Comments on: Well, Did Joseph Use a Hat During the Translation of the Book of Mormon or Didn’t He?

By: Juvenile Instructor » From the Archives: Is Mormonism Utterly Absurd or Completely Rational?

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:24:45 +0000

[...] discussed before (see esp. comments 9-12, 25-29), the argument over what was rational and what was absurd was a hot [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » From The Archives: James C. Brewster to “The Mormon Money Diggers”

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:21:59 +0000

[...] found this account fascinating in light of our recent conversation about how Joseph Smith represented his earlier career as a treasure seeker. The month before the [...]

By: smb

smb — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:57:16 +0000

Hard to know how deliberate the decision was, but there’s no particular reason to doubt that the U&T is the Biblical framing of seerstones.

Buck on U&T:

Oracle
“the oracle of the Urim and Thummim, which was accompanied with the ephod, or the pectoral worn by the high priest, and which God had endued with the gift of foretelling things to come, Numb xii 6, Joel ii 28. This manner of inquiring of the Lord was often made use of, from Joshua’s time to the erection of the temple at Jerusalem.”

Urim and Thummim: “(light and perfection,) among the ancient Hebrews, a certain oracular manner of consulting God, which was done by the high-priest, dressed in his robes, and having on his pectoral, or breast-plate. There have been a variety of opinions respecting the Urim and Thummim, and after all, we cannot determine what they were. The use made of them was, to consult God in difficult cases relating to the whole state of Israel, and sometimes in cases relating to the king, the Sanhedrin, the general of the army, or some other great personage.”

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:43:07 +0000

Stan, I was aware that Phelps’ article in Evening and Morning Star was the first mention of the Urim and Thummim. However, I never connected the use of that term as a possible attempt to attach to the bible rather than treasure lore (I guess I never wondered why they used that term…I’m pretty slow as a historian). That sounds very reasonable.

By: stan

stan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:38:04 +0000

Ben: Regarding your article reference in note 10, “The Book of Mormon,” Evening and the Morning Star, January 1833: I’ve seen this elsewhere attributed to W. W. Phelps, if I remember correctly, and cited as the first known reference to the Nephite interpreters as Urim and Thummim. (There is an example of a revelation ms or copy of a revelation with the term Urim in it, but I don’t know that date on that or which revelation it was–was quite awhile ago I was researching that.) You know anything about that? And if it is, do you think this was part of a conscious (or subconscious) effort to distance the process further away from treasure lore, by couching the instruments in biblical terminology? (not sure that interpreters would have been a treasure lore term either, but U&T would have carried more dignity in a bible-soaked culture, I’d imagine.)

By: Keller

Keller — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:21:34 +0000

Ben,

I agree the transcription theory has a lot of problems, especially in trying to account for errors and anachronisms. My point in providing an alternative reading for section 9 is that the passage, in and of itself, doesn’t rule out a transcription model.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:30:31 +0000

Keller: Thanks for joining the discussion. I haven’t ever connected the David Whitmer statement to this idea, but it definitely deserves attention.

And, even though I don’t agree with the “transcription” theory (Joseph actually seeing the words and merely repeating them), you make a good case.

By: Keller

Keller — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:39:49 +0000

correction: “via translation” should be “via revelation.”

Note that I favor the translation model that Joseph Smith simply dictated text he saw through revelation.

By: Keller

Keller — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:32:14 +0000

#24 I don’t think that D&C 9 says much about translation mechanics. Rather it details a method that Oliver should have followed in order to determine whether he should attempt to translate. The “stupor of thought” negative answer was manifest in Oliver’s failure to receive the Book of Mormon English text via translation. If he had followed the procedure right he should have waited for a confirmation to translate before making an attempt.

By: Keller

Keller — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:21:00 +0000

Looks like I missed this discussion on one of my hobby topics.

This is a good question.

[D]id Joseph make a conscious decision to discuss the Book of Mormon translation in vague terms in order to distance himself as a money-digger

I think the approach to not detail the mechanics behind the translation mechanism was dictated to him by Moroni. The evidence for this is David Whitmer’s statment in the 1885 Chicago Tribune to the effect that Joseph was punished more severely for divulging such secrets than he was for the lost 116 pages.

About this time [Martin] Harris, inspired by curiosity and elation, took sixteen of the golden tablets home to show his wife, who is alleged to have stolen them from a bureau drawer and peddled them among her friends. For this offense Harris was severely reprimanded by the Lord, through [Joseph] Smith, [Jr.], but the angel afterwards recovered the plates and restored them. Smith’s offense of tattling the secrets of the works among his neighbors was less readily condoned, and for a long time the work was suspended, the angel being in possession of the plates and spectacles. Finally when Smith had fully repented of his rash conduct, he was forgiven. The plates, however, were not returned, but instead Smith was given by the angel, a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form. This seer’s stone [seerstone] he was instructed to place in his hat, and on covering his face with the hat the character and translation would appear on the stone.

If this account is accepted as reliable, it tends to kick the problem of image management upstairs.