Comments on: Seer Stone Memo

By: john f.

john f. — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:27:18 +0000

For the record, Justin pointed out in a different discussion at BCC recently that Oliver Cowdery's account does not mention a screen in the translation process

By: Jordan F.

Jordan F. — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:46:29 +0000

Wow- a reply almost two years later! Timely!

By: john f.

john f. — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:00:51 +0000

Eric, this was tried and tested this very Sunday in a far-flung ward in East London. After one ward member mentioned something from Oliver Cowdery’s account of the translation process, I raised my hand to supplement this with a comment as to David Whitmer and Emma Smith’s statements relating to using the seer-stone in the hat. My wife — the Sunday School teacher — likely didn’t appreciate it as it wasn’t fully relevant to the lesson she was teaching but the reaction was exactly as you predicted: it went entirely unnoticed and no one seemed to care about it in the slightest.

For me personally David Whitmer’s account coupled with Emma’s account actually support the idea that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon as a fraudulent work of fiction (reading for hours on end with his face buried in the hat looking into the seer stone). But for most Latter-day Saints, I would think, the U&T or the seerstone or reading directly from the plates through the inspiration of the Spirit is all the same: the translation process was a miracle from God. Perhaps this is why artists seem to have preferred depicting Joseph Smith translating as per Oliver Cowdery’s account, i.e. reading from the plates from behind a screen with the use of the U&T — because the actual process is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things and Oliver Cowdery’s scene offers the most artistically attractive option (in the minds of the artists).

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:04:01 +0000

I think instances of people being disturbed by discovering Joseph translated with the seer stone are rare. Most members know he translated with the Urim and Thummim, and though there is indeed a difference, I don’t think people would be particularly surprised to learn he used the seerstone. I think if you brought it up nonchalantly in a church history lesson, it would go largely unnoticed and not cared about.

By: don

don — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:29:18 +0000

I’d have to research my materials again, but I seem to remember that Joseph’s seer stone was placed on the alter at the dedication of the Manti temple….that being the last reference to it’s existence…probably in the basement of the Church Office building or Pres. Hinckley’s drawer

By: anothernonymous

anothernonymous — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:40:35 +0000

I distinctly remember as a child going through my parents’ polished rock collection and taking a small brownish/reddish stone and thinking, “This is probably what one of the seer stones Joseph Smith had looked like.” I thought it was cool – it didn’t make me pretensious in thinking I could attempt to exercise “seership” but it helped me to relate to the manner in which Joseph Smith used it.

By: chronicler

chronicler — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:50:25 +0000

I wasn’t a member when I was primary age. I lived in southern california for my seminary years. That’s where I learned about the sser stones. It didn’t seem to faze anyone, or shake testimonies. I’ve never heard of the memo either John.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:22:48 +0000

I guess it wasn’t that outlandish of me to want the nursery children to draw a picture of Joseph Smith with his 33 wives. ;-D

By: ed

ed — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:43:27 +0000

Yes, the fact that there were *two* and that they were *clear* seems to indicate that they were supposed to represent the stones fastened to the breastplate as described right there in the PoGP, not the ones apparently used for the bulk of the translation as described in various (mostly uncorrelated) sources. I’d even be surprised if the word “seerstone” had been used, either.

So I don’t think the fact that the U&T was described is the least bit surprising, but I do think giving the example stones is pretty weird. Are the kids supposed to go home and try to look through them, or something? Shouldn’t we just wait for the “white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17?”

By: John C.

John C. — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:11:30 +0000

John,
I would happily nominate both if it wasn’t impossible. I went to see the new Joseph Smith movie the other day (the one at the Joseph Smith building) and it featured Joseph translating from the plates itself. So, although the church isn’t cracking down on the knowledge, it certainly isn’t promoting it and doesn’t seem at all interested in doing so, which is fine (to be honest, having learned the actual situation, my testimony failed to be shattered). Please don’t tell me that your daughter’s teacher was using correlated material to teach about the seer stone (and are you sure she wasn’t talking about the Urim and Thummim anyway? It is certainly more kosher).