How Do Apologists Believe the Peep Stone Worked?

[_Joseph Antley]

But don't you agree that it is a more honest portrayal than we are bombarded with from the time we are sunbeams?

Yes. But it's still important to recognize that it wasn't the only method utilized. The interpreters were used at least initially, and if Joseph did in fact copy some of the characters along with a proposed translation to Martin Harris, then that may suggest something more.

[Guest]

Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and opinions. It begs a few questions.
Besides the Book of Mormon, which I know apologists hold as a fruit of Joseph being a seer, are there any other instances of him having the "seer's gift" in the early church? From what I have studied he claimed to have this gift for years before the Book of Mormon yet never produced a buried treasure or any proof of his power?

I'm not sure if Joseph himself is ever recorded has having actually claimed the gift of using the stone to find treasure. We do know that he used it based upon the words of others. It seems most of what we know about Joseph's treasure seeking days comes through second or third hand sources (such as the Hurlbut affidavits). Joseph did make one statement (recorded in the History of the Church) regarding his treasure seeking in which he responded that it was not profitable. Likewise, we don't really have much evidence that he ever found anything with the stone (other than perhaps a pin). Somehow he had gained a reputation for being able to find things with the stone, but we just don't have any specifics about how that reputation was obtained.

Also, that time period is filled with people who claimed to have the "seer's gift", do you believe these people were, like Joseph, communicating with God? Were they communicating with another unseen power? Or were they all con men and women?

First, I don't believe that Joseph necessarily thought that he was communicating with God when he used the stone. Nor do I believe that he thought that he was communicating with anyone else. I think that he believed that the stone would show him things based upon the common folk beliefs of the time. I think that he believed that the stone itself possessed an ability to do so. My grandfather once taught me to use a divining rod. He was also a temple worker. When he taught me how to use the rod, the word "magic" was never used. He believed that there was some sort of physical process by which the rod worked which allowed it to locate water, yet my grandfather didn't believe in any sort of magic.

With regard to the rest of your question, there were certainly con men out there, and there were village seers who genuinely thought that they could find things using the stone. I don't think that Sally Chase was a con woman. People thought that she could find things with her green stone. Unfortunately, we have little documentation from the seers themselves regarding how successful they may or may not have been. I believe that Joseph truly felt that he could locate things using his stones.

Finally, do you believe that there were literal gold plates? Since Joseph did not need or use them in the translation process were they real and literal?

Yes, I do. This raises the question of why any physical plates were needed at all if Joseph didn't actually need to look at them in order to translate. I can think of several reasons why the plates were necessary. I am, of course, assuming the existence of physical plates:

1. Joseph copied some of the characters off the plates and sent them with Martin Harris. Harris' conversation with Charles Anthon was sufficient to convince Harris that Joseph was actually able to translate, and Harris then lent his financial support for the publication of the Book of Mormon. If there were no plates, that would not have happened.

2. The Three and Eight Witnesses provided Joseph with corroboration that Joseph appeared to possess an ancient record.

3. Despite the fact that Joseph used the stone in the hat to translate, he apparently wasn't able to do so without the plates. When Moroni took away the plates and the Nephite interpreters after the loss of the 116 pages, Joseph couldn't translate anything. When the plates were returned, the Nephite interpreters may not have been, and Joseph used the stone that he was already familiar with. This means that Joseph may have used his stone to translate the entire text of the Book of Mormon that we have today. It seems that the presence of the plates was necessary for the translation to continue, even if they were sitting on Emma's table covered with a cloth while Joseph looked at the stone in his hat.

I don't doubt that the Lord could have simply revealed the entire text of the Book of Mormon to Joseph without requiring plates or a stone. Joseph, however, needed the stone. As he learned and progressed, he reached the point where he didn't need the stone any longer.

WW

[_Wiki Wonka]

duplicate post

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

BUMP for Wiki Wonka!!!!!

Mr. Wonka,

A few questions in this vein.

From JS-H 1:35 (what Joseph Smith was told)

… the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

Do you think it is seers = the stones, or as it reads, seers = possession and use of the stones? If seers = possession and use of the stones, why do the FP/12 call themselves seers if not using the stones? If that reference is just to use of the term "seers" in ancient or former times, where in the Mormon scriptures is the current definition?

From JS-H 1:62 (Joseph Smith said)

I copied a considerable number of [the characters on the gold plates], and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them

And from D&C 10:1 (God speaking)

…those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim

Here, a "closer examination" of the language chosen by both God and by Joseph Smith described the Urim and Thummim as the means by which Joseph Smith translated them. Now this is Mormon canon. So where else in the Mormon canon does it dispel or contradict the notion that the Urim and Thummin was the means, leaving the Urim and Thummim to be merely a touchstone or crutch or training wheels for Joseph Smith until he realized he did not need them? In no dispelling or contradictory canon provision, why do you discount them as not the means of translating as is set forth in Mormon canon? Why did God not correct the language before included in Mormon canon if it can be so easily tossed aside?

Regards,

Spider.

[_Wiki Wonka]

Do you think it is seers = the stones, or as it reads, seers = possession and use of the stones? If seers = possession and use of the stones, why do the FP/12 call themselves seers if not using the stones? If that reference is just to use of the term "seers" in ancient or former times, where in the Mormon scriptures is the current definition?

It appears that in the scriptures, the term "seers" is always used to refer to a person, except in that one particular case you mentioned. The Bible uses the term many times to refer to a person. The Book of Mormon states that a "seer" is the person who can use the interpreters.

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

In the one instance you mentioned, Joseph called the stones themselves "seers." He may have been using the term exactly the way it sounds - the stones were "see-ers." Apart from that bit of speculation, I don't know why he called them by that term.

From JS-H 1:62 (Joseph Smith said)

I copied a considerable number of [the characters on the gold plates], and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them

And from D&C 10:1 (God speaking)

…those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim

Here, a "closer examination" of the language chosen by both God and by Joseph Smith described the Urim and Thummim as the means by which Joseph Smith translated them. Now this is Mormon canon. So where else in the Mormon canon does it dispel or contradict the notion that the Urim and Thummin was the means, leaving the Urim and Thummim to be merely a touchstone or crutch or training wheels for Joseph Smith until he realized he did not need them? In no dispelling or contradictory canon provision, why do you discount them as not the means of translating as is set forth in Mormon canon? Why did God not correct the language before included in Mormon canon if it can be so easily tossed aside?

Joseph did need the Nephite interpreters (the "spectacles") and the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon and receive his early revelations. The interpreters were the means by which he translated. All I have stated previously is that the stones themselves contained no special power. The seer who looked into them had the power. The Lord designated the Nephite interpreters a special stones that could only be used by a seer, but the seer is the one with the power. If anyone else tried to use the interpreter, it simply wouldn't work for them. Note that the D&C verse you quoted says that Joseph "had power given unto [him] to translate by the means of..." So, Joseph had the power, not the stones.

Both the Nephite interpreters (the "spectacles") and the seer stone were later conflated in the historical records due to the use of the term "Urim and Thummim," which wasn't applied until several years after the Book of Mormon was translated. When the term "Urim and Thummim" is used, you cannot determine whether it is the Nephite interpreters or the seer stone that is being referred to without examining the context of the source. The term was applied to both items.

At the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the term "Urim and Thummim" was not used at all. One of the earliest uses of the term that I've seen so far occurred in 1833 in The Evening and The Morning Star, published in Independence, Missouri:

The Book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.-It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)
—The Evening and The Morning Star 1:57.

Note the use of the word "perhaps." The Nephite interpreters, or spectacles were perhaps known as Teraphim or Urim and Thummim. The term Urim and Thummim eventually moved into common usage, and that's what we hear in Church today to refer to the interpreters.

The fact that Joseph later dispensed with the use of the seer stone is a matter of historical record. He told Oliver that he didn't need it any longer. This implies that he needed it before.

WW

[_Wiki Wonka]

A whole lotta stuff...

The response to much of what you asked me is addressed in my responses to Willy Law and Spider-to-the-fly above.

Question for Wiki Wonka:

Question: Why don't the LDS sites show Joseph Smith with his head-in-hat using his seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon since we know for a fact this was the only means used to translate the Gold plates?

Simple: Because the artists are not aware that Joseph used a stone in a hat....unless they are fans of South Park.

A better question would be: Why don't the LDS sites show Joseph Smith with a breastplate and pair of crystal spectacles as he translates the Book of Mormon, since we know for a fact that this is what is taught in church.

The answer to this one is: Because the artists aren't comfortable depicting the Nephite interpreters. They know what the plates looked like, but they don't want to try and depict the interpreters, so they don't (except for one notable exception in The Friend).

WW

[_Willy Law]

Is your belief that the Book of Mormon is divine and the gold plates literal based on a rational review of the evidence? or solely a belief that you have received a spiritual answer regarding it's divinity?
I guess my trouble with your opinion is based on a few things. Mainly that I was brought up as a devout member of the church to believe that playing cards, Ouija boards, crystal balls etc were "of the devil" and in no way associated with God. Now I am faced with learning that those very types of crafts were not only a part of the early church but were the genisis of the only church of Jesus Christ?
Also that time period is full of stories similar to Joseph Smith. Quinn talks about a young man named Lorenzo Dow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Dow

who had many of the same type of experiences as Joseph. Only difference I can tell is he lacked Joseph Smith's charisma and lacked the motivation to try and start his own church. In fact with passages like this he seems to me much more Christ like in his actions and ambitions:

He usually owned one set of clothes: those that were on his back. When those clothes became so badly worn and full of holes that they were no longer capable of covering him, some person in the audience usually would donate a replacement. The donated clothes often were not the correct size for his skinny body. When he traveled, he carried no luggage other than a box of Bibles to be given away. Throughout most of his life, what little money he ever collected was either given away to the poor or used to purchase Bibles.

There are just too many of these type of stories coming out of that time period in that area to find Joseph's story anything but just another spiritual story, unless you are only basing it on a spiritual response you feel you have received.

[_Wiki Wonka]

Is your belief that the Book of Mormon is divine and the gold plates literal based on a rational review of the evidence? or solely a belief that you have received a spiritual answer regarding it's divinity?

I would have to say both. I was born in the Church and baptized at age eight. I really didn't become a "convert" until I was 20. I don't mind talking about the details of my "spiritual answer" in private, but it is not something I would ever post on a message board. Suffice it to say that it was unequivocal.

With regard to reviewing the evidence, I've done that on and off since I was a teenager. I have had an interest in Church history since I was about 16. I could go into a lot of details, but that would make a very long post. For now I'll just say that the more I study the history of the Church, the more amazed I am at how everything came about. I am an engineer, and I like to examine the details. I like to trace back to original sources. I tend to be very skeptical of things that are claimed unless I can find out where the claim originated.

That doesn't mean that I like everything that I learn about Church history, but I don't like a lot of things that I read in the Old Testament either. If I am to believe in God, then I have to accept that He does things differently than I might think they should be done. For me, there are only two choices: either there exists a Church of Jesus Christ, or there isn't a God at all. There is no "in between" for me. If I didn't believe in the Church, it would be because I didn't believe in God. I wouldn't join another church. Yet, I do believe in God, and many years of subsequent life experience has confirmed my choice over and over again. Therefore, I am an active Latter-day Saint.

I guess my trouble with your opinion is based on a few things. Mainly that I was brought up as a devout member of the church to believe that playing cards, Ouija boards, crystal balls etc were "of the devil" and in no way associated with God. Now I am faced with learning that those very types of crafts were not only a part of the early church but were the genesis of the only church of Jesus Christ?

Hmmm...I use playing cards...:-) I don't play poker, but we definitely like to use playing cards for a number of things.

I'm not really aware of Joseph's family having used Ouija boards (did Quinn say something about this in his book?). One could argue that a seer stone is just another form of crystal ball, however I associate crystal balls with attempts to perform fortune telling, whereas the stone appears to have been used to translate and receive instruction. We grow up in the Church being taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a set of two crystals mounted in a frame that resembled a pair of glasses. Now THAT sounds just as odd to me as using a seer stone and a hat.

by the way, I have a copy of Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," so if there is some particular section you would like me to read in order to provide a more informed response, just let me know.

Also that time period is full of stories similar to Joseph Smith. Quinn talks about a young man named Lorenzo Dow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Dow

who had many of the same type of experiences as Joseph. Only difference I can tell is he lacked Joseph Smith's charisma and lacked the motivation to try and start his own church. In fact with passages like this he seems to me much more Christ like in his actions and ambitions:

That is why Joseph's First Vision really wasn't such a big deal at the time. Many people were having visions and spiritual experiences. Joseph went to get forgiveness for his sins, received it and moved on with life. Joseph didn't write about if for another 12 years. It was the appearance of Moroni and the plates the made the big difference. In essence, the vision of Moroni was the "first" vision for a number of years. It was the Book of Mormon that made the difference.

The fact that so many people were having spiritual experiences is what made it possible for Joseph to believe that he could actually have one of his own, otherwise he might never have attempted it. The fact that a belief in folk magic and visions were so common on the frontier was one reason why Joseph's father so easily accepted that Joseph had seen a vision of Moroni.

WW

[_harmony]

The fact that so many people were having spiritual experiences is what made it possible for Joseph to believe that he could actually have one of his own, otherwise he might never have attempted it. The fact that a belief in folk magic and visions were so common on the frontier was one reason why Joseph's father so easily accepted that Joseph had seen a vision of Moroni.

WW

Yet even the fact that so many people reportedly were having spiritual experiences does not in any way validate Joseph Smith's reported experiences.

Without the plates, it's just hot air. Although even having the papyrus proves even with the prop, it's just hot air.

*sigh*

[_Ray A]

For me, there are only two choices: either there exists a Church of Jesus Christ, or there isn't a God at all. There is no "in between" for me. If I didn't believe in the Church, it would be because I didn't believe in God.

Terribly sad.

God can only exist if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exists.

It's sort of like a devout Muslim saying that if Muhammad wasn't a prophet, and "God's last prophet" , and the Qur'an the only true revealed word of God for the last times, then there is no God.