the best group of people (as a whole, as an organization), you're gonna find
You given an outline for about 2 years worth of hour--long bi-weekly lessons, and (I'm guessing) you have many, many times that many years of living the truths you espouse.
@@agomodern Well, seeing as how the Book of Mormon is a fraud, maybe you can use that fact to determine whether his "seer stone" business was authentic or not.
Oh boy, it's very common for the LDS church to cover up stuff and pretend nothing ever happened. Oh yeah we taught this all along. Please! Give me a break! I was an active member of the church and never ever heard about this, nor saw it on church manuals, pictures, magazines, etc.
I believe it matters what he used and how he did it. I believe in a matter like this we should go by Joseph and Oliver’s statements as they were the main people involved. If he looked in a hat and just read the words he saw, that’s not exactly translating, just reading something off. I’ve learned a lot about this topic from the Stodard’s book Seer Stone vs. Urim and Thummin and Jonathan Nevil’s A Man who can translate.
@@Empisee Yes, be very careful with Neville. He cites too many legitimate sources that the SITH sayers ignore, such as what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught.
I would say the difference is the source of power and authority behind the action. All witchcraft and divination is a counterfeit imitation of the power of God. The Bible speaks of gifts of the spirit such as the gift of discernment or the gift of prophecy, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues and the gift of the interpretation of tongues etc. all of these gifts are biblical and come from God. Witchcraft is an attempt to wield such power without authority or without it coming from God but from the devil. Witchcraft is an imitation of something holy hence why it is evil. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who was given spiritual gifts in order to restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ. His gift came from God. The manner by which he did this isn’t important. The Bible reinforces the idea that certain objects can be used by one who is called of God in order to do God’s will. Like Moses’ staff. The serpent on the pole in the wilderness used to heal the Israelites from their snake bites. The liahona which led Lehi’s family to the promised land. Or the urum and thummim or seer stones used by Joseph smith. All of these things were used to perform miracles, but the source of the power was always the same. These objects only work through faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to him. If there is no faith then there is no miracle. When Lehi’s family was wicked the liahona stopped working. When Joseph had quarreled with someone or disobeyed the lord- the seer stone stopped working and he couldn’t translate. His abilities were actually taken from him at one time when he disobeyed the lord and he had to repent for many months before translation could continue. The New Testament tells us how these things can be. The women with an issue of blood believed if she could but touch the hem of Jesus’ robe she would be healed. She touched him and was healed. But it was not the garment that was inherently special. Christ told the woman it was her faith that made her well. So it is with things like seers stones in the early church history. They work by faith in Jesus Christ and one’s willingness to follow his commandments. Contrast that with witchcraft which is faith in one’s own power or in the power of some other god or nature spirit. Witchcraft denies the power of God, does not require faith in Christ or obedience to his teachings. Therefore the power of witchcraft comes from the devil who mimics holy things in order to lead others astray. I’d say there’s a world of difference between the two
@@caitlinwhite237but he didn’t use the stones that were “with the plates”. He used the same stone he found digging a well and that he used to look for treasure.
It’s never bothered me in the least which miraculous method was used. I would have been fine with even a talking salamander after it was confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is true.
The problem is that Joseph Smith admitted that his claims of being able to "see" buried treasure via his stone-in-his-hat business in the mid-1820s was all a fraud---but then just a couple of years later, he claimed to be able to translate the golden plates via that same bogus method.
and how was the BOM confirmed to be true to you? if you say by the spirit, that is not valid by any means. even J.S. noted that logic is greater than the spirit or emotion. thus the "study it out in your mind" phrase. also, The BOM has false doctrine in it, so no, it is not true.
@@sertinduhm6378 You mean even though the Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:3-5 promises you can know the truth by Holy Ghost and even though it miraculously happened for me it’s not valid for me? I know what happened. I was there. No one can convince me otherwise. I know and I know God knows it. But again my experience was tailored for me and I don’t expect anyone to accept the truth of the Book of Mormon off my experience.
In our findings whether we know the real truth but the truth, only the Lord knows and Joseph Smith at that time. I feel that it’s better to leave where these things belong otherwise we are confusing or time consumed. Thank you anyway for your recollection on this subject.
I honestly don’t care how it was translated? The book is real and so are the contents therein. If you’re in doubt try fabricating your bible and see if it can stand.
Well if you look at the Book of Mormon translation method and all of the shinanigans involving JS you get a lot of maybe's which add up to a probably a fictional book. Which is a huge problem since the belief is the Book of Mormon is the Keystone of the religion. Unfortunately early Mormon Prophets could not see past the day they were living to predict the internet, diaries and documents that would come to light to set the record straight at a future date. This is a very 19th century dated church that at some point won't have many members. But hey they will have root of all evil at least...Money!!! It's crazy to see this church can run just fine without members?! Looks like Lehi's dream was actually predicting the Mormon church? Now that they are using big money and lawyers to steam roll small towns to build large and spacious buildings. And don't think Salt Lake isn't laughing and pointing fingers.
I love the fact that a rock was used. God has used rocks many times before for different purposes. But using it in a hat making the first personal movie theater that literally played the entire ancient history of the American people is truly a miracle. JS was absolutely with in biblical means in using the seer stone To See words upon it which seer stones were used anciently for! The power was not with in the rock it’s self, it was within the person who was using it!
Your list of references is missing the most recent book on this topic: By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration by Lucas and Neville (Digital Legend, 2023).
I was trying to focus on references from official Church publications, but even then I stopped after 1997 because they have become so frequent over the last couple of decades.
@@davidsnell2605 The book "By Means of the Urim & Thummim" covers all reliable sources relative to the issue, and shows that the reason the Church sources mention the seer stone so infrequently compared to the Jaredite/Nephite "Urim & Thummim" interpreters provided by the Lord for the translation (JS-H 1:35) is that all Church sources accepted Joseph and Oliver's repeated written testimonies that the translation was by means of these ancient interpreters, rather than some conspiracy to hide information about the late and unreliable stone-in-the-hat accounts. Your producer has been offered a complementary review copy of the book.
Because this is a criticism many of of the church and the purpose of this TH-cam channel is apologetics - they contest the criticism. He is defending the church in this video.
My son told me he taught Sunday School for 25 years.
Not one mention of a Sser Stone was ever shared.
The Churches new narrative is sad gas lighting.
The same seerstone was used in treasure digging which has many sources backing it up. The Smith family had a very bad reputation in the area long before the Book of Mormon situation happened. Joseph was known as a conman and treasure digger. We can use semantics to say he was merely fascinated with treasure digging... but regardless, he took money from people. Claimed to find treasure. People dug. And then it magically was moved. Repeatedly. This was a relatively common folk magic idea prominent in the midwest and frontier states. He took people's money---one researcher said there are 18 instances of this being documented but I haven't looked up all the sources.
Some sources point to Joseph Smith using a local folk magic practitioner's stone to find his stone---Sally Chase was her name. Statements made by her brother, Willard, indicate Joseph Smith used the seerstone also to find the Book of Mormon.
The story of the First Vision wasn't publicly told until the 1830's. Many years after it happened. The lost 116 pages were a history of the people of the Americas---much less religiously based... it is theorized by many that Joseph realized after the pages went missing that he could redo the history to begin a religious movement. As someone who sought fame and fortune, this makes sense historically. The stories he recorded and told of the First Vision are varied and the church knows this---it is published in the gospel topics essays...
The Book of Abraham scrolls have nothing to do with Abraham. The church acknowledges that.
The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms... elephants, chariots, scimitars (these swords weren't even invented at the time) as well as cattle and horses. Similarly, if you found a photograph of Albert Einstein holding an Iphone, you'd know it was incorrect. The Book of Mormon contains things which hadn't been invented or weren't present in the Americas. No evidence in archaeology either.
The story of the Book of Mormon doesn't work historically, linguistically or via DNA. Extensive DNA testing has been done worldwide and scientists can pinpoint origins from thousands of years ago---but no evidence is anywhere of a Jewish origin for any people of the Americas.
The fact that Joseph Smith used folk magic to translate the Book of Mormon? If your kids wanted to use a ouija board at a birthday party, you'd freak out---the fact a prophet used a magical stone used to con people isn't a concern or red flag, at all? And the fact that he used the same method---the rock in the hat.
The fact that we have to go over every one of these facts and alter them is a red flag. "Oh, its not a big deal he used the seerstone because..." Or we have to rewrite the narrative. Or come up with some excuses. "The DNA hasn't been found yet but it exists..." or "All the nephites died out... God changed their DNA with the curse..." or "Science just hasn't caught up with the church yet!" or "There is so much evidence! Just hasn't been found. Or we just don't know it yet!" or "The Book of Abraham scrolls don't mention Abraham but that doesn't matter because..."
And then we make excuses. Why? To save our brains the heartache or realizing that possibly the whole situation is not true. Our worldview and our dedicate lifepath might be incorrect. That is a scary thought. So our brains migrate back to a safety zone or finding ways in which it is all still true. It makes us feel safe. It makes us feel protected. Rather than question, we retreat.
And of course there's a cultural idea that to believe in something even with negative evidence is somehow superior----
At the end of the day, there's an awful lot of negative aspects of Joseph Smith. But we focus on the faith promoting. We focus on the fact that we can use semantics to excuse past church leaders' actions. We can find excuses for the DNA, the scrolls, the lack of evidence, the polygamy, the teenage brides, the folk magic, the translations, the historical anomalies... all to keep our faith secure and safe because without it, the world is a scarier place. Confronting reality is scary without a testimony that we already have the answers.
We all grew up seeing church pictures of JS translating unaided and reading directly from the Golden Plates. These pictures are inaccurate. For some reason when some people find out it did not happen like in the pictures, they get upset.
I do not understand why any educated person would assume any painting is accurate. Just check out Washington crossing the Delaware.
Either way, the book was translated and we have the result of it. For us the result is the most important thing.
@@brettmajeske3525 There's "accurate", and there's "downright false". Pretending that Joseph sat at a table with plates in hand is simply a fabrication, and a fabrication the church hung in the foyer for years and years.
If the church is willing to prop up a fabrication with respect to the Book of Mormon, what else might they be willing to prop up?
@@BrendonKing It is called artistic representation, as anyone who has ever taken an art appreciation class should be able to understand. The artist was not even trying to be historically accurate; it was always understood as symbolic.
You have no understanding or appreciation of art at all do you?
Do you complain about Washington crossing the Delaware, which is even more egregious?
@@brettmajeske3525 Did I make mention ever of artist's intent, or of the church's intent as the one displaying the piece en masse across the globe?
The artist is free to express themselves in any method appropriate, but that doesn't mean whoever commissioned the piece has to accept it, let alone hang it in the lobby.
Although this video is a good effort to respond to some critics, the title of this video is misleading because the issue isn't whether "the Church" hid "the truth" but whether Joseph Smith "hid the truth."
One reason people consider this issue important is that it goes directly to the credibility and reliability of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who always said (including in published statements) that Joseph translated the record with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Those who claim instead that Joseph found a stone in a well, used the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) to produce the text, and didn't even use the plates, are explicitly repudiating what Joseph and Oliver said.
People can believe whatever they want, but no one can make informed decisions without considering all the relevant information.
Notice that this video and the SITH sayer references in the notes (including the Gospel Topics Essay) all ignore the simple, clear, and unambiguous answer Joseph gave to this question, a question which he said arose daily as he traveled from Kirtland to Missouri in 1838. The question persisted partly because of the 1834 publication of Mormonism Unvailed, which clearly distinguished between the seer stone (peep stone) and the Urim and Thummim (contrary to the MacKay/Dirkmaat theory mentioned in the video that the terms were interchangeable).
"Question: How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?
Answer: Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead; and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were, and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon." (Elders’ Journal, July 1838)
This clear, definitive answer should suffice for believers.
There is no room in that answer for a seer stone (or peep stone) he found in a well. All the obfuscation efforts of the SITH sayers cannot overcome the direct, consistent statements from Joseph and Oliver on this question. Bottom line, do we believe what Joseph and Oliver said and published, or do we believe the contradictory statements of others?
Personally don't care. Edison invented the first viable light bulb but I don't care that he failed a 1000 ways to produce it when I turn on the light. Perhaps he will fade away as LED lights eliminate the incandescent? I.e. we should focus on the resulting Book of Mormon rather than the process.
Actually Joseph normally used the term "interpreters". "Urim and Thummin" were Cowdery and Phelps, and was used interchangeably for any tools. Most of Joseph's journals were dictations, and the scribes were known for clearing up Joseph's frontier rhetoic.
This was a very brief response from Joseph. Yes if he also used the seer stone, he could have quickly included it in his brief statement. But maybe if someone asked him a follow up question, "did you use any other means of translation?" Maybe he would have added the seer stone. Or maybe he was just leaning on the most authoritative method in his response. In statements by Martin Harris or others, they basically said that he often used the seer stone because it gave the same result as the urim and thummim , but was more comfortable and possibly faster. People don't usually talk in public in a way that would give future historians all the details. The urim and thummim were both stones, not eyeglasses, so if Joseph asked the lord if he could use his own stone and it worked, why not? History of anything is messy but very interesting. At the end of the day, the Book of Mormon is a marvelous work, that's all that matters.
Every time the seer stones are mentioned i think of Munin and Hugin from odin.
It's NOT embarrassing anymore because we have kids glued to their phones and even VR which looks way worse!
I like to think of the seer stone as serving the same function as Dumbo's "magic" feather. Timothy the mouse convinces Dumbo that using the feather gave him the ability to fly, even though he knew all along that it was just a totem. Dumbo could fly all on his own, but until he realized that for himself and learned how, he was allowed to believe that the feather was what made him special. God always comes to where we are before lifting us to higher and nobler truths.
I always use this analogy as well. I think at the end Joseph didn't even need the seer stone to translate.
It's fun using fiction to explain fiction!
From reading Don Bradley's book "The Lost 116 Pages", it appears that the Urim and Thummim were used primarily during the translation of the part that was lost-- the initial set of pages. Also, that the Urim and Thummim are a sort of "training wheels" for learning to receive revelation, so it's possible that after Joseph continued translating he was by that point better at it so it was easier to just use the seer stone than it was the Urim and Thummim which he had gained proficiency from earlier.
There was never any "Urim & Thummim." That term was not used in Mormonism until 1833. Before then, the "translation devices" were called the "interpreters." What happened was, Joseph's disciple WW Phelps found the term while reading the Old Testament. Joseph thought that using the term would be a good Biblical "proof-text" for his "translation" method. Joseph began using it as a way to distance himself from his 1820s peep-stone practices. He even altered the wording in a pre-1833 "revelation" to retrofit his newly-discovered term "Urim & Thummim" to make it appear that the term had been there all along.
All Joseph ever had were his "seer stones." This is demonstrated by William Clayton's account of Joseph dictating the revelation on celestial marriage in July 1843. Hyrum asked Joseph if he was going to use the U&T to receive the revelation. Joseph replied that he didn't need to, because he knew it by heart. Because the story goes that the angel Moroni took back the U&T after Joseph finished the BOM in 1829, then the object that Hyrum referred to as the U&T was his seer stone. As LDS scholar Stephen Ricks wrote:
"The term Urim and Thummim (first used by W. W. Phelps in 1833, which is
generally associated with the Nephite interpreters, is frequently used in a
rather undifferentiated manner to indicate either the seer stone or the
interpreters."
In addition, every person who was present during the BOM production said that Joseph used the seer-stone-in-the-hat business. So he never even needed any "two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate" device. On top of that, some witnesses said that Joseph didn't even need the golden plates present while he did his stone-in-the-hat thing. So he never needed a "Urim & Thummim" or the golden plates at all.
Love this book!!! Don B is amazing! Love Nephite ark of the covenant stuff!!!
sure buddy
how do you write stuff like this and not recognize the lunacy of it?
@@rtotheizzle Not sure if you are replying to me but it notified me. I was responding to Randyjordan5521, NOT the original commenter
We were taught growing up in the church that the Urim and Thummim were used along with the breastplate. There was even a children's reader with a drawing of JS using "glasses" to translate the golden plate. Now the narrative says a top hat and seer stone were used. There were letters from Emma Smith, Martin Harris, John Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery all pointing to a top hat and seer stone being used.
There's a 1970s issue of the Church publication "The Friend Magazine" with an article, including photos, about the Seer Stone. It's not new.
@@JLM1883 Where is that issue on the church website? And the top hat theory is new. It was never mentioned in any church publication until recently.
@@JLM1883 Exactly. People who claim the Church was hiding this or obscuring it are so uninformed. It was mentioned in many, many other places in general Church history.
You are deliberately misleading, deliberately twisting and shading the truth. Nowhere is it taught or revealed in credible history that the separate "seer stone" - separate from the Urum and Thummin (the "interpreters") was the PRIMARY translation tool - it was not. (This is not to say that a separate seer stone was never used, we just don't know how frequently.) There is a volume of evidence (I have it, but it's available to anyone) that proves this. And you still haven't answered the question: Why are you out here on this faith channel attempting to tear apart the testimony of the Book of Mormon, that it was translated by the gift and power of God?
I was at church history sites in April 2022 and expressed, "My entire life! My entire life we were taught about the urim and thummin, breastplate, etc". The senior missionary said, "Yes, many were taught that, but does it matter? Does it really matter how it was translated? Aren't we just glad we have the Book of Mormon?" And you know what? He's right. It doesn't matter! And yes, I'm SO GRATEFUL we have the Book of Mormon, no matter how it was translated. 💛
David, this stuff is really fun. It sounds like you have seen the Stoddard/Joseph Smith Foundation "debunk seer stone video". I don't know where I really stand but lean towards the Stoddard theory. It really doesn't matter to me much. I know it was translated by a Prophet of God through revelation.
Johnathan Neville who is a great researcher also found that the seer stone story comes from unreliable and anti-Mormon sources.
It makes me wonder what Hannah Stoddard has to say about this. Maybe you should have her on your show to talk about this very episode.
Agreed
Please do. She has a lot of great info on this.
I am confident Hannah would come on. Just finished seer stones vs Urim and Thummin, the chapter on David Whitmer is very eye opening.
Hannah is great at following sources, and has traced the sources used by church leaders to support the seer stone translation account, finding they ultimately trace back to the dubious sources.
Something tells me you already know what Hannah has to say about this, no?
*Why couldn't Joseph have used Google Translate?*
"404 Not Found"
Because Microsoft Windows 1830 did not support Google back then.
This breaks my heart. The scriptures, Joseph and Oliver only talk about the gift and power of God and the Urim and Thummim translating the B of M. They never said they thranslated by the SITH. Giving made up stories, lies, 3rd hand information, accusations, etc. as much weight as what the Prophet said is wrong. The intellectuals promoting this are just looking to make a name for themselves with the newest "shiny object." Some of them have to much influence on the brothren, too. Members are losing their testimonies over this stuff. We have enough attacks and accusations from outside the church. The Lord made the U and T for the Brother of Jared. They were handed down from generation to generation until Moroni gave them to the Prophet. The plates of 1000 years in the making. Why all that effort if a stone in the hat is all that was required!?
THIS!
Studying Mormon history so often feels like an episode of Keystone Cops. Even the most fundamental and simple questions lead one through a mess of confusion, incompetence, deceit, contradiction, and goofiness. I guess that’s part of what makes it so interesting.
This is not a comment on Saints Unscripted’s work. I think you guys usually do a great job with a pretty difficult task.
I agree- saints unscripted- you are awesome and I appreciate all you do. My issue is with 60 years of church--seminary, mission, leadership- never once was I told nor did I teach about the rock in the hat (among dozens of other things). I felt like I lied to those people on my mission. Some here say it doesn't matter, except it does. Why say the urim and thummim were used if they were not? why not just say "rock in a hat". It matters.
@@mtsaz100well…. Both methods were used. 🤷🏻♂️ So I think you didn’t lie to the people on your mission. He used multiple methods. The Urim and Tummin are rocks too.
@@Irvingdector But the urim and thummim were not rocks also used to con people out of their money. The seerstone he used... was.
@@mtsaz100 The church has known about this stuff the entire time. The church has known definitively since about 1912 that the Book of Abraham scrolls and papyri have nothing to do with Abraham and the translation Joseph made was false. Thats over 110 years of knowing the truth. Members are just finding out about that now. To me, withholding that information is dishonest. The church created shell companies to hide money though---why should it be honest about its history?
The fact that he used the hat is an odd story, makes the church seem a little crazy, and then to add to it... it opens up the treasure digging questions.
The church discredited Fawn Brodie's book for many years. But now the church acknowledges much of the information was true. I have yet to find anything in her book which doesn't have a source and which isn't accepted by the church today.
The church is upset because they cannot control the narrative anymore---its easier to control a narrative when most members don't question, look into archives, have the internet, etc. Now that the church has opened its doors to this information in a last ditch effort to keep members from leaving, we're seeing a can of worms opening up.
But... there's still the idea that the church is huge and growing and amazing and perfect.
In that regard it isn't really all that different from studying history in general. Most people do not realize how problematic getting historical details right can be. Most of what is learned in High School History class are good guesses at best.
I think you needed to compare the times where the seer stone was mentioned and what publication was used vs the times that it was taught that Joseph Smith used the plates and the publications/prophets that taught that. Just because there were instances throughout history where it was mentioned doesn’t mean that was the main theory taught or believed.
Don Bradley discusses this extensively in his book The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon's Missing Stories. I find his explanation very instructive.
Love this book!!! Don B is amazing! Love Nephite ark of the covenant stuff!!!
After watching a couple of these, it seems the modus operandi of the program is to provide a short incomplete sketch of subjects that are deeply problematic, provide a plausible touchstone of answers to the doubting faithful, and dismiss an incomplete picture of what the criticisms are. The ‘art’ subject is tossed off casually toward the end of the video, but is actually hugely important. The church published and produced inaccurate depictions of the translation of the BoM for many years, all while the seer stone was stored in the First Presidency’s vault. The producers of this content seem to forget that the church itself was holding the cards for most of the historical information and documents. It decided what would get out. And it excommunicated scholars for writing the truth about LDS history, some of which it has now been forced to discuss in its gospel topic essays. I didn’t hear that mentioned.
And the same Joseph Fielding Smith who have his ‘opinion’ regarding the seer stone also suppressed an account of his famous relative’s First Vision to protect the faith. The division of church leaders statements into ‘opinion’ and dogma is a clever, though easily refuted, apologetic expedient. When past doctrinal statements are problematic, just throw them in the opinion bucket. All of Joseph Fielding Smith’s abhorrent teaching about race was presented as doctrine, without a doubt. But instead of honestly grappling with each statement, the church makes big, blanket proclamations about past racial ‘policy.’
The bottom line with the church has seldom been truth. It has been protecting its own wealth and good name.
Glad you were able to repost this!
I agree that these are short and incomplete. In order to be "complete" they would need to be very very long (you could write volumes on this topic alone, depending on how expansive a view you want to take). I've found that very few people consume content of that length, but there's certainly a place for it! To help remedy the issue, though, I always leave a rather long list of resources in the TH-cam description that people can turn to if they are looking for a more complete picture.
I don't see any issue with the seer stone having been stored in the vault. There doesn't seem to be any debate among leadership regarding the existence of the seer stone (even Joseph Fielding Smith acknowledges that it existed), but rather how the stone was used.
I also freely acknowledge that I didn't address the art issue. I mention it, because it's important, but the aim of this video was very specific -- to outline instances where the Church has talked about the seer stone as a tool of translation. In the book I list in the description, "From Darkness unto Light,” by Michael MacKay & Gerrit Dirkmaat, there is an appendix by Anthony Sweat that addresses the subject of artwork, if people are interested. It probably does deserve its own video, though. We agree that it is important.
I am also fully aware that the Church has been in possession of at least a lot of the historical information regarding this subject. But even with all of the historical information available, as noted in the video, people still come to different conclusions about it. Having possession of documents and information doesn't necessarily equate to having a clear picture of what was going on, which I think this topic is good evidence of. I didn't mention scholars being excommunicated for their writing about LDS history because I didn't feel the need to. But yes, you're certainly correct that some people have been excommunicated at least in part for teaching things that are now widely accepted. The standards for excommunication have fluctuated greatly over the years.
You brought up the First Vision accounts -- this was tangential to the topic of the video and was therefore not addressed here. You also brought up differentiation between opinion, doctrine, policy, etc. That's also the subject of a separate video. I think it seems immensely clear, though, from that Joseph Fielding Smith quote, that he was stating his opinion. He says, "I believe..." and even leaves room for being wrong by stating, "It may have been so...."
You also brought up Joseph Fielding Smith's statements on race. Again, this was not the subject of this video, and was therefore not addressed (we have another video about that topic).
It seems to me that you might enjoy longer-format content than what we usually offer. I'd be happy to make recommendations if you're interested in any topics in particular (or, again, there are usually a variety of longer-format resources listed in the TH-cam descriptions). As always, happy to chat personally if you so desire. I'm much less attentive to TH-cam comments than I am to personal messages. Thanks for the comment and sorry that it was deleted for whatever reason! My guess is that another user reported it and for whatever reason YT took it down, but idk.
@@davidsnell2605 My point in bringing up the vault, statements on race, and first vision accounts was not to point out that they should have been covered in the video. I only used them to illustrate issues with the kind of reasoning the video espouses. The fact that the church had the stone in the vault all those years is not the problem in se, but rather the kind of narrative they presented in spite of the knowledge of it they had.
If the church wants to keep up with the Exmormon community, it and its apologists will need to start producing much more long-form content than they do currently. And serious tackling of issues not just the millennial showmanship that popular creators have put forward. Complex issues require and deserve comprehensive untangling. I’m not saying that this channel is the place, but I disagree that most people dislike longer content. Long-form podcasting has a large audience. My personal opinion is that those more open and extended forums are avoided because there are not good, supported answers to the issues. But LDS scholars are subtly beginning the great shift away from traditional truth claims so it will be interesting to see where things stand in a decade or so.
@@salvatorecollura2692 I would hope that the information and research presented in my videos would be considered more than mere "showmanship." There is certainly an entertainment aspect to it, but I do at least try to engage these topics critically in the short time I have.
Personally I haven't found it particularly difficult to find long-form research (relative to my short videos) regarding tough topics. If not from official Church publications, at least from believing Church scholars producing content with reputable publishers. In my experience, I feel like it's more common that people just don't know where to look to find that long-form content (because again I personally think *most* people simply won't take the time to read a long academic article, thesis, or book).
But as examples of long-form content, I would suggest...
Paul Reeve's book, "Religion of a Different Color," as a great exploration of the race issue. It's published by Oxford. Or you could turn to Reeve's Deseret Book publication, "Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood."
For the First Vision topic I'd recommend Steven Harper's book, "First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins" (Oxford). Steve is a believing member heavily involved in the Joseph Smith Papers Project, BYU Studies, and producing the Church's new history volumes, "Saints." (see also the JSPP podcast, "The First Vision").
Brian Hales addresses pretty much every early polygamy-related topic under the sun in his 3-volume series, "Joseph Smith's Polygamy." See also Brittany Chapman Nash's work in this field.
Richard Turley has now helped produce two substantial volumes on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
BYU Studies Quarterly recently came out with an entire volume all about the Book of Abraham controversies (free to read online).
Gerrit Dirkmaat and Michael MacKay have covered Book of Mormon translation topics in multiple books.
"Mormons and Masons" by Matthew Brown.
"Evolution and Mormonism" by Trent D. Stephens & D. Jeffrey Meldrum.
If you're looking for long-form content from a faithful perspective regarding any other topics I'd be happy to give you some recommendations, if they exist (I admit, I don't know of any long-form content regarding the First Presidency vault). If there's nothing in full-book format, I can usually find the topic addressed via BYU Studies, etc. There are also several podcasts I'd be happy to recommend (Maxwell Institute Podcast, Y Religion, The Standard of Truth, The Priesthood Restored, LDS Perspectives Podcast, etc).
Of course, you may not agree with what believing members have to say, but there certainly is *some* substantial long-form content out there regarding at least the major issues people have with our history.
That said, I do hope and believe that we'll continue to see even more long-form content about these topics in the future.
@@davidsnell2605 But those are all texts are they not? What I was referring to was videos and podcasts and live open-forum discussions. I don’t think scholarly articles and books are usually referred to as ‘content.’ They are closed-format and non-interactive, though also extremely important in their way.
As someone that's been in the comments as long as David has been doing this (and has watched every single video in its entirety), I don't think that's necessarily a fair assessment. Long-format videos on TH-cam just do not do well, no one watches them, if they do the bail after 30 seconds. I've always seen SU as a platform that provides a starting point for people with questions to go do their own research, including the convert/return videos.
Given this specific subject, it is always going to have some amount of speculation like virtually everything that has happened throughout history. Even now when an event happens in the world opinions vary wildly even with some video or audio because we only see part of the picture.
Specifically when it comes to Church history I give a HUGE benefit of the doubt due to the time period, the general lack of meticulous record keeping, the situations in which the early Saints were in where their property was seized or destroyed and on multiple occasions they were forced to flee with effectively what they could carry. Even now in the Church records aren't always kept well, when I was ward clerk I had several mystery records for our ward that no one knew anything about, I had an infant's record get entered with the wrong gender that I discovered and had to correct, another that accidentally had the middle name as the first name, etc.
Personally: stone, no stone, spectacles, no spectacles, none of these things change the message of the Book of Mormon or instruction from ongoing revelation. I either choose to believe it, or I don't, but these specifics personally have no impact on my choice to believe or not. I can witness the same thing as my wife, say an incident in traffic, and we will have two entirely different versions of how that thing went, you have to look at history with that in mind.
Just as you point out, it’s not testimony-shaking material, here.
We’re supposed to build our house on the Rock- Jesus Christ. Any details about human actions and quotes on this planet should never take away our faith in Jesus Christ.
Anyone who reads the Bible clearly sees Prophets have been imperfect and made huge mistakes- God still managed to use them as Prophets.
Seer stone in a hat, Urim and Thummim, words given by revelation- who cares! None of the methods hurt anyone, none of them contradict God’s ways, I’m so grateful the Book of Mormon is here in my life. Actually reading it changes lives- that’s why Satan attacks it so hard.
Hey! Can David do a faith & beliefs video on comparisons between the church of Jesus Christ and Swedenborgian beliefs?
And I thought South Park was just peddling anti-Mormon lies; “Really, a rock in a hat? How absurd! That’s not how it happened.” Then I saw that article in the October 2015 Ensign; turns out South Park was right all along.
For what it's worth, as per the video, the Church had published this information multiple times long before South Park did.
@@davidsnell2605 true, and the video also says the seer stone wasn’t part of the dominant narrative for decades. It wasn’t taught throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s through the correlated materials in Sunday school and seminary. Nor was it taught by missionaries or depicted in official artwork. I think that’s why so many were blindsided when the church changed the story in 2015.
@@Mubooza yep I agree that many people were understandably surprised when this information started to become more popular again. I'm grateful to belong to a faith that is willing to adjust as new research sheds light on more accurate ways of understanding the history. I understand the frustration over the artwork. I wish the approach there had been different as well. I'm glad there's been a shift there and that the next generation won't have to worry so much about that kind of thing.
@@Mubooza I do not know about other Institutes, but we talked about the Seer Stones in the early 90s in Ann Arbor.
@@brettmajeske3525 Speaking of Ann Arbor. Small world. I was in the Detroit mission and in your ward for a number of months I believe for at least part of 1990. I remember you and your family fondly. My memories are a bit vague, though, now that it's been over 30 years. I'm sure we enjoyed one or more meals in your home. Beginning in the fall of 1991, I started dating the sole BYU roommate of your sister (Kayla?) and we (your sister's roommate and I) got married the next year. Of course, your sister was at our wedding reception and may have been one of the bridesmaids. My username is a nom de plume (being an obvious reference to the person who was killed at the direction of John Calvin), and on my mission I was Elder Corbett.
No Church manual from the 80's on up has any mention of the Stone in a Hat. Southpark was the first time and place I EVER heard of this. I thought it was false and twisted. Turned out Southpark writers were on to something.
David, these videos continue to impress and inform! Thank you so much for taking the time and doing the research. I love the consistent approach of presenting both sides of the argument in a fair and unbiased way, then allowing if you were to reach their own conclusion. Rock on!
We're glad you enjoy them!
How can I get a seer stone? Can anyone in the church today use them for translation or other uses?
I 100% agree with you about not caring which miraculous method was used. Why so many members get their panties in a wad is beyond me.
Great finish. It does not matter. It was by the gift and power of God. Nobody can seriously comment who hasn't translated by the gift and power of God or heard details from someone who has.
Its about time we had a CHURCH COURT for the First Presidency how they Judge us Members.
This should be on an International Level.
Its them that should held Accountable. to all aspects of LDS Church History.
In my book, if you are not God or JS. Nobody knows the real truth except the Holy Ghost? Why? Because he was there in the 1800s. I rely on the Holy Ghost for salvation information. All the other mistakes, truths, or distortions are for the faithless to struggle with. Satan loves struggle. Christ loves us to simply be believing. Faith is a yea or ney proposition. The spirit speaks truth and all historic speculation goes out the window.
I believed to seer stone accounts just as most in the church do including our leaders but if Hannah Stoddard is correct in her research then we have been misled.
Despite all statements on the subject is isn't doctrine and our testimonies don't need to hang on weather he did or didn't used the stone.
I was suprised to learn recently that people were clutching their pearls over the seer stone, as it was something I had heard of since I was a kid, maybe first in the 70s. In fact I remember seeing it, or probably a replica, in the church history museum years ago, along with the story of how Joseph put it in the hat to translate. I guess I didn't know it was news.
In my 30 years as an active member the first time I heard of the seer stone was during my mission when someone tried to 'deceive' us with an anti-mormon pamphlet that showed an illustration of Joseph Smith with a 'peep stone' and his face down in hat. It was laughable to us that anti-mormons thought they could 'get us' with these comical lies.
Another time was about 11 years ago while sitting in Elders Quorum a newer member was giving a lesson on Joseph Smith and after he mentioned a seer stone and hat, the president quickly stopped him, gently admonished him to use church approved sources, and then took over the class to prevent anymore 'wayward ideas' from entering the church. The 15 or so of us in attendance didn't speak up because we knew the EQ president was right! A few years later (2015 I think?) the church released pictures for the first time of ThE AcTuAL SeEr StOnE!! Oops!
Whether Joseph used the urim and thummim, a stone, or a toothpick! It does not matter. What matters here is that many of us were taught one narrative and now we are being told a different narrative. The narrative that was taught to me over and over is in contradiction to the narrative the church uses today. Furthermore, we are being told that this information has always been available as if it were common knowledge. This is textbook gaslighting.
Can you please describe when and what you saw in the church history museum. I know of no record that they have displayed anything associated with the brown seer stone prior to 2015, nor am I aware of any depiction of a hat in the church history museum prior to that time. There is only one reference to the seer stone which is accurate in the 1970s (Friend, Sept 1974, a peaceful heart). Even church historian Kate Holbruck has noted that she didn't know about the seer stone growing up in the 1970s/80s. My mother (Born 1939) served multiple missions and raised 7 children. When she was told about the seer stone in 2016 she said "I have never heard that before". Your experience knowing about the seer stone and the hat (if true) is exceptionally rare.
@@scottvance74 👍👍👍
Very good... you are good in addressing issues in a very well documented and presented way. Great Work!!
Does anyone else care about the rock in the hat thing? I was never phased at all by this.
Nope don’t care
No. Doesn't change anything.
Still just a story on the origin of another story.
Soooooo many people are thrown off by even the possibility of the hat story being true. They immediately think that if true that its overwhelmingly quirky and mystical nature then disproves everything about the Church.
@@CMZIEBARTH I think you might have a point, but it doesn't feel that way to me. All religions are full of miracles, including the restoration. Angel Moroni comes, gold plates. Urim and thummim. No one has a problem with that, but a rock in a hat is somehow too weird?
It's just somewhat more comforting to believe that the tools of translation came to Joseph from an angel rather than to believe that he dug it up in the process of digging a well for somebody, or however the story goes.
And what did the manuals ever say about how it was translated? Didn't say seer stones. Urim and Thummin was the only explanation, but even using the term "Urim and Thummin" is anachronistic, as they were called "spectacles" originally, which is also, in turn, something another treasure digger, Lawrence, saw while helping Joseph hunt for the plates on the hill. Another treasure seer saw them first in his own stone ... before Joseph. Go figure.
A lot of people need to catch up on info, it is the LDS CHURCH that need to go to the LDS Church Courts , Case Brought by the Non Members an answer to these allegations on a World Wide Forum.
Joseph could have translated it directly from the plates. He could have used the urim and thummin.... which are rocks, aren't they? He could have used the seer stone.
Who cares ? We all bury our faces in our own rocks. It's called a cell phone.... which are made from refined rocks and sand....
If someone has a problem with the Book of Mormon, then I challenge them to write one under the same conditions that Joseph translated the book.
Yall should do an episode on lds doctrine related to 👽 Aliens 👽
**X-files theme plays** 👽👾🛸"Mulder’s ideas may be a bit out there, but he is a great agent."
The inspiration for Battlestar Galactica.
FWIW, I have been telling David to do this for nearly two years.
Yeah, growing up, we were only familiar with the Urim and Thummim being used alongside the breastplate, as that was what was popular and well-known at the time. So, when I first heard about the seer stone and its use in a hat, it caught me off guard and seemed a bit funny and odd. I believe many of us would have felt the same way, as it wasn't something we were accustomed to hearing about.
However, I've come to realize that our acceptance or rejection of things often depends on how they are presented to us. After spending time studying and considering it, I've come to the conclusion that it's not as big of a deal as some may have initially thought. The church's members, culture, and our romanticized version of the church change over time, and that's natural.
It's truly amazing to see how hard the church has been working to make our history more transparent. In this effort, we've come across things we haven't heard before, not because they are untrue or evil, but simply because they haven't been the primary focus for various reasons. Our history contains incredible things - people's experiences and miracles - but it also includes some unfavorable events that have occurred both from within and outside the church.
When it comes to the "questionable things of the church," I always think about the Bible and how the prophets were treated. They were seen and rejected, often thought of as lunatics. I also think of the Apostles and the many mistakes they made, like Peter denying the Savior three times or asking who was the greatest amongst them. There were also instances of the Apostles not initially wanting to share the gospel outside of the Jews, which you might call racial prejudice. And then there's Paul, who persecuted and murdered saints before his conversion and call. These are things we know from the scriptures, but there isn't much recorded in reality.
Here we have a history that is quite recent, and the church has done a great job of keeping records and doing their best to preserve them. And now, they have shared all they have with the world, which doesn't sound like someone trying to keep things hidden or lie to others.
The Gospel is amazing, and I'm so grateful we have it. It helps us navigate this crazy, amazing world we live in.
Thanks for making another great video.
What people don't realize is the Urim and Thumium ARE seer stones.
Beside scripture there has been many things that have been revealed to Joseph through the Urim and Thumium.
But also the Lord isn't against prophets using tools they are already and formerly accustomed to, as long as their efforts are for the building up of the Kingdom of God.
David! You are the man! Love these videos! Can you please do more on Brigham young and his polygamy? It seems like that is one thing that is dividing the church currently.
didnt Brigham brag about the amount of Wives in church to another fellow saint who had less. what a jerk. choking himself
The edits and references to other movies/shows in this video are TOP TIER!!!!! Excellent work 😂😂😂
Thank you!! 😁
I respectively disagree. From my perspective it makes light of what is a serious issue in LDS doctrine. One of many actually..
They use an app that when you type in a word or phrase it will show you all of the movies it was used in. Everyone and their dog does that on TH-cam videos, All they can say is "thanks"? How dishonest of them.
@@agomodern This comment is so cringe. 🤮
@@ktlouisechoo "Cringe" that they used an app? OK. Not following you.
Why couldn't have Joseph Smith just used the seer stone at time and the Urim at others? Its okay if he used both methods at different times. I never really understood why this is was ever a big deal.
However it came to be, we have the Book of Mormon and another testimony of Jesus Christ and of the mercy, goodness, and power of God over all the earth.
Edit: fixed some grammar
If you can't get the narrative straight, why should anyone on the outside believe how the Book of Mormon came to be?
@@BrendonKing We don't have to believe in the exact method, that's of little relevance. That he used the power of God to give us the Book of Mormon in more than good enough, which we can read and judge for ourselves.
@@violettasauveterre5100 Oh cmon now you don't believe that. Why does the Bible get slapped with "as far as it's translated correctly" if the process is unimportant?
It matter because people were excommunicated from the church for stating there was a seer stone and top hat used. If the church knew this part of history then the lives of those people were shattered. The church has only recently become transparent in the early history of the church including translation methods. They only admitted a few years ago to both polygamy and polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith. It becomes a big deal because one narrative taught in the past is different now with no explanation from the church. They are not really transparent about history and that offends church members who have invested their entire life to the church.
@@BrendonKing "As far as it is translated correctly" does NOT mean the tools used for translation though
My faith grew more in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when i started looking toward what the book is about and not about how it came to pass. There are 3, 925 times Jesus Christ is mentioned that equates to 1.7 verses on average. Translated or not! The purpose to help us to get to know Jesus Christ and believing in Him and his Gospel can change lives. That is what its doing for me. If dont believe me then read it. I lots of faith why its true besides the mentions of Christ, especially after reading JS journal entries years after the BOM was translated. The prophet could barely spell and write a complete sentence. This can all be read in the JS papers.
The Urim and Tummin are stones too right?
Yes, two stones fastened into “bows” (or glasses). However, I’ve seen them described as crystals in appearance. This is different from the single chocolate-colored seer stone passed down through Oliver Cowdery’s family.
@@bookmedia67 so what did Joseph used to translate the BofM? Both? The Urim and Tummin stones and the Seer Stone?
@@Irvingdector It depends on who you ask, which was a point demonstrated by the timeline in the video.
Or eye glasses depending on the account.
@@Irvingdector Yes, both. That is the conclusion I've reached anyway. The seer stone was like a compact viewing device, whereas the giant spectacles in big metal frames attached to a breastplate might have been harder to work with.
Think of the majesty and beauty of the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Angels, gold plates, enemies, ancient languages, scribes, long hours of toil and sacrifice. Truth or not, sticking your face in a hat to interpret is contradictory to the elements in the story. The Urim and Thummim maintain the dignity and balance of the storyline. It human nature to look for balance and consistency in a story, so the Urim and Thummim would “feel right.” The reality is Joseph probably found the practice of reading off a stone with his head down and covered by a hat, more comfortable and relaxing for his eyes. Long, hard working days followed by low, candlelight translating could really do havoc on the eyes. And what does it matter if the Lord printed it on a rock or an etch a sketch, the rock made it convenient for Joseph and fit in the hat too!
My testimony of the restored gospel came years even before I first knew characters of it, like the name of the church, name of the prophet, angels etc....
The first time I heard about the hat thing was from South Park...
And people were offended by this.
@@BrendonKing Offended by him using a hat or that South Park mentioned it?
dum dum dum dum dum.....
@@TexasRedneck that South Park mentioned it lol
South Park was spot on.
I’ve never understood the need of using both
Easy answer is that JS first told everyone about the spectacles and the breastplate thinking they would be a great way to show God giving him translation powers. But once he tried to actually use them he realized they were super awkward and a hassle to use so he switched to his tried and true rock method which was much easier to do all day long.
Faithful answer: we don't know and it's not important so stop asking.
What about all the art work, and illustrations in the wards that suggest Joseph read directly from the plates to translate? Most historical accounts show he never directly interacted with t he plates?
Art is meant to be representational. As High School students learn in Art Appreciation classes. Every High School American History text book I have seen includes "Washington Crossing the Delaware" and "The Signing of the Declaration of Independance" two paintings that have far more historical inaccuracies than any of the images used by the Church. You seem to have grossly unrealistic expectations of how art works.
Why would the church have Joseph’s peep stone but not the breastplate and spectacles?
Commanded not to show.
@@rconger384 are you saying the church has the breastplate and spectacles, but they have been commanded to hide them away?
The big problem here is not seer or not seer stone. .The problem is, if LDS Prophets really had revelation they should have known the truth. They clearly don't have a clue.
The Angel Moroni told Joseph Smith he would be destroyed if he showed the plates and the U&T to anyone unless commanded to do so. Then some historians conflate the U&T and the seer stone as if they were the same object. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never stated a seer stone was used. JSH in the PGP is clear on that and the reason why the footnote by Oliver cowdery was added, because Oliver Cowdery also stated the same. Oliver Cowdery’s statement in the footnote was in response to “Mormonism Unvailed” written by an excommunicated member of the Church.
And how is it then that Joseph Smith allowed others to observe the translation with a seer stone, (when he was commanded not to) when the same observers never saw the gold plates at the same time? Why then are we relying on statements by others claiming a seer stone was used when they never saw the plates?
No one else saw the Angel and the gold plates together until the Three Witnesses. David Whitmer was never involved with the translation. He claimed in his book that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet due to polygamy, but that he fell only after translating The Book of Mormon. Whitmer who again was never involved with the translation, likely stated a rock was used just to diffuse criticism from “Mormonism Unvailed.” Whitmer started his own Church. Why rely on him over the translation process?
Very well said! Moreover, do we really think that after losing the ability to translate due to Joseph's disobedience related to the lost 116 pp, that Joseph would go rogue and translate using a simple stone thereby not using a tool prepared by the hand of the Lord for the express purpose of bringing fourth the BOM? If all that Joseph needed for this work was a simple stone from a river, why the trouble to get the Nephite Interpreters to Joseph?
I just want to know where they hide the secret "my spouse has extra meetings" snacks.
No snacks for you.
@@PapaKryptoss 😭 😭 😭
@@RyanMercer When I was in the Bishopric those "hidden" snacks were a big deal - believe me, many fond memories.
@@livingtruth2374 Yeah, when I was clerk last year and had bishopric at 6:30am meaning I had to leave the house by 5:50, then ward council, then sacrament and sunday school, then my wife would have YW presidency or youth presidency meetings after, I'd keep snack cakes in the car so when we would finally get out around noon haha.
@@livingtruth2374 Decades ago, when I was in the bishopric, and used to spend 6-7 hours at the chapel on Sundays, I would go home with what I called a "Sunday headache." It took me awhile to realize that it was caused by stress and lack of eating.
Great episode. Maybe take a deeper dive into Gazelem. And how stones have been used since the Old Testament. How many stones were used on the ancient breastplate of the priests? In time, will the Lord give us a personal stone?
The Seer Stone in the Hat method leads to his work as a paid treasure hunter, because he used exactly this method. As such, however, he had never found anything of value, and this leads to the conclusion that the treasure hunting thing, as well as the translation of the Book of Mormon, is a hoax. Therefore, although this method was occasionally mentioned, it was not generally taught.
I'm convinced that believing LDS will never move their position about the church being true so long as they feel the book of mormon is correct or that it happened. Really bizarre. I was talking scientology w/ a believing mormon and they said they could never believe that church or its claims. The irony was shocking and even more shocking they didn't pause about their own comment.
Saying that the Church currently teaches that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon is not accurate - in fact, it is a bit misleading, because what the Church has actually said would lead us to believe that if the "seer stone" was used, it still was not the primary translation instrument. For proof of this, simply look at the Come Follow Me manual for the Doctrine and Covenants. It mentions the Urim and Thummin as the primary translation tool - also mentioning a seer stone, then makes it clear that the Lord simply hasn't revealed how the Book of Mormon was in fact translated, except by the gift and power of God. (also includes no paintings/pictures of the actual translation process) The manual also has a footnote to the important quote from the Prophet Joseph where he made it clear that the Lord was not revealing "all the particulars" of how the book was translated, other than "by the gift and power of God."
You would think the church would be the foremost authority on how the book they use to verify Joseph as a prophet came into being.
@@BrendonKing And your point? Couldn't resist coming out here to take a shot at the Church of Jesus Christ, could you. You missed my whole point. The Lord, to the Church, made it clear that He was not going to reveal "all the particulars" as the how the book was translated, except to declare that it was accomplished "through the gift and power of God." The Church isn't going to go beyond what the Lord himself has indicated He will or will not do. Common sense.
@@livingtruth2374is it possible for Mormons to have any less expectation of transparency and clarity on their background and history? Why can’t the ‘one true church’ declare with any amount of confidence how the Book of Mormon came to be?
@@BrendonKing how come you are ignorant of church history?
@@BrendonKingwhy does it need to? The product is more important than the process by which it was made.
I left the church in 2012 when I returned I heard about seer stone for the first time I guess it was historical but not mainstream
I’ve never really understood people getting so upset over this issue. It happens frequently that multiple sources give information and over time some details are emphasized over other ones. This is what happened here. There was no church wide conspiracy to hide the fact of using the seer stone,like some suggest. If I were to choose one method to promote over another, the Nephite triangle glasses attached to a breastplate is not the option I would go with. That sounds way more far fetched than a small stone found while digging a well that we still have in our possession. Furthermore, I find no contradiction. He appears to have used both. He started with the urim and thummim, but stated the were large and uncomfortable as they didn’t fit his face, so he switched over to the seer stone. So artwork showing use of the urim and thrumming is not inaccurate.
Thank you - this is reasonable and right.
@@JasonP313 I understand. Yet the challenge with the claim of "treasure digging" is that very much has been made out of very little - we don't know from the credible, documented facts, that this ever happened. It's interesting to me that in "Rough Stone Rolling," after painting a picture of magic and seer stone stuff & etc. in the local culture, over a large section of the chapter in question, the author concedes in the end that the actual documented record shows Joseph only employed in such digging for two weeks! And Joseph's own record (the only first-hand account we have) indicates that he persuaded Josiah Stowell to stop the practice. Largely out of this one incident, miles of storytelling and stretching and characterization has taken place.
@@JasonP313 Actually there's no record of a conviction, the whole thing was spurious, and David covers this in detail in another very good episode of Saints Unscripted: th-cam.com/video/czi5uTl1ztM/w-d-xo.html
@@JasonP313 There is a record of a hearing. While enemies of Joseph have made the claim he was found guilty, the state of New York does not have a record of a trial even happening. Only the precourt hearing, which suggests the case was dismissed. What people claim as being the transcripts of the trial are actually the reconstructed memories of people at the hearing, not original court records.
While it could be possible the frontier court just forgot the paperwork, it seems more likely that the whole thing was dismissed.
Equally important is that the charges were about being a nuisance, not explicit fraud, which again is a detail many critics seem to conflate.
I don't see the use seer stone s being at all the issue, it's the use of a hat that's been hidden from us is the issue.
Love your videos! 💕☀️
Yay! Thank you!
SO...Are we trying to compare the celestial technology with our technology? Some day we will know every details about the translation.
"Now you see the mayick of the rock!" - Old Indian dude in I.J. Temple of Doom 1984.
The brown seer stone was also used to find non-religious things.
Like gold, shocker.
That's why the church did not formerly announce it until 2015.
The internet is a tool that can be used to search for beautiful things or nonsensical things. It just depends on how you use it.
@@BrendonKing Slight correction: Joseph used his seer stone to LOOK for gold. But he never found any. That's because he knew that no such gold existed. He was only in the game for the money that Josiah Stowell paid him.
The Cows in the Jurassic era had no use for seer stones neither did the huge Bulls, they deposited them out their rear end, it was fossilized an later found by JS , who used it for translating Bull. interestingly enough was the Nephites when searching
for material, they put their heads down the Lavatory an came up with gold nuggets between their teeth, later used for the Golden Plates. Please dont say the time line is anachronistic.
Does the Seer Stone still work?
Martin Harris’ account looks like he’s saying, in a few words, that the Urim and Thummim was used the most to translate but the Seer Stone was used for convenience. Thank you for sharing this information.
Very well done, incredibly enlightening
There is a lot to unpack with this, particularly when it comes to the sources used here. David, you and I spoke a bit on Emma's accounts (particularly when it comes to her letter to Emma Pilgrim).
To keep things short, anything by David Whitmer after 1838 should be taken with a lot of salt as far as its truthfulness is concerned.
When it comes to Martin Harris, a single second-hand account that not only was originally printed more than 10 years after the conversation occurred but also 6 years after he died leaves a lot to be desired, especially since it contradicts all firsthand statements given by him, including an interview he gave right before he got on the train to Utah to the Daily Iowa State Register (later becoming the Des Moines Register). Elder Stevenson, in a book he printed shortly after the editorial was printed, published a book where he only gave maybe 3 sentences to the river stone but then goes on for pages about the exclusive use of the interpreters, ending with the conclusion that they were the exclusive method of translation.
The biggest issue that proponents of the stone-in-the-hat narrative seem to leave out is what the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants has to say on the matter. And I'm disappointed that this wasn't addressed in this video.
I've been to both Harmony and Fayette. In Harmony, Joseph had a separate house for translation, so using the urim and thummim would have been easier.
But in Fayette the house was very small and since there are accounts that state Joseph and the plates weren't hidden from others in the room, using the stone may have been the best method. There are so many things to consider and we just don't have the details.
@@mp112501 Perhaps, but we have to remember that David admitted to barely being around at his father's house in Fayette when the translation was happening, so suggesting he knew what was fully happening is more than a stretch. David's statements about the translation method is also contradicted by John and Christian Whitmer who were around and scribed for Joseph when Oliver was unable.
Disappointed to see an excellent discussion which followed a comment of mine deleted. Was hoping for better.
(Since you commented again on this video I'll just reply to this one instead of on our other discussion if that's OK with you) I'm still looking into this and haven't been able to pinpoint what happened to your comment, or why. It doesn't appear that any of our moderators deleted anything (me and two others have been looking into it). I hope it's apparent from our comments section (which tend to be very critical) that we do allow for respectful discussion and disagreement. I will keep you updated though on whether or not I find anything regarding your comment. Perhaps another user reported your comment and YT took it down? I'm sorry if that happened. I don't know what else to tell ya. Feel free to make your comment again if you'd like. If it's removed, it won't be from us.
@@davidsnell2605 I will post full screenshots on my community tab.
@@davidsnell2605 and I reposted the original comment for good measure. We’ll see how long it lasts.
@@davidsnell2605 Comments get dropped all the time. Especially long posts, I have had to repost comments at least once a month. It is just part of You Tube.
I find it interesting that you discounted Joseph Feilding Smith's words just because it was his opinion as if he pulled it out of a hat:) It is obvious, if you listen to what he said, that he did his research; that's why he was compelled to make an official statement to correct what he had once erroneously believed. AND Just because he admitted that Joseph had a seer stone he used for other purposes doesn't mean we should assume Joseph used it for the Book of Mormon translation. I think what Joseph Smith and Oliver Coward said themselves about the Book of Mormon translation should be the end of the discussion. Why should the accounts of two apostates who had personal issues with Joseph and sought to discredit him have more creditability? Please interview Hannah Stoddard from the Joseph Smith Foundation regarding this issue. We deserve to hear all sides fully.⁷
Well said. My thoughts echo yours.
He's done that in other videos as well. They like to dismiss things if they don't follow the narrative they believe or are pushing. There are many many people that use religion to make money, and this channel is no different, unless their channel isn't monetized.
Emma was not an apostate, but she clearly acknowledged the seer stone. I don't have a problem that he used both. We have no details. The only proof is the Book of Mormon. It is true and it is a miracle.
I also do not care about what Joseph Smith used. My testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from the Holy Ghost Not from man.
seer stones used for translation = Urim & Thummim
Which ever method he used, or both, Joseph did what was necessary to complete the work that God had for him. I think we ought to be careful when we try to put limits on what *we* think God could or should do with His work. Joseph could have translated in a chicken suit for all I care, if that’s what God ultimately required. Interpreters or SITH, the Book of Mormon was translated by the power and gift of God. Let’s not get so caught up in the method at the expense of really appreciating the gift and all it has to teach us.
Great video, but you really should get Hannah on. As you note in your timeline, are no contemporaneous seer stone accounts, and they all contradict Oliver and Joseph’s statements. They are consistent, however, with anti-Church garbage.
The church is garbage. Grow up child
You are downplaying this quite a bit. Here is where it gets important. Either Joseph translated the plates as the church has said in pictures etc. with the Urim & Thummim or he did not. In fact all accounts say that he did not, as he never had the plates present he wrote the Book of Mormon, there is a difference. To translate he would have to have the plates in front of him, read them, and then dictate the translation that the Lord gave to him. In fact from all accounts even the ones you gave here he did not. Those who disagreed merely stated opinions that had no citations. When you dictate words to a scribe without an original copy of the book in another language in front of you then you are "writing" a book and not translating a book. Given the issues with the Book of Abraham this is widespread among Joseph's writings and they could as Richard Bushman says "be called Pseudepigrapha at best. The Book of Mormon is an "allegory not scripture", and each passing decade takes us closer to that final determination as more and more facts pop up.
Your understanding of the word "translation" is incomplete. Like many words in the English language it has many possible meanings, including "the transmission of scripture or Holy Relics", as well as "explanation of an unknown concept".
You choose a definition that requires he had the plates in front of him, that is something you are adding to the meaning, not something the word itself requires.
By your definition using Google Translate, is only translation if one has the original paper version of the text. Reading off the screen would not count if your understanding is correct. I used to work as a professional translator, and no one in the industry would accept your limited definition.
@@brettmajeske3525 My definition of translate is actually having something to translate. Now if they had said I received this revelation from God about an early people living in the Americas that would be more believable. I have translated for US embassies in Germany and abroad I guess that makes me a professional translator just like you.
@@randallwall2745 Then you should be aware of how language works. You seem to think that revelation and translation are unrelated concepts, whereas contextual analysis of the writings of Joseph Smith clearly shows that he treated them like synonyms.
According to the OED up through the mid 1800's translation was used more often in a religious sense than in a secular one, which is clearly how Joseph Smith used it. The Etymology of the English word comes from transporting Holy Relics from one diocese to another. It then came to be used when Bishops moved their seats. The first linguistic usage dealt with sermons given by Bishops explaining scripture. It is from that origin that the modern sense of interpreting any text from one language to another develops.
Joseph Smith's only claim was that he translated by the Gift and Power of God. You seem to want to add to that. Using a seer stone or interpreters would be no different than using any other tool, like Google or the OED.
Your claim is that because Joseph Relied on outside assistance one should not call what he did translation. Did you ever use any tools when you translated?
As a professional paid translator in two languages working for the government for 5 years I am well aware of all the nuances of translation. Your trying to denigrate my understanding does little to change the fact that any logical person looking at this realizes there is a problem here. The Book of Mormon for all intents is Pseudepigrapha. There was nothing to translate. Emma, Oliver David Whitmer all said that the plates weren't even in the house most of the time and Joseph put his face in his hat and dictated or authored the book. He claimed to be the author and so I take him at his word.. Sadly LDS have to twist and turn what would be logical to the rest of the world to try and support the unsupportable. What they wouldn't and couldn't support if it were the Catholics or any other church saying it.
@@brettmajeske3525
@@randallwall2745 By your logic if I didn't have a paper copy of the Comte de Monte Christo if front of me when using Google Translate, I would be the author?
That doesn't make sense.
The claim is that Joseph Smith studied the Plates for months before attempting to us a tool that already had the text imputed.
If I have text that needs to be translated in my computer, which I then use to help me translate, I do not also need a physical text.
I doubt you would insist that you could only translate from physical text sources either. I also never use pen and paper any more. Insisting that only pen a paper count as translations is not normal in the industry as far as I can tell.
Justifying ideology or theology is older than any of us. Beliefs in things that don't make sense, and using God for the answer goes a long way in that process. It's what gave Kings Carte Blanche authority.
Joseph Smith told stories in his business dealings, in his personal relationships to his wife and to others. The Book of Mormon was only the beginning 📖 and it continues to be proven flawed, with corrections occasionally added when necessary. It's a Book that starts out with a false narrative and an explanation for the original natives.
Like most flim-flams, “greater light and knowledge” revealed the American Indian wasn't genetically linked to the middle east. Further evidence of the errors in the Book came about when a more accurate translation of text found in the Old Testament, which was copied into the B of M, left the “inspired text”, appearing to just be plagiarism.
I don't recall if Joseph Smith claimed his Book of Abraham translation from the ancient papyrii sold to him by a traveler pedaling “ancient documents”, used the Urim and Thummim, or a seer stone 🪨. It was later proven he didn't get anything like what was written on that set of scrolls. Another fabrication.
There are many anachronisms within the B of M, but church leaders have an explanation, however unsatisfactory, for those errors too.
At some point in your life, you have to make several serious decisions. Do you accept only the answers you want, or do you dig deeper? Once you gain that knowledge, of course you must weigh it for its accuracy.
Unfortunately most people go about their lives in a comfortable track and won't bother to confront what they think they might know. The facts won't help perpetuate myths of seer stones, curelom, cumom, magical future kingdoms, ceremonies, or incantation.
“Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying…There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”
This video has been super helpful to me personally. I’m in my mid-40’s and I remember sitting in a primary class (maybe 10-11 years old) and learning about the seer stone. Recently, after being called a liar about that memory, I did some light research to see if I could find the primary manual where that came from but came up empty handed. The research was mainly for me because I don’t bother proving things I already know so I let it go. Long story short, thank you for the resources. Even if it wasn’t in a manual, my primary teacher would have had the knowledge of it to teach it from one of the quotes you mentioned.
We all know about the seer stone and they totally blow over what the real question is, being the use of a hat. I have no problem with any of it, but only have a problem if they've been hiding how it was actually done.
My opinion on this too is why would a prophet say that it was not so he believed, why would he take that to God, and find out for himself instead of saying something like that why explain that to me
This is a really impressive piece of archeology. Whoever researched and wrote this podcast has done an excellent job of unearthing every reference to the seerstone as translation method in the 200 year history of LDS literature. Nonetheless, in the end, when looked at in the context of the entirety of that literature, these references are still infrequent and obscure. However, there is a reason for this, and it is not that the Church was trying to hide the seerstone. It was that most believers accepted Joseph and Oliver's repeated written near contemporaneous statements that the Book of Mormon was translated using the interpreters which came with the plates (see JS-H 1:35). As the podcast correctly points out, the seerstone story traces to the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, and a few very late (and very problematic) sources. Believers had, and continue to have, very good reasons to dismiss the seerstone translation theory.
But totally didn't bother showing the historical proof of using the stones in a hat. We already knew about the seer stones for decades. I grew up learning about that.
PS. the Seer Stone Smith used was found by Smiths neighbor when digging a well.
Yes he was digging a long drop, but found an old one all the seer stone went to rock, yet to be confirmed from these LDS church scholars may indicate that possibility was right.
Does President Nelson still use the seer stone? If not, why not?
I would assume he does not. The seer stone was used for translating the Book of Mormon. What would president Nelson need to be translating? 🤔
@@caitlinwhite237 Joseph has been quoted as saying that we should all have our own seer stone, but we don't have anything to translate either.
@@clarestucki5151 do you have a reference for that?
His calling us not to translate. A future prophet may need to translate the sealed portion of the plates, or the records of the 10 tribes. We'll see.
I heard the seer stone was in the church vaults for safe keeping, and yes the sealed portion needs translating, if one can keep the translated manuscripts from saintly thieves . , well thats one how about translate the 116 lost pages, you dont need the Plate in front of you. Such ho hum fair weather me, reply is not needed. In answer yes Pres Nelson needs the seer stones. seems he cant see anything
they not only hid it they LIED about it. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS. Notice the art work has disappeared showing him with the plates. There were not even plates, no one saw them and they were not needed because he had a rock in hat now.
Eek! Oh no. He uses an item (in this case both) to translate. That's how your testimony cracked? Or were you one that just looks for anything "wrong" with JS to justify your feelings toward the lds church?
Great presentation. Not at all what 'they' say about the church 'hiding' the information. To me this nonsense about seer stone vs Urim and Thummim is akin to finding a dead fly in the Celestial room. The key note to the translation process is that Joseph saw the translation in vision. That is what seers do. That he needed a crutch of some sort in the beginning is of no matter to me. Having personal revelation is the greatest part of the restoration next to authority, keys and ordinances. The Book of Mormon is my crutch and seer stone. [up# 345]
Love this
The urim and thumim ARE seer stones, so is it too far fetched to say an ancient prophet's seer stones are no better or worse than a modern prophet's seer stones? No matter which method of translation you prefer, both require you to believe a stone is capable of assisting in an inspired translation.
Some day we will understand THE TECHNOLOGY of the LORD...for a while just be patient and learn from the B of M.
Couple of questions: Why go to the effort of producing golden plates if the Book of Mormon came from a seer stone while the plates were gathering dust somewhere? Why did Joseph or Oliver never confirm these stories?
That is one of the problems that Joseph's father-in-law, Isaac Hale, had with the whole thing. He said that Joseph would pretend to "translate" while the alleged golden plates were hidden in the woods. So even during the production of the book, Isaac could tell that Joseph's story didn't add up. An anti-Mormon writer named M.T. Lamb sarcastically wrote of this inconsistency:
"Finally, according to the testimony of Martin Harris, Mr. Smith often used
the "seer stone" in place of the Urim and Thummim, even while the latter
remained in his possession using it as a mere matter of convenience.
It seems almost too bad that he should thus inadvertently give the whole
thing away. You must understand that the Urim and Thummim spoken of, and called
throughout the Book of Mormon "the Interpreters," had been provided with great
care over 2500 years ago by God himself, for the express purpose of translating
these plates. They are often mentioned in the Book of Mormon as exceedingly
important. They were preserved with the greatest care, handed down from one
generation to another with the plates, and buried with them in the hill Cumorah
over 1400 years ago; as sacred as the plates themselves. So sacred that only
one man was allowed to handle or use them, the highly favored prophet, Joseph
Smith himself. But now, alas! After all this trouble and pains and care on the
part of God, and on the part of so many holy men of old, this "Urim and
Thummim" is found at last to be altogether superfluous; not needed at all. This
"peep stone" found in a neighbor's well will do the work just as well and is
even more convenient, "for convenience he used the seer stone." So we are left
to infer that when he used the Urim and Thummim at all, it was at some
inconvenience. And probably he only did it out of regard to the feelings of his
God, who had spent so much time and anxiety in preparing it so long ago, and
preserving it to the present day for his special use! ("The Golden Bible",
1887, pages 250-51)
This video might be helpful: th-cam.com/video/NZAmqah-ZPw/w-d-xo.html
David, who are you? I would like to learn more of your credentials. Are you a professional historian? I think you have been on Saints Unscripted longer than anybody now. You have been on since before it was changed to saints unscripted and was called three Mormons.
You forgot to add the part in this video that the seer stone was used by Joseph Smith to fraudulently help people find buried treasure.
We've talked about the treasure-digging question in other videos. Specifically, this recent one: th-cam.com/video/NpFer0PsqjM/w-d-xo.html
I've got a degree in communications (journalism), but I am not a professional historian. I consult professional historians for some videos, when needed, and I certainly integrate research from professional historians into these videos, but I myself am not formally trained in those fields. I would understand if people find me less credible for that reason, but hopefully the research presented in these videos can stand on its own two feet and speak for itself.
Thanks David, for the explanation and the link for the other video.
I am agnostic on this topic. I don't care. If there was a narrative going around that JK Rowlings produced Harry Potter using a typewriter and a counter narrative that she used a computer, does it matter? The end product is all that matters. Whether he used one object or another or both in the translation process, the Book of Mormon is the end product. This is just a smoke screen for people to deflect from it. If information comes up that he used a shoe, it still does not matter. God can use any object he wants to accomplish a task.
I saw a TH-cam video once a while ago where this Jewish scholar or Rabbi, or both, was describing the Urim and Thummim and he described them as the Priest would wear the ephod and behind the breastplate with all the different stones on it representing the 12 tribes was a pocket and one stone was white and the other was black. The stones were placed in the pocket and the priest would ask a yes or no question and then reach into the ephod and draw a stone that would determine the answer. Now, this is Jewish culture. Does it sound pretty rediculous? It would, it sounds like pure chance. Why not flip a coin then? Or roll a dice? The point is, the Urim and Thummim were STONES. It was clearly an every day stone. One was like obsidian and the other was as glass, but if God told them that was one of his methods of communication that he would make it so and that's the instruction they were given. Theres a lot of "preposterous" things out there that we would see as such, but so the saying goes "my ways are not your ways" and "God works in mysterious ways". What is consistent in the stories, even from a different culture which, no mainstream Christian denomination talks about the Urim and Thummim, at least not from anyone I've ever heard, but mainstream Christianity descends from Judaism, yeah, because Judaism was the old law and once Jesus came, Christianity was the next step, so what's perfectly consistent is there WAS ALWAYS A STONE. What if President Nelson always carries a stone in his pocket? Would it matter? Would it seem odd? It would, but would anyone really care? Only if they don't know him, then they'd say he was senile. What I gather from it, is that the Urim and Thummim were still seer stones, that fact didn't change. So, if Joseph Smith used a stone, that was his and not an ancient artifact, it's still an Urim or a Thummim.
It's kind of an embarrassing way to describe to people: "You don't trust me, I'm telling you about a book that was dug out of the ground that a man was directed by a ghost to, and by-the-way, he put a stone in a hat and put his face in it and dictated the Book of Mormon that way...." Thats embarrassing. But it's no different than explaining to people that have never heard of it "Yeah, Joseph was led to a hill where he pulled out gold plates, and by the way there was this really heavy piece of armor and some sticks that's the sticks snapped into and then connected to a pair of ancient eye glasses and Joseph Smith strapped this heavy thing on every time he translated and looked through these glasses and these ancient Egyptian hyroglifics were seen in English." To the uninitiated, that's sounds pretty crazy, like you need to see a doctor and get medicated. It's not going to change the effect someone would have if you told them His face was in a hat. It's only shocking to LDS because it follows the same folklore that Joseph Smith was trying to combat as a teenager as to why there was all this confusion, that he followed right along. There's also the story of pharaoh of Egypt who had his men cast down rods that became snakes like Aarons. Its always been said Satan is the great Immitator and that this folklore in Joseph Smiths time was the devil's immitation of the Urim and Thummim, maybe so, but I guess if God found a way to turn the tables and beat Satan at his own game, I guess it doesn't really matter. Is it confusing and frustrating that we hear so many contradicting statements? Sure. It seems God would deal with that to eliminate confusion but as Elder Holland said once: "God works with mortal men, foulable, that must be incredibly frustrating, but it's all he has to work with." Joseph Smith taught that the prophet Mohammed was inspired by God. We're told that, for now, Mohammed was inspired by God because God works line up on line, and mainstream Christianity doesn't like that because the Qu'ran seems to say Jesus isn't the son of God, I don't know, haven't read it. But maybe it's not in the Qu'ran that was inspired, maybe Mohammed taught that as a personal belief, that obviously in line with what he was supposed to be teaching, only way to know is to read their book, but Mohammed was said by Joseph Smith to be an inspired man so, how do you reconcile that? Truth is, you're never going to know.
I had a man I worked with once who said: "I don't care what they worship or what symbol they wear, if they want to worship a rock, let them worship a rock if it makes them a better person." Even if you die tomorrow and it's pitch black, even if you learn that there really isn't anything beyond this life, one you'll be dead and you wouldnt know any different. But take a good look at the rest of the world going on around you. If you need to be like those of the Amish community that send their kids out when they're 18 to escape the bubble and see the real world, if you need to leave Utah to see what the real world really is like, to meet "Christians", you'll look at your upbringing and say "wow, we're exactly like the kind of person Jesus taught us to be". Even if we learn Joseph Smith was a complete and total fraud, well, he didn't gain much of anything, monetarily from it so that plan failed miserably, and he died at a really young age so, what a way to go, but compared to the rest of the world, look at the kind of people he bred. I live around people that wear crosses and are gang bangers, because their pastor wanted to make money, full his collection plate, but they treat people horribly and lie and cheat and steal and beat each other to near death, and proudly wear their cross. That's not what Joseph Smith taught. He said show them through your actions. Pastors want to teach that their members show it through their actions, and the cross is a symbol, but that's not what I see everyday. I see people that say, "I'm saved" and they do whatever they want. Joseph Smith would teach: "If you're saved, then you would live like you're saved." Grace would change you to be better, not be an excuse to do what you want and then excuse the behavior.
Even if Joseph Smith is a fraud, there's no better a people organized to take care of others and actually treat people like people and be what Jesus would've taught and expected, it makes the most sense. If you're offended by it, well, okay, but there's no better an organization than this. Even those that leave the church have to respect the Church because it's the closest thing to the New Testament. Get outside your bubble, in mainstream Christianity, in the real world, it's every man for himself but in church on Sunday we'll play nice, but then nobody associates with each other. They show up to "fellowship" sit with people they know, and when the hour is up, they head to the store or go out to eat...... What happened to keep the Sabbath holy, six days shalt thou work but on the Sabbath rest? How about let others rest?
Don't be offended by it. Latter-day Saints are the best group of people (as a whole, as an organization), you're gonna find
The Urim & Thummim was the magic 8 ball of ancient Judea.
You given an outline for about 2 years worth of hour--long bi-weekly lessons, and (I'm guessing) you have many, many times that many years of living the truths you espouse.
@@randyjordan5521 All that is wicked, unless you're a prophet. lol.
@@agomodern Well, seeing as how the Book of Mormon is a fraud, maybe you can use that fact to determine whether his "seer stone" business was authentic or not.
Oh boy, it's very common for the LDS church to cover up stuff and pretend nothing ever happened. Oh yeah we taught this all along. Please! Give me a break! I was an active member of the church and never ever heard about this, nor saw it on church manuals, pictures, magazines, etc.
I believe it matters what he used and how he did it. I believe in a matter like this we should go by Joseph and Oliver’s statements as they were the main people involved. If he looked in a hat and just read the words he saw, that’s not exactly translating, just reading something off. I’ve learned a lot about this topic from the Stodard’s book Seer Stone vs. Urim and Thummin and Jonathan Nevil’s A Man who can translate.
Be very careful with Neville.
@@Empisee Yes, be very careful with Neville. He cites too many legitimate sources that the SITH sayers ignore, such as what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught.
Good work
Seer stone, witchcraft, divination, what's the diff?
I would say the difference is the source of power and authority behind the action. All witchcraft and divination is a counterfeit imitation of the power of God. The Bible speaks of gifts of the spirit such as the gift of discernment or the gift of prophecy, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues and the gift of the interpretation of tongues etc. all of these gifts are biblical and come from God.
Witchcraft is an attempt to wield such power without authority or without it coming from God but from the devil. Witchcraft is an imitation of something holy hence why it is evil.
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who was given spiritual gifts in order to restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ. His gift came from God. The manner by which he did this isn’t important. The Bible reinforces the idea that certain objects can be used by one who is called of God in order to do God’s will.
Like Moses’ staff. The serpent on the pole in the wilderness used to heal the Israelites from their snake bites.
The liahona which led Lehi’s family to the promised land.
Or the urum and thummim or seer stones used by Joseph smith.
All of these things were used to perform miracles, but the source of the power was always the same. These objects only work through faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to him. If there is no faith then there is no miracle.
When Lehi’s family was wicked the liahona stopped working. When Joseph had quarreled with someone or disobeyed the lord- the seer stone stopped working and he couldn’t translate. His abilities were actually taken from him at one time when he disobeyed the lord and he had to repent for many months before translation could continue.
The New Testament tells us how these things can be. The women with an issue of blood believed if she could but touch the hem of Jesus’ robe she would be healed. She touched him and was healed.
But it was not the garment that was inherently special. Christ told the woman it was her faith that made her well.
So it is with things like seers stones in the early church history. They work by faith in Jesus Christ and one’s willingness to follow his commandments.
Contrast that with witchcraft which is faith in one’s own power or in the power of some other god or nature spirit. Witchcraft denies the power of God, does not require faith in Christ or obedience to his teachings. Therefore the power of witchcraft comes from the devil who mimics holy things in order to lead others astray.
I’d say there’s a world of difference between the two
@@caitlinwhite237but he didn’t use the stones that were “with the plates”. He used the same stone he found digging a well and that he used to look for treasure.
It’s never bothered me in the least which miraculous method was used. I would have been fine with even a talking salamander after it was confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is true.
The problem is that Joseph Smith admitted that his claims of being able to "see" buried treasure via his stone-in-his-hat business in the mid-1820s was all a fraud---but then just a couple of years later, he claimed to be able to translate the golden plates via that same bogus method.
and how was the BOM confirmed to be true to you? if you say by the spirit, that is not valid by any means. even J.S. noted that logic is greater than the spirit or emotion. thus the "study it out in your mind" phrase. also, The BOM has false doctrine in it, so no, it is not true.
@@sertinduhm6378 You mean even though the Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:3-5 promises you can know the truth by Holy Ghost and even though it miraculously happened for me it’s not valid for me? I know what happened. I was there. No one can convince me otherwise. I know and I know God knows it. But again my experience was tailored for me and I don’t expect anyone to accept the truth of the Book of Mormon off my experience.
You know that the BOM teaches false doctrine, right jerry? furthermore, how can you tell that what you felt wasn't from Satan trying to deceive you?
@@sertinduhm6378 Satan doesn’t go around convincing others to be disciples of Christ. A house divided against itself will fall.
Good video
Thanks!
In our findings whether we know the real truth but the truth, only the Lord knows and Joseph Smith at that time. I feel that it’s better to leave where these things belong otherwise we are confusing or time consumed. Thank you anyway for your recollection on this subject.
Another fantastic video! Thank you!!!
I honestly don’t care how it was translated?
The book is real and so are the contents therein. If you’re in doubt try fabricating your bible and see if it can stand.
Well if you look at the Book of Mormon translation method and all of the shinanigans involving JS you get a lot of maybe's which add up to a probably a fictional book. Which is a huge problem since the belief is the Book of Mormon is the Keystone of the religion. Unfortunately early Mormon Prophets could not see past the day they were living to predict the internet, diaries and documents that would come to light to set the record straight at a future date. This is a very 19th century dated church that at some point won't have many members. But hey they will have root of all evil at least...Money!!! It's crazy to see this church can run just fine without members?!
Looks like Lehi's dream was actually predicting the Mormon church? Now that they are using big money and lawyers to steam roll small towns to build large and spacious buildings. And don't think Salt Lake isn't laughing and pointing fingers.
I love the fact that a rock was used. God has used rocks many times before for different purposes. But using it in a hat making the first personal movie theater that literally played the entire ancient history of the American people is truly a miracle. JS was absolutely with in biblical means in using the seer stone To See words upon it which seer stones were used anciently for! The power was not with in the rock it’s self, it was within the person who was using it!
Your list of references is missing the most recent book on this topic: By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration by Lucas and Neville (Digital Legend, 2023).
I was trying to focus on references from official Church publications, but even then I stopped after 1997 because they have become so frequent over the last couple of decades.
@@davidsnell2605 The book "By Means of the Urim & Thummim" covers all reliable sources relative to the issue, and shows that the reason the Church sources mention the seer stone so infrequently compared to the Jaredite/Nephite "Urim & Thummim" interpreters provided by the Lord for the translation (JS-H 1:35) is that all Church sources accepted Joseph and Oliver's repeated written testimonies that the translation was by means of these ancient interpreters, rather than some conspiracy to hide information about the late and unreliable stone-in-the-hat accounts. Your producer has been offered a complementary review copy of the book.
Don Bradley found out it was a beaver skin hat which would be consistent with the tabernacle being made of animal skin.
I think he used both the urim and thumim and seer stone. Maybe interchangeably.
He used both the urim in one hand and his thumim in the other flogging it whilst fornicating.
Why do you have these topics on your podcast. I’m not watching your podcast anymore……
Because this is a criticism many of of the church and the purpose of this TH-cam channel is apologetics - they contest the criticism. He is defending the church in this video.
Knowledge is a good thing. Then you can come to your own conclusion. My testimony is strengthened by this.
What topics would you like covered here?
Hey @salustone5657, what kind of topics might you like to see/listen to?
@@DesertPrimrose Is this channel monetized? I have adblocker so really curious to know.
of course. The LDS church teach about the seer stone.