Professor Dirkmaat is one of my FAVORITE teachers. His grasp on history, his teaching abilities, and his general happy and engaging energy are all just addictive. Love him!
A hat and Seer Stone: I don't know why anyone need be thrown by the stone. Moses was presented with a burning bush that did not consume. What if Joseph Smith was given an ignited tumbleweed? What if a talking horse? It’s not really my business how the Lord chooses to bring forth His words. Yet it’s nice to hear slice of Gerrit Dirkmaat’s insight and light. I love his incisive Faithful Perspective.
@@harryhenderson2479 You are right Harry, brother of illumination. It has nothing to do with magic, and bushes don’t talk. But there is a God, and he can do remarkable things. Talk to him and listen with your heart. Cheers to you! 🙏🏽
I've heard A LOT of people say, "Well, we were taught our whole lives that Joseph used the breastplate, Urim and Thummim and the spectacles combined. I wondered the same thing, but as a senior missionary in Palmyra explained, "Does it really matter *how* the Book of Mormon was translated? Aren't we just glad we have it?" And you know what? He's right! It doesn't matter!
I'll tell you what Moses didn't do with his staff, he didn't scam people out of their money claiming that he was able to find lost objects and treasures buried underground protected by guardian spirits. Either those things are real or he was a con man that changed his career and became a prophet.
I liked the simplicity of his message and going to the witnesses and sources that were a part of the translation process at that time. Too many are confused and mislead by unsubstantiated claims and unreliable sources.
When the picture of the seer stone was released by The Church, I was teaching a youth Sunday school about Spiritual Self Reliance. I gave the lesson and then asked the question, what would you think if someone told you that Joseph used a stone in a hat to translate the BOM. It was eye opening to see those who were completely obstinate about it. It was also great to see those who were hesitant but curious, as well as waiting for me to say just kidding. I opened the images on my phone and showed the youth. PERFECT example of being Spiritually Self Reliant, that if someone says something or shows something that is foreign to our understanding and belief, that we can be firm in our beliefs but open to learning the actual details. Even if they are hard to understand or hear. Also realizing that not everything prophetic is like the parting of the Red Sea.
I just used my Urim (made by Apple) to read a message from a patient of mine today. I used its Thummin mode to send a message back. Or maybe it was vice versa. Its a good think I had the faith to charge it during the night.
I love listening to Gerrit also. He and Dan Peterson did a great job on the Witnesses 'Insights' episodes on the Interpreter Foundation website related to the excellent "Witnesses" movie that the Interpreter Foundation did a couple of years ago. I highly recommend that movie and also all the 'Insights' episodes I mentioned. Thanks for sharing this interview! I loved at the end when he said that however you want to believe regarding the actual details of how Joseph Smith did the Book of Mormon translation, the most important aspect of it is that it was translated by the gift and power of God. That is good enough for me :)
Wow. Great guest and insight. Felt a bit abruptly cut off at the end? I LOVE the part where he explains that you cannot dissect a miracle. You can’t technically explain it. And that how we should look at the translation of the Book of Mormon. Side note. It was a treat for me that he talks about Joseph Knight Sr. who I am a direct descendant of. Super cool:). Thanks! Loved this.
Fan-freaking-tastic! He has such a good spirit in his approach to this. A rather absurd restoration indeed, but I love how our father always keeps it simple, elegant even. This brother has a thorough grasp on the dichotomy we are faced with while trying to understanding how this all came about. I daresay the holy Spirit has certainly walked with him. 🕊️
I believe Hannah Stoddard and the use of the Urim and Thummim way more than the sources who claimed there was a stone in a hat. We will look back on this time as a brief aberration when some people were confused about the translation process.
The process fits the description of using a Camera Obscura and the seer stones are repeatedly described as biconvex glass lenses. Abraham 3 describes the Urim and Thummim as a primitive Galileo style telescope according to Hugh Nibley. "Light and Perfection", one lens to collect the light and the other to perfect (focus) it. I don't see the problem with using glass technology like magnifying glasses, telescopes and camera obscuras to explain seer stones in scripture. They are still technology, gifted by God, that assist the prophet just like satellite television is technology, gifted by God, that assists the prophet today during general conference. The Urim and Thummim Moses had was "spyglass" technology to know when to go to war. This would be an advantage over the enemy and the Bible says Moses had "spies". Thinking of the Urim and Thummim as a telescope explains why God lives near Kolob (a seer stone) and why the Earth will become a seer stone. This is how a physical God can be "All Seeing". He is using a galactic telescope (so to speak) to physically "see" the universe. As a physical being, He cannot be in two places at once. Scripture says Kolob is a "seer stone' but now you can actually see how it works. It's a telescope and it works off the physical properties of optics.
It's interesting that the holy of holies, where the Israelite urim and thummim were used in the presence of The Lord, was pitch black, and that the stones would light up though the breast plate to give the answer to a question by patterns/letters. Sounds like Joseph had a "simple" variation of that
I'm a scholar of the Love, acceptance and forgiveness of The Father with His Son Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit and His invitation to be born again into His Kingdom. Is that to simple or should I make it more complex tangling it up with vain practices, methods and requirements?
"And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls." - Including little stones. Including weird metal balls. Including sticks. Including big boxes with angel figures on top. For me, contemplating the seer stone has strengthened my conviction and devotion to the Book of Mormon, the Restoration, and the Church. It's a weird image to "anybody" who lives in a post-industrial, materialist, disenchanted culture (particularly one built on a foundation of Puritan austerity). It isn't so strange to people living in other kinds of cultures, like 1830 Pennsylvania. Section 8 verses 6-9 refer to a rod through which Oliver Cowdery received revelations. Seer stones are known in the Pennsylvania Dutch tradition of Braucherei or Pow-wow, commonly called "folk magic" but more of a practice of asking God for miracles, recognizing the usefulness of "means" in doing so. Other practitioners of what may be called "magic" or "the occult" are also quite familiar with the use of various "means." Embarrassment or incredulity about Joseph's translation methods betrays a lingering commitment to a mechanistic and materialist worldview. Instead, we have the opportunity to glory in an enchanted world.
Your question assumes that inspired translation works only the way YOU think it should work. There are many examples from the scriptures of people being required to do things in ways that might make you wonder why there wasn’t a simpler way: Why was Noah commanded to build a ship when God could just strike everyone dead and leave Noah where he was? Why was Moses required to use a staff to perform miracles before Pharaoh when God could just strike Pharaoh dead or teleport the Israelites out of Egypt? Why were the Israelites under Joshua told to walk seven times around Jericho and blow their trumpets when the Lord could just knock down the city walls? In each case, the Lord’s process involved faith and action on the part of the people involved. Joseph Smith used objects to translate because that’s the system that played to his abilities and allowed him to exercise enough faith in the Lord to accomplish the task.
@@gatecrashercanadamb Again, you’re assuming that God reveals things to everyone the way YOU think he should reveal them, and that there are “better” ways for him to do it based on what YOU think is better. Do you think you know better than God how to reveal things to people? It seems like you do.
@@MrWhipple42 nope. I just said there are many ways God can reveal things but the best way is direct communication. That’s not simply MY interpretation but common sense. Imagine playing the telephone game where God tells the first person something and passes it along to multiple people and then finally to you OR he just tells you directly. Which is better?
G'day, hello from Sydney Australia What difference does understanding the translation make? Well, when is comes to your testimony about the truth of the book of Mormon... It makes absolutely no difference! LoL. However the issue (and I say issue instead of problem because I truly don't believe it to a problem per say) is that until a couple of decades ago. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints (ie the Wards/local congregations) misinterpreted a fundamental aspect of the coming forth of the book of Mormon. So it's important to ask. How and why did this happen? And How can we stop this (or similar things) from happening again? Last but not least. If anybody has any doubt about how ubiquitous this misbelief was. Or exactly what it was that former LDS members believed? You just have to look at LDS Church artwork throughout the 19 century (and throughout most of the 20 century). You'll find that depictions (and therefore belief) of Joseph Smith translating the book of Mormon while wearing the urim and thummim and sitting next to the golden plates were widespread and commonplace.
@@dr33776 If you dig a little deeper, if you would like to, you’ll find that, he advised the person he was working for to stop doing it. Of course, if you’re only interested in belittling, you will never find such a thing! I grew up in a poor family. But nowhere near the poverty of the Smiths!
@@GlenLawlor "So what"? My friend the nuance of LDS history is "So everything"... We are absolutely BLESSED to be compiling LDS history only 178 years after Joseph Smith's death. It's important to realise that even with moden day technology the further into the future you go the harder writing an accurate history of the past is. it's so incredibly, incredibly important that we ensure that we're safeguarding accurate LDS history for future generations. Because it's an unfortunate fact of history. That the more that time goes by, the harder it becomes to discern fact from fiction Look at the New Testament for example. It's been 2000 years since the crucifixion of Jesus and the amount of conjecture, uncertainty, and speculation that historians have to wade through is absolutely enormous. Believe you me, other Christian denominations would give their right arm to be able to go back in time to 200 CE and ensure that some ancient scribs preserves a near contemporary biography of Jesus Christs life. Because the fact is that the only original texts that we have from that era are only about the size of a credit card and therefore incredibly incomplete. We need to make sure that never happens to us....
@matthewclaridge8063 Your original question is a good one, and there’s a long and complicated history behind it that can’t be fully explained in a TH-cam comment. The shortest explanation I can give you is: (a) The seer stone translation accounts were published by the Church in the 19th century. (b) Joseph Fielding Smith became Church Historian in the early 20th century. He personally didn’t like the eyewitness account of the seer stone, and he published his opinion about that. (c) Joseph Fielding Smith outlived everyone else, and his books were used by people who created Church curriculum starting in the 1960s. (d) Church leaders who followed him were unwilling to throw him under the bus, so it’s taken 40-50 years to finally move past his well-meaning but incorrect interpretations and get back to what the earliest witnesses say. It’s unfortunate that it happened this way, but all we can do is try to make things right going forward. Your other claim that "the more that time goes by, the harder it becomes to discern fact from fiction" is incorrect in this case. We have more eyewitness statements and source documents about the Restoration available now than we ever have, and more of them are publicly available than there have ever been. For a long time we had an incomplete view of early events in the Restoration (in part due to Joseph Fielding Smith’s influence), but we’re now swimming in source materials by comparison. We’re in a much better position to understand Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon than we ever have been. This is entirely UNLIKE the scanty and incomplete documentary history from the 2nd century A.D.
What difference does it make? The Urim and Thummim were seer stones in a spectacle type unit. Same things either way. The hat would have blocked out light making reading easier.
G'day, hello from Sydney Australia What difference does it make? Well when is comes to your testimony about the truth of the book of Mormon... It makes absolutely no difference! LoL. However the issue (and I say issue instead of problem because I truly don't believe it to a problem per say) is that until a couple of decades ago. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints (ie the Wards/local congregations) misinterpreted a fundamental aspect of the coming forth of the book of Mormon. So it's important to ask. How and why did this happen? And How can we stop this (or similar things) from happening again? Last but not least. If anybody has any doubt about how ubiquitous this misbelief was or exactly what it was that former LDS members believed? You just have to look at LDS Church artwork throughout the 19 century (and throughout most of the 20 century). You'll find that depictions (and therefore belief) of Joseph Smith translating the book of Mormon while wearing the urim and thummim and sitting next to the golden plates were widespread and commonplace
@@dr33776 Your statement is false. People who knew Joseph Smith (including people who rejected his religious claims) testified, in writing and in court proceedings, that he had a gift to find lost objects, and there are written statements of him successfully doing exactly that.
@MrWhipple42 some said he found lost objects "too well" (i.e. he hid them and used his seer stone to find them). Listen to yourself, to this day, con men are still defended by the people they defraud. Old people are scammed all the time but somehow they still think the people that rob them are not scamming them. Charismatic people tend to read people well and play into their emotions. Otherwise, why did Mr. Stowells sons accused smith of being an imposter? They could see through smiths lies and still mr stowell defended smith even though they never found anything. Some testimony of a supertitious person is not the best evidence. Let's go to the provable tests, did he find any treasures in the years he was involved in digging? No. Did he find the treasure when he went to Salem? No. Why didn't he use the seer stone to find the 116 pages? When things were outside his control, all of the sudden his gift was worthless. Now tell me, do you believe there are people out there in the world that are clairvoyant and can find missing objects? Go and talk to your bishop about going to mediums or card readers and see what he has to say. That's essentially what smith did before he was "called" to be a prophet.
I have a theory that Joseph already had the Urim and Thummim in the hat and was only seen to be putting the "seer" stone in the hat for the benefit of those who witnessed him do so. Then he put his face in the hat, concealing everything. How else could the translation have continued when Joseph was under strict commandment from the Lord, not to reveal anything to anybody? This included Emma. So Joseph's chocolate-colored stone was a ruse and the whole process was a diversion. I believe the Lord was fully aware of this pretense (see D&C 5:4) I also believe Joseph was happy when this was no longer a requirement and happy to give the thing away "as he had no further use of it." This also explains his reluctance to discuss in detail, the translation process. Regardless, the answer is contained in the preface to the Book of Mormon and this makes no mention of Joseph's pretty, river rock. I'm sick of being a South Park joke and hearing apologetic Church leaders and historians, trying to smooth things over. The translation was by the gift and power of God and nothing else.
Your alternative explanation is deeply flawed. There were many witnesses to the translation process, and not a single one of them ever so much as hinted or speculated that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat simply as a "demonstration." At all stages of the translation-from Martin Harris and Emma Smith's early service as scribes to the many witnesses at the Whitmer home-the repeated statements of those who participated are consistently on the side of the stone in the hat. Your interpretation of the word "pretend" in D&C 5:4 is also mistaken. In 1829, it had a wider meaning of "to claim," whether truly or falsely. What the Lord was telling Joseph was that he had only one spiritual gift at that time (translation), and that he shouldn't claim any other spiritual gifts until the translation was finished. Your theory has to throw out virtually all the eyewitness testimony simply because you're uncomfortable with what the witnesses said. That's not how historians deal with evidence. South Park mocked something sacred, but that doesn't make what it mocked untrue.
I'm sure Professor Dirkmaat is a nice guy, but his statements in this video and his book on the translation grossly distort the historical record. He ignores or very selectively quotes the clear repeated testimony of the two primary witnesses, Joseph and Oliver, that the translation was carried out using the Nephite interpreters which came with the plates. He tries to imply that the seer stone found in a well while Joseph was working for treasure diggers is the Gazelem mentioned in the Book of Mormon, when nothing in the historical record suggests that any witness thought that. David Whitmer was never a witness to or participant in the translation process, and the only variation from Martin Harris was a single secondhand account published years after Martin's death - all other accounts from Martin say Joseph used the interpreters which came with the plates. And the Emma Smith quote comes from a document (also posthumous) where she also claims Joseph never practiced plural marriage, so how reliable is that? The actual historical facts are all laid out in the new book, "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration." Some commentators below have asked why it matters. It matters because Joseph and Oliver said the translation was by means of the Nephite interpreters. (Note that they made these statements in light of the 1834 anti-Mormon book "Mormonism Unvailed," which first fully advanced the seer stone narrative the professor is advocating, so these statements about the interpreters were to rebut the seer stone claims made by "Mormonism Unvailed" and Professor Dirkmaat.) It matters because if we reject Joseph and Oliver's testimony on that, we undermine their credibility on the restoration of the priesthood and sealing keys, for Joseph and Oliver are the only witnesses to those events also. I assume critics of the Book of Mormon and Restored Gospel will respond that Joseph and Oliver were just lying across the board, but it is very disheartening to many who believe Joseph and Oliver were truthful to have a BYU professor and Saints Unscripted supporting that view with respect to the translation of the Book of Mormon.
If we replaced Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in this video, with any other name and book, nobody would give it a moment’s consideration before brushing it off as ludicrous and totally made up. No one would believe a word of it. Recent research shows that the entire Book of Mormon is an anachronism in itself, as civilizations when “Lehi” left Jerusalem (and all over the world) didn’t have written histories nor compiled them that way. They were all aural or pictures.
“Civilizations when ‘Lehi’ left Jerusalem (and all over the world) didn’t have written histories nor compiled them that way. They were all aural or pictures.” You’re joking, right? Do you have any idea how far back written historical accounts go? Some of the earliest written histories and official documents from Sumeria and Egypt date back before 2500 B.C., two thousand years before Lehi. I’m sorry, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Professor Dirkmaat is one of my FAVORITE teachers. His grasp on history, his teaching abilities, and his general happy and engaging energy are all just addictive. Love him!
A hat and Seer Stone: I don't know why anyone need be thrown by the stone. Moses was presented with a burning bush that did not consume. What if Joseph Smith was given an ignited tumbleweed? What if a talking horse? It’s not really my business how the Lord chooses to bring forth His words. Yet it’s nice to hear slice of Gerrit Dirkmaat’s insight and light. I love his incisive Faithful Perspective.
There are no such things as talking bushes and magical stones.
@@harryhenderson2479 You are right Harry, brother of illumination. It has nothing to do with magic, and bushes don’t talk. But there is a God, and he can do remarkable things. Talk to him and listen with your heart. Cheers to you! 🙏🏽
I've heard A LOT of people say, "Well, we were taught our whole lives that Joseph used the breastplate, Urim and Thummim and the spectacles combined. I wondered the same thing, but as a senior missionary in Palmyra explained, "Does it really matter *how* the Book of Mormon was translated? Aren't we just glad we have it?" And you know what? He's right! It doesn't matter!
@@cutebusdriverchickBeing lied to doesn't bother you?
I'll tell you what Moses didn't do with his staff, he didn't scam people out of their money claiming that he was able to find lost objects and treasures buried underground protected by guardian spirits. Either those things are real or he was a con man that changed his career and became a prophet.
The most important question is this: "Why is Alex's hair the same color as David's shirt?"
I liked the simplicity of his message and going to the witnesses and sources that were a part of the translation process at that time. Too many are confused and mislead by unsubstantiated claims and unreliable sources.
I'm soo excited for your channel to get better sound.
What I want to know is why the church put up pictures of Joseph sitting by the golden plates and translating when they knew that’s not how it happened
Dirkmaat is awesome. Had him for a class in school and he always was super interesting.
When the picture of the seer stone was released by The Church, I was teaching a youth Sunday school about Spiritual Self Reliance. I gave the lesson and then asked the question, what would you think if someone told you that Joseph used a stone in a hat to translate the BOM. It was eye opening to see those who were completely obstinate about it. It was also great to see those who were hesitant but curious, as well as waiting for me to say just kidding. I opened the images on my phone and showed the youth.
PERFECT example of being Spiritually Self Reliant, that if someone says something or shows something that is foreign to our understanding and belief, that we can be firm in our beliefs but open to learning the actual details. Even if they are hard to understand or hear. Also realizing that not everything prophetic is like the parting of the Red Sea.
I just used my Urim (made by Apple) to read a message from a patient of mine today. I used its Thummin mode to send a message back. Or maybe it was vice versa. Its a good think I had the faith to charge it during the night.
😂
Love Dirkmaat!
Love this, very faith building. Thank you.
I love listening to Gerrit also. He and Dan Peterson did a great job on the Witnesses 'Insights' episodes on the Interpreter Foundation website related to the excellent "Witnesses" movie that the Interpreter Foundation did a couple of years ago. I highly recommend that movie and also all the 'Insights' episodes I mentioned. Thanks for sharing this interview!
I loved at the end when he said that however you want to believe regarding the actual details of how Joseph Smith did the Book of Mormon translation, the most important aspect of it is that it was translated by the gift and power of God. That is good enough for me :)
Wow. Great guest and insight. Felt a bit abruptly cut off at the end?
I LOVE the part where he explains that you cannot dissect a miracle. You can’t technically explain it. And that how we should look at the translation of the Book of Mormon. Side note. It was a treat for me that he talks about Joseph Knight Sr. who I am a direct descendant of. Super cool:). Thanks! Loved this.
Fan-freaking-tastic! He has such a good spirit in his approach to this. A rather absurd restoration indeed, but I love how our father always keeps it simple, elegant even. This brother has a thorough grasp on the dichotomy we are faced with while trying to understanding how this all came about. I daresay the holy Spirit has certainly walked with him. 🕊️
I believe Hannah Stoddard and the use of the Urim and Thummim way more than the sources who claimed there was a stone in a hat. We will look back on this time as a brief aberration when some people were confused about the translation process.
The process fits the description of using a Camera Obscura and the seer stones are repeatedly described as biconvex glass lenses.
Abraham 3 describes the Urim and Thummim as a primitive Galileo style telescope according to Hugh Nibley. "Light and Perfection", one lens to collect the light and the other to perfect (focus) it.
I don't see the problem with using glass technology like magnifying glasses, telescopes and camera obscuras to explain seer stones in scripture. They are still technology, gifted by God, that assist the prophet just like satellite television is technology, gifted by God, that assists the prophet today during general conference.
The Urim and Thummim Moses had was "spyglass" technology to know when to go to war. This would be an advantage over the enemy and the Bible says Moses had "spies".
Thinking of the Urim and Thummim as a telescope explains why God lives near Kolob (a seer stone) and why the Earth will become a seer stone. This is how a physical God can be "All Seeing". He is using a galactic telescope (so to speak) to physically "see" the universe. As a physical being, He cannot be in two places at once. Scripture says Kolob is a "seer stone' but now you can actually see how it works. It's a telescope and it works off the physical properties of optics.
Fantastic video thank you!!!
Gerrit is the best.
It's interesting that the holy of holies, where the Israelite urim and thummim were used in the presence of The Lord, was pitch black, and that the stones would light up though the breast plate to give the answer to a question by patterns/letters. Sounds like Joseph had a "simple" variation of that
I never realized that
Nice.
I'm a scholar of the Love, acceptance and forgiveness of The Father with His Son Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit and His invitation to be born again into His Kingdom.
Is that to simple or should I make it more complex tangling it up with vain practices, methods and requirements?
If anyone has ever tried to read a smart phone in the bright sun, they understand putting it in the shadows. Just saying.
"And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls." - Including little stones. Including weird metal balls. Including sticks. Including big boxes with angel figures on top.
For me, contemplating the seer stone has strengthened my conviction and devotion to the Book of Mormon, the Restoration, and the Church. It's a weird image to "anybody" who lives in a post-industrial, materialist, disenchanted culture (particularly one built on a foundation of Puritan austerity). It isn't so strange to people living in other kinds of cultures, like 1830 Pennsylvania. Section 8 verses 6-9 refer to a rod through which Oliver Cowdery received revelations. Seer stones are known in the Pennsylvania Dutch tradition of Braucherei or Pow-wow, commonly called "folk magic" but more of a practice of asking God for miracles, recognizing the usefulness of "means" in doing so. Other practitioners of what may be called "magic" or "the occult" are also quite familiar with the use of various "means."
Embarrassment or incredulity about Joseph's translation methods betrays a lingering commitment to a mechanistic and materialist worldview. Instead, we have the opportunity to glory in an enchanted world.
why not just translate directly from God, or inspired under the Holy Spirit?
Your question assumes that inspired translation works only the way YOU think it should work. There are many examples from the scriptures of people being required to do things in ways that might make you wonder why there wasn’t a simpler way: Why was Noah commanded to build a ship when God could just strike everyone dead and leave Noah where he was? Why was Moses required to use a staff to perform miracles before Pharaoh when God could just strike Pharaoh dead or teleport the Israelites out of Egypt? Why were the Israelites under Joshua told to walk seven times around Jericho and blow their trumpets when the Lord could just knock down the city walls? In each case, the Lord’s process involved faith and action on the part of the people involved. Joseph Smith used objects to translate because that’s the system that played to his abilities and allowed him to exercise enough faith in the Lord to accomplish the task.
@@MrWhipple42 no. I think there are many ways to hear from God but the best way is direct communication.
it's like receiving revelation. The best way is direct from Him not indirect from someone else telling you.@@MrWhipple42
@@gatecrashercanadamb Again, you’re assuming that God reveals things to everyone the way YOU think he should reveal them, and that there are “better” ways for him to do it based on what YOU think is better.
Do you think you know better than God how to reveal things to people? It seems like you do.
@@MrWhipple42 nope. I just said there are many ways God can reveal things but the best way is direct communication. That’s not simply MY interpretation but common sense. Imagine playing the telephone game where God tells the first person something and passes it along to multiple people and then finally to you OR he just tells you directly. Which is better?
Using the very text you're trying to prove to prove the very text youre reading is an empty circle and will not merit any proof or truths when tested.
Radioactive stones?
Dirk moss!! My man!!
G'day, hello from Sydney Australia
What difference does understanding the translation make?
Well, when is comes to your testimony about the truth of the book of Mormon...
It makes absolutely no difference! LoL.
However the issue (and I say issue instead of problem because I truly don't believe it to a problem per say) is that until a couple of decades ago. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints (ie the Wards/local congregations) misinterpreted a fundamental aspect of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.
So it's important to ask.
How and why did this happen? And
How can we stop this (or similar things) from happening again?
Last but not least.
If anybody has any doubt about how ubiquitous this misbelief was. Or exactly what it was that former LDS members believed?
You just have to look at LDS Church artwork throughout the 19 century (and throughout most of the 20 century).
You'll find that depictions (and therefore belief) of Joseph Smith translating the book of Mormon while wearing the urim and thummim and sitting next to the golden plates were widespread and commonplace.
So what? Education is continuous. Revelation is the basis of testimony.
@GlenLawlor so what that he used the same stone and the hat to scam people claiming he could find lost objects and treasure?
@@dr33776
If you dig a little deeper, if you would like to, you’ll find that, he advised the person he was working for to stop doing it.
Of course, if you’re only interested in belittling, you will never find such a thing!
I grew up in a poor family. But nowhere near the poverty of the Smiths!
@@GlenLawlor "So what"?
My friend the nuance of LDS history is "So everything"...
We are absolutely BLESSED to be compiling LDS history only 178 years after Joseph Smith's death.
It's important to realise that even with moden day technology the further into the future you go the harder writing an accurate history of the past is.
it's so incredibly, incredibly important that we ensure that we're safeguarding accurate LDS history for future generations.
Because it's an unfortunate fact of history. That the more that time goes by, the harder it becomes to discern fact from fiction
Look at the New Testament for example. It's been 2000 years since the crucifixion of Jesus and the amount of conjecture, uncertainty, and speculation that historians have to wade through is absolutely enormous.
Believe you me, other Christian denominations would give their right arm to be able to go back in time to 200 CE and ensure that some ancient scribs preserves a near contemporary biography of Jesus Christs life.
Because the fact is that the only original texts that we have from that era are only about the size of a credit card and therefore incredibly incomplete.
We need to make sure that never happens to us....
@matthewclaridge8063 Your original question is a good one, and there’s a long and complicated history behind it that can’t be fully explained in a TH-cam comment. The shortest explanation I can give you is: (a) The seer stone translation accounts were published by the Church in the 19th century. (b) Joseph Fielding Smith became Church Historian in the early 20th century. He personally didn’t like the eyewitness account of the seer stone, and he published his opinion about that. (c) Joseph Fielding Smith outlived everyone else, and his books were used by people who created Church curriculum starting in the 1960s. (d) Church leaders who followed him were unwilling to throw him under the bus, so it’s taken 40-50 years to finally move past his well-meaning but incorrect interpretations and get back to what the earliest witnesses say. It’s unfortunate that it happened this way, but all we can do is try to make things right going forward.
Your other claim that "the more that time goes by, the harder it becomes to discern fact from fiction" is incorrect in this case. We have more eyewitness statements and source documents about the Restoration available now than we ever have, and more of them are publicly available than there have ever been. For a long time we had an incomplete view of early events in the Restoration (in part due to Joseph Fielding Smith’s influence), but we’re now swimming in source materials by comparison. We’re in a much better position to understand Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon than we ever have been. This is entirely UNLIKE the scanty and incomplete documentary history from the 2nd century A.D.
What difference does it make? The Urim and Thummim were seer stones in a spectacle type unit. Same things either way. The hat would have blocked out light making reading easier.
G'day, hello from Sydney Australia
What difference does it make?
Well when is comes to your testimony about the truth of the book of Mormon...
It makes absolutely no difference! LoL.
However the issue (and I say issue instead of problem because I truly don't believe it to a problem per say) is that until a couple of decades ago. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints (ie the Wards/local congregations) misinterpreted a fundamental aspect of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.
So it's important to ask.
How and why did this happen? And
How can we stop this (or similar things) from happening again?
Last but not least.
If anybody has any doubt about how ubiquitous this misbelief was or exactly what it was that former LDS members believed?
You just have to look at LDS Church artwork throughout the 19 century (and throughout most of the 20 century).
You'll find that depictions (and therefore belief) of Joseph Smith translating the book of Mormon while wearing the urim and thummim and sitting next to the golden plates were widespread and commonplace
So it doesn't make a difference to you that joseph used the seer stone to scam people claiming he could find lost objects and buried treasure?
@@dr33776 Your statement is false. People who knew Joseph Smith (including people who rejected his religious claims) testified, in writing and in court proceedings, that he had a gift to find lost objects, and there are written statements of him successfully doing exactly that.
@MrWhipple42 some said he found lost objects "too well" (i.e. he hid them and used his seer stone to find them). Listen to yourself, to this day, con men are still defended by the people they defraud. Old people are scammed all the time but somehow they still think the people that rob them are not scamming them. Charismatic people tend to read people well and play into their emotions. Otherwise, why did Mr. Stowells sons accused smith of being an imposter? They could see through smiths lies and still mr stowell defended smith even though they never found anything.
Some testimony of a supertitious person is not the best evidence. Let's go to the provable tests, did he find any treasures in the years he was involved in digging? No. Did he find the treasure when he went to Salem? No. Why didn't he use the seer stone to find the 116 pages?
When things were outside his control, all of the sudden his gift was worthless. Now tell me, do you believe there are people out there in the world that are clairvoyant and can find missing objects? Go and talk to your bishop about going to mediums or card readers and see what he has to say. That's essentially what smith did before he was "called" to be a prophet.
I have a theory that Joseph already had the Urim and Thummim in the hat and was only seen to be putting the "seer" stone in the hat for the benefit of those who witnessed him do so. Then he put his face in the hat, concealing everything.
How else could the translation have continued when Joseph was under strict commandment from the Lord, not to reveal anything to anybody? This included Emma.
So Joseph's chocolate-colored stone was a ruse and the whole process was a diversion.
I believe the Lord was fully aware of this pretense (see D&C 5:4)
I also believe Joseph was happy when this was no longer a requirement and happy to give the thing away "as he had no further use of it."
This also explains his reluctance to discuss in detail, the translation process.
Regardless, the answer is contained in the preface to the Book of Mormon and this makes no mention of Joseph's pretty, river rock.
I'm sick of being a South Park joke and hearing apologetic Church leaders and historians, trying to smooth things over.
The translation was by the gift and power of God and nothing else.
Your alternative explanation is deeply flawed. There were many witnesses to the translation process, and not a single one of them ever so much as hinted or speculated that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat simply as a "demonstration." At all stages of the translation-from Martin Harris and Emma Smith's early service as scribes to the many witnesses at the Whitmer home-the repeated statements of those who participated are consistently on the side of the stone in the hat.
Your interpretation of the word "pretend" in D&C 5:4 is also mistaken. In 1829, it had a wider meaning of "to claim," whether truly or falsely. What the Lord was telling Joseph was that he had only one spiritual gift at that time (translation), and that he shouldn't claim any other spiritual gifts until the translation was finished.
Your theory has to throw out virtually all the eyewitness testimony simply because you're uncomfortable with what the witnesses said. That's not how historians deal with evidence.
South Park mocked something sacred, but that doesn't make what it mocked untrue.
I'm sure Professor Dirkmaat is a nice guy, but his statements in this video and his book on the translation grossly distort the historical record. He ignores or very selectively quotes the clear repeated testimony of the two primary witnesses, Joseph and Oliver, that the translation was carried out using the Nephite interpreters which came with the plates. He tries to imply that the seer stone found in a well while Joseph was working for treasure diggers is the Gazelem mentioned in the Book of Mormon, when nothing in the historical record suggests that any witness thought that. David Whitmer was never a witness to or participant in the translation process, and the only variation from Martin Harris was a single secondhand account published years after Martin's death - all other accounts from Martin say Joseph used the interpreters which came with the plates. And the Emma Smith quote comes from a document (also posthumous) where she also claims Joseph never practiced plural marriage, so how reliable is that? The actual historical facts are all laid out in the new book, "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration."
Some commentators below have asked why it matters. It matters because Joseph and Oliver said the translation was by means of the Nephite interpreters. (Note that they made these statements in light of the 1834 anti-Mormon book "Mormonism Unvailed," which first fully advanced the seer stone narrative the professor is advocating, so these statements about the interpreters were to rebut the seer stone claims made by "Mormonism Unvailed" and Professor Dirkmaat.) It matters because if we reject Joseph and Oliver's testimony on that, we undermine their credibility on the restoration of the priesthood and sealing keys, for Joseph and Oliver are the only witnesses to those events also. I assume critics of the Book of Mormon and Restored Gospel will respond that Joseph and Oliver were just lying across the board, but it is very disheartening to many who believe Joseph and Oliver were truthful to have a BYU professor and Saints Unscripted supporting that view with respect to the translation of the Book of Mormon.
You know a guy is a true historian when he speaks of past events in future tense haha.
If we replaced Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in this video, with any other name and book, nobody would give it a moment’s consideration before brushing it off as ludicrous and totally made up. No one would believe a word of it.
Recent research shows that the entire Book of Mormon is an anachronism in itself, as civilizations when “Lehi” left Jerusalem (and all over the world) didn’t have written histories nor compiled them that way. They were all aural or pictures.
“Civilizations when ‘Lehi’ left Jerusalem (and all over the world) didn’t have written histories nor compiled them that way. They were all aural or pictures.”
You’re joking, right? Do you have any idea how far back written historical accounts go? Some of the earliest written histories and official documents from Sumeria and Egypt date back before 2500 B.C., two thousand years before Lehi.
I’m sorry, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.