Joseph Smith could have translated the Book of Mormon with an Apple and it wouldn’t matter to me. The Book of Mormon proves itself to me every time I read it. I love that book.
By capitalizing ,”Apple”, I’m assuming u mean an electronic device by Steve Jobs…not the fruit? Which creates an anachronism, unless you believe Smith was a prophet , seer, revelator AND time traveler? 😁
@@kevinedward-jt2vs It's not the definition at all (invest in a dictionary). Once one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon through the Spirit, the exact mechanics of the translation process are secondary.
Moroni sure saw the Internet of the 21st century; “He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people” Each time an Anti-Mormon discusses Joseph Smith, he causes this prophecy to become even more true.
Joseph Smith in the Wentworth letter--"Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." The Lord in D&C 10:1 "Because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them." The Lord and Joseph Smith's words seem pretty clear on the instrument used to translate the Book of Mormon.
@@dr33776 No. The sources are almost all antichrist sources that never saw anything about the translation. The Martin Harris alleged statement is second hand, was never confirmed by Martin Harris and occurred after he was kicked in the head by a horse or such on his way out west apparently but doesn't match any other statement related to the translation process. The Emma Smith statement occurred while she had dementia and was written in conjunction is a statement that Joseph Smith never initiated the restoration of polygamy which we know is not true. Again, Emma never noted a stone in a hat story in any of her statement in her life prior to that point. David Whitmer also never made such a statement until much later in his life when he was out of the Church for many years. David also was never part of the translation process.
Look up “Robert McNemar” on BH Roberts foundation website, and you’ll find an image and transcription of a journal entry describing this man’s (McNemar) passing encounter with Oliver (called the “amanuensis”/scribe in the journal), where Oliver apparently specifically mentioned Joseph placing “stones in a hat, and the inspiration flowed.” It is also briefly mentioned in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation. As far as I’m aware, Neville and other staunch opponents of “seer stones and hat” translation ignore this source contradicting their narrative that Oliver also never mentioned anything but the interpreters. Woodruff also apparently called Joseph’s seer stones “urim and thummim,” and if you believe the story of how he found (I think the white?) seer stone, then it seems like that stone was “prepared” for Joseph as well. I do, anyway.
My understanding of the seer stone theory is that the seer stone was used after the lost 116 pages were lost. The plates and urim and thumim were taken away. Then only the plates were given back so Joseph used the stone then. I'm not saying you're wrong but you might be missing the seer stone argument a bit.
This kind of episode is part of why I love Ward Radio. Cardon is an amazing host. Whether or not he agrees with his guests he asks probing questions that may come across as offensive but that requires them to disclose their full position.
David Whitmer actually saw a demonstration, not the actual translation. Read BY MEANS OF THE URIM & THUMMIM by James Lucas and Jonathan Neville. They nail it.
Neville doesn’t touch Robert McNemar’s account of Oliver describing the translation on a corner in Ohio where he apparently specifically mentions stones in a hat. You can look up the journal entry and its transcription on BH Roberts foundation website by searching for “Robert McNemar.” It’s also mentioned in passing in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation.
Neville ignores the source referenced (fleetingly) in footnote 28 of the GTE about translation. You can see an image of this source (a journal entry) along with a transcription of it on the BH Toberts foundation website. Oliver (the “amanuensis” aka scribe) is described by McNemar as preaching about the translation process. He apparently said Joseph placed “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.” “Stones” could be the U&T taken out of their awkwardly-large frames, or could be seer stones, but there is definitely a hat mentioned. I’d like to know why Neville et al disregard/ignore/discredit this seemingly neutral source? Neutral because McNemar was a Shaker who never joined the church, nor seems to have been openly hostile towards it.
It’s not direct evidence, but according to Jewish tales, Enoch used a clear stone to read the “Celestial Torah” in shining Hebrew letters. This could correspond to the Urim & Thummim and possibly a stone used in part of the translation
I have heard the tzohar/“window” (perhaps a shining stone..? Like the Jaredite barge stones?) in Noah’s Ark might also have been used as the OT urim and thummim. I have not yet gone searching for those stories myself yet, though.
I really like your guest and his personality! I agree with what your guest said about Arrington but I really liked his book “Brigham Young American Moses”. David Whitmer did NOT witness the actual translation process but a demonstration model. David and Emma were present after the translation when under pressure Joseph did a demonstration using the stone in a hat as he quoted BofM scripture of how the translation was done in front of “friends”. Afterwards Joseph gave the stone to Oliver and said he no longer needed it. See Johnathan Neville comments on this topic. Neville has studied this extensively and he agrees with your guest. The author of Rough Stone Rolling now accepts Neville’s documentation and arguments as more than important considerations.
I agree with what your guest said about Arrington but I really liked his book “Brigham Young American Moses”. David Whitmer did NOT witness the actual translation process but a demonstration model. David and Emma were present after the translation when under pressure Joseph did a demonstration using the stone in a hat as he quoted BofM scripture of how the translation was done in front of “friends”. Afterwards Joseph gave the stone to Oliver and said he no longer needed it. See Johnathan Neville comments on this topic. Neville has studied this extensively and he agrees with your guest. The author of Rough Stone Rolling now accepts Neville’s documentation and arguments as more than important considerations.
It could also be time, David was writing over 50 years later. The Book of Moses was written in 1830 right after the Book of Mormon was published. Did Joseph use the seer stone to reveal the Book of Moses? Could David have confused the two after so many years?
Heres the problem with this argument of "it makes joseph a conjurer by using the seer stones", what would you call joseph in egypt with his scrying cup? Or moses with his snake/stick? Parting the red seas? Pulling water out of a rock? What about aarons budding rod? Those are just a small sample of miracles/magic in the old testament only, theres so much "magic" all throughout the scriptures. Are the stones in a hat any crazier than a 14 year old boy seeing God, Christ, and angels?
Yes that's the theory out there. Urim and Thumim was not how they originally referred to the stones. They just called them interpreters. It wasn't until the anti Mormon pamphlet by ED howe (I think that's the name). The publication attacked Joseph for treasure digging. That's when we see them call them the biblical title urim and Thumim to distinguish between magical objects and holy objects. Richard Bushman and others believe that urim and Thumim could be titles given to any stones used to channel the gift of a seer.
Everyone go look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry about Oliver preaching in Ohio on the BH Roberts Foundation website. And then ask Neville and Stoddard et al why they discount/ignore this source as proof positive that Oliver DID talk about the use of stones in a hat (because it is also fleetingly mentioned in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation).
I was raised in the Church and have ALWAYS believed the golden plates were translated using several different methods, one of which was Joseph placing a seer stone in a hat. In addition to the seer stone, he also he used the U and T. Ta-Dah! There you have it, case closed. Its really not that difficult.
I don’t know why people have to have be “one way, and one way only…” I certainly don’t receive personal revelation in exactly the same way all the time! And the way I understand it, the tools were more for training Joseph to use his natural/God-given gift of sight, anyway. Like training wheels! Ha
I believe the interpreters were solely used for the book of mormon translation. However joseph did have the gift of the spirit of seeing. He usedba seer stone for other things because some of what we call mysticism today was within the realm of science in his day
Well, it doesn't matter at the end of the day. However, I've always found the part with Joseph Smith looking into a hat to get it dark and see the stones intruiging. Think about what the jews did with THEIR urim and thummim. The high priest went into the holy of holies. That place was putch black, so how did he get to know God's will with those stones? Hint: according to jewish tradition, the answer was very illuminating
I've thought of this too. Imagine the setting of a "translation room." A desk, some chairs. Can't put "foil on the windows" to black it out completely. The scribe has paper, a pen and ink well and needs to see to write (and read it back). Also, the room may have other purposes and can't be left blacked out perpetually. Assuming the characters on the stone (or U and T) shine bright enough to see only for the viewer but not illuminate the whole room, it makes sense to dim the area immediately around them (like in a box, or a hat)
How can you discount the one and only artifact that exists relating to the BOM, the seer stone There is no Nephit interpreters, there is no Urim and Thumum. There is a seer stone and your church leaders are telling us that JS used it. Please add LDS leaders to the list of anti Mormons that claim a seer stone is the method of translation.
You guys are killing me. I did four videos on this subject and both sides are not representing the real arguments. Please let me come on and explain!!!!!
What is your explanation found in Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star vol. 44, no. 6 (Feb 6, 1882), p. 87 referring to Martin Harris replacing the seer stone with another stone to see if Joseph would notice the difference. The Book of Mormon is true no matter what.
I believe Neville chalks that up to “hearsay” and someone understanding “how to spin a good yarn.” I would really like to know why Neville et al ignore (because I’m assuming at least one of the U&T only bunch know about) the source fleetingly referenced in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation, about *Oliver* being recorded in a journal entry from Shaker Robert McNemar as having described Joseph putting “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.” I have never heard one of the U&T people mention this source, so I would like to know why they ignore it. I first heard of it on Gospel tangents (I forget the guy’s name…. But it should mention Oliver and seer stones in the episode title) and then looked it up on the BH Roberts foundation website for myself. I’ve never had an issue with the seer stones and hat narrative, so I found the knowledge of this source actually comforting to combat the staunch defenders of “Joseph and Oliver always said x” guys; especially since that is now the exact argument of the polygamy deniers. Ironically, Stoddard, Neville et al do accept that Joseph practiced polygamy even though he seems to have been really careful about public statements against it, so they at least accept all historical evidence beyond Joseph’s own words in THAT regard. I would still like to know the reasoning behind ignoring this one source about Oliver mentioning hats…
@@harrmarkcards it was poor memory and Joseph was playing along making fun of Martin Harris for the trick if it even happened. Also, early statements by Martin Harris told no such tale while supporting the use of Interpreters.
Neville discounts it as hearsay and the ability to “spin a good yarn.” What I’d like to know more, though, is why Neville et al completely ignore/otherwise fail to acknowledge the one known source of Oliver mentioning the use of “stones in a hat.” It has a fleeting mention in footnote 28 of the GTE about translation, but you can see an image and transcript of the journal entry of Robert McNemar (Shaker who never joined the church nor was hostile towards it) where he specifically names Oliver as the one preaching to the crowd in Ohio, and describes Oliver as the “amanuensis” (scribe) for Joseph, who put “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.”
@@gingersnaps215 he answered that in another post you posted the same thing. The reporter got a few other things wrong and was influenced by anti-Mormon reports. There isn't a way to verify the accuracy of the quote other than what Oliver wrote in his own words unfiltered by a bias reporter.
Oops, Richard McNemar, not Robert 😅 I honestly have no issues with the stones in the hat though. And Don Bradley’s research has made it seem as if the use of the animal pelt hat to cover the sacred objects is totally par for the course for that kind of “seeing!”
OR, Joseph Smith could have lied, as the tons of other evidence shows? The Good News is that even though Joseph lied, Jesus rose from the dead and will help anyone who comes directly to Himself ! No cult ceremony needed. It always was a relationship.
@@GADBabaganoosh No, just read the evidence produced by your own LDS scholar and GA at the request of prophet Heber, by BH Roberts. Download the 1923 secret LDS church report from "internet archive" entitled "Studies of the Book of Mormon". You are in eternal danger.
Ultimately it doesn't matter how he translated. But, the stone and the hat thing is an easy way for others to make him look silly and ridiculous. And doing that is a way to diminish him as a prophet.
It does matter because it would mean that the church lied for decades. And it matters because because people lived and died. Testifying, it was that way and it wasn't. That means they didn't know what they said they did. A k a lying for the lord.
@@kevinedward-jt2vs Abandon the moronic cult for an even more moronic cult worshipping a book instead of the Lord. Lie to yourselves about sola scriptura but cling to the words of men in the form of creeds because the Bible does not truly clarify the nature of God. You can then think you're so righteous and be judgemental modern day Pharisees. Good luck with that!
From what I understand about seer stones is that they are kind of “tuned” to the user. I think Joseph had a particular gift for seeing (in fact we know he did…) and was able to use another girl’s stone to find one of his stones (the white one?), but I believe typically you had your own stone which would work “better” for you than for another person (if we liken it to fiction, kind of how wizard’s wands work best for their owners but can still work for others in Harry Potter). The Urim and Thummim/interpreters, on the other hand, are divinely prepared objects that I believe would work to “see” all sorts of things for any user who was prepared to use them. But this is mostly speculation on my part as I have never tried to use a seer stone and no one living (aside from the three Nephites?? 😂) has seen the urim and thummim/interpreters. But also, there is one known source mentioning Oliver describing the use of a hat and stones. Look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry in the BH Roberts Foundation website. It’s also given a passing mention in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation. (“Stones” could be the U&T or “regular” rocks; I’ve heard Joseph popped them out of the awkwardly large frames and put them in the hat, but haven’t checked those stories).
@@kevinedward-jt2vs , you are in a cult of one. Believe in Jesus Christ, not of some delusional preacher's hypnotic mantra. There's more Truth. Get out of your box.
@@gingersnaps215 , Oliver Cowdery only spoke of using the Urim and Thummim. He knew because he was permitted to attempt to use them, not a stone. David Whitmer saw the demonstration. He was not witness to the actual translation process, only Oliver.
This is so frustrating for me; about ten years ago, in my mission, I told many people that it was an anti-mormon lie because my mission president told me multiple times that it was a lie. And Now the Church is telling us this is the truth? I have friends going through faith crises after learning this at Mormon Stories for the first time-this topic is what opened the door to more and more problematic issues.
That was your mission President's fault. The Church always haad those records and anyone could read it, but there are still a few people in the Church who don't believe it.
@llovetrain And do the JSF people mention Robert McNemar’s journal entry that clearly describes Oliver (the amanuensis/scribe) preaching in Ohio about the translation, and specifically mentioning the use of stones in a hat? You can look it up on the BH Roberts Foundation website, and see a fleeting reference to it in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation. I’ve not hear of any opponents to the seer stone and hat method ever mention this source, let alone discuss why it should be an “invalid” source. Neville is pretty good at taking down everything else pro-seer stone as “hearsay” and such, but he also hasn’t dealt with this journal entry. I’d like to know why.
This is such a lame argument. The translation was a miracle whether one stone, two stones, or no stones were used. Regardless, "the gift and power of God" was the required enabling factor. Otherwise they're just rocks. The product itself is a reality we can read and pray over. We're not asked to testify to the means because it's irrelevant, and meaningless contention.
You should see if Gerrit Dirkmaat would be willing to come on. He was part of the Joseph Smith Papers project and has some background on this issue (primary sources). He's also pretty amusing (host of the Standard of Truth podcast). There are multiple references in the JS Papers to Joseph Smith using the seer stone, including an 1832 trial transcript of testimony by Josiah Stowell claiming JS told him how he used it (hearsay, but different rules back then).
Sources matter, and there's a reason the brethren didn't touch some sources. You need to look behind it, know there standing at the time the statement was given. Seer stones were used as examples to show how the process was made. Some sacred artifacts are not meant for all eyes.
Just that fact that Joseph Smith scammed people with seer stones and then used those same stones to "translate" a mysterious golden book that no one was allowed to see, is NUTSO. You are in a cult.
Church "scholars" who were part of the Swearing Elders, an elite group of church academics who lost their faith when they came to embrace Marxism and Darwinism as it grew in popularity 40s, 50s and 60s, actively sought to rewrite Church history by prioritizing and perpetuating second hand , heresay, late and even apostate historical accounts over firsthand contempory accounts of the restoration, all for the sole purpose of undermining Joseph Smith as a prophet seer and revelator and the miraculous and spiritual restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are experiencing the fruits of their labors and their influence even upon the elect of the Church today because of their heresy. For the first 190 years of the Church prophets, apostles and leaders of the Church stood behind what JS and Oliver Cowdery consistantly testified regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon by means of the U&T and BOM geography being the USA, the promised land of Liberty. It's hard to believe that so many in the Church tiday accept the claims of present day " scholars" when they say that JS was just a simple farm boy that didn't know what he was talking about.
@rock598 do the Saints books and GTE not count as “official”..? Also, look into Don Bradley’s research about the lost pages, and the fact thatbJoseph’s hat was beaver fur, and then look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry describing how Oliver preached to a crowd in Ohio about how Joseph placed “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.” “Stones could be U&T outside of their frames, but a hat is clearly mentioned.
The seer stone thing is a non issue to me. The product is always more important than the method of how the product was made. Suppose there as a controversy among Harry Potter Fans. The story is told that JK Rowlings used a typewriter to compose the Harry Potter novels. It then came out that Rowlings actually used Microsoft Word and did not use a typewriter. Does that mean the Harry Potter novels are trash and should be dismissed? NO. It does not matter. The story of Harry Potter is just as good regardless of what Rowlings used. The seer stone issue is simply a smoke screen to distract from more important issues. Also I do sort of like the seer stone angle. Imagine Joseph Smith composing the entire Book of Mormon looking into a hat. Imagine Joseph Smith dictating entire chapters of Isaiah almost exactly like the KJV simply by staring into a hat. That is virtually impossible for anyone to the first time through. I think those who bring up the seer stone issue in a effort to discredit the BOM have not really thought through what they are suggesting.
Cardon why the effort to rewrite Arrington journals? Arrington claims to be inspired of God to rewrite history. He talks about his lack of faith in his journals. I get that this makes for a good show but you are now adding to the altering of the history. Is that where Ward Radio is going? As for Luke’s holding on to Whitmer pamphlet Bushman has acknowledged he is ignoring Cowadreys statement in Rough Stome rolling and has published his scooping Nevell new book. The point of this is that we look a house divided by outsiders. If it’s not true why are we holding onto this Mark Hoffman tainted rhetoric?
President Nelson is cool with it, I’m cool with it. Also Wilford Woodruff consecrated Joseph’s seer stone on the altar of the Manti temple right after it was dedicated.
Oh, the “safe and effective”, children must wear masks and be vaccinated to see the Christmas lights at Temple Square in the middle of winter outside, UN, etc. Yeah, I’m good with that……..
@@kevinedward-jt2vs done that and doing that. It’s not a cult. Open your heart to the Spirit and he will show you. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the Lord’s church on earth. The Book of Mormon is true scripture. Joseph Smith really saw The Father and The Son, and Russel M Nelson is a prophet today.
@@ThoseOneGuysInc Jesus never said to go to masonic cult temple ceremonies, HE DID say to come directly to Himself for salvation. You are following your feelings from a demonic spirit.
So if the alleged magic of JS’s youth was a preparatory priesthood of some sort, are we gonna start giving tarot cards to 10 year olds to help them prepare for the Aaronic priesthood? I find the preparatory priesthood argument absolutely absurd and unscriptural.
I think the logic behind it is that Joseph was “open” to things (like visions!) whereas many theologians and lay people of the day believed any and all such manifestations to be “of the devil” because the “heavens were closed.” Maybe Joseph’s “magical world view” helped him to receive more, faster, because he wasn’t hindered by ideas of “closed heavens.” Maybe similar to how toddlers can have surprising strength (or the mentally compromised but otherwise physically able), but as we get older and learn about limits and self-doubt, we stop believing in our own abilities. Not a perfect analogy, but this is how I kind of understand it. 🤷♀️ Also, the occult (and plenty would say casting lots like they did in scripture is “occult”), or using tools (like tarot, pendulums, seer stones) for divination/revelation is perhaps not the smartest thing to do these days because any spiritual power can be manipulated by any spirit (see the account of Hiram Page’s false revelation), and if we are not properly guarded, prepared, or dedicated (in purpose, to God) in our use of such tools, we open ourselves up to deception by false spirits.
@@gingersnaps215 I appreciate this perspective and it seems valid. I can be open to the idea of the magic world view serving as some sort of catalyst to open his mind for future spiritual experiences and exploration. But that’s not the same as a preparatory priesthood. That feels like a stretch haha. I also wonder, if he did dabble in magic as much as some claim, what came first: the magic or his open mind? I don’t know if he needed the magic to open his mind or if because of his open minded nature he explored magic. At the end of the day idk. 🤷🏻♂️
I believe Joseph demonstrated the stone in the hat to satisfy the curiosity of those who were asking him about it as he was not able to show the Urim and Thummim. The Urim and Thummim were technically stones in a bow. His seer stone was the closest thing he could show so he used that as an example when demonstrating. That is my theory at least.
Oliver also mentioned the use of “stones in a hat” while preaching in Ohio. There’s a fleeting reference to this in footnote 28 of the GTE, as well as the full journal entry from the witness, Robert McNemar, who seems to have been a neutral source, on the BH Roberts foundation website. I’d like to know why Neville et al discount this source to the point of never bringing it up. 🤨 Also though, thanks to Don Bradley’s research into the lost stories and the fact that Joseph’s hat was beaver fur (animal skin!!), I kind of feel like it’s totally fine he used the hat, and possibly even that he was meant to!
@@dr33776because the original name of the Book of Mormon stones are called the Interpreters, although Urum and Thummum is the general name of the kind of stones they represent.
And Neville ignores (I assume he’s ignoring it, since there is a passing mention of it in footnote 28 of the GTE) a source describing Oliver’s mention of stones in a hat. Robert McNemar (Shaker who never joined nor was hostile toward the church) witnessed Oliver preaching in Ohio and wrote about it in his journal. I’d like to know why Neville (or any of the U&T Only people..) doesn’t mention this in his work or try to discredit it as valid evidence for the use of seer stones, like he does (fairly well) every other bit of pro-seer stone evidence.
@@gingersnaps215 There's no need to discredit the McNemar account because it corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said and contradicts the SITH accounts. Here's note 28: In the winter of 1831, a Shaker in Union Village, Ohio, spoke of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles” through which the translator “looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.” As Joseph and Oliver said, Joseph used the U&T and looked on the plates. If you read the entire account by McNemar, you can see he was quite hostile to the Book of Mormon, which he described as "cunningly devised fables." He doesn't actually quote Oliver. He says Joseph translated "plates of brass," suggesting he may have confused some of the narrative, relating what he thought he heard. He could have conflated what Oliver said with other accounts such as the widely distributed Hadley account that Joseph refuted in the Preface to the 1830 edition.
@johnathann3d McNemar didn’t join the church, but I don’t think he went around like actively preaching against it (like Philpot and Law), so I’d still say he is private journal entry is a fairly neutral source. He did name Oliver as the “amanuensis” (scribe) preaching about the translation to the crowd, and I don’t think there’s enough other evidence from that entry alone to make conjectures one way or the other about what he may or may not have read or confused. Oliver may have mentioned “brass plates,” as they did have the small plates (and weren’t those brass? perhaps not, I don’t go through the historical weeds.) I have no issue with Joseph’s potential use of hats, seer stones, or interpreters, or if he used nothing at all but prayer and other spiritual preparation. I actually think the use of the beaver fur hat dovetails quite nicely with OT admonishments to cover spiritual things (like the ark of the covenant) with animal skins, and Don Bradley’s findings of the lost stories. What’s so wrong with placing a hat over his face to translate, instead of wearing the awkwardly large spectacles on his face? Mostly, I find all of the in-fighting and staunch insistence for or against certain methods (and geographic models) to be far beside the point, and a tool of the adversary more than anything else, to divide the house, as it were. Plus, the polygamy deniers use the “Joseph always said x” reasoning as their main argument that he did NOT practice polygamy, journals and other personal accounts and historical evidence not withstanding.
How did Joseph receive his other revelations? Like when he was translating the Bible or receiving revelations for other church members as in the D&C was he using a seer stone? There were a lot of people who observed those revelations.
I think he must have used the seer stone for at least some of those things, if not the BoM as well, because Hiram Page had a false revelation through *his* seer stone, which Oliver believed. I feel like if no one saw Joseph use his seer stones to receive any sort of revelation, then Oliver would have been less-inclined to accept Page’s false revelation.
3 reasons why I think it was only Urim and Thummim: 1- It tastes right to me. Always has to me. Seer stone never has. Coupled with that feeling is my personal logic about the process of translation: logically, to translate, it makes sense to look through some sort of spectacles at the record itself rather than into a stone and have it “fed” to you. Plus, Oliver Cowdery was told that he could not translate because he had not studied it out in his mind sufficiently; that fits with translating by looking at the plates themselves but not getting fed the words in a stone. 2- Shannon’s explanation of academic bruhaha fits many other observations of mine. 3- Why would Joseph need the Urim and Thummim to translate if any old seer stone would do? Yet, the Urim and Thummim were prepared by God and then passed down through prophets for THOUSANDS of years. This indicates that they were necessary (even if not the only instrument used).
And if Joseph never used “any old stone” for receiving revelation, then I suspect Oliver might have been much more wary of Hiram Page’s false revelation (received through a “regular” seer stone as described in whichever section of D&C) than he was. Also, there is one known source of Oliver mentioning the use of “stones in a hat” (could be the U&T popped out of their awkwardly large frame, could be “regular” stones) that I have not seen one of the U&T Only supporters ever mention. You can see a passing reference to it in footnote 28 of the GTE about translation, and an image and transcript of it on the BH Roberts foundation website. Look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry, and it should come up. McNamara was a Shaker who never joined the church, nor was he openly hostile towards it. I’d like to know why Neville, Stoddard, others dismiss/discredit/don’t acknowledge this seemingly neutral source that, yes, Oliver the amanuensis/scribe for a large part of the translation, did in fact mention the use of stones in a hat on at least one occasion.
Why would Moroni provide the urim and thumim if a stone would do? Why would Joseph move away from the urim and thumim if that's what Moroni told him to use?
whether it was one stone or another, it doesn't make much difference to me. I am curious to know and I do have occasional skepticism about the Seer Stone theory but the translation is true and that's what matters.
The issue isn’t that he looked in a hat. The issue is the church tried hiding much of that info. Props to them for coming out with it. Rock in the hat used to be anti Mormon attacks.
Where are you getting this? I was raised in the Church and have always believed the Golden Plates were translated through several methods, one of which was a seer stone placed in a hat.
@@wes2176great for you. I was told it was anti Mormon lies. My bishop recently told me he’d never heard that and said he’d never heard of the church essays on the topic.
@@wes2176and the guys are doing it in this episode. They’re trashing Leonard Arrington but what they fail to mention is that the vast majority of what Arrington said was true.
@@TwoTreesVisuals "The Church tried hiding" . Lies. If you are searching for truth, stay far away from the Anti-Mormons, they lie worse than any group on this earth.
My seer stone time traveling moment would be I would have a hard time choosing between the sermon on the mount or Christ appearing to the Nephites after His resurrection blessing the children and healing the sick(chapter 17 of 3 Nephi)
I agree… the single stone idea is an error. David Whitmer and Emma are the source, but years later. I think the context was Joseph demonstrating the manner of how he translated using a hat. But they never actually saw him officially translating- they were not allowed to see the “interpreters”. Gentleman in the right is absolutely correct. The only ones who KNEW for sure all said urim and Thummim or interpreters. The Lord said it. Joseph said it. Moroni said it. Oliver said it. And the BOM and D&C plainly state they were specifically prepared for the translation. That does not mean he did not place the interpreters in his hat- that’s what I believe he did. But when those forbidden from seeing the urim and Thummim asked about the translation he demonstrated with his hat and his other seer stone.
In the beginning Joseph pretended to use a seer stone, with the Urim and Thummin already in the hat. This was because he was forbidden to show any items of antiquity to anyone (on pain of death). This included his own wife, Emma. The Lord was fully aware of Joseph's little pretense. See D&C 5:4 This would explain many things... Joseph's reluctance to discuss specifics related to the actual translation process. The introduction to the Book of Mormon, stating it was translated by the gift and power of God. Joseph's eventual willingness to just give his "seer stone" away, saying he had no further use for it. (How could Joseph do such a thing if he actually had used his seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?) Several contemporary accounts reporting that the U&T were in the hat. This particular D&C scripture. Apparently no man knows the history of Joseph Smith and neither did Emma. It seems apparent that those who later spoke of Joseph with his face in his hat, only reported what they had actually seen with their own eyes.
It’s interesting that people who watch believe the seer stone theory when Don Bradley has said he put a hit on his head with the interpreters and you all seem to believe Don!
The logic I get hung up on when it comes to the seer stone in a hat is all the work that went into getting Joseph the urim and Thummim. The Lord prepared the stones for the urim and thummim centuries before Joseph smith. They were used to translate other records by Mosiah and other prophets. They were passed down and preserved for hundreds of years until Moroni placed them in an ark with records and the sword of Laban for Joseph Smith to attain when he was ready. The Lord teaches Joseph how to use the interpreters and commands him not to show them to anyone or be destroyed. All this was done so Joseph could set the urim and thummim aside and instead use a stone that he found on his own and placed it in a hat to translate? I don’t buy it for a second.
So Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thumin to translate. A terrestrial devise. Then he used a seer's stone a telestrial devise. This one he carried in public. The Israel High Priest used a breast plate with 12 stnes which had letters on them, and 2 stones i.e. the Urim and Thumim. The 12 stones had the names of the tribes of Israel. When Jehovah spoke to the High Priest through the stones of the breast plate the stones would light up one by one to send a written message. I.e. a text message. You can read this in the Taldmud. The Book of Revelation says he that overcomes receives a white stone with a new name on it that no one knows but he that receives it. Rev2:17. It is a terestrial object. Note that Jesus tells this to John while Jesus is dressed in the robes of the high priest in the (terrestrial?) temple! it is known that Joseph Smith had a white stone and a brown stone and even gave away a stone to a close friend. What do all the stones of the high priest and the ones Joseph had have in common? They were crystals. Not unlike a cell phone which has a silicon (crystal) chip. There are legends that the prophets had various stones which sent and received divine information . The stones which the ten commandments were written may have been like that. The stone altar which Adam had allegedly was able to receive info from God. It might be helpful if we look into this matter further. Blessings to everyone.
For 2,400 years those lates were in the America's. Some made here, some made in Israel. As long as you didn't need to see them. Other people could see them from 600BC - 400AD; but not you.
I know the truth, I’m am a son of god and I know with 100% certain that I am apart of the truest, nigh nearly perfect gospel. I know there are something that are a little hazy and maybe miss understood about early LDS church history. But to me I it makes no difference. I will stand everlasting on this mountain of truth and never falter.
The Prophet, Joseph said in his official statement in Joseph Smith History that they used the interpreters. When we doubt the prophet and go looking for other sources, we are doing the same doubting as Naaman who disbelieve Elijah's command to wash in the river.
I still like the logic that in section 17 of D&C the point was made that witnesses got to see what was used in the translation... Notice there is NO mention of a stone or a hat.
But there is that section about Hiram Page’s false revelations through a seer stone. If “regular” stones weren’t ever used by Joseph, I’d assume Oliver would have been much more wary of Hiram’s revelation than he was. I’d also find all the historical statements that Joseph told members that any faithful among them could use a seer stone highly suspect, along with the stories of people using them to find lost objects and such, to the displeasure or approval of other Saints. 🤷♀️ Also, there is at least one record of Oliver mentioning the use of “stones in a hat.” Look up Robert McNemar on the BH Roberts foundation website and you should find an image and transcript of his journal entry describing Oliver preaching in Ohio. You can also see a passing mention of this in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation.
Richard McNemar. Oopsies. I also alike Don Bradley’s research about Joseph’s hat being beaver skin (animal pelts to cover the spiritual things, like the ark of the covenant!) and the lost story of how the interpreters were found by whoever, which involved putting an animal skin over the interpreters and then he could “SEE!” Rocks in hats doesn’t seem so weird in that light 🙃
The way I see Bushman’s work, is that it is a plausible answer to the antagonistic biographies and narratives out there. Even if it is void of historical truth as far as the translation and Joseph’s character go, it serves the purpose of being a plausible response to the likes of, say, Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History,” where she asserts that Joseph must have been a gifted hypnotist (mesmerizer, I think, since “hypnotism” wasn’t known as such in his day) who could charm and beguile people into believing and seeing all sorts of things! Bushman’s work took all the favorite sources of attack and found faithful answers and reasoning for them. Glowing narratives that simply discount seer stones and hats as “anti-Mormon” were never going to be accepted by the truly hardened. Now there are all sorts of amateur historians mining the evidence and flushing out “hearsay” to find answers that support the traditional narrative of U&T, too! (Though just because something is “hearsay” in a court of law doesn’t mean it might not also true. Just means that it’s not the most solid testimony or evidence.) There’s enough evidence of all kinds (solid testimony and firsthand accounts to second and thirdhand accounts) for every and all sides to pick a lane and feel satisfied with their choice 🤷♀️
@@gingersnaps215 An answer to antagonistic biographies? Yes, the one thing we lacked was Joseph Smith biographies and other writings debunking detractors. The claim that Joseph Smith was a gifted hypnotist didn’t really need to be debunked did it? Did she cite where he learned this skill? Or was he just born with it? It is a silly claim that on its face undermines her credibility. Bushman is not alone in his work to “[find] faithful answers and reasons for them.” Again, what did we get from Bushman that we didn’t already have? I say a Postmodernist deconstruction of our history. A Howard Zinn approach to our history. Mission accomplished too. How many have left the church due to his “new discoveries?” I suppose those are the “truly hardened” you are referring to…I’m not sure. Information that presents documented events that strongly go against the seer stone/hat idea are hardly mere “glowing narratives” but actual evidence. It puts Bushmanites on the defensive to further prove their claims. And amateur historians? What? There are professions out there that I would not want amateurs getting involved in. I would not an amateur doctor to perform surgery on me, for sure. But, let’s be honest…historian is NOT one of those professions. James Lucas and Jonathan Neville are a couple of these knuckle draggers on the trail of Bushman’s claims. Neither is a slouch. Hearsay is NOT permissible in court as a general rule. And it is only accepted under very specific scenarios. The firsthand accounts in this case are weak. Take Emma; her state of mind when interviewed about these things was very questionable due to her age and condition. I’m actually surprised at the push back and the circling of the wagons academia has put forth to protect Bushman. I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t made a Catholic Saint. There are serious people who have serious concerns with Bushman’s work. We would be wise to examine those claims if we love truth over the institution of academia.
9:40 "why would Joseph only say he used the interpreters"???? Well....maybe it was because of his sordid history of using his Rock in a Hat to scam people? Clearly from what Joseph says later, he was sensitive to his "Rock in a Hat Moneydigging Days."
1834 Isaac Hale describes Joseph as using the stone in the hat while translating the BOM. Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, E. D. Howe 1834), 264-65
From The Church website.... "During the spring and early summer of 1828, Martin scribed as the young seer dictated the translation. Though the process must have seemed miraculous to him, Martin was still on guard against deception. He once replaced Joseph’s seer stone with another stone to see if Joseph would notice the difference. When Joseph was unable to continue translating, Martin confessed his ruse and returned the seer stone. When Joseph asked him why he had done it, Martin explained that he wanted to “stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them.” Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” in Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 44, no. 6 (Feb. 6, 1882), 87.
I thought it probably didn't matter how Joseph translated everything until I realized that believing the seer stone stories meant that Heavenly Father wasted a lot of His time and effort to ensure Joseph received the Urim and Thummin (used by other prophets). The reason the Book of Mormon stands as the 'most correct' of any book is because the writers of the Book of Mormon, (Mormon, Moroni, Ether, and Nephi) were holy men, some of the greatest who ever lived. Additionally, the translator, the Prophet Joseph Smith, was the greatest, most holy prophet, ever to live excepting the Son of God. Joseph was a translator, not a reader. He translated using the Urim and Thummim. He did not 'read' using a magical rock. People like Richard L. Bushman assert that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was more of a 'reading' than it was a genuine translation but that is not the truth according to the Lord and according to Joseph or his family. The word "translate" (Webster's 1828 dictionary) means, "To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another." Joseph did not bring forth the Book of Mormon simply by reading English words that appeared on a stone. He translated ancient Nephite characters into English. He had to convert each Nephite character into terms that the 19th-century English-speaking people could read and understand. He was able to do this because he was tutored by many angels during the years before he even obtained the plates. He was extensively educated regarding the Nephite and Jaredite cultures. He became familiar with their fashion, their travel, their religion, their history, their geography, and many other aspects of their society. Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said that he often told them stories of the ancient people "as if he had spent his whole life with them." Joseph didn't merely receive visions. He personally interacted with Moroni, Moron, Nephi, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, and other Nephite prophets and apostles that lived on this continent. He knew them. He knew their personalities. While he was "unlearned" in the precepts and philosophies of men, he was well-versed in divine doctrine, true history, and spiritual gifts. Can you imagine being educated like this? You can read all sorts of narratives from people who speculate and promote their falseness to demean the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. People quote from others, who have quoted from others, who have quoted from others, who have quoted from apostates. We find these quotes in ALL of our church materials, all of them. If you do not know this or how to recognize or research these things then you are likely to be deceived. "For those concerned how this occultic "Joseph Smith" could make its way into Church publication, President Ezra Taft Benson offered this advice, "Sometimes from behind the pulpit, in our classrooms, in our Council meetings and in our church publications we hear, read or witness things that do not square with the truth...Now do not let this serve as an excuse for your own wrong-doing. The Lord is letting the wheat and the tares mature before he fully purges the Church. He is also testing you to see if you will be misled. The devil is trying to deceive the very elect." (Ezra Taft Benson, "Our Immediate Responsibility" BYU Devotional, Provo, October 25, 1996)" Truth matters.
We are told that the interpreters were provided for the translation, so they would have been used, unless Joseph Smith Jr. got so familiar with the language he no longer needed anything. Now it's possible Joseph Smith Jr. could have used the Seer Stone for other revelations, even at the same time he was using the interpreters for translation. But we are told that when translating, you are not just given the translation, like is described for the stone in a hat narrative, we are told that to translate you have to study it out in your mind, and when you think you have it right, you ask God, and if it isn't you start the process over. So the stone in the hat narrative, perfect word for word, completely contradicts the given description of the translation process. So I don't know why Martin Harris would say what he did, but I do know that people lose what they have, even until they have nothing. Martin Harris never got to the point which he had nothing, but he certainly could have lost something.
I don’t know that the translation process is directly tied to the method… I don’t know why using the interpreters vs stones in a hat (and there is at least one source of Oliver mentioning the stones in a hat; see Richard McNemar’s journal entry on BH Roberts Foundation website) would automatically garner a “tight” translation and the interpreters wouldn’t. I believe people from either camp hold to either process (loose vs tight), regardless of their preferred translation tools. Probably most scholars stick with the hat method over the u&t-only method, but it seems the “how” gets more tightly held onto by people the more they insist that certain language choices were or were not of Joseph’s invention. I kind of feel like it was more a “loose” process in general (because Oliver couldn’t just “do” it, and if the translation just appeared as in a “tight” process, he shouldn’t have had to “study it out”), where Joseph saw *something* from the text, like maybe an image or something, and then he had to study out language and when he decided on meaning and words they might have appeared (except in the case of names. Those seem to have been clearly shown and needed to be spelled out correctly). I dunno, I also don’t have a problem with him not actually opening the plates each time he translated; if he was properly spiritually prepared and “pure” enough to translate, he shouldn’t have had any problem receiving revelation from the next place in the narrative. I have a family member with “gifts” who can “see” and “feel” stuff very far removed from them, and they are not a seer like Joseph was a seer! I don’t see the lack of “prepared tools”/plates open would hinder the translation process once Joseph got better at it. 🤷♀️
The SCRIPTURES state that Joseph used the Urim & Thummim. That settles it for me. When you start going against Scripture, you're getting yourself into hot water.
@@fightingfortruth9806 You are in a cult, when you start ignoring your own LDS GA scholars like B.H. Roberts. Read his report to prophet Heber "Studies of the Book of Mormon".
You clearly haven't read the Book of Mormon or have any idea how it came about. It was absolutely impossible for Joseph to make it up. A professional author with technology, assistants, etc today couldn't do it.
Interesting they always say The Book of Mormon lifted the words of God to, you know, write what is supposed to be related words of God. Of course the words of God would heavily use other words of God. Most of the New Testament lifted the Old Testement. And an English translation of a book would use, get this, English. Even modern translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls in English are heavily influenced by other modern translations. If anything, they have as many similarities and differences as the Book of Mormon contains.
@@n.d.m.515 Exactly. Similar to when, during the first vision, Christ used words from Isaiah while speaking with Joseph. "...for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." 2 Nephi 31:3. Not that the critics of the Book of Mormon would understand any of this.
Joseph Smith could have translated the Book of Mormon with an Apple and it wouldn’t matter to me. The Book of Mormon proves itself to me every time I read it. I love that book.
Exactly...faithless kooks let it bug them
By capitalizing ,”Apple”, I’m assuming u mean an electronic device by Steve Jobs…not the fruit? Which creates an anachronism, unless you believe Smith was a prophet , seer, revelator AND time traveler? 😁
If you have an iPhone, “apple” autocorrects as capitalized 🙃
That is pretty much the definition of a cult.
@@kevinedward-jt2vs It's not the definition at all (invest in a dictionary). Once one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon through the Spirit, the exact mechanics of the translation process are secondary.
Moroni sure saw the Internet of the 21st century;
“He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people”
Each time an Anti-Mormon discusses Joseph Smith, he causes this prophecy to become even more true.
Joseph Smith in the Wentworth letter--"Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." The Lord in D&C 10:1 "Because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them." The Lord and Joseph Smith's words seem pretty clear on the instrument used to translate the Book of Mormon.
Did he or did he not own seer stones?
@@dr33776 No. The sources are almost all antichrist sources that never saw anything about the translation. The Martin Harris alleged statement is second hand, was never confirmed by Martin Harris and occurred after he was kicked in the head by a horse or such on his way out west apparently but doesn't match any other statement related to the translation process. The Emma Smith statement occurred while she had dementia and was written in conjunction is a statement that Joseph Smith never initiated the restoration of polygamy which we know is not true. Again, Emma never noted a stone in a hat story in any of her statement in her life prior to that point. David Whitmer also never made such a statement until much later in his life when he was out of the Church for many years. David also was never part of the translation process.
Look up “Robert McNemar” on BH Roberts foundation website, and you’ll find an image and transcription of a journal entry describing this man’s (McNemar) passing encounter with Oliver (called the “amanuensis”/scribe in the journal), where Oliver apparently specifically mentioned Joseph placing “stones in a hat, and the inspiration flowed.” It is also briefly mentioned in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation. As far as I’m aware, Neville and other staunch opponents of “seer stones and hat” translation ignore this source contradicting their narrative that Oliver also never mentioned anything but the interpreters.
Woodruff also apparently called Joseph’s seer stones “urim and thummim,” and if you believe the story of how he found (I think the white?) seer stone, then it seems like that stone was “prepared” for Joseph as well. I do, anyway.
Except that Joseph Smith has a problem with lying and making contradictory statements, as is proven by the historic testimonies of the evidence.
My understanding of the seer stone theory is that the seer stone was used after the lost 116 pages were lost. The plates and urim and thumim were taken away. Then only the plates were given back so Joseph used the stone then.
I'm not saying you're wrong but you might be missing the seer stone argument a bit.
The truth is important. When we let falsehoods enter the church as truths, the Spirit is Grieved!
This kind of episode is part of why I love Ward Radio. Cardon is an amazing host. Whether or not he agrees with his guests he asks probing questions that may come across as offensive but that requires them to disclose their full position.
@@TheAnzianoJones what great insight! Thank you! Do you have an exact example?
@@WARDRADIO the first opening clip of the intro on this video is a perfect example
Fact
David Whitmer actually saw a demonstration, not the actual translation. Read BY MEANS OF THE URIM & THUMMIM by James Lucas and Jonathan Neville. They nail it.
Agreed! Cowdery said it happened with the Urim and thummim. He was the scribe for the majority of the Book of Mormon.
Neville doesn’t touch Robert McNemar’s account of Oliver describing the translation on a corner in Ohio where he apparently specifically mentions stones in a hat. You can look up the journal entry and its transcription on BH Roberts foundation website by searching for “Robert McNemar.”
It’s also mentioned in passing in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation.
Neville ignores the source referenced (fleetingly) in footnote 28 of the GTE about translation. You can see an image of this source (a journal entry) along with a transcription of it on the BH Toberts foundation website. Oliver (the “amanuensis” aka scribe) is described by McNemar as preaching about the translation process. He apparently said Joseph placed “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.” “Stones” could be the U&T taken out of their awkwardly-large frames, or could be seer stones, but there is definitely a hat mentioned.
I’d like to know why Neville et al disregard/ignore/discredit this seemingly neutral source? Neutral because McNemar was a Shaker who never joined the church, nor seems to have been openly hostile towards it.
*BH Roberts foundation website.
@@gingersnaps215 actually, no they didn't. They took it the way Joseph Smith intended.
Hold on I'm recording this! Bahaha You guys rock. Love this history content and doctrinal discussion.
You guys "rock". Hehehe
If I could look into a seer stone and see anything…It would be the Last Supper.
I’d see Elisha calling on the bears. Different strokes for different folks.
I'd like to spend a few days following Christ and the Apostles. Just get some context. Last Supper would be cool.
@@zissler1That might be my second choice. 😂
It’s not direct evidence, but according to Jewish tales, Enoch used a clear stone to read the “Celestial Torah” in shining Hebrew letters. This could correspond to the Urim & Thummim and possibly a stone used in part of the translation
I have heard the tzohar/“window” (perhaps a shining stone..? Like the Jaredite barge stones?) in Noah’s Ark might also have been used as the OT urim and thummim. I have not yet gone searching for those stories myself yet, though.
Yes this method of translating using a stone is part of “enochian magic”. Look it up
I love how mormons defend their nutso church history by attacking the Bible.
Yes this method of translating using a stone is used in enochian, magic. Look it up
@@gingersnaps215 You are following fables and myths, while rejecting the word of God.
May the Lord bless all of us
I really like your guest and his personality! I agree with what your guest said about Arrington but I really liked his book “Brigham Young American Moses”. David Whitmer did NOT witness the actual translation process but a demonstration model. David and Emma were present after the translation when under pressure Joseph did a demonstration using the stone in a hat as he quoted BofM scripture of how the translation was done in front of “friends”. Afterwards Joseph gave the stone to Oliver and said he no longer needed it. See Johnathan Neville comments on this topic. Neville has studied this extensively and he agrees with your guest. The author of Rough Stone Rolling now accepts Neville’s documentation and arguments as more than important considerations.
Cardon, you do an awesome job with the production. I hope that the stress doesn't get you down.
I hope so too. lol
I agree with what your guest said about Arrington but I really liked his book “Brigham Young American Moses”. David Whitmer did NOT witness the actual translation process but a demonstration model. David and Emma were present after the translation when under pressure Joseph did a demonstration using the stone in a hat as he quoted BofM scripture of how the translation was done in front of “friends”. Afterwards Joseph gave the stone to Oliver and said he no longer needed it. See Johnathan Neville comments on this topic. Neville has studied this extensively and he agrees with your guest. The author of Rough Stone Rolling now accepts Neville’s documentation and arguments as more than important considerations.
It could also be time, David was writing over 50 years later.
The Book of Moses was written in 1830 right after the Book of Mormon was published. Did Joseph use the seer stone to reveal the Book of Moses? Could David have confused the two after so many years?
Heres the problem with this argument of "it makes joseph a conjurer by using the seer stones", what would you call joseph in egypt with his scrying cup? Or moses with his snake/stick? Parting the red seas? Pulling water out of a rock? What about aarons budding rod? Those are just a small sample of miracles/magic in the old testament only, theres so much "magic" all throughout the scriptures. Are the stones in a hat any crazier than a 14 year old boy seeing God, Christ, and angels?
Bingo
Finally. Been waiting for this moment 😅
Could the seer stone be a type of urim and thumman? What is the difference?
Yes that's the theory out there. Urim and Thumim was not how they originally referred to the stones. They just called them interpreters. It wasn't until the anti Mormon pamphlet by ED howe (I think that's the name). The publication attacked Joseph for treasure digging. That's when we see them call them the biblical title urim and Thumim to distinguish between magical objects and holy objects. Richard Bushman and others believe that urim and Thumim could be titles given to any stones used to channel the gift of a seer.
Big difference. Read the Joseph Smith Foundation stuff on this. It’s spot on.
Everyone go look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry about Oliver preaching in Ohio on the BH Roberts Foundation website. And then ask Neville and Stoddard et al why they discount/ignore this source as proof positive that Oliver DID talk about the use of stones in a hat (because it is also fleetingly mentioned in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation).
No. The only conclusion that fits the evidence, is that Joseph Smith lied, but the Jesus of the Bible is true.
Oops, Richard McNemar.
The devil will attack anyone who disturbs his kingdom sufficiently. Sometimes he uses circumstance, other times he uses his mortal minions.
Cardon I think you would love to do a deep dive into a group called the "swearing elders".😅
I was raised in the Church and have ALWAYS believed the golden plates were translated using several different methods, one of which was Joseph placing a seer stone in a hat. In addition to the seer stone, he also he used the U and T. Ta-Dah! There you have it, case closed.
Its really not that difficult.
I don’t know why people have to have be “one way, and one way only…” I certainly don’t receive personal revelation in exactly the same way all the time! And the way I understand it, the tools were more for training Joseph to use his natural/God-given gift of sight, anyway. Like training wheels! Ha
Your gender was assigned to you by God in the premortal world, he was not confused when He did so.
Don't the church essays agree with the rock in the hat? Are you suggesting the church is wrong?
I believe the interpreters were solely used for the book of mormon translation. However joseph did have the gift of the spirit of seeing. He usedba seer stone for other things because some of what we call mysticism today was within the realm of science in his day
Joseph Smith was led by a demonic spirit. Read the Gospel of John and HEAR the voice of Jesus.
Of all the music that is used the intro and outro here, thisnisnmy least favorite. Annoying. Just giving feedback. I enjoy your others.
You guys need to have all the heartland U&T peeps debate the Meso seerstoners!!
Well, it doesn't matter at the end of the day. However, I've always found the part with Joseph Smith looking into a hat to get it dark and see the stones intruiging.
Think about what the jews did with THEIR urim and thummim. The high priest went into the holy of holies. That place was putch black, so how did he get to know God's will with those stones? Hint: according to jewish tradition, the answer was very illuminating
I've thought of this too. Imagine the setting of a "translation room." A desk, some chairs. Can't put "foil on the windows" to black it out completely. The scribe has paper, a pen and ink well and needs to see to write (and read it back). Also, the room may have other purposes and can't be left blacked out perpetually. Assuming the characters on the stone (or U and T) shine bright enough to see only for the viewer but not illuminate the whole room, it makes sense to dim the area immediately around them (like in a box, or a hat)
How can you discount the one and only artifact that exists relating to the BOM, the seer stone
There is no Nephit interpreters, there is no Urim and Thumum.
There is a seer stone and your church leaders are telling us that JS used it.
Please add LDS leaders to the list of anti Mormons that claim a seer stone is the method of translation.
David wittmer also knew how the book of Abraham was done and could have gotten that mixed up as well. I think that is more the case.
Why is it that the Church is alway destroying The names of the Smith family?
Does it ever occur to you that you have been raised since birth to believe lies? Read the Gospel of John and listen to the voice of Jesus!
You guys are killing me. I did four videos on this subject and both sides are not representing the real arguments. Please let me come on and explain!!!!!
Which video so we can check it out?
Just feeling something is true doesn't make it true.
What is your explanation found in Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star vol. 44, no. 6 (Feb 6, 1882), p. 87 referring to Martin Harris replacing the seer stone with another stone to see if Joseph would notice the difference. The Book of Mormon is true no matter what.
I believe Neville chalks that up to “hearsay” and someone understanding “how to spin a good yarn.”
I would really like to know why Neville et al ignore (because I’m assuming at least one of the U&T only bunch know about) the source fleetingly referenced in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation, about *Oliver* being recorded in a journal entry from Shaker Robert McNemar as having described Joseph putting “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.” I have never heard one of the U&T people mention this source, so I would like to know why they ignore it.
I first heard of it on Gospel tangents (I forget the guy’s name…. But it should mention Oliver and seer stones in the episode title) and then looked it up on the BH Roberts foundation website for myself.
I’ve never had an issue with the seer stones and hat narrative, so I found the knowledge of this source actually comforting to combat the staunch defenders of “Joseph and Oliver always said x” guys; especially since that is now the exact argument of the polygamy deniers. Ironically, Stoddard, Neville et al do accept that Joseph practiced polygamy even though he seems to have been really careful about public statements against it, so they at least accept all historical evidence beyond Joseph’s own words in THAT regard. I would still like to know the reasoning behind ignoring this one source about Oliver mentioning hats…
@@harrmarkcards it was poor memory and Joseph was playing along making fun of Martin Harris for the trick if it even happened. Also, early statements by Martin Harris told no such tale while supporting the use of Interpreters.
Neville discounts it as hearsay and the ability to “spin a good yarn.”
What I’d like to know more, though, is why Neville et al completely ignore/otherwise fail to acknowledge the one known source of Oliver mentioning the use of “stones in a hat.” It has a fleeting mention in footnote 28 of the GTE about translation, but you can see an image and transcript of the journal entry of Robert McNemar (Shaker who never joined the church nor was hostile towards it) where he specifically names Oliver as the one preaching to the crowd in Ohio, and describes Oliver as the “amanuensis” (scribe) for Joseph, who put “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.”
@@gingersnaps215 he answered that in another post you posted the same thing. The reporter got a few other things wrong and was influenced by anti-Mormon reports. There isn't a way to verify the accuracy of the quote other than what Oliver wrote in his own words unfiltered by a bias reporter.
Oops, Richard McNemar, not Robert 😅
I honestly have no issues with the stones in the hat though. And Don Bradley’s research has made it seem as if the use of the animal pelt hat to cover the sacred objects is totally par for the course for that kind of “seeing!”
Oooh… I ALMOST gave a ‘like’ to this video. Then Cardon popped off with “HELL no” to moving back to Utah.👎🏻🤷🏼♀️😜
Luke, you have forgotten everything Hannah said about Whitmer.
@@stevenrussell2431 huh?
@@lukehanson_ Rewatch the episode with Hannah and then read her book.
Why is it that it must be one or the other. Couldn't Joseph have done it both ways as he was learning how to receive guidance from the spirit?
OR, Joseph Smith could have lied, as the tons of other evidence shows? The Good News is that even though Joseph lied, Jesus rose from the dead and will help anyone who comes directly to Himself ! No cult ceremony needed. It always was a relationship.
@@kevinedward-jt2vs *vague accusations of lying* Good job man!
@@GADBabaganoosh No, just read the evidence produced by your own LDS scholar and GA at the request of prophet Heber, by BH Roberts. Download the 1923 secret LDS church report from "internet archive" entitled "Studies of the Book of Mormon". You are in eternal danger.
The issue is it makes the "plates" irrelevant.
Show me any works David Whitmer produced with the seer stone he had in his position.
I’d like to watch the Saviors resurrection.
No, he did not use the stone in the hat.
Ultimately it doesn't matter how he translated. But, the stone and the hat thing is an easy way for others to make him look silly and ridiculous.
And doing that is a way to diminish him as a prophet.
Yep
It does matter because it would mean that the church lied for decades. And it matters because because people lived and died. Testifying, it was that way and it wasn't. That means they didn't know what they said they did. A k a lying for the lord.
Truth matters. Joseph Lied. The Good news is the Jesus is the living Lord and you can abandon the moronic cult and flee to Him.
@@kevinedward-jt2vs Abandon the moronic cult for an even more moronic cult worshipping a book instead of the Lord. Lie to yourselves about sola scriptura but cling to the words of men in the form of creeds because the Bible does not truly clarify the nature of God.
You can then think you're so righteous and be judgemental modern day Pharisees. Good luck with that!
@@3DFLYLOW I should say it doesn't matter to my testimony but yes I agree it does matter.
Did angel Moroni take back a stone? No he took back the plates, and the Urim and Thummim. Do we have the sword of Laban or the Liahona?
THIS!
From what I understand about seer stones is that they are kind of “tuned” to the user. I think Joseph had a particular gift for seeing (in fact we know he did…) and was able to use another girl’s stone to find one of his stones (the white one?), but I believe typically you had your own stone which would work “better” for you than for another person (if we liken it to fiction, kind of how wizard’s wands work best for their owners but can still work for others in Harry Potter).
The Urim and Thummim/interpreters, on the other hand, are divinely prepared objects that I believe would work to “see” all sorts of things for any user who was prepared to use them.
But this is mostly speculation on my part as I have never tried to use a seer stone and no one living (aside from the three Nephites?? 😂) has seen the urim and thummim/interpreters.
But also, there is one known source mentioning Oliver describing the use of a hat and stones. Look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry in the BH Roberts Foundation website. It’s also given a passing mention in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation. (“Stones” could be the U&T or “regular” rocks; I’ve heard Joseph popped them out of the awkwardly large frames and put them in the hat, but haven’t checked those stories).
You are in a cult. WAKE UP!
@@kevinedward-jt2vs , you are in a cult of one. Believe in Jesus Christ, not of some delusional preacher's hypnotic mantra. There's more Truth. Get out of your box.
@@gingersnaps215 , Oliver Cowdery only spoke of using the Urim and Thummim. He knew because he was permitted to attempt to use them, not a stone. David Whitmer saw the demonstration. He was not witness to the actual translation process, only Oliver.
Luke, you may not care, but many apostates did and do. Hannah is correct and her evidence is more powerful than your apathy.
This is so frustrating for me; about ten years ago, in my mission, I told many people that it was an anti-mormon lie because my mission president told me multiple times that it was a lie. And Now the Church is telling us this is the truth? I have friends going through faith crises after learning this at Mormon Stories for the first time-this topic is what opened the door to more and more problematic issues.
Enough with the Anti-Mormon lies, Mr. Anti.
I get so tired of people pretending to be "struggling". Just leave the whole thing alone and move on with life.
That was your mission President's fault. The Church always haad those records and anyone could read it, but there are still a few people in the Church who don't believe it.
Yep. Academics are ruining everything. Read the Joseph Smith foundation stuff. It’s spot on. Luke is wrong on this one.
@llovetrain And do the JSF people mention Robert McNemar’s journal entry that clearly describes Oliver (the amanuensis/scribe) preaching in Ohio about the translation, and specifically mentioning the use of stones in a hat?
You can look it up on the BH Roberts Foundation website, and see a fleeting reference to it in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation. I’ve not hear of any opponents to the seer stone and hat method ever mention this source, let alone discuss why it should be an “invalid” source. Neville is pretty good at taking down everything else pro-seer stone as “hearsay” and such, but he also hasn’t dealt with this journal entry. I’d like to know why.
This is such a lame argument. The translation was a miracle whether one stone, two stones, or no stones were used. Regardless, "the gift and power of God" was the required enabling factor. Otherwise they're just rocks. The product itself is a reality we can read and pray over. We're not asked to testify to the means because it's irrelevant, and meaningless contention.
You should see if Gerrit Dirkmaat would be willing to come on. He was part of the Joseph Smith Papers project and has some background on this issue (primary sources). He's also pretty amusing (host of the Standard of Truth podcast). There are multiple references in the JS Papers to Joseph Smith using the seer stone, including an 1832 trial transcript of testimony by Josiah Stowell claiming JS told him how he used it (hearsay, but different rules back then).
really.
Sources matter, and there's a reason the brethren didn't touch some sources. You need to look behind it, know there standing at the time the statement was given. Seer stones were used as examples to show how the process was made. Some sacred artifacts are not meant for all eyes.
The Church has declared he used both, but all while through "the gift and power of God". Thats that.
The Church did not declare he used both.
Just that fact that Joseph Smith scammed people with seer stones and then used those same stones to "translate" a mysterious golden book that no one was allowed to see, is NUTSO. You are in a cult.
Church "scholars" who were part of the Swearing Elders, an elite group of church academics who lost their faith when they came to embrace Marxism and Darwinism as it grew in popularity 40s, 50s and 60s, actively sought to rewrite Church history by prioritizing and perpetuating second hand , heresay, late and even apostate historical accounts over firsthand contempory accounts of the restoration, all for the sole purpose of undermining Joseph Smith as a prophet seer and revelator and the miraculous and spiritual restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are experiencing the fruits of their labors and their influence even upon the elect of the Church today because of their heresy. For the first 190 years of the Church prophets, apostles and leaders of the Church stood behind what JS and Oliver Cowdery consistantly testified regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon by means of the U&T and BOM geography being the USA, the promised land of Liberty. It's hard to believe that so many in the Church tiday accept the claims of present day " scholars" when they say that JS was just a simple farm boy that didn't know what he was talking about.
@rock598 do the Saints books and GTE not count as “official”..? Also, look into Don Bradley’s research about the lost pages, and the fact thatbJoseph’s hat was beaver fur, and then look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry describing how Oliver preached to a crowd in Ohio about how Joseph placed “stones in a hat and the inspiration flowed.” “Stones could be U&T outside of their frames, but a hat is clearly mentioned.
@@rock5948 Literally go onto the churches website, and search translation of the golden plates, it’s all there..
The guest is correct.
Absolutely. The next genderation is OK at believing anything and hasn't studied to know.
We love you guys too
Truth matters ! And, as was stated in our last General Conference . . . . “Words Matter”!
Cardon sit on the fence Ellis
Simple Answer. No.
The seer stone thing is a non issue to me. The product is always more important than the method of how the product was made. Suppose there as a controversy among Harry Potter Fans. The story is told that JK Rowlings used a typewriter to compose the Harry Potter novels. It then came out that Rowlings actually used Microsoft Word and did not use a typewriter. Does that mean the Harry Potter novels are trash and should be dismissed? NO. It does not matter. The story of Harry Potter is just as good regardless of what Rowlings used. The seer stone issue is simply a smoke screen to distract from more important issues.
Also I do sort of like the seer stone angle. Imagine Joseph Smith composing the entire Book of Mormon looking into a hat. Imagine Joseph Smith dictating entire chapters of Isaiah almost exactly like the KJV simply by staring into a hat. That is virtually impossible for anyone to the first time through. I think those who bring up the seer stone issue in a effort to discredit the BOM have not really thought through what they are suggesting.
Cardon why the effort to rewrite Arrington journals? Arrington claims to be inspired of God to rewrite history. He talks about his lack of faith in his journals. I get that this makes for a good show but you are now adding to the altering of the history. Is that where Ward Radio is going? As for Luke’s holding on to Whitmer pamphlet Bushman has acknowledged he is ignoring Cowadreys statement in Rough Stome rolling and has published his scooping Nevell new book.
The point of this is that we look a house divided by outsiders. If it’s not true why are we holding onto this Mark Hoffman tainted rhetoric?
President Nelson is cool with it, I’m cool with it.
Also Wilford Woodruff consecrated Joseph’s seer stone on the altar of the Manti temple right after it was dedicated.
Oh, the “safe and effective”, children must wear masks and be vaccinated to see the Christmas lights at Temple Square in the middle of winter outside, UN, etc. Yeah, I’m good with that……..
OPEN YOUR eyes you are in a cult! Read the Gospel of John, and follow the voice of Jesus.
@@kevinedward-jt2vs done that and doing that. It’s not a cult. Open your heart to the Spirit and he will show you. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the Lord’s church on earth. The Book of Mormon is true scripture. Joseph Smith really saw The Father and The Son, and Russel M Nelson is a prophet today.
@@ThoseOneGuysInc Jesus never said to go to masonic cult temple ceremonies, HE DID say to come directly to Himself for salvation. You are following your feelings from a demonic spirit.
@@kevinedward-jt2vswhat is your evidence that Jesus is Christ?
So if the alleged magic of JS’s youth was a preparatory priesthood of some sort, are we gonna start giving tarot cards to 10 year olds to help them prepare for the Aaronic priesthood?
I find the preparatory priesthood argument absolutely absurd and unscriptural.
Not only is the claim absurd and unscriptural, it's diabolica.l
I think the logic behind it is that Joseph was “open” to things (like visions!) whereas many theologians and lay people of the day believed any and all such manifestations to be “of the devil” because the “heavens were closed.”
Maybe Joseph’s “magical world view” helped him to receive more, faster, because he wasn’t hindered by ideas of “closed heavens.” Maybe similar to how toddlers can have surprising strength (or the mentally compromised but otherwise physically able), but as we get older and learn about limits and self-doubt, we stop believing in our own abilities. Not a perfect analogy, but this is how I kind of understand it. 🤷♀️
Also, the occult (and plenty would say casting lots like they did in scripture is “occult”), or using tools (like tarot, pendulums, seer stones) for divination/revelation is perhaps not the smartest thing to do these days because any spiritual power can be manipulated by any spirit (see the account of Hiram Page’s false revelation), and if we are not properly guarded, prepared, or dedicated (in purpose, to God) in our use of such tools, we open ourselves up to deception by false spirits.
@@gingersnaps215 I appreciate this perspective and it seems valid. I can be open to the idea of the magic world view serving as some sort of catalyst to open his mind for future spiritual experiences and exploration.
But that’s not the same as a preparatory priesthood. That feels like a stretch haha.
I also wonder, if he did dabble in magic as much as some claim, what came first: the magic or his open mind? I don’t know if he needed the magic to open his mind or if because of his open minded nature he explored magic. At the end of the day idk. 🤷🏻♂️
I believe Joseph demonstrated the stone in the hat to satisfy the curiosity of those who were asking him about it as he was not able to show the Urim and Thummim. The Urim and Thummim were technically stones in a bow. His seer stone was the closest thing he could show so he used that as an example when demonstrating. That is my theory at least.
Oliver also mentioned the use of “stones in a hat” while preaching in Ohio. There’s a fleeting reference to this in footnote 28 of the GTE, as well as the full journal entry from the witness, Robert McNemar, who seems to have been a neutral source, on the BH Roberts foundation website. I’d like to know why Neville et al discount this source to the point of never bringing it up. 🤨
Also though, thanks to Don Bradley’s research into the lost stories and the fact that Joseph’s hat was beaver fur (animal skin!!), I kind of feel like it’s totally fine he used the hat, and possibly even that he was meant to!
@@gingersnaps215 Footnote 28 is Emma referring to the spectacles (Urim and Thummim).
Read the whole thing, it gets a fleeting reference. But it’s Richard McNemar’s journal entry on BH Roberts foundation. Richard, not Robert 😅
I think this calls for a deep dive on Arrington. I’d like to hear more
Yes he did, and the seer stone RULES!!!!
He didn't use a seer stone.. He used the interpreters aka Urim and Thummim.
@@rock5948why doesn’t the original Book of Commandments revelation that corrrsponds to D&C 10 mention the Urim and Thumim?
@@dr33776because the original name of the Book of Mormon stones are called the Interpreters, although Urum and Thummum is the general name of the kind of stones they represent.
@@n.d.m.515 any reference to any other stones used to translate languages in the Bible?
Seer Stones ARE Urim and Thummim.
Uh no other way around.
So how do you explain Martin Harris trying to switch out the rock interpreter.
This guy was referencing Jonathon Neville’s research on the stone in the hat theory
And Neville ignores (I assume he’s ignoring it, since there is a passing mention of it in footnote 28 of the GTE) a source describing Oliver’s mention of stones in a hat.
Robert McNemar (Shaker who never joined nor was hostile toward the church) witnessed Oliver preaching in Ohio and wrote about it in his journal. I’d like to know why Neville (or any of the U&T Only people..) doesn’t mention this in his work or try to discredit it as valid evidence for the use of seer stones, like he does (fairly well) every other bit of pro-seer stone evidence.
@@gingersnaps215 There's no need to discredit the McNemar account because it corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said and contradicts the SITH accounts. Here's note 28: In the winter of 1831, a Shaker in Union Village, Ohio, spoke of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles” through which the translator “looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.” As Joseph and Oliver said, Joseph used the U&T and looked on the plates. If you read the entire account by McNemar, you can see he was quite hostile to the Book of Mormon, which he described as "cunningly devised fables." He doesn't actually quote Oliver. He says Joseph translated "plates of brass," suggesting he may have confused some of the narrative, relating what he thought he heard. He could have conflated what Oliver said with other accounts such as the widely distributed Hadley account that Joseph refuted in the Preface to the 1830 edition.
@johnathann3d McNemar didn’t join the church, but I don’t think he went around like actively preaching against it (like Philpot and Law), so I’d still say he is private journal entry is a fairly neutral source. He did name Oliver as the “amanuensis” (scribe) preaching about the translation to the crowd, and I don’t think there’s enough other evidence from that entry alone to make conjectures one way or the other about what he may or may not have read or confused. Oliver may have mentioned “brass plates,” as they did have the small plates (and weren’t those brass? perhaps not, I don’t go through the historical weeds.)
I have no issue with Joseph’s potential use of hats, seer stones, or interpreters, or if he used nothing at all but prayer and other spiritual preparation. I actually think the use of the beaver fur hat dovetails quite nicely with OT admonishments to cover spiritual things (like the ark of the covenant) with animal skins, and Don Bradley’s findings of the lost stories. What’s so wrong with placing a hat over his face to translate, instead of wearing the awkwardly large spectacles on his face?
Mostly, I find all of the in-fighting and staunch insistence for or against certain methods (and geographic models) to be far beside the point, and a tool of the adversary more than anything else, to divide the house, as it were.
Plus, the polygamy deniers use the “Joseph always said x” reasoning as their main argument that he did NOT practice polygamy, journals and other personal accounts and historical evidence not withstanding.
One of those vids where its hard to find where the spoilery preview clips end and actual video begins 😅
How did Joseph receive his other revelations? Like when he was translating the Bible or receiving revelations for other church members as in the D&C was he using a seer stone? There were a lot of people who observed those revelations.
He didn't use any physical methods any more because he understood the Spirit of Revelation as a mature Prophet.
I think he must have used the seer stone for at least some of those things, if not the BoM as well, because Hiram Page had a false revelation through *his* seer stone, which Oliver believed. I feel like if no one saw Joseph use his seer stones to receive any sort of revelation, then Oliver would have been less-inclined to accept Page’s false revelation.
3 reasons why I think it was only Urim and Thummim:
1- It tastes right to me. Always has to me. Seer stone never has. Coupled with that feeling is my personal logic about the process of translation: logically, to translate, it makes sense to look through some sort of spectacles at the record itself rather than into a stone and have it “fed” to you. Plus, Oliver Cowdery was told that he could not translate because he had not studied it out in his mind sufficiently; that fits with translating by looking at the plates themselves but not getting fed the words in a stone.
2- Shannon’s explanation of academic bruhaha fits many other observations of mine.
3- Why would Joseph need the Urim and Thummim to translate if any old seer stone would do? Yet, the Urim and Thummim were prepared by God and then passed down through prophets for THOUSANDS of years. This indicates that they were necessary (even if not the only instrument used).
And if Joseph never used “any old stone” for receiving revelation, then I suspect Oliver might have been much more wary of Hiram Page’s false revelation (received through a “regular” seer stone as described in whichever section of D&C) than he was.
Also, there is one known source of Oliver mentioning the use of “stones in a hat” (could be the U&T popped out of their awkwardly large frame, could be “regular” stones) that I have not seen one of the U&T Only supporters ever mention.
You can see a passing reference to it in footnote 28 of the GTE about translation, and an image and transcript of it on the BH Roberts foundation website. Look up Robert McNemar’s journal entry, and it should come up. McNamara was a Shaker who never joined the church, nor was he openly hostile towards it.
I’d like to know why Neville, Stoddard, others dismiss/discredit/don’t acknowledge this seemingly neutral source that, yes, Oliver the amanuensis/scribe for a large part of the translation, did in fact mention the use of stones in a hat on at least one occasion.
Why would Moroni provide the urim and thumim if a stone would do? Why would Joseph move away from the urim and thumim if that's what Moroni told him to use?
Cardon, Arrington said what he said. Stop making excuses for this apostate.
I didn’t know it was blasphemy to believe direct words from Joseph smith. Funny
@@elijiahburgess5506?
Dont mind Kevin Ward, he needs his Depends changed.
Mean.
@@gingersnaps215 Yep
whether it was one stone or another, it doesn't make much difference to me. I am curious to know and I do have occasional skepticism about the Seer Stone theory but the translation is true and that's what matters.
The issue isn’t that he looked in a hat. The issue is the church tried hiding much of that info. Props to them for coming out with it. Rock in the hat used to be anti Mormon attacks.
Where are you getting this? I was raised in the Church and have always believed the Golden Plates were translated through several methods, one of which was a seer stone placed in a hat.
@@wes2176great for you. I was told it was anti Mormon lies. My bishop recently told me he’d never heard that and said he’d never heard of the church essays on the topic.
@@wes2176and the guys are doing it in this episode. They’re trashing Leonard Arrington but what they fail to mention is that the vast majority of what Arrington said was true.
@@TwoTreesVisuals "The Church tried hiding" . Lies.
If you are searching for truth, stay far away from the Anti-Mormons, they lie worse than any group on this earth.
Garbage. Lazy learners ALWAYS try and blame their lack of attention in Sunday school as "the church hiding something".
My seer stone time traveling moment would be I would have a hard time choosing between the sermon on the mount or Christ appearing to the Nephites after His resurrection blessing the children and healing the sick(chapter 17 of 3 Nephi)
I agree… the single stone idea is an error. David Whitmer and Emma are the source, but years later. I think the context was Joseph demonstrating the manner of how he translated using a hat. But they never actually saw him officially translating- they were not allowed to see the “interpreters”.
Gentleman in the right is absolutely correct. The only ones who KNEW for sure all said urim and Thummim or interpreters. The Lord said it. Joseph said it. Moroni said it. Oliver said it. And the BOM and D&C plainly state they were specifically prepared for the translation. That does not mean he did not place the interpreters in his hat- that’s what I believe he did. But when those forbidden from seeing the urim and Thummim asked about the translation he demonstrated with his hat and his other seer stone.
20s is crazy
In the beginning Joseph pretended to use a seer stone, with the Urim and Thummin already in the hat. This was because he was forbidden to show any items of antiquity to anyone (on pain of death). This included his own wife, Emma. The Lord was fully aware of Joseph's little pretense.
See D&C 5:4
This would explain many things...
Joseph's reluctance to discuss specifics related to the actual translation process.
The introduction to the Book of Mormon, stating it was translated by the gift and power of God.
Joseph's eventual willingness to just give his "seer stone" away, saying he had no further use for it. (How could Joseph do such a thing if he actually had used his seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?)
Several contemporary accounts reporting that the U&T were in the hat.
This particular D&C scripture.
Apparently no man knows the history of Joseph Smith and neither did Emma.
It seems apparent that those who later spoke of Joseph with his face in his hat, only reported what they had actually seen with their own eyes.
It’s interesting that people who watch believe the seer stone theory when Don Bradley has said he put a hit on his head with the interpreters and you all seem to believe Don!
The logic I get hung up on when it comes to the seer stone in a hat is all the work that went into getting Joseph the urim and Thummim. The Lord prepared the stones for the urim and thummim centuries before Joseph smith. They were used to translate other records by Mosiah and other prophets. They were passed down and preserved for hundreds of years until Moroni placed them in an ark with records and the sword of Laban for Joseph Smith to attain when he was ready. The Lord teaches Joseph how to use the interpreters and commands him not to show them to anyone or be destroyed. All this was done so Joseph could set the urim and thummim aside and instead use a stone that he found on his own and placed it in a hat to translate? I don’t buy it for a second.
So Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thumin to translate. A terrestrial devise. Then he used a seer's stone a telestrial devise. This one he carried in public. The Israel High Priest used a breast plate with 12 stnes which had letters on them, and 2 stones i.e. the Urim and Thumim. The 12 stones had the names of the tribes of Israel. When Jehovah spoke to the High Priest through the stones of the breast plate the stones would light up one by one to send a written message. I.e. a text message. You can read this in the Taldmud. The Book of Revelation says he that overcomes receives a white stone with a new name on it that no one knows but he that receives it. Rev2:17. It is a terestrial object. Note that Jesus tells this to John while Jesus is dressed in the robes of the high priest in the (terrestrial?) temple! it is known that Joseph Smith had a white stone and a brown stone and even gave away a stone to a close friend. What do all the stones of the high priest and the ones Joseph had have in common? They were crystals. Not unlike a cell phone which has a silicon (crystal) chip. There are legends that the prophets had various stones which sent and received divine information . The stones which the ten commandments were written may have been like that. The stone altar which Adam had allegedly was able to receive info from God. It might be helpful if we look into this matter further. Blessings to everyone.
YOUR OWN LDS PROPHET Nelson made a video demonstrating how Joe used the hat and seer stone!
Of course JS was not allowed to show anybody items that did not exist.
For 2,400 years those lates were in the America's. Some made here, some made in Israel. As long as you didn't need to see them. Other people could see them from 600BC - 400AD; but not you.
Dec 1830 The Philadelphia Album reports that Joseph used two clear stones to translate the Book of Mormon.
do you like your own comments with your 5 other youtube accounts? LOL
Listening to the Intro Comments.... HELL YES ARRINGTON WANTED TO RE-WRITE THE LDS CHURCH NARRATIVES.....HE WANTED TO TELL THE TRUTH!!!!
What is your goal?
@@Sj-7718_dev TELL THE TRUTH....find it first.
I know the truth, I’m am a son of god and I know with 100% certain that I am apart of the truest, nigh nearly perfect gospel. I know there are something that are a little hazy and maybe miss understood about early LDS church history. But to me I it makes no difference. I will stand everlasting on this mountain of truth and never falter.
@@Sj-7718_dev In Your Opinion
I agree the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only Church in the world with the truth Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Prophet, Joseph said in his official statement in Joseph Smith History that they used the interpreters.
When we doubt the prophet and go looking for other sources, we are doing the same doubting as Naaman who disbelieve Elijah's command to wash in the river.
I still like the logic that in section 17 of D&C the point was made that witnesses got to see what was used in the translation... Notice there is NO mention of a stone or a hat.
But there is that section about Hiram Page’s false revelations through a seer stone. If “regular” stones weren’t ever used by Joseph, I’d assume Oliver would have been much more wary of Hiram’s revelation than he was. I’d also find all the historical statements that Joseph told members that any faithful among them could use a seer stone highly suspect, along with the stories of people using them to find lost objects and such, to the displeasure or approval of other Saints. 🤷♀️
Also, there is at least one record of Oliver mentioning the use of “stones in a hat.” Look up Robert McNemar on the BH Roberts foundation website and you should find an image and transcript of his journal entry describing Oliver preaching in Ohio. You can also see a passing mention of this in footnote 28 of the GTE about the translation.
And Joseph Smith changed the first vision story countless times, that is what liars do. You are in a cult.
Richard McNemar. Oopsies.
I also alike Don Bradley’s research about Joseph’s hat being beaver skin (animal pelts to cover the spiritual things, like the ark of the covenant!) and the lost story of how the interpreters were found by whoever, which involved putting an animal skin over the interpreters and then he could “SEE!”
Rocks in hats doesn’t seem so weird in that light 🙃
The issue is the source and motives of the historians who brought this “new” view to the church.
The way I see Bushman’s work, is that it is a plausible answer to the antagonistic biographies and narratives out there. Even if it is void of historical truth as far as the translation and Joseph’s character go, it serves the purpose of being a plausible response to the likes of, say, Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History,” where she asserts that Joseph must have been a gifted hypnotist (mesmerizer, I think, since “hypnotism” wasn’t known as such in his day) who could charm and beguile people into believing and seeing all sorts of things!
Bushman’s work took all the favorite sources of attack and found faithful answers and reasoning for them. Glowing narratives that simply discount seer stones and hats as “anti-Mormon” were never going to be accepted by the truly hardened. Now there are all sorts of amateur historians mining the evidence and flushing out “hearsay” to find answers that support the traditional narrative of U&T, too! (Though just because something is “hearsay” in a court of law doesn’t mean it might not also true. Just means that it’s not the most solid testimony or evidence.)
There’s enough evidence of all kinds (solid testimony and firsthand accounts to second and thirdhand accounts) for every and all sides to pick a lane and feel satisfied with their choice 🤷♀️
@@gingersnaps215 An answer to antagonistic biographies? Yes, the one thing we lacked was Joseph Smith biographies and other writings debunking detractors. The claim that Joseph Smith was a gifted hypnotist didn’t really need to be debunked did it? Did she cite where he learned this skill? Or was he just born with it? It is a silly claim that on its face undermines her credibility. Bushman is not alone in his work to “[find] faithful answers and reasons for them.” Again, what did we get from Bushman that we didn’t already have? I say a Postmodernist deconstruction of our history. A Howard Zinn approach to our history. Mission accomplished too. How many have left the church due to his “new discoveries?” I suppose those are the “truly hardened” you are referring to…I’m not sure. Information that presents documented events that strongly go against the seer stone/hat idea are hardly mere “glowing narratives” but actual evidence. It puts Bushmanites on the defensive to further prove their claims.
And amateur historians? What? There are professions out there that I would not want amateurs getting involved in. I would not an amateur doctor to perform surgery on me, for sure. But, let’s be honest…historian is NOT one of those professions. James Lucas and Jonathan Neville are a couple of these knuckle draggers on the trail of Bushman’s claims. Neither is a slouch. Hearsay is NOT permissible in court as a general rule. And it is only accepted under very specific scenarios. The firsthand accounts in this case are weak. Take Emma; her state of mind when interviewed about these things was very questionable due to her age and condition.
I’m actually surprised at the push back and the circling of the wagons academia has put forth to protect Bushman. I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t made a Catholic Saint. There are serious people who have serious concerns with Bushman’s work. We would be wise to examine those claims if we love truth over the institution of academia.
9:40 "why would Joseph only say he used the interpreters"???? Well....maybe it was because of his sordid history of using his Rock in a Hat to scam people? Clearly from what Joseph says later, he was sensitive to his "Rock in a Hat Moneydigging Days."
Jan 29, 1831 Richard McNemar writes in his journal that Joseph translated with 2 transparent stones in a hat.
I like how you just copied and pasted the title. You probably didn't even read the article LOL
@@GwPoKo There many testimonies concerning Joseph using a seer stone in a hat to "translate" the BOM. You are following a deceptive spirit into hell.
@@GwPoKo You can just read Richard McNemar's journal, he testifies that Joseph used demonic seer stones.
1834 Isaac Hale describes Joseph as using the stone in the hat while translating the BOM. Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, E. D. Howe 1834), 264-65
There's a reason why John Dehlin promotes Bushman’s book (The Rough Stone Rolling) and uses the “rock in a hat” on his billboards.
I believe the only true evidence is the south park episode of joseph looking into a hat.
From The Church website.... "During the spring and early summer of 1828, Martin scribed as the young seer dictated the translation. Though the process must have seemed miraculous to him, Martin was still on guard against deception. He once replaced Joseph’s seer stone with another stone to see if Joseph would notice the difference. When Joseph was unable to continue translating, Martin confessed his ruse and returned the seer stone. When Joseph asked him why he had done it, Martin explained that he wanted to “stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them.” Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” in Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 44, no. 6 (Feb. 6, 1882), 87.
I thought it probably didn't matter how Joseph translated everything until I realized that believing the seer stone stories meant that Heavenly Father wasted a lot of His time and effort to ensure Joseph received the Urim and Thummin (used by other prophets). The reason the Book of Mormon stands as the 'most correct' of any book is because the writers of the Book of Mormon, (Mormon, Moroni, Ether, and Nephi) were holy men, some of the greatest who ever lived. Additionally, the translator, the Prophet Joseph Smith, was the greatest, most holy prophet, ever to live excepting the Son of God. Joseph was a translator, not a reader. He translated using the Urim and Thummim. He did not 'read' using a magical rock. People like Richard L. Bushman assert that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was more of a 'reading' than it was a genuine translation but that is not the truth according to the Lord and according to Joseph or his family.
The word "translate" (Webster's 1828 dictionary) means, "To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another." Joseph did not bring forth the Book of Mormon simply by reading English words that appeared on a stone. He translated ancient Nephite characters into English. He had to convert each Nephite character into terms that the 19th-century English-speaking people could read and understand. He was able to do this because he was tutored by many angels during the years before he even obtained the plates. He was extensively educated regarding the Nephite and Jaredite cultures. He became familiar with their fashion, their travel, their religion, their history, their geography, and many other aspects of their society. Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said that he often told them stories of the ancient people "as if he had spent his whole life with them."
Joseph didn't merely receive visions. He personally interacted with Moroni, Moron, Nephi, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, and other Nephite prophets and apostles that lived on this continent. He knew them. He knew their personalities. While he was "unlearned" in the precepts and philosophies of men, he was well-versed in divine doctrine, true history, and spiritual gifts. Can you imagine being educated like this?
You can read all sorts of narratives from people who speculate and promote their falseness to demean the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. People quote from others, who have quoted from others, who have quoted from others, who have quoted from apostates. We find these quotes in ALL of our church materials, all of them. If you do not know this or how to recognize or research these things then you are likely to be deceived.
"For those concerned how this occultic "Joseph Smith" could make its way into Church publication, President Ezra Taft Benson offered this advice, "Sometimes from behind the pulpit, in our classrooms, in our Council meetings and in our church publications we hear, read or witness things that do not square with the truth...Now do not let this serve as an excuse for your own wrong-doing. The Lord is letting the wheat and the tares mature before he fully purges the Church. He is also testing you to see if you will be misled. The devil is trying to deceive the very elect." (Ezra Taft Benson, "Our Immediate Responsibility" BYU Devotional, Provo, October 25, 1996)"
Truth matters.
SO YOU ARE SAYING that the witnesses are to be believed EXCEPT when they say something that shows the demonic influence of seer stones?
Isn’t casting lots also a form of “demonic divination?” 🧐
Uh oh...is Cardon pulling a Biden? "What did I do? I don't remember." 😮😅😅😅
We are told that the interpreters were provided for the translation, so they would have been used, unless Joseph Smith Jr. got so familiar with the language he no longer needed anything. Now it's possible Joseph Smith Jr. could have used the Seer Stone for other revelations, even at the same time he was using the interpreters for translation. But we are told that when translating, you are not just given the translation, like is described for the stone in a hat narrative, we are told that to translate you have to study it out in your mind, and when you think you have it right, you ask God, and if it isn't you start the process over. So the stone in the hat narrative, perfect word for word, completely contradicts the given description of the translation process. So I don't know why Martin Harris would say what he did, but I do know that people lose what they have, even until they have nothing. Martin Harris never got to the point which he had nothing, but he certainly could have lost something.
I don’t know that the translation process is directly tied to the method… I don’t know why using the interpreters vs stones in a hat (and there is at least one source of Oliver mentioning the stones in a hat; see Richard McNemar’s journal entry on BH Roberts Foundation website) would automatically garner a “tight” translation and the interpreters wouldn’t. I believe people from either camp hold to either process (loose vs tight), regardless of their preferred translation tools.
Probably most scholars stick with the hat method over the u&t-only method, but it seems the “how” gets more tightly held onto by people the more they insist that certain language choices were or were not of Joseph’s invention.
I kind of feel like it was more a “loose” process in general (because Oliver couldn’t just “do” it, and if the translation just appeared as in a “tight” process, he shouldn’t have had to “study it out”), where Joseph saw *something* from the text, like maybe an image or something, and then he had to study out language and when he decided on meaning and words they might have appeared (except in the case of names. Those seem to have been clearly shown and needed to be spelled out correctly).
I dunno, I also don’t have a problem with him not actually opening the plates each time he translated; if he was properly spiritually prepared and “pure” enough to translate, he shouldn’t have had any problem receiving revelation from the next place in the narrative. I have a family member with “gifts” who can “see” and “feel” stuff very far removed from them, and they are not a seer like Joseph was a seer! I don’t see the lack of “prepared tools”/plates open would hinder the translation process once Joseph got better at it. 🤷♀️
The SCRIPTURES state that Joseph used the Urim & Thummim. That settles it for me. When you start going against Scripture, you're getting yourself into hot water.
When you start ignoring reality, you end up in a cult.
Reality defined by the Scientific Method? This "reality" isn't reality at all, mortality is an illusion. There is much more than your God, Science.
A cult is exactly where you are at, Kevin.
@@fightingfortruth9806 You are in a cult, when you start ignoring your own LDS GA scholars like B.H. Roberts. Read his report to prophet Heber "Studies of the Book of Mormon".
Christ said to judge by fruits not by roots. I'm not going to go digging around the hearsay spiderweb cult of darkness you are living in, Kevin.
He made it up.
(While lifting heavily from an English translation of The Bible.)
You clearly haven't read the Book of Mormon or have any idea how it came about. It was absolutely impossible for Joseph to make it up. A professional author with technology, assistants, etc today couldn't do it.
Not according to computer analysis.
Interesting they always say The Book of Mormon lifted the words of God to, you know, write what is supposed to be related words of God. Of course the words of God would heavily use other words of God. Most of the New Testament lifted the Old Testement. And an English translation of a book would use, get this, English. Even modern translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls in English are heavily influenced by other modern translations. If anything, they have as many similarities and differences as the Book of Mormon contains.
@@n.d.m.515 Exactly. Similar to when, during the first vision, Christ used words from Isaiah while speaking with Joseph. "...for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." 2 Nephi 31:3. Not that the critics of the Book of Mormon would understand any of this.
8:08 Get him, Luke! :)
lol. that's funny...
The Book of Mormon is a fictional story written by Joseph Smith. It might be inspirational and inspiring to most but its still a fictional work
Not according to computer analysis
You clearly haven't read it.
URIM AND THUMMIM beats those silly seer stones any day of the week.
Kris Murphy loves the seer stone, he has a giant photograph of it on a poster on the wall of his room.
Wrong the poster is on his bedroom ceiling so he says