After reading in "Saints" vol I the "peep stone" version stated as fact, it brought memories of when I was taught as a seminary student that "some people said .. ." But it was never taught as fact. Stating this peep stone version as fact bothered me so much I spent the next 2 1/2 years researching everything I could on the translation. I came to the same conclusion as you. It was not done with a peep stone! I had just begun to write down all my findings, to pass on to my posterity, when I stumbled upon your book. I purchased your book and found it to be exactly what I was going to write. I am grateful for your hard work in publishing that book. I truly hope more people will research it out for themselves. And best place to start, after reading the Book of Mormon, would be to read Seer Stone v Urim & Thummim.
Do you know what is telling to me? That our Church itself, in the latest Doctrine and Covenants / Church History "Come Follow Me" manual does not explicitly say that The Book of Mormon was translated using a seer stone, nor are there pictures of Joseph using a hat in that manual. Instead, it says: "We don't know many details about the miraculous translation process" and it mentions that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and implies that as a seer he understood how to use a seer stone and may have used it with the Book of Mormon, but says nothing else. And we already know and have documentation that he once corrected Hyrum (in 1831), who wanted him to give a talk on the topic, in a public meeting and said that "it was not intended (by the Lord) to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things." (Minutes of Conference at Orange Township, Ohio, October 25, 1831, parenthesis phrase added)
That's interesting, because that's pretty much exactly what I remember learning as a kid. I had sort of imagined that Joseph tried many different methods during the process. I always found it strange how the stories of Joseph preferring the seer stone over the Urim and Thummim didn't line up with the story of his first encounter with the Urim and Thummim, where he was shocked at what he could see. I know that the common reason given is that the size of the Urim and Thummim were too broad for his head, and he couldn't comfortably look through both glasses/stones. Although, the more that I listen to Hannah Stoddard, the more I'm convinced that the Seer Stones, if they played a role in Church history at all, it wasn't a major one, as we've been led to think by some.
Honestly, it seems very strange to me that Joseph would have used anything other than the provided interpreters or Urim and Thummim. The Gospel Topics essay doesn't give very good justification for the idea that Joseph and his associates used the term to refer to any such seership objects. Furthermore, it's a really good point to make that why would God provide an instrument only for Joseph not to use it? Even if Joseph was making the whole thing up, why would he make up a device for his story, and then not employ it in his narrative? What do people at FAIR think about all of this? Has any of them taken the time to do a published review of the Stoddard's work? I haven't found any evidence they've done so, but this is kind of important. We can't be taking the words of those who meant to discredit or use Joseph and the Church as credible sources of historical information. If Hugh Nibley rejected these sources, then I'm pretty sure it's a good choice to reject them.
I feel blessed that I personally dont care how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. I read it for the first time 27 years ago and it changed my life. I still read it and feel the Spirit every time. ❤
I love this. Thank you. I was never told about a peep stone, in primary or Sunday School, and now I know why. When I first of a peep stone in a hat, it rubbed me wrong. Yet I was told it was part of the history, so I just kind of expected it. It feels good to know that Joseph really did translate the way I was originally taught.
Seer stones aren’t that weird and aren’t an occult thing. Just like divining rods. I don’t know if he used them to translate, but he obviously had them. And he said he was a money digger, so that’s not inappropriate either. If you read old journals from cowboys or farmers, they knew about these things. I believe they had a stronger sense of intuition than we do sometimes, because they were more connected to the earth and seasons. It’s just different channels of revelation. Just like dreams or an inspired sacrament meeting talk. Like I said, I don’t know if he used them to translate. But D&C 9 is a pretty good description of how they work.
I was impressed with the research and thought behind Stoddard's book Seer Stone v. Urim and Thummim. Use James 1:5 if anyone wants to verify the truth on this issue. Thank you! God will open your mind on the issue. Trust not in the arm of flesh.
I'm 70 years old at this time. I remember getting a box of cracker jacks with a price in it. I really like it when I got the little plastic magnifying glasses. You can save them up and put three of them together and you can burn an ant with the sunlight. I wouldn't care if Joseph Smith used three little plastic cracker Jack magnifying glasses to translate The book of Mormon . I love the stories, theology, and the passion the writers expressed. I do not have any literary degree. I think that this is not a book that a common person or even many well educated people could write. I believe it is the word of God. Enough said.
I wish Hannah would not have interupted her father so much. I would love to know about other recordings of James Stoddard. Sad that his former wife is so full of negativity towards James work. Just makes me want to listen to him more...
But they aren't. The interpreters are spectacles with two clear stones in a bow attached to a breast plate that were divinely designed and prepared by God vor the purpose of translation. The seer stone is a rock jospeh found in a field.
The Church itself has the Gospel Topics Essays (which I assume the 1st Presidency knows about and sanctions) in which they state clearly that a seer stone was used. The Church has a TH-cam channel with videos "Now You Know" (cartoons and kind of corny in my opinion) and one is dedicated to showing how Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate. So are you with the current Church today or are you starting your own orthodox branch of the Church? I am really confused by this whole video and going against the churches current teachings? Yes like you said it seems they hid this for a long time and just recently came out with it. @josephsmithfoundation
When it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon, it is important to keep in mind that this is a historical issue. Joseph Fielding Smith was also a president of the Church (and served as Church historian for decades) and he stated his firm understanding that the seer stone narrative was "hearsay." So today we are ending up in a situation where we have two different Presidents (both authorized keyholders, etc.) expressing two different opinions on this historical matter. However, the only President of the Church who really knew what happened was Joseph Smith because he was the only one who was there and involved. We would submit he has the final say and we should go back to his own words. Pretty simple!
@@JosephSmithFoundation Well all presidents of the church and the twelve that served with them at the time, are all prophets, seers, and revelators. So why in the world do they not go "inquire of the Lord" and find the truth and come and tell us? Or better yet! Why don't we all individually go "inquire of the Lord" and find out the truth of all things? Oh right, we don't believe in that kind of revelation anymore. . . So sad.
Some great points - my only concern with "accounts many years later when there are other motives" sounds just like the accusations on polygamy - "many affidavits decades later at a time when it was in the church's interest to prove it started with Joseph Smith". What did the Lord reveal? My house is a house of order and not confusion" - I think in the world of 40 character Twitter dialogues - the willingness of people to wade through the confusion is limited- and, the gap between the story of the 1980s and the messiness of today - I fear the challenge will be great.
The Holy Ghost testified to me the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon says it all, and set me in all tranquility pertaining to restoration, and the great latter day works. What the Holy Ghost taught me through the grace of Christ is such a sinner like me that matter most to me. Thank you for being steadfast in Christ, his works, and his Gospel that made fully operative through the prophet Joseph Smith.
The book is "Seer Stone v. Urim & Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial." You can get it on Amazon or our online store. josephsmithfoundation.org/store/product/seer-stone-v-urim-thummim-book-of-mormon-translation-on-trial-book/ www.amazon.com/Seer-Stone-Urim-Thummim-Translation/dp/1644670119
If we accept that the prophets were human and make the odd mistake from time to time can we not still sustain them? I don't remember modern prophets ever making any kind of deceleration of doctrine regarding sear stone.
They absolutely do sustain our modern day prophets; where they find a disconnect is more with our church history department in the last decade, or so, allowing the historical narrative to change by allowing unreliable and often anti Mormon or antagonistic sources as valid.
When Joseph first came into possession of the plates, he was forbidden to show them (or anything) to anyone. This included his own wife. Despite this, Joseph began trying to translate the plates with help from Emma and David Whitmer, both acting as scribes. Since he couldn't show them anything, the plates remained covered and the Urim & Thummim were also concealed (also in his hat?) So Joseph was seen placing a small stone in his hat (as he intended) and then his own face, effectively keeping the U&T concealed from view? The whole process was therefore, a pretence in order to be obedient to the Lord and preserve his own life, for he had been told he would be destroyed if he failed to be obedient. (see Joseph Smith-History.) I don't believe the Lord was unaware of this little pretence. (D&C 5:4) This might also explain Joseph's reluctance to discuss (in detail) the translation process and Joseph's willingness to give the stone away, saying he had no further use of it. As well as the eye-witness statements of both Emma and David. A necessary ruse back then, a South Park joke and stumbling block today.
@danvogel6802. Have you written a rebuttal to both books produced by the Joseph Smith Foundation on this subject? If they are not accurately presenting the material, then it should be easy to point that out. I for one would appreciate a rebuttal of what their books are claiming if you know of any.
The spite and arrogance of your comment Mr. Vogel is all I need to confirm your bias and hate against the LDS people. Thank you for confirming your faux truth-seeker on-line persona.
The level of apologetic critique here is astounding. You’re willing to dismiss sources critical of the church and Joseph but you see no issue with pro church sources potentially having their biases as well. Very weak arguments with little reflection.
I believe you are on the right track. But, how do you deal with this. I don't know where this video comes from. It's a clip from a larger presentation. th-cam.com/video/DG181zFA5YM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=25VTC0g3raesTEA6
Hannah: Thanks for reaching out! I believe when it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon, it is important to keep in mind that this is a historical issue. Joseph Fielding Smith was also a president of the Church (and served as Church historian for decades) and he stated his firm understanding that the seer stone narrative was "hearsay." So today we are ending up in a situation where we have two different Presidents (both authorized keyholders, etc.) expressing two different opinions on this historical matter. However, the only one who really knew what happened was Joseph Smith. He was the only President of the Church who was there (and the only man who actually successfully performed the translation) and I would submit he has the final say and we should go back to his own words. Pretty simple! Hope that helps.
In this particular clip I find it significant to hear President Nelson say, “We have a lot of suggestions of how it was done…” After his demonstration he never qualifies this theory as more than a “suggestion” of historical events. Likely suggested in my opinion by several prominent church historians of today.
That was quite possibly the least objective conversation regarding history that I have ever heard. Your only criteria for judging historical accuracy seems to be: "Joseph Smith's honor must be defended at all cost, and anyone who has anything negative to say about brother Joseph must have questionable motives."
I learned of the seer stone, etc .. from my mother who was the only member of my immediate family who has been through the Temple .. come on people. Ugh
I appreciate all the good research being done by these faithful historians. But I think this controversies are all a distraction and perhaps it is more important to be grounded in your testimony by studying the Book of Mormon, the fruit of the Spirit and go do temple work and gather Israel. Going down historic rabbit holes will not strengthen your testimony if you aren't studying, serving and living the doctrine of Christ.
William McClellin is a very questionable figure in church history. I question everything he wrote. Fortunately we can see his hand in changing recorded history in the Joseph Smith Papers. Most likely William McClellin distorted Emma's words and statements in her later years!
For the part she was involved in before Oliver came she claimed that Joseph used the interpreters not the seer stone. She said he used the stone after the lost pages. But she was not in involved in that part of the translation. So why would I trust her opinion on something she wasn't actually a witness of? And her claims of the seer stone come from an interview on her death bed given by Joseph Smith III decades after the events. He published it after she died, then years later rejected what he said she told him about the translation and concluded the the BoM was translated using the interpreters and not the seer stone.
![[Gegagedigedagedago] NEW Help Gegagedigedagedago Nugget escape from Nikocado Avocado Challenge](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJWnwRC2Fz8/mqdefault.jpg)
After reading in "Saints" vol I the "peep stone" version stated as fact, it brought memories of when I was taught as a seminary student that "some people said .. ." But it was never taught as fact. Stating this peep stone version as fact bothered me so much I spent the next 2 1/2 years researching everything I could on the translation.
I came to the same conclusion as you. It was not done with a peep stone! I had just begun to write down all my findings, to pass on to my posterity, when I stumbled upon your book.
I purchased your book and found it to be exactly what I was going to write.
I am grateful for your hard work in publishing that book.
I truly hope more people will research it out for themselves. And best place to start, after reading the Book of Mormon, would be to read Seer Stone v Urim & Thummim.
You've got an amen! It should be required reading.
Moroni took back the plates and the U&T. The seer stone is in Salt Lake...hardly a holy relic...
Me too, hence stopped reading Saints, unfortunately so many use it as fact, when it is a novella.
Do you know what is telling to me? That our Church itself, in the latest Doctrine and Covenants / Church History "Come Follow Me" manual does not explicitly say that The Book of Mormon was translated using a seer stone, nor are there pictures of Joseph using a hat in that manual. Instead, it says: "We don't know many details about the miraculous translation process" and it mentions that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and implies that as a seer he understood how to use a seer stone and may have used it with the Book of Mormon, but says nothing else. And we already know and have documentation that he once corrected Hyrum (in 1831), who wanted him to give a talk on the topic, in a public meeting and said that "it was not intended (by the Lord) to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things." (Minutes of Conference at Orange Township, Ohio, October 25, 1831, parenthesis phrase added)
That's interesting, because that's pretty much exactly what I remember learning as a kid. I had sort of imagined that Joseph tried many different methods during the process. I always found it strange how the stories of Joseph preferring the seer stone over the Urim and Thummim didn't line up with the story of his first encounter with the Urim and Thummim, where he was shocked at what he could see. I know that the common reason given is that the size of the Urim and Thummim were too broad for his head, and he couldn't comfortably look through both glasses/stones. Although, the more that I listen to Hannah Stoddard, the more I'm convinced that the Seer Stones, if they played a role in Church history at all, it wasn't a major one, as we've been led to think by some.
I feel very blessed to hear this... I have had a feeling about this my whole life.
Thank you for standing for truth!!!
Honestly, it seems very strange to me that Joseph would have used anything other than the provided interpreters or Urim and Thummim. The Gospel Topics essay doesn't give very good justification for the idea that Joseph and his associates used the term to refer to any such seership objects. Furthermore, it's a really good point to make that why would God provide an instrument only for Joseph not to use it? Even if Joseph was making the whole thing up, why would he make up a device for his story, and then not employ it in his narrative? What do people at FAIR think about all of this? Has any of them taken the time to do a published review of the Stoddard's work? I haven't found any evidence they've done so, but this is kind of important. We can't be taking the words of those who meant to discredit or use Joseph and the Church as credible sources of historical information. If Hugh Nibley rejected these sources, then I'm pretty sure it's a good choice to reject them.
I feel blessed that I personally dont care how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
I read it for the first time 27 years ago and it changed my life. I still read it and feel the Spirit every time. ❤
I love this. Thank you. I was never told about a peep stone, in primary or Sunday School, and now I know why. When I first of a peep stone in a hat, it rubbed me wrong. Yet I was told it was part of the history, so I just kind of expected it. It feels good to know that Joseph really did translate the way I was originally taught.
17:25 - Excellent discussion! I love what Hannah says here. Amen! 🙏🏼❤️
Love you Hannah! You try to be objective, which is always a good thing!
Thank you for bringing light to this topic.
Seer stones aren’t that weird and aren’t an occult thing. Just like divining rods.
I don’t know if he used them to translate, but he obviously had them. And he said he was a money digger, so that’s not inappropriate either.
If you read old journals from cowboys or farmers, they knew about these things. I believe they had a stronger sense of intuition than we do sometimes, because they were more connected to the earth and seasons. It’s just different channels of revelation. Just like dreams or an inspired sacrament meeting talk.
Like I said, I don’t know if he used them to translate. But D&C 9 is a pretty good description of how they work.
You are all brilliant! Amazing souls are here protecting our good Prophet's name and family sacrifice! Faithful seekers🦄🦄🦄🦄
Thank you to the Stoddard and others who are combating the apostates within and without the Church.
I was impressed with the research and thought behind Stoddard's book Seer Stone v. Urim and Thummim. Use James 1:5 if anyone wants to verify the truth on this issue. Thank you! God will open your mind on the issue. Trust not in the arm of flesh.
I'm 70 years old at this time. I remember getting a box of cracker jacks with a price in it. I really like it when I got the little plastic magnifying glasses. You can save them up and put three of them together and you can burn an ant with the sunlight. I wouldn't care if Joseph Smith used three little plastic cracker Jack magnifying glasses to translate The book of Mormon . I love the stories, theology, and the passion the writers expressed. I do not have any literary degree. I think that this is not a book that a common person or even many well educated people could write. I believe it is the word of God. Enough said.
Thank you. I hope this comes across the prophets desk one day
Grateful for this video.
I wish Hannah would not have interupted her father so much. I would love to know about other recordings of James Stoddard. Sad that his former wife is so full of negativity towards James work. Just makes me want to listen to him more...
The Lord refers to the interpreters as a stone (Alma 37:23-24). The seer stone and the interpreters may be the same thing.
But they aren't. The interpreters are spectacles with two clear stones in a bow attached to a breast plate that were divinely designed and prepared by God vor the purpose of translation. The seer stone is a rock jospeh found in a field.
The Church itself has the Gospel Topics Essays (which I assume the 1st Presidency knows about and sanctions) in which they state clearly that a seer stone was used. The Church has a TH-cam channel with videos "Now You Know" (cartoons and kind of corny in my opinion) and one is dedicated to showing how Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate. So are you with the current Church today or are you starting your own orthodox branch of the Church? I am really confused by this whole video and going against the churches current teachings? Yes like you said it seems they hid this for a long time and just recently came out with it. @josephsmithfoundation
When it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon, it is important to keep in mind that this is a historical issue. Joseph Fielding Smith was also a president of the Church (and served as Church historian for decades) and he stated his firm understanding that the seer stone narrative was "hearsay." So today we are ending up in a situation where we have two different Presidents (both authorized keyholders, etc.) expressing two different opinions on this historical matter. However, the only President of the Church who really knew what happened was Joseph Smith because he was the only one who was there and involved. We would submit he has the final say and we should go back to his own words. Pretty simple!
@@JosephSmithFoundation Well all presidents of the church and the twelve that served with them at the time, are all prophets, seers, and revelators. So why in the world do they not go "inquire of the Lord" and find the truth and come and tell us? Or better yet! Why don't we all individually go "inquire of the Lord" and find out the truth of all things? Oh right, we don't believe in that kind of revelation anymore. . . So sad.
Just ordered the book!
Thanks guys
I like this but know when you start an in investigation to prove a point, the only evidence you find is what proves your point.
Really fascinating.
Some great points - my only concern with "accounts many years later when there are other motives" sounds just like the accusations on polygamy - "many affidavits decades later at a time when it was in the church's interest to prove it started with Joseph Smith". What did the Lord reveal? My house is a house of order and not confusion" - I think in the world of 40 character Twitter dialogues - the willingness of people to wade through the confusion is limited- and, the gap between the story of the 1980s and the messiness of today - I fear the challenge will be great.
So it only took 2 persons to debunk the seer stones narrative after how many decades of mormon historians before, were all wrong.
Correct. Deal with it.
The Holy Ghost testified to me the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon says it all, and set me in all tranquility pertaining to restoration, and the great latter day works. What the Holy Ghost taught me through the grace of Christ is such a sinner like me that matter most to me.
Thank you for being steadfast in Christ, his works, and his Gospel that made fully operative through the prophet Joseph Smith.
It appears you are promoting a book. What is its name?
The book is "Seer Stone v. Urim & Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial." You can get it on Amazon or our online store.
josephsmithfoundation.org/store/product/seer-stone-v-urim-thummim-book-of-mormon-translation-on-trial-book/
www.amazon.com/Seer-Stone-Urim-Thummim-Translation/dp/1644670119
@@JosephSmithFoundation thank you, the JSF info is great. Look forward to getting it
So your saying the LDS church and modern prophets of god are teaching untruths? Do you sustain our modern day prophets?
If we accept that the prophets were human and make the odd mistake from time to time can we not still sustain them? I don't remember modern prophets ever making any kind of deceleration of doctrine regarding sear stone.
They absolutely do sustain our modern day prophets; where they find a disconnect is more with our church history department in the last decade, or so, allowing the historical narrative to change by allowing unreliable and often anti Mormon or antagonistic sources as valid.
@@joechristiansen6016 The truth is truth unfortunately for many Mormons they choose to ignore it. Joseph Smith is a provable and demonstratable fraud.
When Joseph first came into possession of the plates, he was forbidden to show them (or anything) to anyone. This included his own wife. Despite this, Joseph began trying to translate the plates with help from Emma and David Whitmer, both acting as scribes.
Since he couldn't show them anything, the plates remained covered and the Urim & Thummim were also concealed (also in his hat?)
So Joseph was seen placing a small stone in his hat (as he intended) and then his own face, effectively keeping the U&T concealed from view?
The whole process was therefore, a pretence in order to be obedient to the Lord and preserve his own life, for he had been told he would be destroyed if he failed to be obedient. (see Joseph Smith-History.)
I don't believe the Lord was unaware of this little pretence. (D&C 5:4)
This might also explain Joseph's reluctance to discuss (in detail) the translation process and Joseph's willingness to give the stone away, saying he had no further use of it. As well as the eye-witness statements of both Emma and David.
A necessary ruse back then, a South Park joke and stumbling block today.
David whitmer was never a scribe. You are thinking of Martin Harris
Ultimately they are trying to discredit the Book of Mormon.
None of you know what you are talking about or how to analyze historical sources.
@danvogel6802. Have you written a rebuttal to both books produced by the Joseph Smith Foundation on this subject? If they are not accurately presenting the material, then it should be easy to point that out. I for one would appreciate a rebuttal of what their books are claiming if you know of any.
Arrogant much?
Your moment to shine and this was your comment? This was the best you could come up with? Lazy effort at best especially for an ex-mo.
The spite and arrogance of your comment Mr. Vogel is all I need to confirm your bias and hate against the LDS people. Thank you for confirming your faux truth-seeker on-line persona.
@@alexspencer247he’s been awfully silent after this one 😂
The level of apologetic critique here is astounding. You’re willing to dismiss sources critical of the church and Joseph but you see no issue with pro church sources potentially having their biases as well. Very weak arguments with little reflection.
When weighing sources does it matter when people lie?
I didn’t see that problem here.
I’m confused by this all. So he didn’t use one particular magic stone but another two…?
Someone clear this up for me..
I believe you are on the right track. But, how do you deal with this. I don't know where this video comes from. It's a clip from a larger presentation.
th-cam.com/video/DG181zFA5YM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=25VTC0g3raesTEA6
Hannah: Thanks for reaching out! I believe when it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon, it is important to keep in mind that this is a historical issue. Joseph Fielding Smith was also a president of the Church (and served as Church historian for decades) and he stated his firm understanding that the seer stone narrative was "hearsay." So today we are ending up in a situation where we have two different Presidents (both authorized keyholders, etc.) expressing two different opinions on this historical matter. However, the only one who really knew what happened was Joseph Smith. He was the only President of the Church who was there (and the only man who actually successfully performed the translation) and I would submit he has the final say and we should go back to his own words. Pretty simple! Hope that helps.
@@JosephSmithFoundationThank you, As a family historian. I understand, the importance of original historic source documents.
In this particular clip I find it significant to hear President Nelson say, “We have a lot of suggestions of how it was done…” After his demonstration he never qualifies this theory as more than a “suggestion” of historical events. Likely suggested in my opinion by several prominent church historians of today.
That was quite possibly the least objective conversation regarding history that I have ever heard. Your only criteria for judging historical accuracy seems to be: "Joseph Smith's honor must be defended at all cost, and anyone who has anything negative to say about brother Joseph must have questionable motives."
I learned of the seer stone, etc .. from my mother who was the only member of my immediate family who has been through the Temple .. come on people. Ugh
Irrelevant.
and your point is….?
I appreciate all the good research being done by these faithful historians.
But I think this controversies are all a distraction and perhaps it is more important to be grounded in your testimony by studying the Book of Mormon, the fruit of the Spirit and go do temple work and gather Israel. Going down historic rabbit holes will not strengthen your testimony if you aren't studying, serving and living the doctrine of Christ.
William McClellin is a very questionable figure in church history. I question everything he wrote. Fortunately we can see his hand in changing recorded history in the Joseph Smith Papers. Most likely William McClellin distorted Emma's words and statements in her later years!
Well…. The missionaries are teaching about the Seer stone and the hat to the investigators
How do you know?
Hmmm
Love all this but you guys need to stop stepping on each other. It gets chaotic lol
It all makes sense if you never study history
That statement makes no sense when you aren’t prepared to talk about this “history” you reference.
Interesting. Your argument about moroni 7 is circular though.
I love much of what you guys do, but how can you honestly discredit Emma’s eye witness account?? She was there as his scribe for a while as well.
For the part she was involved in before Oliver came she claimed that Joseph used the interpreters not the seer stone. She said he used the stone after the lost pages. But she was not in involved in that part of the translation. So why would I trust her opinion on something she wasn't actually a witness of?
And her claims of the seer stone come from an interview on her death bed given by Joseph Smith III decades after the events. He published it after she died, then years later rejected what he said she told him about the translation and concluded the the BoM was translated using the interpreters and not the seer stone.
Seer Stones are used by Sorcerers. Plain and simple.