Talk:Seer stone (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Historic usage

"In historic Mormonism, a seer stone was a stone or crystal used for receiving revelation from God. In the early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith used seer stones to find buried treasure by folk magic. This, like the art of using dowsing rods to find buried items, was a common practice in early America."

This is inaccuate, According to mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., was told where the golden plates("the treasure") was hidden, by an angel. The seer stones which he used to translate the plates, where hidden with them. —Noldoaran (Talk) 18:58, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Before finding the plates, however, it is well documented that he was hired by others to use his seer stone to locate buried treasure. There are conflicting accounts as to whether he used the seer stone to locate the Plates themselves. This seems strange to us, but at the time it wasn't that unusual. Oliver Cowdery supposedly did the same thing with a dowsing rod. COGDEN 01:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to "The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith", found in the preface to the Book_of_Mormon, Smith himself states, "At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven..." Smith was not in possession of the Urim_and_Thummim, or seer stones, prior to the time he received the plates. In any case, the statement that he used seer stones to find buried items "by folk magic" is highly controversial and is inappropriate for a neutral source of information such as Wikipedia. --24.10.142.126 04:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have been misled. Several reputable (not "anti-Mormon") sources indicate that Joseph Smith did use other Seer Stones to look for burried treasure among other things before the whole BoM episode. See Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman, especially pages 48 to 52. --bigjarom 09:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Should some more primary sources be referenced in this article? Also there are HUNDREDS of articles relating to seer stones on www.lds.org --User:Sam Clayton 3:50, 22 July 2010

He's been "misled" because he used actual historical references instead of just Googling "Stuff people say about Mormons"? I'm not home and I don't have my books with me, but I can guarantee you that if you read actual source material written at the time, you'll see that there's absolutely NO reference to Joesph Smith using a stone for "treasure hunting" outside of Anti-Mormon testimonies in various lawsuits that were brought against Smith during his life. I realize that it's hard to be neutral on religious or political topics, but should I be allowed to blindly say that George W. Bush was a member of the Nazi party? Or that Ann Coulter is actually a man? Because I can find you plenty of references to both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It actually says in the primary source document "History of the Church", that Joseph Smith mined silver for a job at one point, and it specifically states that this is where the untrue rumours that he was a "treasure hunter" came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.213.99 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So anyone who mines for silver or gold is a treasure seeker?Rockford1963 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking if silver is a treasure and you are mining silver then you are seeking the treasure which is silver so , yes. That said, the use of seer stones was widespread in the early 1800s, Dowsing rods are still commonly used today (2015). I question the parenthetical use of Latter Day Saints since a substantial amount of this article is non LDS oriented and the portion that is seems to have an agenda.

Refactoring/renaming

I moved the non-Mormonism content to the article scrying and renamed this one to Seer stones in Mormonism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 05:08Z

I think that's a good move, Quarl. I just want to suggest that maybe a better name would be Seer stones and the Latter Day Saint movement, in conformance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints). The use of and rather than in also might make it more general, because much of Smith's use of seer stones came before he started the movement, though it was a big influence.

Good point. Thanks for renaming. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 08:36Z

Reasons why I reverted the recently added paragraph

This was a recent edit, that I reverted:

The translator stones, supposedly found with or near the gold plates, and the plates themselves were both claimed to have been taken away after the original 116 translated pages were lost. No one during this period ever claimed that the pair of translator stones, the bow, or the breastplate they attached to were ever given back. It is uncertain whether these were even claimed to have been used in the first translation, since it was the brown peep stone Smith already had in his possession that most witnesses claimed to have seen him put in the hat for almost all translation purposes, before and after this event. Smith claimed the plates were returned to him eventually before finally being taken after translations were complete, but most of the witnesses to the plates only saw them in vision or trance form where the angel would reveal them while surrounded in glory...and this only after extensive prayer and meditation under the mentorship of Smith himself. This trance was described as like a dream. This contradicts the claim that the plates were physically returned during this period or that Smith even alleged to need them nearby when conducting the translations. The same brown peep or "seer" stone was the one used for translating the Book of Abraham, as well as most of the later more controversial revelations. This is the stone spoken of in the above quote that is said to reside in the First Presidency's vault.

I have several issues with it: 1. It is heavily loaded with words like "supposedly" and "claimed". Since this whole section is "According to Mormonism", these terms are not necessary. 2. This violates NPOV, as the whole purpose of the paragraph seems to be to promote the opinion that Joseph Smith perpetuating a hoax. For example, that bit about "and this only after extensive prayer and meditation under the mentorship of Smith himself", which "trance" was "like a dream". This content doesn't even apply to this article. 3. It is mostly about opinions for which there is little support by evidence. 4. There really isn't any additional information in this paragraph that pertains to the subject. The brown color of the stone, perhaps...

Seer Stones in Mormonism

Hi Storm Rider: I have some concerns with your restoration of deleted material in Seer stones in Mormonism. The person who deleted that material was the author of it, and he did so because he recognized that it was incorrectly placed in the middle of a paragraph, literally mid-thought. Further, it's a mess.

I'm not opposed to this type of material in the article, but it can't be plopped wherever, and it needs some serious reworking. Perhaps another section within the article could be created where differences between the Mormon and Hebrew Urim and thummim could be discussed. I'm not sure, however, if even this has a place within this article (which is focused on Mormonism and seer stones) and when this information is adequately covered within the intro to Urim and Thummim where it states that: "According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they were also used to translate ancient manuscripts; however, their recorded use by Joseph Smith, Jr. is not in conjunction with their recorded historical use by the Hebrews."

My concern is that the current configuration is a prescriptive approach, rather than descriptive. No article should say "this is right" and "this is wrong"--it should only report facts--and as of right now, it is failing to do so effectively. I am going to add a section on differences; perhaps some of the material can be salvaged there. You might also want to check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seer stones and Urim Thummim. Regards, --Rojerts 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that articles should only be descriptive; Wikipedia does not state what is "true" or "right", but only what is believed or what was reported to have happened.

There is confusion within much of what is written about Mormon history between the Urim and Thummim and Seer stones. Joseph Smith was reported to have used both. The issue of seer stones is a particularly favorite subject in anti-Mormon literature so it often can hit a sensitive nerve with LDS that are not completely familiar with history. Conversely, others feel Joseph carried around a peep stone constantly and was only familiar with the workings of magic to ensure that we might understand his religion is based upon the works of Satan. It is an interesting dichotomy.

It may be that a single sentence is enough, but I would ask that we study it further. The renamed article limits the subject to seer stones and that should now be the driving subject. I will return later today and look at the article again. If it has not been already edited let's align the paragraphs more appropriately. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding the apprehension many LDS have with the seer stone subject--all too often, "anti" material will include so much that is spurious that when it does have historical fact (such as the seer stone translation of the BoM), LDS members refuse to accept it. And, it doesn't help that much of LDS history is given in a prescriptive manner where any topic that might shake one's faith is left out. David Whitmer's 1887 account is all but unknown among most LDS members, wherein he states that Joseph Smith "would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat...."

I look forward to your comments. Regards,--Rojerts 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The translation of the Book of Mormon is an interesting subject. Joseph said very little about it and all we have is second hand informtion such as what you stated. It appears that Joseph may have used the U&T, the seer stone(s), or nothing all for the transaltion process. However, it has always puzzeled me that Joseph would receive an item from God specifically to be used for translation and he would turn around and use a seer stone. Simply using nothing makes more sense to me, but even then the U&T was not an insignificant item to be put aside. There are some other thoughts, but we can talk about those later. It does make me question the second-hand stories, but they need to be stated. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Side note- sorry to butt in. It is interesting to look at when he used each of the specific items - the U&T was to receive revelation and for translation, it was used for translation, but remember that smith had them taken from him and had to rely on other means for a time - later he had only them to rely on. In addition, smith used one stone (seerstone) or another stone(s) (the U&T) for the same thing - in this case, each was being used as a urim and thummin per the definition. Finally, smith was familiar with using the seer stone - and the U&T according to mother smith opened his views to much more than the book of mormon translation -which could have been distracting during the translation process (hense the use of a hat at times). And using the priesthood as context, neither device was used much after the restoration of the priesthood, which led to a stonger companionship of revelation and the spirit. Just some context of my own reading. -Visorstuff 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The revision looks good, although I question the edits in the last paragraph of the section "Other Seer Stones in Mormonism." If you get a chance, could you justify the changes? Thanks!--Rojerts 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to last section - Other Seer stones in Mormoni

Rojerts asked me to provide my thinking for the changes I made to this section, if I understood his request on my talk page. First, a seer does not need to possess a Urim and Thummim or seer stone to be a seer. Mosiah 8:13 discusses that should someone possess and is commanded to use "interpreters", the same is called a seer. However, Mosiah 8:17 goes on to state that "a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known."

LDS do not call the members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators" because of suspected use of seer stones, but rather because they are believed to be in special communion with Jesus Christ. The previous wording of the paragraph was written in such a way as to allude to the possbility that the current prophet of the church use a seer stone. There is no evidence of this within the LDS church for the last 125 years; as such it is speculation at best. I hope this explains my edits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Rojerts 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction currently reads:

In the Latter Day Saint movement, seer stones were used as method of divination and played a significant role in its history and theology. Seer stones of particular importance to the movement include a "chocolate-colored" stone that Joseph Smith, Jr. (the movement's founder) found while digging a neighbor's well, and a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles referred to as the Urim and Thummim or Interpreters.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Prior to founding the Latter Day Saint movement, Smith used seer stones in finding buried treasure.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  He also used the stones to divine the words of the Book of Mormon.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Seer stones are also mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon and in other Latter Day Saint scripture.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

The desire to focus on the term "seer stone" in itself I think is interesting. Although a term used occaisionally, the term used most often by members of the Latter Day Saint movement is Urim and Thummim. This term, along with peep stone, crystals or crystal gazing, etc. all fall into the terms of choice for typcial anti-Mormon religious tracts. Are we writing a tract? If so, I think it would be find, but label it as such.

Why is preference given to "chocolate-colored" stone. I don't ever recall reading Joseph running about with a peep stone talking about Mormonism. This is fabrication. The stone played a role in his treasure seeking days, but even that activity is given more play than deserved. Again, a wonderful bit of history most ofen found in that wonderful literature known as religious tracts from our Evangelical brothern.

The large pair of spectacles is not the terminology of Joseph Smith used most often, but again the terminology of tracts. Who in blazes is writing this drivel and for what purpose? Look friends, as I have said before, if we are going to write tracts, label the article appropriately. The majority fo this artcile is written from a narrow perspective having nothing to do with Mormonism and everything to do with how Mormonism is perceived through the lens of rabid anti-Mormons. It is interestings, but hardly history.

I would like to engage in conversation before making wholesale changes to this article. What is the purpose of the article and what audience are we writing for? If it is to placate the demands of Anti-Mormons, as long as you state that in the title and introduction, I will shut my mouth, but if this is to be a neutral, encyclopedic article, we have a long way to go. Yes, I know that I have been more than blunt, my intention was not to offend, but to demonstrate that this article is sadly lacking in history fact and is very one sided in perspective, and uses a highly negative tone. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a lot of work. I am actually currently working on an article called Seer (Latter Day Saints). It has not been posted yet, but I will hopefully get something presentable done soon. Perhaps, after cleaning this article up, it might be wise to eventually merge it in as a section of the seer article. Whether or not that happens, I would be happy to be of service to this article. Chiros Sunrider 06:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have suspended work, at least for the time being, on the article mentioned above. Chiros Sunrider 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New Revision

I've tried to shorten the article and move recently added material to more logical spots in the essay. (I won't claim that I don't make mechanical errors as well, but please check spelling before saving revisions.)--John Foxe 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not use the word "critic" here. We are looking for truth, not opinions of "critics" or "believers."
• The opening paragraph should be a short introduction to the subject.--John Foxe 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know where we can find absolute truth that none can dispute, please do tell. Truth seems very much to be relative on WIKI. More to the point, when the Son of GOd proclaimed the truth, the majority of people disputed it. If what you mean is that what we strive to do is report historical facts as reported by individuals, then yes. However, please do not assume that individuals were devoid of perspective and personal agendas. What is evident in history is the story of Mormonism is seldom clear. Its evolution threatened existing Christianity, US social culture, and not least local politics to a degree seldom seen. It is appropriate to state the "quality" of those sources that are suspect. Further, it is appropriate to report both sides. The truth, I suspect, may be something only God is capable of identifying. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seer stones and U&T

If it is to be argued that there is a distinction between seer stones and the U&T, then the testimony of a number of important people must be introduced to prove the contrary.--John Foxe 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If there really was a device such as Smith's U&T (i.e. a completely separate item than the seer stones) is not contended in the latest edit of this subsection, simply that there is enough variance in the descriptions of the two items/terms to suggest the possibility of two separate items. Becasue there is nothing conclusive, the confusion, debate, uncertainty over the matter is thus pointed out.Rockford1963 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John, are you saying there is no distinction between the two? As far as I am aware Joseph only stated he used the U&T for translation purposes. JFS stated that it was hard to conceive of Joseph using the seer stone after having been given the U&T at the same time as he received the plates. Others stated differently as has been completely noted in the article. If there is no differnce between the two, just call it the U&T because that is what Joseph Smith called it. Of course, if the purpose is to reposition the story to fit another agenda, then let's just say that we are seeking to cast the story in a more fantastical light. We could have a field day with the Israelites using a scrying stones instead of the Urim and Thummim. I am sure that the value of terminology is not lost on you. Again, it is a question of tone and balance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With so much uncertainty here compromise wording is certainly in order.--John Foxe 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit still could leave the reader thinking the U&T and the seer stones were practically the same thing, or that the crystals in the U&T were nothing more or less than seer stones. If that is what is meant to be conveyed then it should be stated more clearly. The article, as is, does describe both U&T and seer stones, and the careful reader would see that they apparently describe two different things. What it hurt to spell out that possibility?Rockford1963 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if we've reached consensus yet, but we're getting there.--John Foxe 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the issue needs to be redefined: In the main U&T page/Non-Biblical references/Latter Day Saint movement there are three paragraphs with a direct to a "main article" called Seer stones and the Latter Day Saint movement. The wording in the U&T page seems to be better presented in regards to describing the LDS U&T, and it gets obfuscated in the LDS seer stone page. Maybe a separate [new and expanded] page just on LDS U&T (i.e. separated out from this article on seer stones): this new article would be linked to this article and the U&T article subsection on LDS view. Belief or disbelief in LDS claims aside, the descriptions of the LDS U&T are unique and interesting and significantly different than the single seer stones - my goal to help make this clear and easily understood to the reader.Rockford1963 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph at U&T seemed to have been written from an LDS point of view, so I rewrote it—obfuscated it, if you choose—to reflect a more neutral position. I also moved some material from that page to this one.

I'm all for simplification, but I don't think the historical sources will permit it in this case. Frankly I find the primary sources completely baffling.--John Foxe 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The subject is still obfuscated, now in two separate pages - I would like to believe not deliberately so. To repeat an earlier question: Do not the descriptions of the LDS U&T and seer stone(s) had by Joseph Smith differ enough to warrant making that point clear? Yes, statements made by Smith and others appear to use the terms interchangeably, but that does not mean that we can not describe the two items/things clearly. Or, if it is the intention to pass on the belief that one, or both of the items did not exist at all (regardless of its claimed functionality) then let it be worded that way. Maybe the solution is to create a separate subsection: "Criticism of LDS statements/belief in U&T and seer stones", and put wording there that points out inconsistency with biblical references to U&T, confusing or baffling primary source statements, etc.Rockford1963 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A few months ago I was sure JS was "translating" simply by looking at a rock in a hat and that the words "seer stone," "interpreters," and "U&T" were used interchangeably by Smith and his contemporaries. Now I consider the subject one of those murky areas where we simply don't have enough information. Clarity and simplicity are always to be preferred to confusion, but as Marc Bloch, the noted historian of the early twentieth century, wrote, "There will be some times when the sternest duty of the scholar, having tried everything, is to resign himself to ignorance and admit it honestly."--John Foxe 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a fair amount of clarity in the historical record. In the mid-1820s, Smith used magic stones, and probably just called them "stones". In the late 1820s, Smith referred to a set of giant-size spectacles found with the plates, that would allow him to "see anything". During the very early translation of the now-destroyed Book of Lehi with Emma, he said (and Emma said this, too) that he used these spectacles (probably while behind a curtain), but he soon just used his brown seer stone in a hat, which he could do out in the open. He probably used the brown stone for the entire existing Book of Mormon. During translation with Oliver Cowdery, the Book of Mormon itself mentioned what it called "Interpreters", which is obviously a reference to the spectacles. Some time in the mid-1830s, when magical practices started going out of style and being looked on with disfavor, Smith started using the Biblical word Urim and Thummum (referring to a magical device used by the Hebrew priests) to refer to both the Interpreters and his seer stones. In 1843, he connected the term Urim and Thummim with the "sea of glass and fire" on which God and the angels dwell (i.e., Kolob or a planet near Kolob), as well as the sanctified earth, and the white stone of Revelation 2:17. Essentially, the Urim and Thummim is any stone or crystal (from the size of a tiny stone to an entire planet) with magical properties that allow someone to look inside and receive hidden knowledge. COGDEN 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Joseph Smith did not "translate" by any recognized definition of the word "translate". The gold plates were often not even in the same room during the writing of the BM. I believe that "dictate" is the best description of the process used in creation of the Book of Mormon. User:Sunkider 9 Feb 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

So long as the article is clear that the word "translate" is being used in a non-standard way—which it does—there's no reason to exclude it.--John Foxe (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We are obligated to be as specific as possible in our descriptions. It is NOT clear that "translate" is used in a non-standard way. When we can use a specific word to represent the bringing forth of the BM, we should use that word, rather than leave people to make assumptions. (sunkider) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunKider (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left the "dictating" alone. I'm sure some Mormon will be along sooner or later to challenge it. The rest of the material I've reverted because you've not explained the reason for the changes.--John Foxe (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

James Strang

I believe James Strang claimed to have used a seer stone (the Urim and Thummim to be exact) to translate The Book of the Law of the Lord [1]. Perhaps there should be a mention of this.

Indeed he did. I'll try and add something to that effect.Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Current LDS Church ownership

From a post to User talk:159.182.1.4 (dif)

It is appropriate to state that the LDS church is in possession of one of the seer stones possessed by Joseph Smith:

"DEDICATION OF THE SEER STONE ON THE ALTAR OF THE MANTI TEMPLE

One item mentioned by President Woodruff about the private dedicatory services at Manti is of more than passing interest. "Before leaving," he writes, "I consecrated upon the altar the Seer Stone that Joseph Smith found by revelation some thirty feet under the earth (ground), and carried by him through life." This is the very Seer Stone that the Prophet Joseph Smith used part of the time when translating the Book of Mormon; the one he took from the well he was digging with his brother Hyrum, near Palmyra, for Mr. Clark Chase, and which he was falsely accused of taking from the children of Mr. Chase, spoken of in chapter x of this work."

You can read this in Comprehensive Hisotry of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 6: p. 230, B.H. Roberts Hope this helps. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Storm, this is really a great quote, thanks for taking the time to type it up!

Is anyone aware of any additional accounts of this (other other stones) being in the LDS Church's possession, especially more recently? Of course I'm more interested in documentation that would be considered reliable (like Roberts); no need to recite any Mormon folklore - I'm already aware of many faith promoting rumors on this topic, such as many permutations involving rings owned by various Presidents of the church (or even B.R. McConkie in one version I've been told). Please, no 3 Nephite stories. -- 159.182.1.4 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ils.unc.edu/~unsworth/mormon/golddigging.html --Rojerts 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not able to turn up any additional information; although I heard it confirmed that the church is still in possession of the stone. Two editors that might be of assistance is COgden and Visorstuff; both have a deep grasp of church history and other tidbits of information.

As an aside, have you researched "stones" in the Bible/scriptures? See Rev. 2:17, D&C 130:10-11. Other bible scholars put a different interpretation on what these verses are talking about. Darby does not address it in his Synopsis, Mathew Henry acknowledges it, but only addresses the new name; the stone apparently has no meaning to him. John Wesley has more of a focus, but he only states that it is a possible allusion to an old manner of voting with stone (black negative, white for). The stone has no meaning other than "acceptance" the new name is explained as what is given to Christians from the Holy Spirit. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I question the use of seemingly POV adjectives in the wording of the first note citation:
For a good survey of Smith's use of seer stones by a respected scholar and LDS patriarch, see Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 45-52.

I more NPOV might be
For a survey of Smith's use of seer stones by a LDS patriarch, see Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 45-52.
64.172.226.100 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Revelation 2.17 and the white stone

In my dictionary, "revelation" is defined as "1. something revealed. 2. An act of revealing, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized. 3. Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth." So a "revelation" is not necessarily supernatural.--John Foxe (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Foxe, I am not sure I understand your comment above and then the use of supernatural in the article. Supernatural carries a lot of baggage and often is interpreted as belonging to the occult. Using "from God" is far more neutral and cannot be confused with the occult. We should also introduce the white stone that all would receive as discussed in the Book of Revelations. Have you done any research on that little discussed concept?--^StormRider 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For those who overcome, a white pebble with a new name written on it? I'll take mine with hidden manna, please.--John Foxe (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

John, I am not talking about your beliefs, but those of the Latter Day Saints. There is no judgment about truth or anything of that nature. The objective is to focus on the topic of this article. It seems like there is some documentation about Latter Day Saint belief,teachings, or interpretation of Revelation 2:17. See D&C 130:10-11.

I also think we do a disservice to readers when the focus is on seer stones, which is often offensive and misleading, rather than Urim and Thummim. When you do a search on Urim and Thummim you find several scriptures in LDS canon. However, when you do a search of seer stone you find nothing. Seer stone is POV or at least carries a distinct POV with the term. LDS use Urim and Thummim in discourse, in their canon of scripture, and in their teaching. They do not use seer stone. Seer Stone is almost always used in derogatory manner by critics of the LDS faith or anti-Mormons. Does this make sense?

I think you're reflecting modern LDS sensibility. As Quinn says, "Modern Mormons have difficulty understanding that an early American could be deeply religious at the same time he was eagerly involved in the treasure-quest, and that folk magic was an extension of religious faith. This is evidence of LDS secularization." (64)--John Foxe (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not disagreeing with the use of the term in the early church, but I am advocating a broader approach to the term in the article. Urim and Thummim was Joseph's word of choice and the concept is reflected in LDS scripture. Do you disagree with that statement? Further, Joseph and later prophets have taught about Urim and Thummims, but it remains more on the fringe i.e. although it is mentioned in scripture it is seldom, if ever, a focus of a Sunday school lesson, preisthood lesson, etc. Each of us can find historians that level the claim of magic against Christianity even to the point of accusing Christ of being a magician and using curses. That is pretty meaningless to me because I find it is the realm of fringe academics. In that realm mythology, magic, gods, etc. all belong to the fanciful superstions of mankind and nothing more. What is a fact is LDS use Urim and Thummim not seer stones. What is also fact is that anti-Mormons use the term seer stones almost exclusively. Those are facts that this article ignores because the article is POV. Further, it takes fringe ideas and presents them as common theory (Quinn for example is full of fringe ideas, but he is treated as a mainlinne historian teaching mainline interpretations of history).

As an aside, so you do believe that you will use a white stone in the future? I did not think your theologians used that interpretation. --^StormRider 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How many legs does a dog have if you call tails legs? Answer: Four. You can call tails legs, but they're still tails. Calling seer stones Urim and Thummim doesn't make them such, especially when early Mormons called Joseph's translating device a "stone."--John Foxe (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Historical evidence states that the translating process happened through three methods: 1) the use of the Urim and Thummim as stated by Joseph Smith, 2) the words of others that he used a seer stone, and 3) the words of others that it was through direct revelation. That is historical fact. Calling Urim and Thummim seer stones does not make them seer stones either. Your logic is faulty because you presume that you know the "facts", which is irrelevant here. In other words your presumption of knowing facts is of no more value the any other person's opinion because it is only your opinion that you "know" anything. It is highly POV to presuppose that your knowledge of facts is somehow transcendent and superior to all other facts. They should be ignored and all historical facts should be brought to bear on this article rather than such a narrow, POV approach.

I also noticed that you completely dodged the question about your belief that in your view of Christian doctrine you will one day receive a white stone. I also found it humorous that you called it a pebble; a word the Bible does not use. The term is stone, a white one at that. You are more interested in getting your POV across rather just writing a neutral article about a specific belief system. It is both sad and frustrating. --^StormRider 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Greek word psephos in Revelation 2. 17 means a small pebble; it's a hapax legomenon, the only time that word is used in the Bible. The usual word for stone is lithos. I've been tempted to define "seer stone" as a "lithic," but unfortunately, in English lithic has the connotation of a man-made object like a Clovis point.--John Foxe (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at five Bible translations and they all use stone rather than pebble. Why do you think they use stone rather than pebble? It is so difficult to get a good translation these days.

So it looks like you think, or hope, that one day you will be given a white stone. What is the purpose of the new name recorded in the stone? Do you believe or does your church teach there will be other uses of the stone? It is curious that Christians believe that a white stone is somehow important or that God would think it so important that he will give one to each. Do Christians think it is a magical stone that only reveals their new name to their eyes but to all others it will be blank? Maybe it would be better to it is a supernatural white stone with magical properties that Christians will receive from the God in the future. Isn't it interesting when people in glass houses throw stones? (no pun intended) - Cheers. --^StormRider 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think English translations use "stone" rather than "pebble" because "pebble" sounds undignified, even funny, in English. But my Segond (French) version has "caillou," which is "pebble, small stone"; and the Vulgate has "calculus," which is "a little stone, pebble," more specifically, "a voting pebble, a white one being thrown into the urn to acquit or to affirm, a black one to condemn." Also pebbles like this were used as game counters and mathematical counters, hence "calculator." ("Calculator" is actually straight from Latin, used of the fellow who did the counting.)

I don't think I've ever heard the "white stone" explicated in a sermon—nor the "hidden manna" for that matter. As you know, Revelation is a difficult book. A clergyman acquaintance of mine once said that while there were premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists, he was a "panmillennialist"—he was just going to wait to see how it all panned out.

In any case, Joseph Smith, supposedly inspired by the same God who gave Revelation, chose the only "stone" in the whole New Testament that could not have looked like a seer stone. Remarkably bad luck there. But I promise not to throw stones at your glass house, only pebbles.--John Foxe (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you initially indicate you think you will get a magical stone (or pebble si on parles en français, mais en fait nous parlons en anglais) and now it seems like you want to say you really don't know what the verse is about. It really is a simple question and a simple answer will do. What is an absolute fact is that the Bible talks about those who are saved will one day receive a white stone. It also says that the white stone will have a new name written which only the person receiving the stone will know.

When you write about LDS subjects you like to use words like supernatural, magical, etc., almost anything that will denigrate, or make LDS beliefs appear as the occult...it is a favorite tactic of anti-Mormon, particularly those of a Evangelical persuasion. If I was to use the same tactic and discuss the Eucharist I would state: orthodox Christians believe in drinking the blood and eating the flesh of their God. It is an accurate statement, but it completely distorts the tone of the doctrine. You have a tendency to often do this same kind of writing. I can't tell if it is intentional or not, but it is discouraged because it is so distorts the topic.--^StormRider 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What Revelation 2.17 (KJV) actually says is that "to him that overcometh [what?] will I give to eat of the hidden manna and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it." The verse says nothing about being "saved."

I think you have an incorrect understanding of the word "magic," which among other things is "the practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or to control events in nature" (so the AHD). If I were to claim to find pirate treasure by sacrificing a goat, or read hidden gold plates by looking into a stone, or change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, those would be magical practices—in fact the latter is the probable source of the word "hocus pocus." But if I were to claim a new birth in Christ or a belief in bodily resurrection from the dead, or the possibility of receiving in the next life a stone with a name only I could read, those beliefs might be superstition, but they're not magical. They're just beliefs; I wouldn't be claiming to use the supernatural to manipulate nature.--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) it is like talking to tarbaby...the more one interacts the worse it gets; certainly no clarity of your position. I think intentional is accurate. Cheers. --^StormRider 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried anyway. And we both now know that the white stone of Revelation 2 doesn't physically resemble Joseph Smith's seer stone/Urim and Thummmim. That was worth the price of admission. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And we also know that in Christianity, at some point, individuals will receive a small stone that will at least be able to reveal a new name. Beyond that there is very little known of its meaning outside of LDS beliefs. I am not aware of any other Christian group that provides further elaboration. Two things strike me as interesting, the use of a stone and the concept of a new name. The vast majority of Christianity teaches nothing about the need for either; yet it is in their scripture.

Joseph Smith did use a seer stone. However, he also used a Urim and Thummim and direct revelation. All three methods appear to have been used, but not one legitimate reference directs which was used more than the others because the only solid source is Joseph himself and he left almost nothing except his statement of using the Urim and Thummim. All other sources are secondary and from a finite number of situations. The only method that is focused upon in LDS teaching is the use of a Urim and Thummim because that is what Joseph stated was the method. In addition, it is interesting that once given the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith would go back and use the seer stone. I question this method because it seems like a regression. I question whether those who recorded this method were simply were confused; was it a seer stone and was it the Urim and Thummim. It does not make a lot of sense to be given a Urim and Thummim from God, told to use in in translation, start by using the Urim and Thummim and then resort to using the seer stone. It does not flow very well and it is not logical.

In regards to the white stone discussed in Revelations, LDS would call it a Urim and Thummim. A question left answered, to a large degree, for LDS is if there is a correlation between what has been called a seer stone and what has been called the Urim and Thummim.--^StormRider 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're reading into Revelation 2.17 things that aren't there based on D&C 130. First, the passage could be as figurative or allegorical as the succeeding verse about Jezebel being cast into a bed. Second, the stone (along with "hidden manna") is promised only to those who "overcome."

The testimony of anyone who would repeatedly lie to his wife about multiple marriages to other women is not to be trusted elsewhere. There is nothing "solid" about Joseph's testimony; it is self serving and unreliable. A neutral observer should discount everything he said on any subject unless confirmed by another source. And all the witnesses to the Book of Mormon translation mention Joseph using a stone; some specifically mention the earlier seer stone. I certainly agree that "it doesn't make a lot of sense to be given a Urim and Thummim from God, told to use it in translation, start by using the Urim and Thummim and then resort to using the seer stone." But then much about Smith's activities doesn't make logical sense. The testimony from everyone but Joseph suggests that he used his old seer stone. I believe that calling the stone (singular) "Urim and Thummim" (plural) was simply a euphemism he decided on in order to blunt criticism of his earlier scrying. After all, he had been brought to trial for doing it.

There's also a clear link from seer stones/Urim and Thummim to Joseph's understanding of the stone in Revelation 2.17 because in D&C 130.11, he calls the name on the white stone a "key word." The court record in the scrying case mentions Stowell coming for Joseph because he possessed "certain keys." And Lucy Smith said that "a key was indeed nothing more nor less than a urim and Thummim." Perhaps some of this should go into the article itself.--John Foxe (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that something should be put in the article about the white stone mentioned in Rev 2:17. Although some may think Joseph Smith an ureliable source for reasons listed above, others (i.e. believing Moromons) think very differently. After all the article's focus is on Latter Day Saint belief and seer stones.Rockford1963 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If both of you are saying way to measure the reliability of an expert is whether or not he/she has lied to their spouse, then you have proposed a far higher standard than anyone else has ever done. Could you tell exactly who would be a reliable expert or at least one that has met that standard? Just one. In fact, just identify one man that has never lied. What you have done is demonstrate your own prejudices and POV than prove the weakness of Joseph Smith's character. The fact that Joseph was commanded to participate in polygamy, which he then refused to do, then was commanded by an angel on penalty of death to follow the command of God, which then caused Joseph to relent only to still face his face daily. A wife who both accepted and rejected the concept depending upon the moment. I do not condone or condemn any of Smith's actions or choices, but regardless, if he withheld the sealings from Emma I can understand it. In fact, I am incapable of condemning any man for mendacious behavior because I myself am guilty of such things in my own life.

A problem with the proposal is that the confusion of terms has not yet been fully explained in the article. Too often in early LDS history seer stone was used for Urim and Thummim and possibly vice-versa. LDS beliefs are very supportive of the Urim and Thummim, but absolutely nothing is taught about seer stones comparable to those that Joseph used. I am not sure why this article exists; I think it should be part of the Urim and Thummim article. In the combined article it would be easier to approach the concept discussed in Revelations.

As I stated above, this is actually more interesting topic when presented against the backdrop of Christianity's beliefs/interpretations of Rev. 2:17. There are several. I wonder if maybe and article about this topic and comparing the different interpretations might not be an article unto itself. It could then be linked to Urim and Thummim or to this article if it is not merged.

Fox you have yet to explain in a straightforward manner what your church's interpretation is about this Bible teaching. You continue to point out that it is only for he/they who "overcomes", the addition of the manna. You have not discussed the importance of the new name. Is there any teaching or is it just not addressed. Just because it is only mentioned once in the Bible does not make it any less true. It may explain why there is not teaching, but it is still part of the Bible. Aren't you a Sola Scriptura guy? --^StormRider 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that Joseph Smith lied to his wife about his additional marriages. Unlike you though, I'm perfectly willing to condemn Joseph for his "mendacious behavior." He committed a moral wrong--and so did she when she later said that he had had no additional wives. But we're both bloggifying at this point.

You'll have to grant me good faith when I say that I have no knowledge of any teaching of my church about the white stone of Revelation 2. I asked my wife (to whom I've been totally faithful, by the way), and she too couldn't remember ever hearing anything about that verse, even before we were married and went to different churches. Of course, if the matter is significant, it wouldn't be hard to roust up some commentaries from various denominational perspectives and see what's out there.--John Foxe (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Though I have been faithful to my wife, I can't say that I have never lied. To correct, I am not sure Joseph ever lied, but I also don't think he told Emma of each woman that was sealed to him. In my studies I know that Joseph was sealed to many women, but there is little evidence that he consummated those marriages. I am aware of the little evidence that does exist that he may have had sexual relations with some of them, but it was very few of them. The modern day practice did not come into full flowering until Brigham Young.

As I have studied numerous churches' doctrine I have found few that say anything about the verse; however, the concordances do have something to say about the verse. I found most to be a very weak interpretation. Suffice it to say that it is little discussed. No need for a request for good faith on that response, I fully believe your statement. It is the kind of straight forward statement that is much appreciated.--^StormRider 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to bloggify further, but you have to understand that from my perspective, Joseph not only lied, he committed serial adultery. And I bet very few men have accused their wives of trying to poison them. Anyway, I'll leave that be. If you think that the white stone needs to be in this article, I'll be happy to help find non-LDS perspectives on it.--John Foxe (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify an earlier point I made: some say Joseph lied, committed adultry, I say not. In any case Smith's statements are very relevent if the article is about LDS view and beliefs in regards to seer stones. If we talk of reliability I suppose he can be considered no less reliable than any other prophet from any faith who claimed to have communed with deity.Rockford1963 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like there needs to be an article just on the white stone mentioned in revelation, which would not be just an LDS view. Separate from that should be a mention of the white stone in this article or possibly a combined article (a combination with the LDS Urim and Thumim article) as suggested by Storm Rider.Rockford1963 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're saying that anyone who claims to be a prophet is one, a sentiment that's politically correct for the 21st century but leads nowhere. As for the addition of the white stone to this article, why not give it a try yourself?--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions/deletions to History section

I think there are a number of issues that need to be corrected in this section. Let's remember that this is an article about Seer stone (LDS). Background about use of seer stones in general terms from the era is okay but it should more directly link to LDS use. Also the reference for Smith acting as a seer (suggesting seer stone use) seems to be about him helping someone find a lost pin - correct me if I am wrong. I suggest the following:

"Smith, like other early nineteenth-century Americans used seer stones in attempts to gain revelations from God. Some sources suggest that Smith, like other contemporaries claiming to have seer stones, also used a seer stone to find burried treasure[3]. In one instance recounted by Maritn Harris Smith helped him find a lost pin by use of the seer stone[4]. Smtih's procedure for using a seer stone was to place the stone in a white stovepipe hat, put his face over the hat to block the light, and then "see" the necessary information in the stone's reflections.[5] His favored stone, chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[6] was found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[7] In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end."[8] The Mormon church teaches that Smith used the seer stones for obtaining revelations and for translation of ancient scripture.

In addtion some parts that are in the U&T subsection should be moved to the History subsection.Rockford1963 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Smith's religious use of seer stones arguably sprung from his earlier secular use. There can be no weasel words about "contemporaries claiming." That Smith used seer stones in attempts to find buried treasure is as certain as that he said he received golden plates from an angel. Also, others of his contemporaries used "seer stones in attempts to gain revelations" but not necessarily from God.--John Foxe (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, weasel words should be out. However, when it comes to anything with Smith in connection with claimed divine article such as seer stones, it is not nescessarily worng to use a phrase like "sources claim". [I suppose you are not suggesting that in very fact Smith both received plates from an angel and seeked buried treasure]. Also, as was said before this is an article on Seer stones (LDS), so presumably the mainstream LDS view (Seer stones used for divine revelation) would have as much emphasis in this history section as the claims Smith used them for treasure seeking. Suggested paragraph modified:

"Joseph Smith claimed to have use seer stones to gain revelations from God. Others claimed Smith used a seer stone to find burried treasure[3]. Other early nineteenth-century Americans are known to have done both, as may have Smith. In one instance recounted by Maritn Harris Smith helped him find a lost pin by use of the seer stone[4]. Smtih's procedure for using a seer stone was to place the stone in a white stovepipe hat, put his face over the hat to block the light, and then "see" the necessary information in the stone's reflections.[5] His favored stone, chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[6] was found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[7] In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end."[8] The mainstream Mormon church teaches that Smith used the seer stones for obtaining revelations and for translation of ancient scripture.Rockford1963 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I suggest that the phrase "sources claim" be dropped everywhere in the article. If a fact is cited, sources obviously claim it. For Smith's encounter with the angel, we can just say "Smith said." (I don't want to make a big deal of this because you were thoughtful enough to attempt to correct your spelling errors, but I counted seven misspellings, typos, and syntax errors that remain in your last post.)--John Foxe (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Smith said" is apparently okay in your book (suggesting a need to not confuse Smith's claims for fact). Alternatively other's "claims" do not require a qualifier since you assume it is fact....sounds close to a double standard to me. I think the article in total, and certainly the subsection being discussed needs a more neutral approach. Do you have an alternative rewrite?Rockford1963 (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no double standard. If we mention Joseph Smith's visit from an angel, we need to write "Smith said" (at least on the first occasion) because he was the only witness to the event. On the other hand, there were many witnesses to Smith's scrying, including folks who became his followers. You'll notice, though, that I'm not enamored of saying "he said," "he claimed," etc. over and over. Further down in the article is this sentence: "In 1827 Smith was revisited by the angel who revealed the location of the objects buried in a hillside." There's no qualifier because we can assume the reader is intelligent enough to make his own judgment about the angel's existence.

I believe this article to be as neutral as any article on a religious topic can be. Why do you believe that it's not?--John Foxe (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

First item: isn't reference #4 about Smith using a seer stone to locate a missing pin for a friend? Hardly seems like a fine example of treasure seeking or precious metal seeking. Other issues revolve around the crafitng of the article. All the same facts and references can remain, but with different word order and sentence structure can be made to be POV (pro-mormon or mormon skeptic) or neutral. Considering the oddity of the topic and its unfamiliarity to most readers this could be fertile ground for manipulation, even if subtle and slight. The first sentence of the subsection in question appears to pre-suppose that Smith is just another typical "seer" of his locale and time and seems to be loaded wording. Overall isn't Smith's use of seer stones mostly to do with revelations he claimed to receive and the denomination he founded?Rockford1963 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The pin was just about the only thing he found. He talked a lot about finding gold treasure for folks but never came up with anything until all of a sudden he discovered golden plates. Also, in the early nineteenth century, pins were a lot more valuable than they are today because they had to be hand crafted.

The first sentence does not say, or even imply, that Joseph Smith was a typical seer: "In early Latter Day Saint history, seer stones were stones used, primarily (but not exclusively) by Joseph Smith, Jr., to receive revelations from God." That's a nice straight-forward sentence. The wording is not loaded. You've admitted that the facts are correct and the references appropriate but claimed that the wording ought be changed. Specifically, what wording? How would you change it to make it better?--John Foxe (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

John, I think there is a difference in Joseph pushing his treasure finding skills and others coming to him and hiring him to do so. Smith had a reputation for finding things and people hired him to do so. It seems like I recall reading in several books accounts of Joseph discouraging some people later in his younger days...Emma's father for one as I recall. I have not recently read the article and I don't know if this distinction is already made, but it seems relevant. --^StormRider 10:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm. Because this article's about the use of seer stones among Latter Day Saints, it doesn't go into that much detail about Smith's scrying. The relevant sentence simply says: "Beginning in the early 1820s, Joseph Smith was paid to act as a 'seer' in (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to locate lost items and find precious metals hidden in the earth."--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seer Stones and the contemporary LDS Church? Possibly Irrelevant

i fail to see the point of this section. of course there would be no need for 'interpretors' if indeed there is no text currently in need of interpreting. the section may imply that the church is no longer in possession of the stones which would be inaccurate, according the reference it cites, which could be confusing. i propose that it is removed. freshmaniac (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the purpose of the section is pretty straightforward. The church has a living "seer" and it has at least one or more of the old seer stones—which in the nineteenth century were also used for purposes other than for interpreting text. But the contemporary seer doesn't use the seer stones. I suppose that might be said more directly.--John Foxe (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A note for the interested concerning the Translation of the Book of Mormon via Stone and Hat

I spent a great deal of my youth researching Church history, from a great many sources. I can state with a fair amount of certainty that this whole "Smith translated the Book of Mormon via seer stones in a hat" issue is of fairly recent vintage. I'm not saying this to defend Mormonism or the Book of Mormon. I'm merely stating it as a matter of fact, so that those who build upon this article can perhaps have some differing perspectives to work from.

Now, I'm not saying that there weren't stories about Seer Stones and Hats prior to the South Park episode about Mormonism. Joesph Smith himself addressed the rumors that he used a "peep stone in a hat" to find buried treasure, and flatly denied them. (More on that in a moment.) All I'm really saying is that the story as is currently being promulgated is a relatively recent invention. Even the sources used for the story vary, with some attributing Russell Ballard and some attributing Martin Harris. There doesn't seem to be any "first generation" source for the Hat and Stone story in existence, as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to "win" here, I'm just putting forth what I know.

That being said, from a purely logical standpoint, we're being asked to accept two mutually contradictory "anti Mormon" philosophies when it comes to the "Stone and Hat" stories: one is that Joesph Smith was so ego-maniacal that he actually BRAGGED about his hat-peeping, and that the story was so well-known that men like Harris and Ballard were preaching it from the pulpit in a matter-of-fact fashion. The other is that the entire LDS Church, including Joesph Smith, is so embarrassed by the Hat-Peeping that they've done everything in their power to quash the story. It can't possibly be both. If it were a well-known and publically preached Doctrine that Smith translated the Book of Mormon in this fashion, why did Joesph Smith himself deny it? It certainly isn't any stranger than the rest of his story, which contains Gold Plates, Magical Compasses, ancient Submarines, mythical animals, and Angels with Flaming Swords demanding that he take multiple wives. We're supposed to believe that the man who claimed to have magic eyeglasses and to have met with the ghost of every single Prophet since Adam suddenly balked at telling people that he translated the Book of Mormon via Hat?

It also beggars belief that Joesph Smith would inconvenience himself to the extent of sitting with his face in a hat for hours on end if his sole purpose was to commit fraud. If he was just making things up, why bother with a hat and stone? We're apparently supposed to believe that Smith made up a story about a stone and hat, just so he could deny it in favor of a different, equally implausible story involving magic spectacles. What I'm saying is: the entire story makes no sense in any context whatsoever.

Back in the 1980's, another story about Joesph Smith was going around, this one involving a Magic Salamander. I personally felt the the story was completely fabricated. Why? Because it didn't jibe with what I knew about the actual history of the Church. It sounded more like the kind of story that Anti-Mormon groups like to fabricate. Again, I say this as an amateur History Buff, and not because I'm blindly defending the Church. As it turned out, I was right- and now the so-called "Salamander Letters" are one of the most famous forgeries in history. The amusing thing (to me, anyway) is that even Church Leaders thought the letters were real, and had negotiated to buy them. This is the problem that occurs when you let your desire for something to be true or untrue get in the way of just doing proper research and using a bit of Critical Thinking. You're completely free to think the Book of Mormon is a fraud, if you want. Personally, I could give you at least ten arguments against the Book of Mormon that are much more compelling than this "stone and hat" story. I'm just saying that THIS particular story doesn't seem to be historically accurate to me. You don't have to believe that Smith translated the Book of Mormon via Urim and Thummin, but it makes even less sense to believe that he called his scribes into a room, then dictated a fictional account of the American Indians while holding a hat on his face for dramatic effect. (Posted by IP:209.33.202.98 in Aug 2010)

The stone in a hat "translation" method is historical and should be part of this section. The title is Seer Stone. It should discuss seer stone use and specify the difference between the seer stone used by Joseph Smith and the Urim and Thummim. They are clearly two different items. Wiki articles should present neutral information, not just an organizations preferred way of presenting a story. I am surprised that the seer stone information is not currently included.

Documenting seer stone use

Three of the people closest to the translation process (Emma, David Whitmer, and I think Martin Harris) stated that the method was: Joseph placed his seer stone in his hat, then placed his face in his hat.

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."[9] This account is also verified by Emma Smith, Joseph's legal wife.

David Whitmer, Address to All Believers in Christ Part 1 (1886)

see also an account from the Ensign magazine: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&query=treasured+testament

RE: your statement that it doesn't make sense for Joseph to put his face in his hat. Because you have shared a few of your perspectives, Let me suggest a scenario from critics that makes perfect sense. Some believe that Sydney Rigdon stole one of the Spaulding manuscripts. If that is true, Joseph could have torn a half page off of the reworked Spaulding manuscript and placed it in his hat. Then when it's time to translate, he drops his seer stone in his hat, then places his face in his hat. Because it was a white top hat, the sides would let in enough light to read from the paper. This scenario answers the question of how the BofM could be written in such a short time, and how Joseph knew the exact word to start on the next day. In addition, it answers why Joseph would do something as strange as place his face in his hat. SunKider (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's use of seer stones

I don't understand why my paragraph was removed. I state factual information about Smith's use of seer stones, the fact that he was found guilty in a NY court of a disorderly persons charge for treasure-seeking, and quote reliable sources that are already referenced in this article. My comments were presented from a NPOV. Please explain?Bilbobag (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning a discussion here. What does the information you've suggested add to this article?--John Foxe (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The information preceding my sentence uses a 20th century author's words to point out that Smith never repudiated the stones ability to find treasure. I'm adding factual content, based upon public documents from that period. While Smith may not have repudiated the stone's power, the practice of using stones to find treasure was considered illegal at the time, and that Smith was found guilty in a court of law for engaging in this practice. The fact that Smith didn't repudiate the stone's power after being found guilty could lead the reader to conclude (amongst many other things) that Smith:

• believed that their were laws of man and/or laws of nature and/or laws of a Supreme Being (a preliminary basis fo a separation of Church and State argument)
• had power/ability/guidance derived from a Supreme Being or other extra-terrestrial source
• was unique among men, and possessed abilities beyond that of the average man, etc.

In Summary, I believe that showing that Smith held to his beliefs (or at least didn't repudiate them) after being found guilty by a court of law, says a lot about the man. How one interprets that is up to the reader.Bilbobag (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that the 1826 Bainbridge court proceedings are not as cut and dry as the Ostlings make it out to be. The sources disagree on both what it was exactly (trial, pre-trial hearing, examination) and what the outcome was. There's a paragraph in Early life of Joseph Smith on the subject. FARMS, which imo would be just as reliable as the Ostlings here, I'm sure has some publications on the subject that would contradict the Ostlings. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair comments. I was also referencing documents from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Chenango County Office Building, Norwich, New York that acknowledge that Smith was brought to trial. No one disputes that. The same document states that Justice of the Peace, Albert Neely declared "And therefore the Court find the Defendant [Joseph Smith] guilty." What is in dispute is what the punishment (if any) may have been. That being said, the language from the paragraph you reference should, at the very least, be added here. Again good comments - Thanks.Bilbobag (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are some technical and stylistic issues (for instance, citations belong in the footnotes rather than the text), but I'll wait until the text settles down a bit before I try to tweak it.

@FyzixFighter. FARMS as reliable as a peer-reviewed book published by HarperCollins?--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter. While I have no quarrel with FARMS, or using them as a source when appropriate, I don't think they can be viewed as the most objective of sources. WP itself on the FARMS page states that "FARMS has been criticized by scholars and critics who classify it as an apologetic organization that operates under the auspices of the LDS Church." As to the Ostlings, no such criticism has been been stated about them. To the contrary, their book "Mormon America" has been called "A fair and balanced assessment of today's Mormon Church" by Armand L. Mauss, past president of the Mormon History Association. While I'm all for a NPOV, I think we have to evaluate sources based not only on their apparent objectivity, but more importantly, upon what others have to say about them Bilbobag (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@Bilbobags - Actually you are not referencing the documents from the Chenango County Office Building. What you're referencing is the Ostling book, which does satisfy WP:RS albeit I would argue they come at it with a sensationalistic and evangelical Christian bias (just as FARMS and BYU Studies reliable sources would have a LDS bias), and a self-published website that is presenting what it claims are primary documents and providing its own analysis, which doesn't satisfy WP:RS so let's stop referring back to it. Looking at a few scholarly works on the subject, the existing county court documents (which were discovered in 1971, and while most agree they are authentic there were some stupid things that the discoverers did that leave open the possibility of forgery) are the judge's bill of costs for a set of cases (Smith's being one, where he is listed as the glass-looker, lists it as an examination for an unidentified misdemeanor charge, and the total but not itemized fees) and the constable's bill of cost with an itemized fee break down. That's all that the existing court records tell us. The main documents are a trial transcript that made a strange circuitous route to Utah and was only published a few times in the 1870s and 1880s, and has since gone missing. This I believe is the transcript that is found on the website you refer to. The only other definite eyewitness account is that of William D. Purple, published in 1877 and says that Smith was arrested as "a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood," and was ultimately "discharged." Without actual court documents, it is impossible to verify any of the theories of what the actual outcome was. All in all though, this is a very minor point in the whole story of Joseph Smith - it is relevant to the subject of seer stones in Smith's life and the LDS movement, and to the specific topic of Smith's early life, but I think it is undue weight to push it to anything more than a sentence in the main Joseph Smith article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a sentence might be warranted. We all agree that what Smith was doing was illegal in contemporary New York and that he was arrested for doing it. (The Ostlings' book is undoubtedly a WP:RS, BYU Studies mostly, and FARMS possibly in limited circumstances. In any case, it's not a big deal to quote from a different source to the same end.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We all might not agree. What was Joseph Smith specifically doing that landed him front of a magistrate? It was apparently something (il-defined) that somebody thought was illegal, but was it in fact illegal? There seems to be conflicting word as to the outcome, so might we presume innocence before the law for Joseph? I do think it is interesting that there is a reference to Smith being known as "The Glass Looker", something that could be included in the main text, and not just as a footnote. But we should be careful beyond that. I suggest something simple like: (In an apparent reference to his use of seer stones Joseph Smith was noted as "The Glass Looker" in 1826 court records from Bainbridge, New York), after that put in the reference or any additional footnote as needed.Rockford1963 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Peter Bridgeman, nephew of Josiah Stowell, entered a complaint against Joseph Smith Jr. as a disorderly person in South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law specified that anyone pretending to have skill in discovering lost goods should be judged a disorderly person....Presumably, Bridgeman believed that Joseph was trying to cheat the old man by claiming magical powers. In the court record, Stowell said that he 'had the most implicit faith in the Prisoners skill,' implying that was the reason for hiring Joseph." (Bushman, 52.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think John's edit looks like a good compromise - not too much weight on the extraneous details and relates it back to the subject of the article. I don't know if this qualifies as a WP:RS as I can't find much info on the e-publication, but Vogel has a pretty good essay on the subject that summarizes the extant documents pretty well, imo: Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thought about the Vogel piece: it looked good, but I didn't know if it if was WP:RS. If both FyzixFighter and I think it's worthwhile, we're in pretty safe territory. I'll add it to the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seer stone (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609204410/http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp to http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion should precede major changes

Let's discuss possible major changes to the article here. Remember to cite reliable secondary (rather than primary) sources.--John Foxe (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe: It appears that SunKider did try to discuss the changes here, but unwittingly started his thread at the top of the talk page instead of the bottom. I've cut and pasted his posts below. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)