Whose fault? Yours or the church's?

[UtahDan]

There was some conversation in the 19th century Church about this chocolate colored stone being "Gazelem" from Alma 37:23. There was also discussion that Joseph Smith Jr., was "Gazelem." If there's interest, I'll do a post on this topic.

Any subject your mind wanders to in this arena is of interest to me. Post away.

[Rosebud]

There was some conversation in the 19th century Church about this chocolate colored stone being "Gazelem" from Alma 37:23. There was also discussion that Joseph Smith Jr., was "Gazelem." If there's interest, I'll do a post on this topic.

Yes, please.... it's a topic that has piqued my curiosity before...

[Rosebud]

we have before. I did a whole series of Calvin Klein underwear models. And Soup went with a very easy-on-the-eyes young swimmer, as I recall.

And this is NOT a "dearth" of chicks, btw. We've finally cracked the double digits - this is a veritable plethora!

I am SO laughing. Did it help your recruitment efforts or just make the board more personally satisfying?

[Tex]

Here are some of the sources for my thinking on this:

Thank you, but I'm aware of the quotes. I was questioning the word "most." I'm not aware that anyone has determined with any definitiveness the proportions of Joseph's different translation methods.

The church still has Joseph's chocolate-colored seer stone, by the way.

[LA Ute]

Here are some of the sources for my thinking on this:

"Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color."

--Emma Smith Bidamon to Smma S. Pilgrim, March 27, 1876, RLDS Library-Archives.



"By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which it was promised should serve the same purpose as the missing urim and thummim....With this stone all of the present Book of Mormon was translated."

--David Whitmer interview in the Omaha Herald, October 17, 1886


"One of Joseph's aids in searching out the truths of the [Book of Mormon] was a peculiar pebble or rock which he called a seer stone, and which was sometimes used by him in lieu of the Urim and Thummim."

--George Q. Cannon, Life of Joseph Smith, p. 56


"The seer stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum, for a Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra, N.Y. It posessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it--as described above--as well as by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates."

--B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church 1:129 (and quoted other places in Roberts' works)


"It should pose no religious difficulty that Joseph's seer stone of his youth was later applied to the higher use of inspired translation of the Book of Mormon."

--Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," p. 537


See also Dan Peterson's comments in the American Experience/Frontline documentary The Mormons.

I find it interesting that those who witnessed the translation are much more specific about Joseph using the chocolate-colored stone to translate the current BoM, and that others' comments have some rhetorical slippage, probably from the convoluted use of Urim & Thummim, seer stone, Gazelem, etc in the early Church. It also appears that Whitmer was unaware of Joseph's long time ownership of the chocolate-colored stone.

There was some conversation in the 19th century Church about this chocolate colored stone being "Gazelem" from Alma 37:23. There was also discussion that Joseph Smith Jr., was "Gazelem." If there's interest, I'll do a post on this topic.

Very interesting. Of all these folks, is it safe to say Emma is the only eyewitness? Or did Whitmer actually see the stone and see Joseph translating with it? Also, is it safe to assume that Cannon and Roberts are basing their comments on what Emma said? (These are friendly questions. I am just trying to nail down who saw what.)

[Indy Coug]

If I'm peering into my iPhone to read along in Sunday School, does it matter that I don't have the "physical" book next to me?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Thanks for the quotes SIEQ. My wife has agreed to teach Seminary again (BoM is the course of study) this fall and I'll pass these along to her; will she use them?

[Taq Man]

Thank you, but I'm aware of the quotes. I was questioning the word "most." I'm not aware that anyone has determined with any definitiveness the proportions of Joseph's different translation methods.

The church still has Joseph's chocolate-colored seer stone, by the way.

David Whitmer says that the entire Book of Mormon was translated without the plates...............

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."4

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation"5

REF: Page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ.

[SteelBlue]

Thank you, but I'm aware of the quotes. I was questioning the word "most." I'm not aware that anyone has determined with any definitiveness the proportions of Joseph's different translation methods.

The church still has Joseph's chocolate-colored seer stone, by the way.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I recall Bushman coming to the conclusion that the majority of translation was done via the stone, and a quote from Harris? in which he described the seer stone as Joseph's "preferred" method of translation.

[LA Ute]

David Whitmer says that the entire Book of Mormon was translated without the plates...............

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."4

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation"5

REF: Page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ.

Do any of these accounts give any explanation as to why Joseph carried the plates around, if he didn't use them in translation? In Rough Stone Rolling Emma is quoted as describing the plates (wrapped in cloth) in considerable detail and one has the impression the plates were right there on the table while Joseph was translating. So Whitmer's account does seem counter-intuitive, even though it may well be accurate.

[Taq Man]

Do any of these accounts give any explanation as to why Joseph carried the plates around, if he didn't use them in translation? In Rough Stone Rolling Emma is quoted as describing the plates (wrapped in cloth) in considerable detail and one has the impression the plates were right there on the table while Joseph was translating. So Whitmer's account does seem counter-intuitive, even though it may well be accurate.

The majority of the quotes I have read say the plates were hidden away.

As to why they were hidden and not used... I think we can all come to our own conclusions.

However the large majority of the evidence states clearly that Joseph did not use the plates to produce the Book of Mormon.

[Indy Coug]

I also vaguely recall an account that said over time Joseph didn't even need any physical intermediary to translate the plates, but I can't recall the source.

[jay santos]

I also vaguely recall an account that said over time Joseph didn't even need any physical intermediary to translate the plates, but I can't recall the source.

The same logic is used to analyze the Book of Abraham translation.

[Solon]

One issue worth exploring is how the LDS church seems committed to artwork that displays obvious inaccuracies in the BOM process. As long as the leadership sanctions images such as these, it's no wonder people are surprised when they find out about the hat.

From this official LDS website (with explanation): http://www.lds.org/hf/art/display/1,...-4-128,00.html

[Indy Coug]

The same logic is used to analyze the Book of Abraham translation.

I'm not talking logic, I'm talking an actual eyewitness account.