Guess I dont understand why Joseph needed to obtain the plates if all he needed was a stone and a hat. The Uriman and thummin With the plates makes much more sense to me...AND it's what Joseph himself said he used.
Agreed. If you can't rely on Joseph and Oliver's words why bother believing anything? Further, why would the Lord create these instruments ensuring tjey get to Joseph if he could have used any stone?
Joseph wasn’t reading the plates and then translating them. He didn’t have a clue what those characters meant. He was shown the translation through the seer stone and read it out to his scribes. The plates were always in view but were usually covered up.
@@BenMcrea61 that is not 100% accurate. Yes, he lost access to the plates and translation after losing the 116 pp. However there is no first person account from Joseph and Oliver that they set aside the original urim and thumim.
Neville always seems willing and wants to talk this out with guys like this but they never seem to want to debate. There needs to be some face to face debates on this. There’s a difference like you said between contention and conflict.
A few years ago I had a dream which I will not recount here. However, the statement about translation is absolutely true. The meaning of words/language when speaking to a Heavenly being is far deeper and broader than our paltry words can transmit. It's not just more, it's infinite, eternal and transcendent. It was as if the words flowed from the centers of our being(s). I could have no more masked my intent or my meaning than to hold a tissue before an acetylene torch flame. The same was true of Him. It was/is the most honest conversation I have had in this life. And yet, it was a dream. I would guess that Joseph couldn't describe the translation process because we, literally, literarily and metaphorically do not have a language sufficient to express such eternal things. Another thought comes to mind: The reason that Jesus Christ seems so harsh, at times, is because He could not withhold. He was forthright, honest and used to communicating in unbounded language. So, "oh ye of little faith" could no more have remained within Him than could "blessed art thou among women" or "never has so great faith been among all the children of men".
Only recently, I've begun to rethink the seer stone vs urim and thumim controversy. And it's not because I can't stomach the idea of magic, it's because of what Joseph and Oliver said. Gardner admitted that Oliver and Joseph never said they used a seer stone to translate, only the urim and thumim. And he claims Joseph and Oliver were basically calling seer stones the urim and thumim so that new members of the church wouldn't be weirded out by magic. So... were Joseph and Oliver lying? Were the seer stones they had actually the urim and thumim from the bible? Or were they just calling it that to mislead people from the harder truth? It seems like Gardner believes Joseph and Oliver lied about the urim and thumim and about Cumorrah. If that's the case... one must ask what else were they lying about? You may wonder if they were lying about everything? I don't believe they were lying.
Why do you say they were lying? What was wrong with them referring to the seer stone as a Urim and Thummim? If the stone served the purpose of a U&T I see no problem with referring to it as such
@@jerry_phillips Do you believe Joseph used the seer stone to scam people to find buried treasure? Would that be a good use of seer stone like the Urim and Thumim?
@@jerry_phillips to be clear. I'm not saying they were lying. Gardner is. Joseph said, "With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God." -- Joseph Smith 1842 (Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶5-6) Joseph is saying it's the same Urim and Thumim "the ancients" used. He's not saying it's LIKE the Urim and Thumim, he's saying it IS the Urim and Thumim.
@@TravPlay I don’t doubt he used the U&T but I don’t have a problem if he found he could also use the seer stone at some point. His statement doesn’t rule that possibility out.
I really wish you would have brought up the fact that many who believe in the seer stone believe that Joseph never physically used the plates during the translation process--just the stone in the hat. For them the plates simply sat under a cloth. That simply doesn't make any sense to me. I was hoping you would have brought that out, but I understand that your time is limited. I don't understand how one can be so hung up on the fact that Joseph wasn't calling it a Urim and Thummim from the very beginning. I don't imagine anything would have come with a label on it like you find in the old Batman television show (though I am sure Joseph would have appreciated that). Joseph met with Moroni once a year for 4 years before he ever obtained the plates. What do you think they spoke about? What do you think they discussed? Could it be that Joseph was learning and growing gradually; line upon line? Could it be that it was later revealed what the name of the hill was, what the tool he was using was called, and where the events in the Book of Mormon might have taken place? Wouldn't those be the kinds of questions you would have come up with as you anticipated meeting with a heavenly messenger once a year? Why is it so difficult to believe that Joseph later learned the formal name for the object he was using and then later clarify that name in his writings once it became known? It makes sense to me. Of course I'm not a "scholar". I'm just trying to employ a little common sense. But many lives were sacrificed, as well as many hours dedicated, producing the plates and protecting them. I believe they existed for a reason and were meant to be used in the translation process. To think they would be preserved simply to sit on a table under a cloth doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and would, I am sure, come as a shock to everyone involved in their production. An instrument that was needed to help in the translation was included in the stone box. It would seem to me that that would be the perfect instrument to use. Otherwise, why bother including it? Maybe we should all take Joseph at his word. Not everything was clarified, and it was made clear that not everything would be as far as the translation is concerned. There is where our faith is tested. But I believe I will take Joseph at his word. He may have corrected himself later when it came to vocabulary, but that has to be expected. He was the one prepared for the task. He was the one that was given the responsibility to translate. He sacrificed much to give us this sacred book of scripture. For that I am grateful. If, years later, he sits down to spell out exactly how it took place and determines exactly which words best describe the process, then I for one will take him for his word. For anyone else to believe otherwise simply falls into the realm of speculation.
Why do you find it troubling which miraculous method was used to translate? If JS used an interpreter that showed him the translation why couldn’t the interpreter show him the words and the plates just simply be nearby? The plates provided tangible evidence for JS and the witnesses but I doubt JS could translate reformed Egyptian any better at the end than he could at the beginning of his work because the process was not an academic one.
Well said! There are too many unknowns as we look back almost 200 years so to me, we need to rely on the sure source of scriptures and Joseph and Oliver. I also do not believe all the work that went into writing the plates and preparing the interpreters so that they could be preserved for Joseph only to be put aside and left on a table.
@@jerry_phillips I do believe it was a miraculous process. However, I also believe plates were used tangibly at the same time. My phone has a pretty cool feature. I can turn on the camera and aim it at any foreign text. In the screen, a little translation appears right before my eyes. Sometimes the translation is a good one and sometimes I have to rearrange the words so they make sense from a grammatical point of view. Perhaps something similar took place. I still need the phone to translate, but the phone has to be aimed at the actual, tangible, thing that i need translating to reveal the needed text. I just cannot accept the fact that so many good men went through so much effort to provide a physical set of plates that never needed to be used. No matter how it's translated, however, l am grateful for the spiritual uplift they provide me on a daily basis. Of course, Joseph provided other revelation that did not depend upon a physical set of plates, but when it comes to the Book of Mormon, that is the way the message was presented. it was a tangible book that needed to be translated tangibly, in my opinion.
@@jerry_phillipsecause truth matters. Because we generally do not accept claims made by others about Joseph or Church doctrine truth second and third hand sources. I am shocked that professors of this degree have turned to such weak proof to support their hypothesis of the SITH theory. To accept this version of the translation goes contrary to so many things Oliver and Joseph said. I choose to believe them. Oliver was very clear in describing the process and tools they used in his response to the claims made by 'Mormonism Unveiled'.
I wonder if Mr. Gardner believes the Doctrine and Covenants is from the Lord. D&C 10:1 The Lord reprimands Joseph Smith for the loss of the 116 pages. “Now, behold, I say unto you, that 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.”
Funny you are so wound up in your dogmatic conclusion that you don’t go to the original published revelation in the 1833 Book of Commandments. “NOW, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them” Where is the mention of the Urim and Thummim?
I'm sorry but this is too much and why I detest a lot of so called "scholarship." Joseph using a seer stone early on even before the first vision, and perhaps even during the translation to some extent, presents no problem to me. But to say the urim and thummin was never used is outrageous and blatant revisionist history.
A careful reading of the scriptures indicates a seer stone is a glass biconvex lens. A single glass lens is often called a "magnifying glass" and used to magnify objects to make them easier to see. This is why scripture says they can "magnify to the eyes of men". Ether 3:24 Place two lenses together and you can create a simple primitive Galileo Telescope. This is why Abraham said he looked at the stars with the Urim and Thummim. Abraham 3:1-2. Place a glass lens in a dark box and you have a Camera Obscura. This allows you to "see" things outside the box. The light is "translated" from outside the box to the inside of the box. It's necessary to block out the ambient light to focus on the light coming through the lens and nothing else. When Joseph Smith placed his "seer" stone in a hat and placed his face in the hat, he was using a Camera Obscura. Joseph Smith allowed others to testify that he had the power of a "seer" and "translator" by showing them the process. The brown stone was irrelevant and used as a prop for misdirection to keep the process sacred to those that were ready and understood the meaning of what he was doing. Other people were allowed to see and handle the brown stone. Joseph would then place the brown stone in his hat and "see" the outside world through a hidden lens. The image he saw was "translated" from outside to inside and from right-side up to upside down. Joseph Smith never lied when he said he "translated" the Book of Mormon though the "gift" and "power" of God.
Was he really equating Joseph translating by the gift and power of God with all the examples he gave of people using stones and crystal balls? I don't think those in the examples he gave were inspired by the same spirit as Joseph!
More of the "worldly knowledge" explaining the translation than the words of the Prophet Joseph and Oliver. It fit right in with his discounting their statements on The Book of Mormon geography. If you are serious about this, I encourage you to read Neville's new book, "By Means Of The Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation To The Restoration." He is very fair and explains where all the theories come from and their strengths and weaknesses. It is very well documented and with the Kindle version it is very easy to check all sources, which I highly recommend doing. His background as a lawyer gives him and his co-author the ability to evaluate testimonies, sources and possible motives that it seems "stone in the hat" scholars just don't possess.
The heartland model doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny once you actually and try and amp out a model that fits into the historical timeline.. It's strength relies on quotes from church authorities who obviously believed in that theory because it was de facto theory for so long. I'll stop there. These debates are endless. Yes, read what Neville writes and then read the criticisms. That's how it must be done in a polarized subject like this one.
@@careyfoushee without a doubt there will be critiques of each position but to me, I am amazed at how academia from within BYU itself is shifting the narrative elsewhere with little proof in regards to geography and the translation process. The debate on geography is less harmful but the debate on translation makes Joseph's translation process more suspicious - something many in and out of the Church struggle with.
@@careyfoushee I will rely on church authorities like Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as a foundation and look for evidence to match what they said. I believe they had more than circumstantial evidence to go on. I believe they had knowledge from The Lord and Moroni. There is abundant evidence that parallels the Adena and Hopewell peoples that matches amazingly well with BOM timelines. That evidence comes from secular archaeologists and many people who lived in the areas before they were completely changed by modern farming and city building. But, we can agree to disagree :)
Right? There are two sources of power: God, and the adversary. The notion that Joseph Smith was meddling in satanic rituals as a preparatory process to become a seer is what's implied; and it's absolutely absurd.
Other than not the image I originally had I’ve never really wrestled with the stone in the hat. Why would I? What difference which miraculous method was used to dictate the Book of Mormon into English?
The gifts and abilities given to Joseph Smith are beyond comprehension. Those around him were often confused because he would say something that seemed so basic to him but was beyond their understanding. So how he did things was unique. But as to the stones, the stones with the breastplate were returned with the plates, so he couldn't have given them away. So clearly there were other stones involved.
The low-point of interview: 17:29, where the speaker relates some anecdote of some lady, who magically discerns the precise words from an unseen text below some "crystal ball" (which the speaker then amazingly defines as just another "seer-stone," and then--without hesitation--analogizes this whole mystical process to Joseph Smith's use of the "peep stone"). Yes, you heard correctly: the speaker conflates that crystal ball occult event with how Joseph Smith might have similarly translated the Book of Mormon ("Well, that tells me Joseph Smith could have done [the same thing that lady did with a crystal ball]"). Whoa. Did that really just happen?!? Did someone just give more ammo to those who dismiss the divine (and historical) reality of the Book of Mormon by directly associating the whole translation process with something magical or occult or mystical (like "automatic writing" or crystal balls)? Okay, personally, I know the Book of Mormon is true and divine--even if some chocolate peep stone was used to translate. And I am confident that the speaker is a faithful, devoted disciple and probably amazing scholar. And I don't want to nit-pick an unfortunate phrase or two from a lengthy interview. Nevertheless, might we all now better understand the importance of relying on the clear words of the prophet Joseph when he unequivocally ascribes the Urim and Thummim as the exclusive and divinely-supplied tool of translation, rather than something else (like either a crystal ball or chocolate peep stone) that gives more ammo to Book of Mormon nay-sayers? (And why, oh why, would they be so invested in the peep stone process that they now even marshal occult crystal ball anecdotes to buttress their arguments--even if such anecdotes play right into the hands of those opposing the divinity--and historicity--of this sacred record? Does that make any sense at all?). With all this magic malarkey tainting this discussion, please allow me to simply share my divine, sure, and Holy-Ghost-confirmed witness that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record of a people in ancient America who were led to this land by the hand of the Lord centuries ago and which was translated into English by the gift and power of God, through the instrumentality of the Lord's chosen restoration prophet, Joseph Smith. The Book is holy and true and without a syllable of deceit or corruption, and will victoriously defeat all efforts to suggest otherwise.
I disagree with him in a number of points but I think it is kind of arrogant to say he did us a disservice and his thinking that Mormon kind of changed the focus of the book. The Lord knew the ending from the beginning and gave us what He wanted us to have.
I do not agree. How in the world would Brent Gardner know what Joseph didn't have the Urim and Thummim? He has the same answer..."Joseph adopted that name..." Would he care to debate this with Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Moroni, or Joseph?
Definitely. The Book of Mormon is a vast work. Geography and translation are a tiny slice of the text. Gardner has some great scholarship on the text itself. And as I've said, i have no horse in this race. I have relationships with both camps.
@@CwicShow it would frankly be weird for someone NOT to have relationships in both circles. Regarding Gardner, I found him quite off putting, so I’m not in a rush to read his stuff.
I have a real problem with Gardner calling Joseph A liar he sounds more like an Anti-Mormon apostate than a faithful scholar...I believe Joseph F Smith over some great big elder and self appointed scholar.
@@CwicShow Joseph said, "With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God." -- Joseph Smith 1842 (Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶5-6) Gardner said that Joseph and Oliver called it a Urim and Thumim just so new members wouldn't be weirded out by folk magic. So essentially, he's saying they lied about what the Urim and Thumim actually was.
@@CwicShow yes it sounded a lot like what he was saying and I took it as an accusation against the Prophet. Don't get me wrong I am not attacking your show or you for giving him a chance to respond to the Heartland model, but I found his tone rather off putting, condescending and egocentric. I understand his need to protect his vested interest in this model but I thought his dismissive way of saying Joseph and Oliver were deceiving the Saints and actually allowing a deception to be introduced into the scripture with the description of the Urim and thumin as two stones in silver bows as just a cover for a brown peep stone rather ridiculous itself.
I don’t interpret it that way at all. Brant was certainly not implying that Joseph and Oliver were lying. They were simply referring to any kind of seer stone that is being used under the direction of God as “Urim and Thummim”. That is the point Brant was trying to make.
To illustrate a point, look at all of the division in the comments. Contention is not of God. There is too much contention. I know the Gospel is true, I know Joseph is called as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. Either we hold tight to our testimonies or fall. The Church is being sifted. 🙏🙏😑💜
It is sad that no one seems to understand that Joseph did not have the biblical "Urim & Thummim." He had Nephite "interpreters." Everyone (except Brant Gardner) seems to miss this point, completely unaware of the confusion it engenders.
Joseph and Oliver consistently stated that the interpreters were the means by which the Book of Mormon was translated. They started making these statements after the stone-in-the-hat narrative was first advanced in full in the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, and that context makes it clear that their emphasis on the interpreters was Joseph and Oliver's rebuttal to E. B. Howe's stone-in-the-hat story. The scrying sources do not hold up. Elizabeth Whitmer's account is a torn document which came from scrying stone partisan William McLellin which she never verified. David Whitmer is the source of most stone-in-the-hat accounts, but he was never a scribe nor ever explicitly claimed to be a witness to the actual translation process. The two accounts attributed to Emma are contradictory and problematic for many reasons. All of Martin Harris' statement speak of the interpreters, not the scrying stone. Not all sources are created equal. Joseph and Oliver were the primary witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon we have, and they consistently testified in written statements during their lifetimes that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates using the Nephite interpreters. And, at least for those who believe Joseph and Oliver were truth-tellers, this plates-and-interpreters narrative must be deemed far, far more credible that later, second-hand, unreliable scrying stone sources. See the new book on this subject, "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration."
Do we know how detailed Reformed Egyptian was? It sounds like a simpler form of symbols. So it makes complete sense to me that a non-native translator would have to think it out in his mind
7:40 - Where did King Mosiah get them? They originally belonged to the Brother of Jared. The Doctrine and Covenants also explicitly tells of what was used. Why would Joseph feel the need to personally edit the revelations in 1844? The belief by faithful active members of the Church when it comes to the use of the chocolate stone should be seen as equivalent of those who believe the earth is flat.
Having a Urim & Thummin consititutes a person being called a seer. These "interpreters" are also called "seer stones". Joseph taking the "interpreter" stones out of the frame and putting them in the hat means that he used a "seer stone" to interpret. Why is the assumption made that when the term "seer stone" is used by "witnesses", it refers to the chocolate covered one. How do you know they are not referring to one of the interpreters which can also called a seer stone?
7:14 but there is an issue with this, as at the U&T is spoken of in the zohar and it is described as two stones that were put inside the breast plate of the high priest
When Joseph disobeyed the Lord and lost the 116 pp of translation, he lost the ability to translate. Moroni took the plates and the interpreters away from him. When he had repented sufficiently, they are returned to him. The two were interconnected in the process. I find it hard to belenes that after disobeying tbe Lord once, Joseph would have gone off to translate with another means.
I’ve had a series of concussions over the last decade and one of the effects has been double vision. I’ve been involved with vision therapy where you focus both eyes on a common point and you adjust the position of the object you are looking at. If you are familiar with the Brock string, that is one of the tools that I am talking about. I tend to think of seer stones as something you focus on, but the image is communicated into your brain. We know from church leaders statements that the spirit is closely linked to our mind. I am willing to bet that much of the translation process took place in one’s mind rather than something you’d see as if the stone were like a computer monitor or something. I don’t think anyone else would have seen the first vision in the sacred grove had they been there with Joseph. It was a vision, not a physical visitation. It’s also like when Joseph and Sydney saw the vision of D&C 76. Others were there witnessing Joseph and Sydney describing the vision, but the witnesses didn’t see what they saw. They only saw Joseph and Sydney seeing the vision. I’ve also had experiences where I saw certain things in the temple as I was surrounded by people, but they didn’t see what I saw. There is more to seer stones than many of us understand.
Not doubting any of your experiences or ideas, amigo. They sound very sacred and powerful. But I would be careful to too quickly dismiss the physicality of many so-called "visions," including that of the Father and Son to Joseph in the grove (note, for example, the concrete physical efforts of Satan to stifle Joseph's ability to physically pray or continue his physical visit in the grove). Surely, some kind of transformation or magnification of our bodies necessarily enables mortals to endure and visit with heavenly beings. And surely, Heavenly Father can specify, even in a group, who is--or not--privy to such physical visitations and experiences. We know that the physical connections are often an important--and sometimes even necessary--part of spiritual experiences (such as the need for physical ordinances in temples to certify spiritual milestones and blessings). And we know that the world is too-ready to dilute or dismiss the divine and tangible, physical reality of many restoration events (such as the first vision, restoration of priesthood, 11 witnesses to the reality of the tangible, physical Nephite plates and [physical presence of an angel who had them physically handle the plates, etc.) by ascribing them to "mere hallucinations" or delusions of the mind (like, e.g., drug-induced experiences). Some of these critics thereby feel they can label so much of the restoration as just "smoke and mirrors." Fortunately, the Lord, anticipating such responses, has given His children the most tangible, physical, and unimpeachable manifestation of the Restoration of the Gospel, the eternal atonement of Jesus Christ, and the continuing ministry of the Savior through the Holy Ghost, continuing revelation, constant miracles, and the daily gift of divine grace.
@@jonterry9843 I can understand where you are coming from, but I do believe the Melchizedek priesthood temple ordinances are essential to actually being in Gods presence. That’s why I believe it was a vision, which all Joseph describes it as. True Satan was trying to influence him, but Satan is also spirit, not physical dispute being able to bind Joseph’s tongue in whatever way he could. D&C 84:19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. 20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. It couldn’t have been a physical appearance, because Joseph had not received the priesthood or any ordinances yet…and he survived. Also, when the veil parts, kid be amazed at how more real that reality is compared to what we see now. Imagine watching a movie in high definition, then comparing it to a vhf version of the same movie.
The Urim and Thummim were two seer stones. Read the description in Joseph Smith-History 1:35 They were two seer stones in a silver bow which were attached to a breastplate and worn. They weren’t spectacles or lenses. They appear to be the same seer stones that King Benjamin and King Mosiah had in Mosiah 28:13 Joseph also had his own seer stone which he had found in a well on Willard Chase’s farm. After the loss of the 116 pages and the loss of the plates and the seer stones, breastplate etc. Joseph was only ever seen using one seer stone which he placed in a hat to block out the light and view the translation. There is no point in denying it - that is what happened,
Martin Harris, described the translation process in a letter to a newspaper editor in 1859, stating that Joseph Smith "did not look at the plates while translating" and that "the words appeared in the stones placed in a hat." Emma Smith also described the translation process and confirmed the use of a stone in a hat. In an interview with her son Joseph Smith III, she stated that her husband "put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light." David Whitmer, described the translation process in his book "An Address to All Believers in Christ," stating that "the plates were not used in the translation, but the seer stone was placed in a hat, into which Joseph put his face." Joseph Smith's younger brother William also confirmed the use of a stone in a hat during the translation process in an interview with the Chicago Tribune in 1877, stating that "Joseph Smith put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light."
Read " Seer stone vs the Urim and Thummin" by the Joseph Smith foundation. It dubunkes the the seer stone in a hat theory by present context to all claims.
“Is there anything from Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdrey directly referring to using the seer stone as an instrument of translation?” “Not that I’m aware of.” WHAT?!?!? You have this whole theory that Joseph used a seer stone instead of the Urim & Thumim, but you don’t even have a single quote to back it up??? WOW. I should not be surprised based on the previous episode, but here I am, throwing my hands up in disgust.
Thummim-only-ism. The same mentally that gave us King-James-only-ism. It doesn't matter to me if Joseph used the broken off bottom of a medicine bottle. What matters is the gift of His that gave us the text. It's like the furor about the Book of Abraham where peripheral ideas distract from the truth in the text.
Thanks for these presentations. My final take after listening to all four videos. You have one side filled with spiritual pride like the pharasees and the other side filled with intellectual pride like the pharasees. I will continue to keep myself neutral from either side.
Here you have it folks! - grown adults in the 2020's having a serious discussion about people writing books about the ancient world from information they received by looking into rocks! Today's prophet still has Joseph's rock but apparently the only thing it is good for anymore is for getting good stock market tips.
This is embarrassing. The Man who communed with Jehovah of all people would know the difference between folk magic or something provided by God. If a rock in a hat was used, why the need for the plates? Why the need to edit later? Why would there be any anachronisms at all? Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman have done a real number on church history. The idea that a number of people have used these methods is a bit different than a Prophet that saw God the Father and His Son and other Heavenly beings. Talk about clinging to man made error. If I had written a book like Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, which is his opinion of JS and folk magic, (that it may have served as a preparatory Priesthood), a book that caused so many to lose their testimony and even leave the church, I would repent. John Dehlin gleefully endorses RSR. How does that book or this continued stance help build the Kingdom of God on Earth? Read Truman Madsen or Hugh Nibley instead and stay away from this non sense.
I think Noah's priests quoted Isaiah 52:7-10 to show that the Zeniffites had gone back up to the mountains of Highland Guatemala, where the Lord wanted His people to be--not down in the Central Depression (Zarahemla) where Mosiah 1 had taken them. Abinadi didn't buy it.
So many people in the comments proving Brother Gardner right. "How dare he compare the divine gift of translation with a crystal ball!??!?" Interesting discussion, hope to see more of them!
Not sure why those perfectly justified responses to his disturbing crystal ball comparison would bother you, Sven. But, being one of those "so many people" mentioned, I thought I'd repost my comment here to explain why such a comparison is a bit disturbing. Enjoy: The low-point of interview: 17:29, where the speaker relates some anecdote of some lady, who magically discerns the precise words from an unseen text below some "crystal ball" (which the speaker then amazingly defines as just another "seer-stone," and then--without hesitation--analogizes this whole mystical process to Joseph Smith's use of the "peep stone"). Yes, you heard correctly: the speaker conflates that crystal ball occult event with how Joseph Smith might have similarly translated the Book of Mormon ("Well, that tells me Joseph Smith could have done [the same thing that lady did with a crystal ball]"). Whoa. Did that really just happen?!? Did someone just give more ammo to those who dismiss the divine (and historical) reality of the Book of Mormon by directly associating the whole translation process with something magical or occult or mystical (like "automatic writing" or crystal balls)? Okay, personally, I know the Book of Mormon is true and divine--even if some chocolate peep stone was used to translate. And I am confident that the speaker is a faithful, devoted disciple and probably amazing scholar. And I don't want to nit-pick an unfortunate phrase or two from a lengthy interview. Nevertheless, might we all now better understand the importance of relying on the clear words of the prophet Joseph when he unequivocally ascribes the Urim and Thummim as the exclusive and divinely-supplied tool of translation, rather than something else (like either a crystal ball or chocolate peep stone) that gives more ammo to Book of Mormon nay-sayers? (And why, oh why, would they be so invested in the peep stone process that they now even marshal occult crystal ball anecdotes to buttress their arguments--even if such anecdotes play right into the hands of those opposing the divinity--and historicity--of this sacred record? Does that make any sense at all?). With all this magic malarkey tainting this discussion, please allow me to simply share my divine, sure, and Holy-Ghost-confirmed witness that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record of a people in ancient America who were led to this land by the hand of the Lord centuries ago and which was translated into English by the gift and power of God, through the instrumentality of the Lord's chosen restoration prophet, Joseph Smith. The Book is holy and true and without a syllable of deceit or corruption, and will victoriously defeat all efforts to suggest otherwise.
It comes from statements by David Whitmer, Martin Harris, William Smith, and Emma Smith. I really have no idea why some find this troubling. It doesn’t make anyone a liar
@Jerry Phillips I understand. I went to see Bro. Bushman at a Stake Fireside; I was disappointed that it was so sterile. To me, it would've been better to say it was 'it was translated by the gift and power of God.' That is the important part. There are a lot of voices 'interpreting' what Joseph said and did. Isn't it enough if you have a testimony of him as a Prophet, it should be enough? Insisting this is what happened from others than what Joseph approved is changing the history. Do we really want to do that?
@Ben McCrea It has nothing to do with testimony. It has everything to do with how they come across demeaning Joseph. I don't care about the seer stone, but don't turn his testimonies around. I was given a testimony that I cannot divulge. It is too sacred. I will defend Joseph calling as the Chosen Prophet of the last dispensation, the Servant of the end of days. This whole issue has caused a great deal of division with the Saints. And it I get so frustrated! Bro. Gardner had the same argument for every question Bro. Matsen asked. So, no it is not a testimony issue.
It seems like those who get upset about the possibility of Joseph the Seer using anything besides the U&T are those same people who get upset when a Latter-day Saint puts up a Christmas Tree. Am I wrong?
Honestly, thank you for all your replies. I’ve met plenty of members who get self-righteous over Christmas Trees being in members homes-like it’s a pagan ritual that true followers of Christ would never consider following. The people I know who are like this, can not accept a seer stone. I personally don’t care either way. I know Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and was called of God. If he used any elements created by Jehovah to fulfill his mission on earth, I’m fine with that. I’m also fine with members putting up Christmas trees. I do wish we had a better history of these things, but I supposed we must have FAITH in what actually matters-Jesus Christ and coming unto Him. There is too much judgement in the church (over Christmas trees) and over the prophet Joseph Smith. Sorry, a long reply-I’m not implying anyone on this thread is too harsh on Joseph, but if someone actually loses faith because Joseph received revelation in a way they don’t understand, then I think they might have a problem, not the Church or the prophet.
Guess I dont understand why Joseph needed to obtain the plates if all he needed was a stone and a hat.
The Uriman and thummin With the plates makes much more sense to me...AND it's what Joseph himself said he used.
The ‘Urim and Thummim’ was two seer stones in a silver bow. Read the description in Joseph Smith-History 1:35 also Mosiah 28
Agreed. If you can't rely on Joseph and Oliver's words why bother believing anything? Further, why would the Lord create these instruments ensuring tjey get to Joseph if he could have used any stone?
Joseph wasn’t reading the plates and then translating them. He didn’t have a clue what those characters meant. He was shown the translation through the seer stone and read it out to his scribes. The plates were always in view but were usually covered up.
Please show me where Joseph said he only ever used the Nephite seer stones. I would love to see that quote.
@@BenMcrea61 that is not 100% accurate. Yes, he lost access to the plates and translation after losing the 116 pp. However there is no first person account from Joseph and Oliver that they set aside the original urim and thumim.
Neville always seems willing and wants to talk this out with guys like this but they never seem to want to debate. There needs to be some face to face debates on this. There’s a difference like you said between contention and conflict.
Agreed
A few years ago I had a dream which I will not recount here. However, the statement about translation is absolutely true. The meaning of words/language when speaking to a Heavenly being is far deeper and broader than our paltry words can transmit. It's not just more, it's infinite, eternal and transcendent.
It was as if the words flowed from the centers of our being(s). I could have no more masked my intent or my meaning than to hold a tissue before an acetylene torch flame. The same was true of Him. It was/is the most honest conversation I have had in this life. And yet, it was a dream.
I would guess that Joseph couldn't describe the translation process because we, literally, literarily and metaphorically do not have a language sufficient to express such eternal things.
Another thought comes to mind: The reason that Jesus Christ seems so harsh, at times, is because He could not withhold. He was forthright, honest and used to communicating in unbounded language. So, "oh ye of little faith" could no more have remained within Him than could "blessed art thou among women" or "never has so great faith been among all the children of men".
Only recently, I've begun to rethink the seer stone vs urim and thumim controversy. And it's not because I can't stomach the idea of magic, it's because of what Joseph and Oliver said.
Gardner admitted that Oliver and Joseph never said they used a seer stone to translate, only the urim and thumim. And he claims Joseph and Oliver were basically calling seer stones the urim and thumim so that new members of the church wouldn't be weirded out by magic.
So... were Joseph and Oliver lying? Were the seer stones they had actually the urim and thumim from the bible? Or were they just calling it that to mislead people from the harder truth?
It seems like Gardner believes Joseph and Oliver lied about the urim and thumim and about Cumorrah. If that's the case... one must ask what else were they lying about? You may wonder if they were lying about everything?
I don't believe they were lying.
Why do you say they were lying? What was wrong with them referring to the seer stone as a Urim and Thummim? If the stone served the purpose of a U&T I see no problem with referring to it as such
@@jerry_phillips Do you believe Joseph used the seer stone to scam people to find buried treasure? Would that be a good use of seer stone like the Urim and Thumim?
@@jerry_phillips to be clear. I'm not saying they were lying. Gardner is.
Joseph said, "With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God." -- Joseph Smith 1842 (Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶5-6)
Joseph is saying it's the same Urim and Thumim "the ancients" used. He's not saying it's LIKE the Urim and Thumim, he's saying it IS the Urim and Thumim.
@@TravPlay I don’t doubt he used the U&T but I don’t have a problem if he found he could also use the seer stone at some point. His statement doesn’t rule that possibility out.
@@jerry_phillips Excellent point ..Joseph became extremely proficient at translating and No where does he say “I used the U and T exclusively. “
I really wish you would have brought up the fact that many who believe in the seer stone believe that Joseph never physically used the plates during the translation process--just the stone in the hat. For them the plates simply sat under a cloth. That simply doesn't make any sense to me. I was hoping you would have brought that out, but I understand that your time is limited. I don't understand how one can be so hung up on the fact that Joseph wasn't calling it a Urim and Thummim from the very beginning. I don't imagine anything would have come with a label on it like you find in the old Batman television show (though I am sure Joseph would have appreciated that). Joseph met with Moroni once a year for 4 years before he ever obtained the plates. What do you think they spoke about? What do you think they discussed? Could it be that Joseph was learning and growing gradually; line upon line? Could it be that it was later revealed what the name of the hill was, what the tool he was using was called, and where the events in the Book of Mormon might have taken place? Wouldn't those be the kinds of questions you would have come up with as you anticipated meeting with a heavenly messenger once a year? Why is it so difficult to believe that Joseph later learned the formal name for the object he was using and then later clarify that name in his writings once it became known? It makes sense to me. Of course I'm not a "scholar". I'm just trying to employ a little common sense. But many lives were sacrificed, as well as many hours dedicated, producing the plates and protecting them. I believe they existed for a reason and were meant to be used in the translation process. To think they would be preserved simply to sit on a table under a cloth doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and would, I am sure, come as a shock to everyone involved in their production. An instrument that was needed to help in the translation was included in the stone box. It would seem to me that that would be the perfect instrument to use. Otherwise, why bother including it? Maybe we should all take Joseph at his word. Not everything was clarified, and it was made clear that not everything would be as far as the translation is concerned. There is where our faith is tested. But I believe I will take Joseph at his word. He may have corrected himself later when it came to vocabulary, but that has to be expected. He was the one prepared for the task. He was the one that was given the responsibility to translate. He sacrificed much to give us this sacred book of scripture. For that I am grateful. If, years later, he sits down to spell out exactly how it took place and determines exactly which words best describe the process, then I for one will take him for his word. For anyone else to believe otherwise simply falls into the realm of speculation.
Why do you find it troubling which miraculous method was used to translate? If JS used an interpreter that showed him the translation why couldn’t the interpreter show him the words and the plates just simply be nearby? The plates provided tangible evidence for JS and the witnesses but I doubt JS could translate reformed Egyptian any better at the end than he could at the beginning of his work because the process was not an academic one.
Great points! Thank you
Well said! There are too many unknowns as we look back almost 200 years so to me, we need to rely on the sure source of scriptures and Joseph and Oliver.
I also do not believe all the work that went into writing the plates and preparing the interpreters so that they could be preserved for Joseph only to be put aside and left on a table.
@@jerry_phillips I do believe it was a miraculous process. However, I also believe plates were used tangibly at the same time. My phone has a pretty cool feature. I can turn on the camera and aim it at any foreign text. In the screen, a little translation appears right before my eyes. Sometimes the translation is a good one and sometimes I have to rearrange the words so they make sense from a grammatical point of view. Perhaps something similar took place. I still need the phone to translate, but the phone has to be aimed at the actual, tangible, thing that i need translating to reveal the needed text. I just cannot accept the fact that so many good men went through so much effort to provide a physical set of plates that never needed to be used. No matter how it's translated, however, l am grateful for the spiritual uplift they provide me on a daily basis. Of course, Joseph provided other revelation that did not depend upon a physical set of plates, but when it comes to the Book of Mormon, that is the way the message was presented. it was a tangible book that needed to be translated tangibly, in my opinion.
@@jerry_phillipsecause truth matters. Because we generally do not accept claims made by others about Joseph or Church doctrine truth second and third hand sources. I am shocked that professors of this degree have turned to such weak proof to support their hypothesis of the SITH theory. To accept this version of the translation goes contrary to so many things Oliver and Joseph said. I choose to believe them. Oliver was very clear in describing the process and tools they used in his response to the claims made by 'Mormonism Unveiled'.
I wonder if Mr. Gardner believes the Doctrine and Covenants is from the Lord. D&C 10:1 The Lord reprimands Joseph Smith for the loss of the 116 pages. “Now, behold, I say unto you, that 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.”
Funny you are so wound up in your dogmatic conclusion that you don’t go to the original published revelation in the 1833 Book of Commandments.
“NOW, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them”
Where is the mention of the Urim and Thummim?
I'm sorry but this is too much and why I detest a lot of so called "scholarship." Joseph using a seer stone early on even before the first vision, and perhaps even during the translation to some extent, presents no problem to me. But to say the urim and thummin was never used is outrageous and blatant revisionist history.
Joseph in Egypt used a cup.
See Genesis chapter 44 verses 1 thru 15.
I want to hear the off the record conversation
A careful reading of the scriptures indicates a seer stone is a glass biconvex lens.
A single glass lens is often called a "magnifying glass" and used to magnify objects to make them easier to see. This is why scripture says they can "magnify to the eyes of men". Ether 3:24
Place two lenses together and you can create a simple primitive Galileo Telescope. This is why Abraham said he looked at the stars with the Urim and Thummim. Abraham 3:1-2.
Place a glass lens in a dark box and you have a Camera Obscura. This allows you to "see" things outside the box. The light is "translated" from outside the box to the inside of the box. It's necessary to block out the ambient light to focus on the light coming through the lens and nothing else. When Joseph Smith placed his "seer" stone in a hat and placed his face in the hat, he was using a Camera Obscura.
Joseph Smith allowed others to testify that he had the power of a "seer" and "translator" by showing them the process. The brown stone was irrelevant and used as a prop for misdirection to keep the process sacred to those that were ready and understood the meaning of what he was doing.
Other people were allowed to see and handle the brown stone. Joseph would then place the brown stone in his hat and "see" the outside world through a hidden lens. The image he saw was "translated" from outside to inside and from right-side up to upside down.
Joseph Smith never lied when he said he "translated" the Book of Mormon though the "gift" and "power" of God.
My question would be: Did God place the seer stone in the box or did He place the urim and thumim in the box. End of question.
Was he really equating Joseph translating by the gift and power of God with all the examples he gave of people using stones and crystal balls? I don't think those in the examples he gave were inspired by the same spirit as Joseph!
Maybe not the same Spirit but people out of the church also have spiritual gifts. As long as they are not practicing priestcraft I think that’s ok
So other people may have used tools, but they are not receiving Revelation from God or translating a work of ancient language.
More of the "worldly knowledge" explaining the translation than the words of the Prophet Joseph and Oliver. It fit right in with his discounting their statements on The Book of Mormon geography. If you are serious about this, I encourage you to read Neville's new book, "By Means Of The Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation To The Restoration." He is very fair and explains where all the theories come from and their strengths and weaknesses. It is very well documented and with the Kindle version it is very easy to check all sources, which I highly recommend doing. His background as a lawyer gives him and his co-author the ability to evaluate testimonies, sources and possible motives that it seems "stone in the hat" scholars just don't possess.
I will check it out-thanks!
All his books on the topics of geography and translation are fairly written and make a much stronger case than Gardner.
The heartland model doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny once you actually and try and amp out a model that fits into the historical timeline.. It's strength relies on quotes from church authorities who obviously believed in that theory because it was de facto theory for so long. I'll stop there. These debates are endless. Yes, read what Neville writes and then read the criticisms. That's how it must be done in a polarized subject like this one.
@@careyfoushee without a doubt there will be critiques of each position but to me, I am amazed at how academia from within BYU itself is shifting the narrative elsewhere with little proof in regards to geography and the translation process. The debate on geography is less harmful but the debate on translation makes Joseph's translation process more suspicious - something many in and out of the Church struggle with.
@@careyfoushee I will rely on church authorities like Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as a foundation and look for evidence to match what they said. I believe they had more than circumstantial evidence to go on. I believe they had knowledge from The Lord and Moroni. There is abundant evidence that parallels the Adena and Hopewell peoples that matches amazingly well with BOM timelines. That evidence comes from secular archaeologists and many people who lived in the areas before they were completely changed by modern farming and city building. But, we can agree to disagree :)
So other people used crystal balls…so Joseph could have done it. What?!
Right? There are two sources of power: God, and the adversary. The notion that Joseph Smith was meddling in satanic rituals as a preparatory process to become a seer is what's implied; and it's absolutely absurd.
I’m surprised you missed the white people comment Gardner made in the last video
Other than not the image I originally had I’ve never really wrestled with the stone in the hat. Why would I? What difference which miraculous method was used to dictate the Book of Mormon into English?
The gifts and abilities given to Joseph Smith are beyond comprehension. Those around him were often confused because he would say something that seemed so basic to him but was beyond their understanding. So how he did things was unique. But as to the stones, the stones with the breastplate were returned with the plates, so he couldn't have given them away. So clearly there were other stones involved.
A LOT of un-cited statements from this guy….
How does know? Joseph said the Urum and thummin were in the box with the gold plates.
He’s trying to rewrite contemporary history.
It's great that you are continuing the discussion.
The low-point of interview: 17:29, where the speaker relates some anecdote of some lady, who magically discerns the precise words from an unseen text below some "crystal ball" (which the speaker then amazingly defines as just another "seer-stone," and then--without hesitation--analogizes this whole mystical process to Joseph Smith's use of the "peep stone"). Yes, you heard correctly: the speaker conflates that crystal ball occult event with how Joseph Smith might have similarly translated the Book of Mormon ("Well, that tells me Joseph Smith could have done [the same thing that lady did with a crystal ball]"). Whoa. Did that really just happen?!? Did someone just give more ammo to those who dismiss the divine (and historical) reality of the Book of Mormon by directly associating the whole translation process with something magical or occult or mystical (like "automatic writing" or crystal balls)? Okay, personally, I know the Book of Mormon is true and divine--even if some chocolate peep stone was used to translate. And I am confident that the speaker is a faithful, devoted disciple and probably amazing scholar. And I don't want to nit-pick an unfortunate phrase or two from a lengthy interview. Nevertheless, might we all now better understand the importance of relying on the clear words of the prophet Joseph when he unequivocally ascribes the Urim and Thummim as the exclusive and divinely-supplied tool of translation, rather than something else (like either a crystal ball or chocolate peep stone) that gives more ammo to Book of Mormon nay-sayers? (And why, oh why, would they be so invested in the peep stone process that they now even marshal occult crystal ball anecdotes to buttress their arguments--even if such anecdotes play right into the hands of those opposing the divinity--and historicity--of this sacred record? Does that make any sense at all?). With all this magic malarkey tainting this discussion, please allow me to simply share my divine, sure, and Holy-Ghost-confirmed witness that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record of a people in ancient America who were led to this land by the hand of the Lord centuries ago and which was translated into English by the gift and power of God, through the instrumentality of the Lord's chosen restoration prophet, Joseph Smith. The Book is holy and true and without a syllable of deceit or corruption, and will victoriously defeat all efforts to suggest otherwise.
I disagree with him in a number of points but I think it is kind of arrogant to say he did us a disservice and his thinking that Mormon kind of changed the focus of the book. The Lord knew the ending from the beginning and gave us what He wanted us to have.
I do not agree. How in the world would Brent Gardner know what Joseph didn't have the Urim and Thummim? He has the same answer..."Joseph adopted that name..." Would he care to debate this with Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Moroni, or Joseph?
I could listen to this ALL day …Great conversation …now let’s put it into context of today !
Greg, I’d like to know if you personally still feel the same about Gardner as a BoM scholar after conducting these interviews.
Definitely. The Book of Mormon is a vast work. Geography and translation are a tiny slice of the text. Gardner has some great scholarship on the text itself. And as I've said, i have no horse in this race. I have relationships with both camps.
@@CwicShow it would frankly be weird for someone NOT to have relationships in both circles. Regarding Gardner, I found him quite off putting, so I’m not in a rush to read his stuff.
@@ClintThomsen my sentiments as well.
Never bring the Luciferian wife swapping John Dee into this discussion.
I found Him to be less believable that Neville.
I have a real problem with Gardner calling Joseph A liar he sounds more like an Anti-Mormon apostate than a faithful scholar...I believe Joseph F Smith over some great big elder and self appointed scholar.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. “Liar?”
@@CwicShow Joseph said, "With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God." -- Joseph Smith 1842 (Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶5-6)
Gardner said that Joseph and Oliver called it a Urim and Thumim just so new members wouldn't be weirded out by folk magic. So essentially, he's saying they lied about what the Urim and Thumim actually was.
@@CwicShow yes it sounded a lot like what he was saying and I took it as an accusation against the Prophet. Don't get me wrong I am not attacking your show or you for giving him a chance to respond to the Heartland model, but I found his tone rather off putting, condescending and egocentric. I understand his need to protect his vested interest in this model but I thought his dismissive way of saying Joseph and Oliver were deceiving the Saints and actually allowing a deception to be introduced into the scripture with the description of the Urim and thumin as two stones in silver bows as just a cover for a brown peep stone rather ridiculous itself.
I don’t interpret it that way at all. Brant was certainly not implying that Joseph and Oliver were lying. They were simply referring to any kind of seer stone that is being used under the direction of God as “Urim and Thummim”. That is the point Brant was trying to make.
11:35 but why would Joseph lie about it? I should think we would believe the words of a prophet of God over the words of secondhand accounts.
To illustrate a point, look at all of the division in the comments. Contention is not of God. There is too much contention. I know the Gospel is true, I know Joseph is called as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. Either we hold tight to our testimonies or fall. The Church is being sifted. 🙏🙏😑💜
@anthony rippa agreed. However, many are walking away due to political division and the changes. Unfortunately, I know one of those.
@@anthonyrippa686 I believe that is true of 99% of them.
It is sad that no one seems to understand that Joseph did not have the biblical "Urim & Thummim." He had Nephite "interpreters." Everyone (except Brant Gardner) seems to miss this point, completely unaware of the confusion it engenders.
Joseph and Oliver consistently stated that the interpreters were the means by which the Book of Mormon was translated. They started making these statements after the stone-in-the-hat narrative was first advanced in full in the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, and that context makes it clear that their emphasis on the interpreters was Joseph and Oliver's rebuttal to E. B. Howe's stone-in-the-hat story.
The scrying sources do not hold up. Elizabeth Whitmer's account is a torn document which came from scrying stone partisan William McLellin which she never verified. David Whitmer is the source of most stone-in-the-hat accounts, but he was never a scribe nor ever explicitly claimed to be a witness to the actual translation process. The two accounts attributed to Emma are contradictory and problematic for many reasons. All of Martin Harris' statement speak of the interpreters, not the scrying stone.
Not all sources are created equal. Joseph and Oliver were the primary witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon we have, and they consistently testified in written statements during their lifetimes that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates using the Nephite interpreters. And, at least for those who believe Joseph and Oliver were truth-tellers, this plates-and-interpreters narrative must be deemed far, far more credible that later, second-hand, unreliable scrying stone sources.
See the new book on this subject, "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration."
Do we know how detailed Reformed Egyptian was? It sounds like a simpler form of symbols. So it makes complete sense to me that a non-native translator would have to think it out in his mind
Amazing how Gardner says “oh it didn’t literally mean that”.
7:40 - Where did King Mosiah get them? They originally belonged to the Brother of Jared. The Doctrine and Covenants also explicitly tells of what was used. Why would Joseph feel the need to personally edit the revelations in 1844? The belief by faithful active members of the Church when it comes to the use of the chocolate stone should be seen as equivalent of those who believe the earth is flat.
It is my belief that Mosiah got them at the Hill north if the Land of Shilom on his way from the land of Nephi to Zarahemla.
Having a Urim & Thummin consititutes a person being called a seer. These "interpreters" are also called "seer stones". Joseph taking the "interpreter" stones out of the frame and putting them in the hat means that he used a "seer stone" to interpret. Why is the assumption made that when the term "seer stone" is used by "witnesses", it refers to the chocolate covered one. How do you know they are not referring to one of the interpreters which can also called a seer stone?
7:14 but there is an issue with this, as at the U&T is spoken of in the zohar and it is described as two stones that were put inside the breast plate of the high priest
When Joseph disobeyed the Lord and lost the 116 pp of translation, he lost the ability to translate. Moroni took the plates and the interpreters away from him. When he had repented sufficiently, they are returned to him. The two were interconnected in the process. I find it hard to belenes that after disobeying tbe Lord once, Joseph would have gone off to translate with another means.
Oh good... JS said he saw God the Father and his son. Now I can just dismiss it like Gardner does and believe nothing JS said.
I’ve had a series of concussions over the last decade and one of the effects has been double vision. I’ve been involved with vision therapy where you focus both eyes on a common point and you adjust the position of the object you are looking at. If you are familiar with the Brock string, that is one of the tools that I am talking about. I tend to think of seer stones as something you focus on, but the image is communicated into your brain. We know from church leaders statements that the spirit is closely linked to our mind. I am willing to bet that much of the translation process took place in one’s mind rather than something you’d see as if the stone were like a computer monitor or something. I don’t think anyone else would have seen the first vision in the sacred grove had they been there with Joseph. It was a vision, not a physical visitation. It’s also like when Joseph and Sydney saw the vision of D&C 76. Others were there witnessing Joseph and Sydney describing the vision, but the witnesses didn’t see what they saw. They only saw Joseph and Sydney seeing the vision. I’ve also had experiences where I saw certain things in the temple as I was surrounded by people, but they didn’t see what I saw.
There is more to seer stones than many of us understand.
Not doubting any of your experiences or ideas, amigo. They sound very sacred and powerful. But I would be careful to too quickly dismiss the physicality of many so-called "visions," including that of the Father and Son to Joseph in the grove (note, for example, the concrete physical efforts of Satan to stifle Joseph's ability to physically pray or continue his physical visit in the grove). Surely, some kind of transformation or magnification of our bodies necessarily enables mortals to endure and visit with heavenly beings. And surely, Heavenly Father can specify, even in a group, who is--or not--privy to such physical visitations and experiences. We know that the physical connections are often an important--and sometimes even necessary--part of spiritual experiences (such as the need for physical ordinances in temples to certify spiritual milestones and blessings). And we know that the world is too-ready to dilute or dismiss the divine and tangible, physical reality of many restoration events (such as the first vision, restoration of priesthood, 11 witnesses to the reality of the tangible, physical Nephite plates and [physical presence of an angel who had them physically handle the plates, etc.) by ascribing them to "mere hallucinations" or delusions of the mind (like, e.g., drug-induced experiences). Some of these critics thereby feel they can label so much of the restoration as just "smoke and mirrors." Fortunately, the Lord, anticipating such responses, has given His children the most tangible, physical, and unimpeachable manifestation of the Restoration of the Gospel, the eternal atonement of Jesus Christ, and the continuing ministry of the Savior through the Holy Ghost, continuing revelation, constant miracles, and the daily gift of divine grace.
@@jonterry9843 I can understand where you are coming from, but I do believe the Melchizedek priesthood temple ordinances are essential to actually being in Gods presence. That’s why I believe it was a vision, which all Joseph describes it as. True Satan was trying to influence him, but Satan is also spirit, not physical dispute being able to bind Joseph’s tongue in whatever way he could.
D&C 84:19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
It couldn’t have been a physical appearance, because Joseph had not received the priesthood or any ordinances yet…and he survived.
Also, when the veil parts, kid be amazed at how more real that reality is compared to what we see now. Imagine watching a movie in high definition, then comparing it to a vhf version of the same movie.
You should interview Hannah Stoddard on this topic.
Joseph did not use a stone in a hat to translate
Most witness accounts from the scribes would disagree with you. Why is the seer stone problematic for you?
I would love to see your primary source materials.
@@jefferyhall5851 There are none.
The Urim and Thummim were two seer stones. Read the description in Joseph Smith-History 1:35 They were two seer stones in a silver bow which were attached to a breastplate and worn. They weren’t spectacles or lenses. They appear to be the same seer stones that King Benjamin and King Mosiah had in Mosiah 28:13 Joseph also had his own seer stone which he had found in a well on Willard Chase’s farm. After the loss of the 116 pages and the loss of the plates and the seer stones, breastplate etc. Joseph was only ever seen using one seer stone which he placed in a hat to block out the light and view the translation. There is no point in denying it - that is what happened,
Martin Harris, described the translation process in a letter to a newspaper editor in 1859, stating that Joseph Smith "did not look at the plates while translating" and that "the words appeared in the stones placed in a hat."
Emma Smith also described the translation process and confirmed the use of a stone in a hat. In an interview with her son Joseph Smith III, she stated that her husband "put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light."
David Whitmer, described the translation process in his book "An Address to All Believers in Christ," stating that "the plates were not used in the translation, but the seer stone was placed in a hat, into which Joseph put his face."
Joseph Smith's younger brother William also confirmed the use of a stone in a hat during the translation process in an interview with the Chicago Tribune in 1877, stating that "Joseph Smith put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light."
Back for more - let’s goooo
Why do we always get different stories about joseph smith translations from many videos from LDS . Why not a definitive story.
Read " Seer stone vs the Urim and Thummin" by the Joseph Smith foundation. It dubunkes the the seer stone in a hat theory by present context to all claims.
This guy makes me question was JS Devine.
“Is there anything from Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdrey directly referring to using the seer stone as an instrument of translation?”
“Not that I’m aware of.”
WHAT?!?!? You have this whole theory that Joseph used a seer stone instead of the Urim & Thumim, but you don’t even have a single quote to back it up??? WOW. I should not be surprised based on the previous episode, but here I am, throwing my hands up in disgust.
Refer to William Davis's book. JS did think it out in his mind
Thummim-only-ism. The same mentally that gave us King-James-only-ism.
It doesn't matter to me if Joseph used the broken off bottom of a medicine bottle. What matters is the gift of His that gave us the text. It's like the furor about the Book of Abraham where peripheral ideas distract from the truth in the text.
I’m starting to think skinwalker ranch may be the riches the angel was talking about.
Thanks for these presentations. My final take after listening to all four videos. You have one side filled with spiritual pride like the pharasees and the other side filled with intellectual pride like the pharasees. I will continue to keep myself neutral from either side.
Here you have it folks! - grown adults in the 2020's having a serious discussion about people writing books about the ancient world from information they received by looking into rocks! Today's prophet still has Joseph's rock but apparently the only thing it is good for anymore is for getting good stock market tips.
Here you have it folks, someone taking the time to write a comment to mock people’s religion. Grow up.
This is embarrassing. The Man who communed with Jehovah of all people would know the difference between folk magic or something provided by God. If a rock in a hat was used, why the need for the plates? Why the need to edit later? Why would there be any anachronisms at all? Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman have done a real number on church history.
The idea that a number of people have used these methods is a bit different than a Prophet that saw God the Father and His Son and other Heavenly beings.
Talk about clinging to man made error. If I had written a book like Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, which is his opinion of JS and folk magic, (that it may have served as a preparatory Priesthood), a book that caused so many to lose their testimony and even leave the church, I would repent. John Dehlin gleefully endorses RSR. How does that book or this continued stance help build the Kingdom of God on Earth?
Read Truman Madsen or Hugh Nibley instead and stay away from this non sense.
I think Noah's priests quoted Isaiah 52:7-10 to show that the Zeniffites had gone back up to the mountains of Highland Guatemala, where the Lord wanted His people to be--not down in the Central Depression (Zarahemla) where Mosiah 1 had taken them. Abinadi didn't buy it.
This was a really good discussion!
I agree! Really appreciate this one
So many people in the comments proving Brother Gardner right. "How dare he compare the divine gift of translation with a crystal ball!??!?"
Interesting discussion, hope to see more of them!
Not sure why those perfectly justified responses to his disturbing crystal ball comparison would bother you, Sven. But, being one of those "so many people" mentioned, I thought I'd repost my comment here to explain why such a comparison is a bit disturbing. Enjoy:
The low-point of interview: 17:29, where the speaker relates some anecdote of some lady, who magically discerns the precise words from an unseen text below some "crystal ball" (which the speaker then amazingly defines as just another "seer-stone," and then--without hesitation--analogizes this whole mystical process to Joseph Smith's use of the "peep stone"). Yes, you heard correctly: the speaker conflates that crystal ball occult event with how Joseph Smith might have similarly translated the Book of Mormon ("Well, that tells me Joseph Smith could have done [the same thing that lady did with a crystal ball]"). Whoa. Did that really just happen?!? Did someone just give more ammo to those who dismiss the divine (and historical) reality of the Book of Mormon by directly associating the whole translation process with something magical or occult or mystical (like "automatic writing" or crystal balls)? Okay, personally, I know the Book of Mormon is true and divine--even if some chocolate peep stone was used to translate. And I am confident that the speaker is a faithful, devoted disciple and probably amazing scholar. And I don't want to nit-pick an unfortunate phrase or two from a lengthy interview. Nevertheless, might we all now better understand the importance of relying on the clear words of the prophet Joseph when he unequivocally ascribes the Urim and Thummim as the exclusive and divinely-supplied tool of translation, rather than something else (like either a crystal ball or chocolate peep stone) that gives more ammo to Book of Mormon nay-sayers? (And why, oh why, would they be so invested in the peep stone process that they now even marshal occult crystal ball anecdotes to buttress their arguments--even if such anecdotes play right into the hands of those opposing the divinity--and historicity--of this sacred record? Does that make any sense at all?). With all this magic malarkey tainting this discussion, please allow me to simply share my divine, sure, and Holy-Ghost-confirmed witness that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record of a people in ancient America who were led to this land by the hand of the Lord centuries ago and which was translated into English by the gift and power of God, through the instrumentality of the Lord's chosen restoration prophet, Joseph Smith. The Book is holy and true and without a syllable of deceit or corruption, and will victoriously defeat all efforts to suggest otherwise.
Eh
Ugh!
The 'seer' stone is 3rd hand gossip from anti's.
Is President Nelson an anti-mormon? Read the Ensign July 1993 A Treasured Testament
It comes from statements by David Whitmer, Martin Harris, William Smith, and Emma Smith. I really have no idea why some find this troubling. It doesn’t make anyone a liar
@Jerry Phillips I understand. I went to see Bro. Bushman at a Stake Fireside; I was disappointed that it was so sterile. To me, it would've been better to say it was 'it was translated by the gift and power of God.' That is the important part. There are a lot of voices 'interpreting' what Joseph said and did. Isn't it enough if you have a testimony of him as a Prophet, it should be enough? Insisting this is what happened from others than what Joseph approved is changing the history. Do we really want to do that?
@anthony rippa Other than holding on, no.
I can't watch anymore. I revere Joseph too much.
If your testimony is so fragile, what on earth are you doing watching videos like this?
@Ben McCrea It has nothing to do with testimony. It has everything to do with how they come across demeaning Joseph. I don't care about the seer stone, but don't turn his testimonies around. I was given a testimony that I cannot divulge. It is too sacred. I will defend Joseph calling as the Chosen Prophet of the last dispensation, the Servant of the end of days. This whole issue has caused a great deal of division with the Saints. And it I get so frustrated! Bro. Gardner had the same argument for every question Bro. Matsen asked.
So, no it is not a testimony issue.
@@IndyLady511 Thank you for clarifying that. Bless you. Joseph was a Prophet and the gospel is true!
It seems like those who get upset about the possibility of Joseph the Seer using anything besides the U&T are those same people who get upset when a Latter-day Saint puts up a Christmas Tree. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
Yes, you're wrong. I get upset that Joseph and Oliver's account of how they translated is considered innacurate by church historians.
Seems like an odd comparison to me.
@@bradpetersen7803 I've never met a Latter-day Saint who hates Christmas trees.
Honestly, thank you for all your replies. I’ve met plenty of members who get self-righteous over Christmas Trees being in members homes-like it’s a pagan ritual that true followers of Christ would never consider following. The people I know who are like this, can not accept a seer stone. I personally don’t care either way. I know Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and was called of God. If he used any elements created by Jehovah to fulfill his mission on earth, I’m fine with that. I’m also fine with members putting up Christmas trees. I do wish we had a better history of these things, but I supposed we must have FAITH in what actually matters-Jesus Christ and coming unto Him. There is too much judgement in the church (over Christmas trees) and over the prophet Joseph Smith. Sorry, a long reply-I’m not implying anyone on this thread is too harsh on Joseph, but if someone actually loses faith because Joseph received revelation in a way they don’t understand, then I think they might have a problem, not the Church or the prophet.