Talk:Seer stone (Latter Day Saints)

Two New Sections - Seer Stones and BofM, Seer Stones and U&T

To clear up the confusion about seer stones and the U&T, I have created two separate sections to present and clarify the seer stones and U&T information. In performing a little research on this topic, it is clear that the interpreters are something very different from the seer stone. My intention is to clarify rather than confuse. I grew up believing that the U&T was THE translating method. I was shocked when I looked up historical references. I want the issues to be clear. I value truth. I hope further edits by other contributors will continue to clarify rather than create confusion on this issue. I also hope my references are clear enough to support the content. I've placed this talk section at the top because much of the discussion below is 4 or 5 years old.SunKider (talk)

Thank you for making the clarification - it was always obvious to me that the U&T and Seer Stones were different items, and I think you make the case well.Rockford1963 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: New Seer Stone and BofM section

Several contemporaries of Joseph who witnessed the translation process clearly describe Joseph placing the seer stone in his hat for translating. They are also specific that the stone was his favorite brown seer stone.SunKider (talk)

RE: new Seer Stone/U&T section.

B.H. Roberts is a well known and well respected LDS historian. He makes a very clear statement about the differences in the seer stone and the U&T. That reference alone should support the idea that the seer stone and interpreters are different items. There are, however many other references in support of this idea. I have included a few. The other references show that there is support for the use of the interpreters during the translation of the first 116 pages, but that Joseph did, in fact, use the seer stone in his hat for the source of the BofM we have today. I have also included justification for the discontinued use of the interpreters with the statement from Whitmer. I’ve also seen a reference where Martin Harris states something similar about the interpreters being taken away by the angel.SunKider (talk)

RE: previous Seer Stone section.

I’ve moved the old content related to the history surrounding the use of the seer stones to a section titled Background History. This information is important in understanding the larger picture regarding the use of seer stones in bringing forth the Book of Mormon. I question the description by Lucy Mack Smith because I don’t think anyone besides Joseph reported actually seeing the interpreters, however I left that reference in because I’ve already made several changes. I removed the statement about Joseph “always” referring to the interpreters as the Urim and Thummim because “always” is not supported. He later referred to the seer stone as U&T. It is not helpful to say things like “may or may not”. I modified that statement. Let’s be specific when we can. The people who used the names interchangeably were either not close to the translation process or else were describing the process after 1833 when people had a tendency to use the term “U&T” to describe the translation process whether it was with the interpreters or with the Seer Stone. The rest of the content remains the same with some re-organizing so similar information is grouped together and the logic flows better.SunKider (talk)

Your proposed changes seem to be based on what Wikipedia calls original research, that is, a personal interpretation of primary sources. Odd as it often seems to new editors, Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary sources. So to make the changes that you've advocated, you'd need to cite secondary sources like Bushman, Quinn, or Vogel rather than primary sources like Whitmer or Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The additions brought some needed information and clarification to the article. We just need to accept that in some instances vital information can only be had by soruces like Smith and Whitmer. Rockford1963 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to accept primary sources here, and the changes violate Wikipedia rules. If you'd like, we can go to dispute resolution with the question.--John Foxe (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a discussion thread to the NPOV noticeboard.--John Foxe (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley has noted on the Noticeboard thread that some of the current footnotes also cite only primary sources. I plan to correct that deficiency as soon as possible.--John Foxe (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of statements & references that were not well know or well supported or may cause argument. Almost all of my references are found in Quin and have now been cited as such. It seems helpful at times to quote a well known LDS Historian or Leader when it helps to clarify an issue, especially when LDS believers may otherwise question the information being presented. In this case, even well known LDS historians state that the U&T is something entirely separate and different from the Seer Stones. Such occasional use seems reasonable. As you can see in discussions above in the talk thread, up until now the Seer Stone/U&T issue has been a point of confusion. I believe all my edits add clarity. Please notify me if there is a particular item in dispute. - SunKider (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your additions are not Quinn's ideas but your own interpretations of primary sources taken from Quinn; you've also included many non-WP:RS religious documents. I realize you're a new editor, and I'm willing to work with you on this, but we need to take changes little by little. LDS sources are usually not WP:RS.--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Foxe, You speak only generally about references. Please explain exactly what you disagree with. If you feel I have misrepresented something, please identify that specific item. Rather than reverting, why don't you make the corrections or clarifications you feel are necessary. - or, even better, do as you yourself suggest and discuss the issues here on the talk page before you revert my changes. My use of LDS sources are minimal and they enhance understanding of the issues. I understand that sometimes LDS leaders twist the facts. In this case, they are relating good information. RE: references; You understand, of course, that I preserved the references that were in the article before I edited (they are still in there because I tried to preserve the content that was already there). RE: changes little by little; This type of clarification requires that we make a big step. I have created a section to discuss Seer Stones and the BM, and as separate one to discuss Seer Stones and the U&T. I see no other way to clarify the issues. We must separate the issues in order to make clarifications. Please provide helpful feedback, not just broad complaints. The old article you have reverted to does a terrible job of explaining the main issues involved in early LDS use of seer stones. - SunKider (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the old article does do a terrible job. It is clear that there is an apparent and obvious difference between the U&T and seer stones. Real, imaginary or fake replicas - it doesn't matter, the descriptions and use of the two separate items points to just that - two separate items.Rockford1963 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

John Foxe, One additional point. The purpose of having reference guidelines is to help guarantee that the content is accurate and reliable. You seem to be placing the importance of references above the actual content. My content is accurate and reliable. I've presented the issues clearly and accurately. The primary sources I use are the same ones Quin uses. Quin uses them because they are good sources. Some of my content is quoting Quin directly (as preferred). Quin supports everything I have presented in the two new sections. If you cannot identify significant inaccuracies in my two new sections, can we agree to incorporate my two new sections and improve from that point? Thanks. - SunKider (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges the views of reliable authorities such as Bushman, Brodie, Vogel, and Quinn above those of the actors themselves. And Quinn emphasizes that "during his apprenticeship to become a prophet (1820-30), Joseph Smith, Jr. learned from village mentors how to use a diving rod; a seer stone; a hat to shield his eyes in order to see hidden treasures; and amulets, incantations, and rituals to summon spirits." You want to draw a line between seer stones and U&T when Quinn is arguing the opposite, that they are effectively the same thing. In fact, in the book's index, U&T is described as a "euphemism for Joseph Smith's seer stone."--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

John, thanks for responding. You are mostly correct about how I want to differentiate the seer stone from the U&T. More specifically, however, I am trying to distinguish the seer stone from the “interpreters” that Joseph supposedly received from the angel. "[The U&T is a "euphemism for Joseph Smith's seer stone." ]" - I think that's pretty funny ...and also true.

I think it will help if I explain my objective a little better. My target audience are Mormons who have been indoctrinated with a specific version of history, and any other person who may discuss early LDS history with mormons. I'm thinking specifically about the creation of the BofM. Clarifications about the bringing forth of the BofM must deal with the LDS version of history and the language they use in presenting that history (the U&T). So my solution is to clearly state how the BofM was created (seer stones) and then explain the difference between what is taught (a God given U&T) and the real history (a brown rock found in a well and placed in a hat).

I'm not trying to lend credibility to the existence of the gold plates or the existence of the Interpreters. I'm just trying to present an accurate history while using the language common in LDS teaching manuals. If you can help me with better terminology to express the history without lending credibility, your assistance is welcome.

By the way, I am intimately aware of what the LDS church teaches and how they present it.

Here's another way I look at this page. I suspect that the viewers of this page are trying to learn more about the history of Mormonism (members or other interested people). The title is "Seer Stones - LDS movement". As I see it, the most important issues to this topic are 1. how were seer stones used, and 2. Who used them, and 3. what were they used for.

Joseph smith is the most prominent user and "translating" the book of Mormon is the most significant use. I think that these two issues need to be clearly stated. And of course the rock in a hat translation method. I want to clarify these specific issues because so much misinformation has been spread about the translation method. Believers and non-believers alike should have accurate historical information. With accurate information everyone can make an informed evaluation of LDS history and beliefs. Your Thoughts? - SunKider (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to cite reliable secondary sources that present that point of view, otherwise you're trying to include what Wikipedia calls "original research."--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe: I think it's time for you to engage Sunkider in a rational discussion. Sunkider has brought up several logical points that you have largely ignored. Sunkider's claim that the Urim and Thumim are distinct from the brown seer stone Smith used to "translate" the Book of Mormon is not original research, and is supported by Quinn. (I looked up the pages Sunkider was citing...you should do the same.)

Here's what Quinn says about the seer stones: Smith had a white stone that he found in about 1819, which he used for treasure hunting until he found the brown chocolate-colored stone in 1822, which he also used for treasure hunting. In 1827 he said he obtained the "Urim and Thummim" which was composed of two white stones, different from the previous two. He used the U&T to translate the first 116 "lost" pages of the Book of Mormon, then used the chocolate-colored stone to complete the work. (Quinn doesn't say why Smith stopped using the U&T, falling back on Whitmer's explanation that Smith lost the U&T with the plates, and never got them back.) After the translation was complete Smith apparently gave the brown stone to Oliver Cowdery, but occasionally used the old white one for an occasional revelation and for the Abraham translation. Church members began using the words "Urim and Thummim" to describe Smith's single seer stones (effectively making U&T a single stone instead of two) which leads to some confusion later on.

In conclusion, if we're going to use Quinn as a source (he's arguably one of the best on this topic) then SunKider is correct in "trying to distinguish the seer stone from the 'interpreters' that Joseph supposedly received from the angel" and clarify that "U&T" is also a euphemism for Joseph Smith's seer stone. Perhaps instead of repeatedly throwing WP:RS at SunKider you could clarify your view. Are you trying to argue that the U&T never existed except as a euphemism for Smith's single stone, or are you trying to say that the U&T were just seer stones, with no special significance above any other seer stone? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the U&T were different from the seer stones Smith had used previously, nor do I think Quinn provides a conclusive answer to that question.--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by different? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Different in quality: that is, stones viewed in a hat in order to receive supernatural information are essentially the same regardless of color.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying they were different stones, but were used in the same manner as any other seer stone? That makes sense now. I think earlier it came across that you were arguing that the U&T was the brown stone. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so; although the evidence, even about color, is murky.--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Witnesses closest to the process made a clear distinction between the U&T and the Stone. (Emma, Martin Harris, Pratt, etc.) Their comments make no sense if it was just one of the seer stones. - SunKider (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

When one discusses U&T as the various seer stones JS used, then yes, it is difficult to distinguish. We are not talking about all of the various stones, however, we are just referring to the devices used in the "translation" process. Mormons teach that JS used the U&T to translate the BofM. To Mormons, the U&T is the large spectacles connected to a breastplate. These spectacles do not fit in a hat, and they were connected to a breastplate anyway. If these spectacles really existed, they did not have tiny screws like a modern pair of glasses that would allow someone to loosen and therefore remove the lenses (they were "mounted" and they were not just "stones" according to LDS teachings). It's these spectacles (U&T in Mormon-Speak) that I wish to differentiate from the brown seer stone. The references I have included (Quins words as well)support my argument. There are likely several other secondary statements from Quin and others to support this idea. My research is not yet that extensive, however the points are still valid. - SunKider (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the spectacles part was made so that it could be detached from the breastplate and used separately. If you look closely at the picture of the replica you'll see this, along with a pouch built into the breastplate where the spectacles could be stored. I suppose it could conceivably be placed in a hat, but I'm not sure whether or not that was the case. As for the color, there are definitely a lot of accounts from witnesses, but I picture them as being white-ish and opaque. That's just my opinion though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence either way for the spectacles being detachable. My opinion, your opinion. That's OK, though. It sounds like you agree that the spectacles are a unique item completely different from the seer stone. The graphic I think you are referring to as a "replica" is just an artists idea of what the U&T may look like. - SunKider (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"In 1829 Harris told a newspaper of his experience with Smith's first effort at translation. 'By placing the spectacles in a hat and looking into it, Smith interprets the characters into the English language,' Harris stated. He later said that it was necessary for Smith to put the two stones of the Urim and Thummim into his hat because the spectacles of the breastplate into which they fit were two large. Joseph's brother William also gave this same explanation." (Quinn, 169).--John Foxe (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for claiming that the spectacles would not fit in a hat. That's not the issue. The real issue is that the spectacles (that mormons call the U&T) are separate & different from the brown seer stone. It sounds like you both agree with that idea.

John, please explain a little more about your views on the Spectacles. Above you state that they were different but used for the same purposes as the brown seer stone. What is your take on the whole "special interpreters from God" idea (Used for the first 116 pages, God prepared and preserved them for this purpose, ancient prophets put them with the gold plates, etc.) I don't believe that anyone besides JS claims to have seen them, though I cannot explain the statement from Harris, other than the possibility that there was some kind of blanket or barrier between Joseph and Martin, and that both Harris and Joseph's brother were relying on what Joseph told them. There are reports about the blanket barrier during the early translations using the U&T (spectacles). I don't yet know if Quin uses those reports. - SunKider (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Suppose someone reported that John Foxe regularly wore a coat and tie to his place of employment, and someone else reported that he wore a coat and tie to church on Sunday. A historian might believe himself justified in writing that Foxe had worn a coat and tie both to his job and to church. "No, no," says a dissenter, "the outfits are totally distinct. On Sunday, he wore a white shirt; that makes his apparel completely different from what he wore on the job."--John Foxe (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If the shirts are distinct and significant and have historic references, the solution to your parable is obviously to add a brief explanation clarifying Sunday dress from work dress.

John, Let's bring the discussion back to the issue we need to resolve. I have provided an explanation to differentiate the seer stone from the U&T. I have provided references to support my explanation. I have explained to you why it is important to provide these explanations on the Seer Stone (LDS) page. You have failed to provide adequate justification for rejection of my 2 new sections.

Above you seem to be saying that the spectacles (U&T) are used in the same manner as the seer stones. So you are commenting on the process (or philosophical use), not the items themselves. I don't have an issue with stating that the "process" was the same. I'm describing the physical objects (for the reasons I stated above), and when these two items were used, and for what specific undertaking.

The only justification you have provided for rejecting my new sections is:

"I have no idea whether the U&T were different from the seer stones Smith had used previously, nor do I think Quinn provides a conclusive answer to that question."

Let me once again show that Quinn certainly DOES provide a conclusive distinction between the object/device used for translating the first 116 pages and the object/device used for the source of the BofM.

In pages 169-171 Quinn describes the initial translation process. In describing the physical items, Quinn uses these terms (including references):

U&T - 11 times

stones (plural) - 6 times

spectacles - 4 times

Breastplate - 2 times

[stones] (plural) Over his eyes - 1 time

In describing the translation process after the loss of the 116 pages (the source of todays Book of Mormon), Quinn and his references on page 172-175 use the term STONE (singular).

On page 174 and 175 Quinn explains the reason for the name change from Seer Stone to U&T. On page 175 McConkie clearly states that the Seer stone is "separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim."

John, I'd like to update the page with my two new sections.

You are welcome to provide suggest and/or clarifications you would like to see in my two new section before we update the Seer Stone (LDS) page.

Shall I proceed with updating the page or do you want to make some suggestion for improving my two new sections? - SunKider (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a sentence that says that Smith used a different color stone to translate the lost 116 pages so long as the article is clear that the current Book of Mormon was translated with a seer stone that Smith had previously used to hunt treasure. The two wordy sections you've proposed are unnecessary, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. (McConkie is not a reliable source except as a witness to what Mormons believe.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the page with my two new sections. Thank you John Foxe for providing helpful feedback. I have improved my references to rely heavily on secondary sources as requested. I have included statements that make it clear that Joseph used the same seer stone that he used in treasure hunting. I have trimmed back the "wordiness." My use of LDS sources is limited to stating LDS positions and beliefs and to areas where such a clarification is likely to help avoid argument from LDS members. - SunKider (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley edit

I've made a single major edit to the article, in which I've reverted in part changes made by a number of recent editors. The changes are:

• I've shuffled the order of material, dividing it between a couple of different sections. I've replaced the pre-SunKider single section entitled "Seer Stones and the Urim and Thummim" with two new sections called "Seer Stones and the Book of Mormon" and "Urim and Thummim." (SunKider had added two new sections to the article, and I cut it back to one new section)
• I've removed a portion of material added by SunKider that was redundant. I moved the rest into the two sections.
• I've footnoted the court hearing added by Bilbobags, because it didn't really fit in the paragraph and looked like WP:Coatrack and only tied in loosely to the article.
• I've moved the hat image down a section, and put it on the left again so that Smith is facing the article, effectively reverting an edit by an IP editor.
• I've removed the wikilink to seer stone (Latter Day Saints) that John Foxe recently put in the image caption, because it was simply directing back to the article.
• I've removed the text "based on the testimony of Joseph Smith" that John Foxe recently added to the other image. It was actually based on a description by William Smith.
• I added a little cited material of my own.
• I probably made other small changes that I can't remember at the moment.

Please let me know if there are problems with the edit, or feel free to just fix them. I think John Foxe should stop the wholesale reverts, and I think SunKider should accept this shorter version as a compromise. I hope this edit helps. It took me a while. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd ask that SunKider again provide a reference for the Whitmer quote. I remember it was cited to Quinn somewhere, but for some reason it wasn't working for me, and I lost it altogether. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I liked my more verbose version, but I don't hate your summary.

The summary, however, does include one statement that is not accurate and should be revised. I'm referring to this one:

"Although Smith always referred to the Book of Mormon "interpreters" as the Urim and Thummim, he may or may not have intended to make a distinction between that device and the seer stones that he used in scrying.[30]"

Neither of the above statements are supported by the Wagoner article or by Quinn. Quite the opposite. I suggest that we replace it with one of statements and sources I used. Perhaps my statements about the name change (renaming of the seer stone to U&T). - SunKider (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you had placed a citation needed tag on that sentence, but it got lost in an edit conflict when I made my edit. Feel free to revise as needed. I expect John Foxe will be doing several revisions as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought your changes good and helpful. I started in with my own attempts to cut down on the wordiness—like moving the B.H. Roberts quotation to a footnote—and then made some substantive changes of my own, including eliminating the phrase that SunKider didn't like.--John Foxe (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful tweaks. My edit was a little rough and needed some polishing. I noticed that you removed the sentence about Smith saying he gave up the U&T/seer stone because he didn't need it anymore. (I think it was saying something about using the U&T when he was an inexperienced translator or something like that.) I saw the sentence as being helpful and was wondering if you'd be willing to add it back. I can provide more sources for it if you'd like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"The brown and white stones are the only seer stones Joseph Smith definitely used, yet he acquired others as church president. Young told the apostles in 1855 that Smith had five seer stones....Young's statement makes it clear that Smith did not regard his seer stones simply as relics of his youth. Rather, as church president Smith continued to discover new seer stones." (Quinn, 246).--John Foxe (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the quote. The sentence you removed read, "Smith reportedly told Orson Pratt that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was an inexperienced translator, but that as he grew in experience he no longer needed such assistance." and here it is in a secondary source: "Not working from an ancient text, Joseph still obviously relied on inspiration to make the changes, but he gave up the Urim and Thummim, as Orson Pratt later explained, because he had become acquainted with "the Spirit of Prophecy and Revelation" and no longer needed it. Later, he moved still closer to conventional translation. In 1835..." (Bushman 142) Quinn also says that Smith backed off from using the seer stones, and that he probably didn't dictate any more D&C revelations with it after about 1830, though he used it for some translation and a couple blessings. (142)

I'm not particularly interested in arguing over this point. I'll add the sentence back and then drop the issue. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've learned a lot about Smith's use of seer stones during this revision process, and I think the article is also much better sourced than it was a few days ago. Thanks to all who contributed.--John Foxe (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Smith's use of the treasure-hunting stone to translate the Book of Mormon

Rockford1963 removed (and I reverted as POV) the phrase indicating that Smith translated the Book of Mormon with the same chocolate colored stone that he had earlier used to hunt for buried treasure. It seems obvious to me that this piece of information would be important to the uninitiated reader.--John Foxe (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures ...

The LDS church is now releasing pictures of the stone. It may be worth mention and, provided the copyright status could allow said, maybe an inclusion of a picture.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Seer Stone Pictures

The LDS Church has now published pictures of Joseph Smith's seer stone. I think the picture should be published here, but I'm not sure how the wiki commons picture rules work. Here's a link to a news article referencing the stone: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=35795036&nid=1016&title=lds-church-releases-more-documents-from-joseph-smith-church-founding Don don.ferguson1@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper VanDam (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding references to a book that has recently been published

• I made 'seer stone' plural to match the bolded reference to 'seer stones'.
• The caption under the photo of the brown seer stone states that 'Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe...' when in reality the matter isn't settled, so I changed it to 'Many members...'.
• Added a reference to a recently published book, 'Seer Stones V. Urim and Thummim', which discusses the evidence of how the Book of Mormon was translated using primary sources only

Quiet Confidence (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have an issue with the reference published as is, and feel it should be removed, or explained. It is an apologetic, not historical book. For historians, the matter is pretty well settled. Epachamo (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I can add an explanation of the book and what the premise is. My reason for adding it is that I don't think it's quite as settled as believed. Quiet Confidence (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I just bought a copy of the book 'Seer Stones V. Urim and Thummim'. It is a self-described apologetic published by apologists. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with that in certain contexts, Wikipedia is not one of those contexts. From the book itself:

"...to determine how the translation occurred, we should analyze the data available about each individual who was present ("eyewitnesses") during the translation process to determine who is telling the truth, who is inconsistent, and so forth. ... If we were evaluating nearly any other case, we might agree with Vogel and the other critics: this would be a logical and impartial way to deal with the subject. ...However there is a better way. ...We, the authors of this book, know that the Prophet Joseph Smith was an inpired witness of Jesus Christ. We know that he 'lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people.' ... This book was written to and for those who share this same belief and desire to better understand how the translation of the Book of Mormon took place. Acknowledging the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith changes a few fundamental factors when determining who is, and who is not an 'eyewitness' to the tranlation of the Book of Mormon"

Wikipedia decidedly favors the first method for determining who was telling the truth. There is not a single historian (someone with an advanced degree in history, or published in a respected historical journal) that I can find that states anything other than Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon. The viewpoint in 'Seer Stones V. Urim and Thummim' actually contradicts church publications in the Ensign, Joseph Smith Papers, and gospel topics essays. Let me point out just a couple ways in which it does not use sources critically.

• It uses the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to show "The Lord" used 'Urim and Thummim', but fails to discuss how that term was not in the original revelation published in 1833.
• It discounts Emma Smith as an eyewitness to the translation process, even though her handwriting is on the original manuscript.
• It does not address the phrase 'Urim and Thummim' not appearing in many early histories, the Book of Mormon, or Book of Commandments.
• It completely neglects the sanctioned and well documented use of Seer Stones by faithful members of the church well into the churches history.
• It neglects to explain sources that clearly conflate the terms 'Urim and Thummim' and seer stone.

In short, this source should ONLY be used for describing the viewpoint of a narrow slice of the membership of the church, not as a historical source. Epachamo (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision of this article

I'd like to do a revision of this article. I have recently finished a revision of Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints) and am actively working to creating List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history. This article as been relatively stable for a number of years. There has been quite a bit of research in the last couple of years with the Joseph Smith Papers, several scholarly articles and books. Specifically, I'd like to do the following:

• Make clear the distinction between Urim and Thummim and Seer Stone. The term 'Urim and Thummim' has meant different things at different times to different people within and without the church. That could be sorted out here. Among todays Latter Day Saints, Urim and Thummim is a broad category of revelatory devices, of which the Seer Stone was one of them.
• I can't find ANY scholarly source that states the interpreters of Mosiah were Seer Stones. This appears to be OR. Smith's description of the interpreters changed throughout his life. The earliest references to them say they looked like spectacles, and functioned differently than Seer Stones. The interpreters or spectacles became Urim and Thummim, lenses replaced with stones, and then the stones connected to a breastplate. This is the scholarly consensus, but it is not unanimous, and that should also be mentioned.
• This article focuses almost entirely on Joseph Smith's seer stone, but many other latter day saints had them and used them up until the late 1800s. Not much scholarly work on that has been done until fairly recently.
• This should be a sub-article of a greater article on "Cunning Folk Religion and the Latter Day Saint Movement" (a.k.a., Folk Magic and Mormonism). I'm pretty surprised there isn't an article already about this, as it has been covered in a rich variety of literature. I wouldn't mind starting a collaboration to write that article. Epachamo (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues

There are a number of issues with this article. The most glaring is the uncritical assertion of the rock and the hat narrative as being authoritatively how the translation was done, when it is traditionally an apocryphal narrative from critics of the LDS church, most notably Doctor P. Hurlbut (an excommunicated member who aimed to "destroy Mormonism" by accumulating affidavits and publishing them in E. Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled") and David Whitmer, another apostate. Whitmer's own numerous late accounts are self-contradictory and he was never a witness to the translation process, only the plates. This narrative has only recently revived as historical by progressive historians, and is vehemently argued against by conservative church historians (such as Joseph Fielding Smith). I agree with a lot of what Epachamo has written above. In my view the entire article needs to be rewritten or qualified. Here is an example of the traditional (or historically conservative) point of view on the BoM translation: https://bookofmormonevidence.org/scriptural-evidence-interpreters-not-a-stone-in-a-hat/

No LDS scripture strictly talks about "seer stones" and the translation process, only the Urim and Thummim are mentioned, and the power of God. I think an "this article has multiple issues" tag is at least warranted, detailing the above from User:Epachamo as well as what I have mentioned. KingAntenor (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You might be correct, but Wikipedia goes by the mainstream scholarly assessment. I am not aware of any mainstream scholar who thinks the Nephite interpreters were used. Richard Bushman, Michael Hubbard KacKay, Nicholas Frederick, The Joseph Smith Papers project, gospel topics essay, are all believers, not critics and are among a chorus of many others are unanimous in the seer stone being used in translation. If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise then its viewpoint should be represented. As an aside, David Whitmer himself did not think of himself as an apostate, he led his own "mormon" church till his death, and fully believed in the Book of Mormon. It wasn't just him however, it was virtually every other witness to include his wife Emma, the other Whitmers, Martin Harris, Hales, etc. The story of the anachronistic "Urim and Thummim" doesn't show up until years later, after Cowdery and Smith were brought to trial for practicing folk magic. Early LDS scriptures that mention "Urim and Thummim" did not use that term in the original, and it was added in after that point. Epachamo (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The article would be greatly improved if

The article would be greatly improved if it began not by telling readers who had used seer stones, but instead by explaining what they are.

In fact, it is exceptionally bad writing for any Wikipedia article to avoid ever defining its subject.

Unfortunately that is exactly what this article is missing: a definition of its subject.

As a result, readers learn many interesting facts about seer stones except for what they are. 2601:200:C000:1A0:813D:6802:379E:94B1 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a shot at providing a definition. Let me know if it explains it better. Epachamo (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)