S4 E5 The Real Translation Story: a Seer Translating the Book of Mormon from Gold Plates (D&C 3-5)

Join our Patreon site (TSAR.website) to get some fantastic extra content and to support the podcast.
To rent fantastic space and take advantage of the "penthouse suite" in Central Park East building on the Orem/Provo border, email [e-mail]. We are grateful for their support of the podcast.
In this episode Gerrit Dirkmaat and Kerry explore the translation of the Book of Mormon. They analyze the sources from which we can learn anything, and teach how to evaluate them. They help us think through what it means to be a seer, the nature of having seer stones like the Urim and Thummim, and what we know about Joseph's translation. They help us see things from the point of view of people from Joseph's time, place, and culture, and help us understand the divinely aided translation of this sacred book.
We are grateful for our generous donors who make the podcast possible. We are also grateful to Launchpad Consulting Studios for producing the podcast and to Rich Nicholls, who composed and plays the music for the podcast.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I just want to say that I appreciate everyone who has made these comments a real discussion about what happened. Almost all of the comments have been kind and constructive and have made it a very real conversation. It has motivated me to get back into the sources. I will look at them with a fresh eye. I am waiting for some that I have purchased to come in. In the meantime, I need to focus on other things, and can't keep spending this much time writing the same kind of thing again and again in response to the same kinds of comments. So I am going to be done responding to comments on this topic for a while (though I will keep reading them looking for more insights). I hope you won't take my silence as anything negative. I just need to get some other things done. I also need to clear up some time to focus on the sources. Then I will make a new episode of the podcast about where my reexamination has taken me. Again, thank you all for the great discussion!

[@fastpony71]

Thanks Kerry for sharing your teaching talent with all of us. I look to those, such as yourself, who have devoted their lives to learning, teaching and sharing the gospel, especially with an open mind to broaden and expand their knowledge base. In accordance with this topic, I am hopeful that you may include in your studies the recent work "By means of the Urim & Thummim" by Johnathan Neville & James Lucas. In my opinion, this research clarifies and brings further light and understanding to a highly debated subject. Those whom you know, Richard Bushman & Susan Easton Black, give acknowledgements and recommendations for this text to those looking to further their studies in this sphere of church history. Carry on Brother!

[@EllenSwensen-m7r]

I can absolutely confirm that "water dowsing" works as my father had the ability to witch wells. As usual another great episode.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Thanks for that! I don't know why, but these things seem to be real. I am glad the episode was helpful for you!

[@paulaburt1]

Dr. Dirk Maat brings me so much joy. During our last drive to UT, we listened to several of his podcast episodes, and we laughed and cried with happiness! He is incredibly knowledgeable, and his humor and spirituality feel like a gift from God. He is truly an amazing man! You can feel the truth of the Restored Church when he speaks-it's so cool!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I feel the same way!

[@paulaburt1]

The same applies to you! I truly value everything you teach us here and on Patreon! Epic indeed, Dr. M! 😉

[@OAQ24]

Thank you for an enlightening session today. I take so much joy in how the Book of Mormon was translated because it reminds me of how the Savior was born into mortality. Those who expected Him to show up as a mighty military powerhouse couldn't accept this poor, humble baby/man. I'm grateful that the Lord uses simple things like stone mangers and stones in hats to bring about miraculous things. It helps us develop greater faith. Wouldn't it be easy if He did everything in a grandiose fashion and we'd all have no need to exercise faith? Kind of reminds of what the Pharisees were looking for. I love His promise that by small and simple things, great things are brought to pass.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

This is such a great point. It is funny how God works with us in the way we are ready for Him to work with us, and then other people think it is weird that He worked with us that way. We just keep trying to fit God into our little funnel of expectations when He is ready to do all things in so many different ways.

[@keith-c9r]

I loved hearing that I am not the only one who has struggled with where the seer stones came from . Mosiah the second couldn't have gotten them from the discoveries of Limhi's search party. My only idea goes back to Omni 1:20 when a stone was brought to King Mosiah the first, or sometime before then. I also struggle with why Moroni was so caught up with his weakness in writing when he had to have been familiar with the seer stones and how they worked.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

So many questions we would like to have answered! I can hardly wait until we can ask!

[@JosephChild1]

Oh Boy, Where to begin... Thank you for this episode. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I find this topic fascinating and I welcome the insight that you both bring to the table. The process by which God communicates and interacts with His children is amazing and different for everyone. For Moses it was a burning bush (a pretty strange way). The Brother of Jared asked God to touch some stones he prepared, to light their journey (which possibly could have been where we got the Jaredite seer stones). The Lord even opened the mouth of a donkey and gave him words (it was then that Balaam could see the angel). Today, we are taught more to listen to the still small voice, to feel the answers and read the scriptures for guidance (others might find that getting answers by randomly opening your scriptures and reading as odd too). God provides the way that we will understand in the moment we are in. Our gospel journey is a progression. Even our Savior was taught line upon line as he grew in favor with God and Man. I would not doubt that Joseph employed several ways of translating as he was learning and growing in his journey. Perhaps early on it was easier with the hat as a tool, perhaps later as he was a little more proficient, it was just told to his mind. What that tells me is that how and what we learn is dependent on us, and our level of dedication. And the hat is a great example for us in our day to block out distractions to hear and feel the Holy Ghost in a more proficient way. The Book of Mormon is an incredible example of what God can do with the limited ability of what we bring to the table. What an amazing work we are part of. Thank you again for sharing this with us.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

This is so well thought out and explained. Thank you for this. What a great perspective!

[@JosephChild1]

@TheScripturesAreReal to me, it seems a bit pharisaical to put God into a box and say this is exactly how He has to teach us. As we and our circumstances are so different, His approach is going to be different for each of us.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@JosephChild1 So true, and it will be different for each one of us at different times in our lives.

[@stellar.1601]

I really loved this episode. Thank you so much. I have struggled as a mother to figure out how to bring these kinds of facts/concepts to my children without it being a distraction from teaching core doctrine. Today as I listened to your discussion, my children heard, too. They asked questions. We got to discuss. Best of all, they got to see that one can wrestle with historical fact vs supposition and still come out with a strong testimony. It was awesome. Thank you.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

That is fantastic!!! I am so glad to hear it! I have found that youth and children don't think any of this is weird unless we send signals that they should. When I moved into my ward they barely knew me, but asked me to dress like Joseph Smith and come to primary and talk to them about translating the Book of Mormon. At that point hardly anyone had heard of seer stones. I went in and told them that I got the plates from the angel Moroni, and talked about that and about having scribes, and said some scribes talk about me using the U&T seer stones, and others talked about me using others. The kids loved it, and didn't blink and eye. Some of the adults had their jaws open, but the kids didn't think twice about it. They could not see the difference between any of it, and were glad for anything God did to give us the Book of Mormon. If we could only be like little children.

[@talbertofdz]

Great video

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad it was helpful for you.

[@janfelshaw8217]

I want to know why the Lord would prepare the interpreters and preserve them through the ages just to have Joseph to find it easier to use a stone in a hat.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

This is a great question. I would love to know more about this topic too! Of course Joseph used both the "interpreters" and his other seer stone. Who knows? Could the Urim and Thummim have been something that helped him realize the legitimacy of his seer stone? Maybe. Could they have helped him learn how to work with the Lord? Maybe. There are many possible reasons, and I wish I knew more. Do you have some ideas? I would love to explore.

[@dinocollins720]

Haha 😂 this actually cracked me up. I’m imagining the Lord rolling His eyes saying “they always want to do it their way.” Haha

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@dinocollins720 I would guess that He is rolling His eyes over this whole bunch of comments we are getting. "Really, they are bickering over whether it was one seer stone or another? Really, they want to listen to one witness but not the other? Really, they are caught up in this? There they go again, everyone wanting it to be there way." It is worth having some laughter over all this. Thanks!

[@ClarkClub]

I am not qualified to answer this question, but here is a thought I have. Do you have a laptop or a computer? Do you have a phone? Do you have a tablet? How many electronic devices do you have? Why do you need multiple electronic devices?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@ClarkClub That is a good point. Also, why do we go to the temple to receive revelation but we also pray at home or in other peaceful places? Do we really need several different ways God might speak to us? Typically we do. Thanks for sharing this good point!

[@timwrightfamily740]

I’m really intrigued by those who studied this topic and feel that Joseph used the spectacles not the stones, but that through hearsay, a demonstration Joseph gave, and misrepresentation the story of the stones in the hat have now become legitimate history. I definitely understand the several quotes about the stones in the hat, but I find the rebuttal persuasive. Would love to hear a discussion back-and-forth with an opposing and charitable attitude.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I would be happy to have any kind of real and open discussion. I am not sure what the disagreement would be. There are credible sources saying he used one and credible sources saying he used the other, which typically would mean he used both. The sources come together pretty well actually, and seem to indicate that it was more one than the other. I would love to discuss the nature of the sources and everything else.

[@doctorstotrust]

all sources are not equal including more sources as in meta research does not make a convincing argument why not go with the actual words of the two men who actually saw the plates and the translation in operation: Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith No one, no one besides them had first hand experience and 100% non bias Why add any others?

[@Steelblaidd]

​@@doctorstotrustI want to know why some people seem very upset by the idea that he used both.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@doctorstotrust Well that just isn't true. With 100% certainty Emma Smith was a scribe for Joseph, Martin Harris was a scribe for Joseph, and David Whitmer was a scribe for Joseph during the translation. So was Oliver. Joseph was the only one who looked in the stones, and he says nothing about it. So if we want to selectively only read the very, very small bit Oliver give us and ignore the other scribes, we get one picture. If we want to listen to Josephs scribal wife who was also in the same room as Joseph and Oliver for much of the translation, and if we listen to the other scribes, we get a bigger picture. That would seem to be the better thing to do. Why we would be upset by what we learn when we do so is beyond me. So, to answer your last question, we add others because they actually did have experiences that allowed them to tell us as much as Oliver could tell us, and we would be irresponsible to ignore them. We would also be irresponsible to ignore Oliver. And in the end we should be very, very grateful for every way God worked with Joseph, and we should eat up the opportunity to learn more about it. My question is why would we choose not to listen to the other sources? What would Joseph say about us ignoring his wife?

[@n.d.m.515]

​@@TheScripturesAreRealWe would choose not to listen to the others because they are inconsistent with the earliest descriptions, decades after the fact when they are old, and outside of the Church when they make the statements.

[@dinocollins720]

Joseph took so much persecution his entire life! No wonder he kept this stuff private. Getting made fun of for every little thing he did. Sad

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

You raise a good point. At this point even faithful, devoted members of the Church seem to be ridiculing Joseph's use of a seer stone, when it is absolutely clear that he used one and was happy to use it. I guess this is friendly fire?

[@dinocollins720]

@ I can’t help but think about how the greatest people in history, who have sacrificed the most, have also dealt with the most persecution and hate. Of course Jesus being the prime example!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@dinocollins720 So true!

[@jeanweinert8467]

Thank you very much! I so appreciate your years of study about this and your willingness to share your findings and insight with us.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad it was helpful for you!

[@jameswebster5405]

In a 90 minute podcast, one partial quote from Joseph and none from Oliver? They were the principal participants, and first hand. They repeatedly and emphatically described the process of engaging the plates WITH the interpreters "that came with the plates." Why is that not given prominent evidentiary position?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I would love to see those sources. As far as I or other historians that I know who work on this are aware of, both Joseph and Oliver said precious little about it, which is what we said in the podcast and why we focus on the sources we do. As we noted in the podcast, these two did not say much, so all we can do is use the sources we do have, and they were eyewitnesses. Emma, Martin, and David Whitmer all served as scribes and should all be taken seriously. I would love to include more details from Joseph and Oliver, but we don't have them. I have to admit that I am surprised at all the fuss and hubbub over this. Here you have two believing scholars who repeatedly express their belief in this process, bear testimony of it, and express gratitude for the miracles that are part of this process and repeatedly acknowledge it is from God. We both use the sources that are exist, and use them carefully, and do so in a manner that supports faith. Yet this seems to bother a number of people for some reason. Why are we bothered with the way Joseph's friends and contemporaries describe the process? What is it about this that makes us uncomfortable. Can't we rejoice in the information we have and the process it speaks of? I am very puzzled that this is a source of consternation for some rather than a reason to rejoice. I am thrilled with whatever process God uses, and am happy to have whatever information we can have about it. God bless Joseph, Oliver, Emma, Martin, the Whitmers, and everyone who was part of this. God be thanked for what He has done! It is a marvelous work and a wonder!

[@danpiedra3910]

@@TheScripturesAreRealThere are several quotes from Oliver in the various letters he wrote responding to the 1834 publishing of “Mormonism Unvailed” (an anti-Mormon book). Oliver was very specific in outlining that the translation of almost the entire BoM was translated through the ancient interpreters which Moroni provided. I prefer to rely on the words of the only two who were involved in the major translation and who would have been able to see the interpreters (remember that Oliver tried translating). Truth matters, heresay is not truth. Why would the Lord prepare the tools to have Joseph receive them and then go off with his own stone? Why has the Church changed its narrative in the past few decades? Moroni instructed Joseph that he “should be responsible for them; that if (he) should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect” of his , he would be cut off. Do we really think that after disobeying the Lord and being chastised by Him for losing the 116 pp, that Joseph would treat this process neglectfully and carelessly?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@danpiedra3910 First, let me say that all of the surprising resistance to what seems to me to be a pretty clear and orthodox interpretation of the sources has caused me to commit to going back through all the sources again, to see if there is another way of looking at them to reevaluate them. I am not sure how soon I can get to that, but I will do it because I owe that to the passion of all my viewers who have such strong views about this. Second, I don't see how we would come to some of your conclusions. I agree, Oliver says that they used the interpreters, and no one is saying that they didn't. I disagree that they were the only two men who were part of the process. Only Joseph knew exactly what it was like, but Martin, Emma, and David Whitmer were also scribes and their descriptions can't be just thrown away if we are responsible. Yes, Oliver was the primary scribe, and yes Oliver talked about the interpreters, so yes, we should take this account seriously and recognize that Joseph used the interpreters. But no, that does not mean that everyone else who was part of the process and talked about it differently should be ignored and their testimonies tossed out. No, we cannot responsibly say they were all wrong in talking about it in a very similar way. No, we can't just choose the sources we are most comfortable with and ignore the others. Further, there is no problem in accepting both sources, they are not contradictory, they can work together to describe a process that was complex, which should not be surprising. But even more important, how would Joseph's use of the brown seer stone in addition to his use of the interpreter seer stones constitute not taking the Lord's charge seriously? How would the use of both, even if he relied on one more than the other (and I will revisit that issue as I go through the sources again) mean he was being careless, or neglecting? How would working with the Lord in any way the Lord asked him to be that in any way? Why would we be bothered by this? I personally rejoice in any truth that is shed on this matter by any of those who were there, and I rejoice in any way God worked with Joseph, and thank Him for doing so!

[@mikewood3557]

@@danpiedra3910Well, now we know your opinion. And that’s all that it is. It’s just an opinion.

[@cameronielsen]

This is such a weird thing to get hung up on. Why are we wringing our hands over our preferences specific types of miracles over other types of miracles? Are we going to debate angel teleportation/transportation technology and have that influence our testimony as well? Letting tangents influence our testimony is risky. If we care too much about these things it will set us up for disappointment later on. Just decouple your testimony from BoM location theories, translation theories, and other speculation. The ultimate miracle is the wonders of His love, which we can feel but not fully comprehend.

[@traceythorup1547]

My 3rd great grandfather, Edwin Ruston, had a picture of the seer stone he found. He wrote about it in our Family History.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am sure he felt very orthodox about it and blessed by it.

[@forzion1894]

I'm sure Professor Dirkmaat is a nice guy, but his statements in this video and his book on the translation grossly distort the historical record. He ignores or very selectively quotes the clear repeated testimony of the two primary witnesses, Joseph and Oliver, that the translation was carried out using the Nephite interpreters which came with the plates. Their testimonies were given following E. B. Howe's publication of the anti-Mormon book "Mormonism Unvailed" in 1834, which contains the first full statement of the stone-in-the-hat narrative advocated by Professors Dirkmaat and Mackay. David Whitmer was never a witness to or participant in the translation process, and the only variation from Martin Harris was a single secondhand account published years after Martin's death - all other accounts from Martin say Joseph used the interpreters which came with the plates. And the quotes attributed to Emma Smith come from a document (also posthumous) where she also claims Joseph never practiced plural marriage, so how reliable is that? The translation of the Book of Mormon was indeed miraculous. However, contrary to Professor Dirkmaat's theory, Joseph and Oliver were not lying, and gave us the true description of the translation from the plates using the Nephite interpreters provided by God (see JS-H 1:35), not a folk magic peep stone found in a well while Joseph was employed by superstitious treasure hunters, which he put in a hat for the translation without ever looking at the plates. For a full presentation of the historical facts, and a defense of Joseph and Oliver's honesty in their account of the translation, see the new book, "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration."

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I think that perhaps we were not clear enough in the podcast. Joseph certainly sometimes used the "interpreters" or the Urim and Thummim set in the "bow". He and others also often called the brown seer stone a Urim and Thummim. This means they did not see a big difference between the various seer stones, and it also makes it hard to know what exactly they are referring to when they speak of the Urim and Thummim. Still, some sources, such as JSH 1:35, and other statements by Oliver and Emma and others, make it clear that sometimes Joseph used the "interpreter" Urim and Thummim. We certainly weren't trying to say that he didn't. But others who served as scribe at times, such as Martin, Emma, and David Whitmer (all of them were scribes at certain points) also describe the use of the other seer stone (or Urim and Thummim, as Wilford Woodruff would label the other seer stone (let's be clear, the "interpreter" Urim and Thummim were also seer stones)) in the translation process, and suggest it was used even more. These different statements from different eyewitnesses don't have to be at odds with each other. I wish that Joseph and Oliver had said more, but they didn't. So we evaluate all the sources, and take them seriously, and a credible picture emerges that Joseph used several seer stones, perhaps in several ways. I have been surprised at how much this view has bothered people and how much resistance it has received. I am puzzled that anything about this would bother any believer, since I don't see the difference between the miracle of using one set of seer stones over another. I am thrilled to learn any details about the miracle of translation. Yet all this resistance has made me determined to look into all the evidence afresh, and to try to re-evaluate. I will look at the book you suggest (though I am immediately off put by their calling the interpreters a Urim and Thummim and the brown seer stone a magic stone, when that is not how contemporary apostles saw it. This smacks to me of needing to be pejorative to be convincing rather than using the evidence. Still I will give this an honest look). I am going to go through it all again. I hope to have an even better understanding afterwards, and I hope everyone will be happy with however God worked with his prophet rather than be bothered if the pictures we now paint are a bit different than the pictures we once painted. A miracle is a miracle, and I am grateful for whatever form that miracle takes.

[@forzion1894]

@@TheScripturesAreRealIt is not clear whether you are Gerrit or Kerry, but I will assume that you are Gerrit for purposes of this reply. In connection with the translation of the Book of Mormon, all the contemporary sources use the term "Urim & Thummim" only to refer to the Jaredite/Nephite interpreters which came with the plates. In these sources the treasure digging scrying stone is always referred to as a separate object from the Urim & Thummim. These sources using the term only to refer to the interpreters which came with the plates include those who are used to argue that the Book of Mormon we have today was translated only using the scrying stone, such as Emma Smith and David Whitmer. The references are all in the book. With regard to Wilford Woodruff, please see Brigham Young's much more detailed account of the same meeting, which makes clear that Joseph also used the term "Urim & Thummim" only to refer to the interpreters which came with the plates, and refers to seer stones as separate objects. This issue is important because after Mormonism Unvailed came out, Joseph and Oliver did say a lot (in writing) about the translation process, always emphasizing that it was carried out by means of the Urim & Thummim which came with the plates and making no mention of the scrying stone. Your view makes these accounts from Joseph and Oliver misleading, as Royal Skousen has plainly stated in his most recent book. Joseph and Oliver were the first and second elders of the Restored Church, and the only eyewitnesses not only to the translation of the Book of Mormon we have today but also to the restoration of the priesthood and temple and other keys. It is a very serious matter for you and other faithful historians to question or confuse their testimonies about the translation when we rely on these same witnesses for the foundational authority of the entire Church. (The referenced book also goes through the major scrying stone sources and concludes that they are misunderstood or unreliable.) Numerous Church members have had faith crises triggered by your erroneous theories about the scrying stone. I believe you are sincere in your desire to use your academic training to enhance Church members' faith. However, my understanding of traditional principles of true scholarship includes being willing to engage contrary scholarship. The book contains a contact email for the authors. I strongly urge you not only to read the book, but to discuss the subject with the authors.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@forzion1894 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is Kerry. Gerrit is only a guest on the podcast The Scriptures Are Real. I will look at the book you recommend and reevaluate. At the same time, I have looked at all the original sources I know of (I would love it if they could steer me to more), and I just don't see the conflict you are speaking of. Joseph says nothing about the translation process. He does talk about using the interpreters and another seer stone in various ways. Oliver says very little, but he definitely talks about the interpreters. Others of Joseph's scribes talk about the other seer stone. They experienced the process just as Oliver did. This leads to the conclusion that Joseph probably used both sets of stones, and why wouldn't he? Why wouldn't he use all that God put at his disposal? Who are we to denigrate his use of a seer stone (and thus be still ridiculing him as did his contemporaries)? Why should we refer to it as a scrying stone when that is typically a derogatory term and he didn't use it that way, but rather he spoke very highly of his seer stone? As people learn more about the process it only leads to a faith crisis if they feel like things had to happen the way they have always supposed and can't have happened in any other way. Making a fuss about it only adds to this problem. Rejoicing in the miracle of it makes the problem go away. I do not believe we are questioning or confusing the testimonies of these brethren about the translation process. We are accepting it, as we are of Martin and David (two of the three witnesses whose testimonies we rely on), and Emma. What a shame if we will only listen to Oliver's statements and not those of other scribes. Why not evaluate them all? Why not accept all the ways God seems to have worked with His seer? As I have said, I will look at this book and evaluate the evidence. If it seems to be responsibly done, and if I still have question, I will engage the authors. I would love it if they showed me some sources I don't already know. I look forward to this. Thank you!

[@dianemiller6540]

@@forzion1894 there is a group of scholars from the past that wanted to revise our church history and today there is other groups of progressive scholars that are falling in line. That would be scholars and include professors and artists.

[@fastpony71]

@@TheScripturesAreReal Your speech about engaging the author would be a highly anticipated podcast from my perspective! Johnathan Neville is very personable and I'm sure he would love to share what he knows with you and your audience. This would be epic! Based on his latest Facebook posts, he is currently traveling in Tanzania, but I have his contact information that I'd be happy to share if you care to reach out to him. 😀

[@maryannstout7600]

That episode was so much fun to watch. Thanx.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

It is a fun topic, and Gerrit makes everything more fun!

[@ruthboehmer8483]

Thank you for sharing your expertise and for sharing it with a sense of humor!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am glad the Gospel is full of joy and so we can have fun with it!

[@JonClark125]

Top notch episode, enjoyed every minute. Thank you! ❤❤❤

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad. This is such fascinating stuff!

[@ivonneh.53]

Thank you!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad it was helpful for you!

[@renatemckendry104]

Thank you so much for this wonderful lesson! ❤🇨🇦

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad it was helpful for you!

[@elizabethpeterson9914]

Gerrit never disappoints

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

We are lucky to have such a passionate, consecrated, and talented historian working on these things.

[@dalecash2236]

This discussion provided so much context to help us better understand the Church's acceptance of the stone in a hat translation process.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad it was helpful. It is certainly worthwhile to try to understand all the statements and their context. It is a wonderful miracle that God provided! I am grateful for it.

[@matthumes3026]

Don Bradley just released a book called the Lost 116 Pages. It is hands-down the best book about translation I’ve ever read.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I will have to read that. It is so wonderful that there is so much information available these days.

[@laceytitus3205]

This was soooo goooood!!!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so very glad it was helpful!

[@JonathanScolaro]

Does anybody find it interesting that the translators, or stones, referenced in the Book of Mormon are never referred to as the "Urim and Thummin" in that text? I think that 'Urim and Thummim' is a misnomer. The Urim and Thummin used by the Priests of Leviticus are not depicted in the same way as the translators described in the Book of Mormon. Seems like different sets of stones with different uses. Does anybody agree that the Latter Day saints of the 1800s mixed up these different terminologies, and this confusion got passed down to the present day?

[@Hgwells159]

Being a seer is a "gift of God" D.C. 107:92 and doesn't mean that person has a stone or any other device to enable them to use the gift. The B.O.M. was translated by the gift and power of God that include the U. and T. God can use any means God chooses to enable that seer/ person to do His work.

[@doctorstotrust]

The Process of Translating the Book of Mormon Joseph Fielding McConkie (Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU) Craig J. Ostler (Assistant Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU) or jonathan neville's books or joseph smith foundation books

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Thanks. Is there something you are wanting us to do with that?

[@doctorstotrust]

@@TheScripturesAreRealyes read them i trust their research because of their selection of source materials

[@n.d.m.515]

​@@TheScripturesAreRealTake them seriously and at least respond. Otherwise it sounds like you are ignoring alternate theories or ignorant.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@n.d.m.515 I am not sure what you are trying to say. I will read them (I think I have read these before, and they were both written before more information came to light, but I will be getting to all of this. In regard to some of your other comments I saw elsewhere but am not sure which string they are in, I will just say that the different sources are not contradictory. Why should we be sure that Joseph didn't use more than one way of translating? When we have a few simple comments, and then several fairly extensive comments from various people who didn't know what the others were saying but said similar things, we should take that seriously, especially when they could all have truth to them. On the whole I have to say that I am just confused why this is such a big deal to people? What is so terrible about taking all these sources seriously? Why are we so bothered or afraid of it being different than what we used to think? Are we ridiculing Joseph for doing things differently than we think he should have, as many did before us? Is there something wrong with these things? Why should we discard any statements from people who were outside of the church when they made them (and by the way, Martin was inside the church when he made them)? Emma was still an absolute firm believer in the divine nature of the translation and she saw it from beginning to end and was intimately involved. Martin was an absolute believe of the divine nature of the translation of the BoM. So was David Whitmer. Are there some problems with the sources? Yes. Is having several distinct sources who were eyewitness to the events and did not coordinate with each other and who all said similar things something we can ignore? No. Over this last week I have watched and read many of those who staunchly defend a U&T only (and we should be careful to say that it is not an either or, it is likely a both kind of situation) theory, and they have done so with such terribly methods and with so many incorrect statements that it is fully unconvincing. But I am still looking at more sources, and hoping to find something better. In the meantime, we can all recognize that both theories are fully in line with faith and belief and that there is nothing wrong with either theory from that point of view.

[@n.d.m.515]

@@TheScripturesAreReal As I said in another post here, it matters because one way is uniquely prepared from and by the power of God. The other is a magical occultism tradition. Non-Mormons and those who have left the LDS Church over this can easily understand the difference. How supposed educated rock in the hat supporters can't see the problem is a real mystery.

[@chucknelson1079]

Joseph used the Urim and Thummin He said so Oliver said so.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

That is absolutely true! I very much agree with that! If we are responsible we take Oliver's word seriously and also the other scribe's seriously. I am so grateful for all the information we have and for all the ways God works with us!

[@user-yg8jt7qi6w]

Some cool things to consider: Why have the plates present if they werent used in the translation? Did joseph study language in effort to aid in the translation or did he already know he was not going to have the plates under view while translating and thst he wouldnt need to learn the hieratic language in order to translate?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Great questions! Since God hasn't said why He did things the way He did them, we can only guess. But here are some thoughts: It seems there was something about the physicality and reality of the plates that made a difference for people. The reality of the scriptural account is somehow aided by the reality of the plates on which they were recorded. We know there were times Joseph did look at the plates. He seems to have originally thought that someone would know the language and help. It seems like he eventually determined that he would have to do it with the help of God. There was no one in the U.S. or really anywhere, that could read hieratic at the time, and maybe no one in the U.S. that could read hieroglyphs. Plus the plates were probably in a varied version of hieratic anyway. The only way for them to be translated was through the power of God. It may have taken Joseph a while to understand that.

[@marydoffermyre6014]

All these comments regarding the different methods used for translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith are interesting to me, but not crucial to my faith and belief that the Book of Mormon is in fact the word of God, when I first read it I felt that warmth and peace that came directly to me from the Holy Ghost verifing that the Book of Mormon is a true record of real people and their amazing experiences with Jesus Christ.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@marydoffermyre6014 Beautiful!

[@Jpic-x8b]

I had a thought: Do you think that the stones that Jehovah/Christ touched for the Brother of Jared became Seer stones?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I think that is very possible, maybe even probable!

[@matthewpickering8218]

Thanks for another great episode! Two questions: 1. Why do you think so many members are accusing church scholars of "changing the narrative of the Book of Mormon translation?" This just seems so silly to me. Are people just uncomfortable with the idea of a seer stone in a hat? 2. What Books or articles would you recommend on the translation process? Or the Gold Plates in general. Thanks for all your great work!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am so glad you got something out of the episode. To answer your questions: 1) This has always been puzzling to me. We often struggle to see anything painted in a way that is not what we thought, were used to, or expected. Change is hard. Still, I am surprised that there is such frustration over using the sources well and responsibly, and over the position that has become the Church position. I am glad people are passionate, and a little sad at how frustrated people are. 2) Here are some books Richard Bushman "Joseph Smith's Gold Plates, A Cultural History." Joseph Smith's Seerstones, by Michael MacKay, Nicholas Frederick Lets Talk about the Translation of the Book of Mormon by Michael MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat Some folks on here are recommending "By Means of the Urim and Thummim," which I haven't yet read so I can't recommend it one way or the other. I hope that is helpful.

[@matthewpickering8218]

@@TheScripturesAreReal Awesome! Thank you so much!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@matthewpickering8218 Hope you enjoy them.

[@dankuchar6821]

Call Laura country writes that it was translated by the urum and thumbim. I guess Oliver would know.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

And I guess Emma, Martin, and the Whitmers, who were also scribes, wouldn't? Why would we think it all has to be only one way?

[@ClarkClub]

Whether it is the lost 116 pages or the stolen 116 pages is merely semantics. Stolen pages are lost as well.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

That is true, and it really is a minor point. The difference is that lost can be from carelessness, stolen is from someone's intentional ill intent. Not a profound ramification to make the distinction, but it is more accurate.

[@lauriefrost8822]

1. Why do many BYU professors and Church historians seem to be trying to convince us lay members that Joseph primarily used a stone he found to translate the BOM (while not looking at the plates, the precious plates prophets sought to preserve, and they sat covered with a cloth)? The Angel told him that God had prepared the U&T “for the purpose of translating the book.” 2. Why not caution us about credibility issues with supposed witnesses, who couldn’t describe what Joseph supposedly “translated” off a stone; or who described things they couldn’t possibly have seen or known? 3. Why avoid much of what Joseph and Oliver and the BOM and D&C said about the precious plates, the interpreters, and seers? 4. See Jonathan Neville & James Lucas, “BY MEANS OF THE URIM AND THUMMIM: Restoring Translation to the Restoration” and their KZbin interviews.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Thank you for listening and for your faith and your love of the Book of Mormon. We share those things in common. I am grateful to have a good discussion about these things, and am glad you are part of that. Thank you! I think my many comments to others has already covered these questions, but I will respond briefly here. I also hope you will read through the responses of many others. There are a lot of good conversations happening. 1) I agree that an angel told him he had prepared the U&T to translate, and I agree that he used them. No one is discounting that. 2) In the podcast you heard us speak specifically to each of the sources and their strengths and weaknesses. I am going to read this book you are recommending, but even without reading it I can tell you that I and many others have looked at these sources carefully. Why would we want to just throw out Emma's testimony (and how would Joseph feel about that)? Why would we throw out the testimony of three of the four scribes when they all agree with each other? How is that responsible? Why would we not want to see how their testimony can easily be reconciled with the other scribe's testimony? We do need to use them with caution, but as we do, we come to the conclusions that we talked about using both faith and good scholarship. 3) This question is getting tiresome. I am trying not to let this repeated false accusation bother me, but it is somewhat difficult. No one likes being accused of something they are clearly not doing. To address the accusation, We are certainly not ignoring what Joseph and Oliver said, and we specifically addressed what they said in the podcast. They said precious little (despite so many people saying they said a lot), and we addressed it and accepted it. If we want to have helpful conversations we need to speak to each other and not past each other, and to say that we are ignoring the evidence that we talked about is not helpful. 4) I have already ordered this book and will go through it. At this point it will be hard to go through it with an open mind because so many of the people who have recommended it on this forum have made claims that are just bad claims, so it is hard not to assume that these guys have done a terrible job. But I am doing my best to prepare myself to look at it with an open mind, and I will talk about it when I have. I am grateful for your comment, and I am grateful to have this conversation. I hope we can all appreciate the miracle of the translation of the Book of Mormon and all the wonderful ways the Lord worked with Joseph Smith. What a miracle! I am glad we can both rejoice in that together!

[@lauriefrost8822]

Thank you for the reply and your willingness to review the Jonathan Neville/James Lucas book. It addresses your comments in #3 (that Joseph and Oliver said “precious little” about the translation.) The book includes multiple statements, including in the Joseph Smith Papers, that are rarely included in modern curricula and commentary. Those statements, though “few,” appear to be dispositive: Joseph did indeed “translate” the “engravings” on “the plates” by means of the Urim & Thummim or Nephite interpreters that “came with the plates.” The book also addresses #2, the credibility of the witnesses. Thank you for your service.

[@traceythorup1547]

Didn’t Isaac Newton use a seer stone?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Yes he did! m

[@dalecash2236]

I would suggest God wouldn't need the plates to reveal the BOM to Joseph, but Joseph needed them as part of his preparation to receive the BOM, even if the plates weren't directly used for the entire process.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

That makes sense, and is an excellent suggestion!

[@gentrywinn]

The only plausible (truly trustworthy) statements about the translation come from Joseph Smith. I have a firm witness from the Spirit that the translation happened as Joseph said it did. In his own words, he says that he TRANSLATED the record (meaning he read--actually read--the text in one language and dictated it into another language) by the gift and power of God THROUGH (looking through and reading) the medium of the Urim and Thummim (the two stones set in a bow). These were prepared explicitly for the purpose of translating the record. It was a translation, not an inspired/revealed text (seen on/in a stone in a hat). Any other explanation is a philosophy of men, based on suspect and even false "historical" statements combined with sophisticated arguments perpetuated by Satan and ignorance (willing or not). I take Joseph at his word. To do anything else would be a slippery slope.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Well, that definition of translate would invalidate Joseph's New Translation of the Bible (JST). Do we need to throw that out to make what Joseph does fit our definition of translate, or can we use it the way he did? We keep getting presented with a false dichotomy. Can it be both the Urim and Thummim and another seer stone? Of course. Using the accounts of people who were part of the process is not the philosophy of men, but rather is doing some good history. I am so very puzzled why this is so upsetting to people. But I am going to look into it. I do not believe it is a slippery slope to listen to those who worked with Joseph. I hope we can just keep doing our best to figure this all out and do so with both faith and charity.

[@dinocollins720]

Not to sound prideful or dismissive of other people, but I’ve never understood why people have trouble with the stones, hat, spectacles, etc. Sure it’s different but if we accept the Urim and Thummim why do we accept these stones but not other stones? God doesn’t need anything to work a miracle but physical objects may help OUR faith. If we accept the miracle of Christ rising from the dead then these minor miracles are not as crazy as that 😂

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I so agree with you! I just can't see the difference between one set of seer stones and another, and I doubt God does either. I am happy for the miracle of it and glad to know more about it!

[@dinocollins720]

@ agreed! All these things are so drenched in symbolism though (bro if Jared stones, King Mosiah seership, Levitical Priests vestment, etc) so I absolutely love it! I love these physical objects God uses to exercise His power!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@dinocollins720 I wonder if our mindset of this kind of stuff being weird doesn't make it so that we are preventing God from speaking to us in wonderful ways. We probably limit the kinds of interactions we have with Him by our weird mindset about what is weird.

[@dinocollins720]

@ I 100% agree. The first time I went to the temple I thought it was “weird” or “different” than I was used to. Without a doubt that slowed my learning. Now that i understand more it blows my mind and contains the most beautiful symbolism on earth. Feeling “weird” totally slowed my learning/progress/growth!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@dinocollins720 What a great analogy!

[@dalecash2236]

God can transform stones to fulfill His purposes. This can be to deliver revelation to His Prophet, to provide light for the Jaredites' sea journey or any other purpose.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Amen!

[@ricklitchfield9484]

I find it appalling that so many good LDS scholars discount or dismiss the Prophet & Oliver. Joseph Smith translated characters from the plates with the interpreters the Lord prepared for that purpose. I know you guys are really proud of your PHDs, but I’ll take Joseph Smith’s word over his enemies and detractors.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am sorry to hear this. I am not sure how saying that Joseph used both the Urim and Thummim and another seer stone is dismissing what Joseph and Oliver said. They said precious little, less than anyone else involved, but they did say that the "interpreters" were used, and I am certainly not disputing that. I also think Joseph would not appreciate everyone saying that his beloved Emma was to be ignored and that we should believe nothing of what she said. How is that responsible? She was a scribe and eyewitness to the events too. As were Martin and David Whitmer. It would seem the only responsible thing to do is to recognize the sources, and use them. This leads us to Joseph using the "interpreter" seer stones and the brown seer stone, and both are miracles. Thus, we take Joseph, his wife, and all his scribes at their words. This has nothing to do with his enemies and detractors. This has to do with what they said. I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that.

[@evanpugh4078]

I totally agree, just from a logical point of view - why would the Lord and Moroni go to so much trouble in preserving the Plates and the Nephite interpreters and then not have Joseph use them. It simply doesn't make any sense - this new history our so called historians are presenting make Joseph look like he is into magic. Look at it another way, what better way do discredit Joseph and how he and Oliver said the book was translated (first hand account) than to make it look like they were into folklore magic. One of the primary sources on the hat and the stone come from David Whitmore, an excommunicated member of the church that said that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and who, by the way, started his own church (twice no less). Then you have our friend (in jest) Mark Hofmann and with his forgeries or fake documents. In his salamander letter, Hofmann mentions joseph using the seer stone. Why would we take his fake document and David Whitmer's interviews as accurate historical documents. Plus, many of the accounts were recorded some 40 to 50 years after the fact. Also, David Whitmore changed his story of this account several times when in fact he wasn't even a witness, all though in several interviews he said it was. One last thought, I think it's sad that people like Gordon Hinkley, Dallin Oaks and others were actually taken in with Mark Hofmann and his forgeries and had to admit they were taken in when all of his forgeries came to light. I don't see much difference with the stone in the hat narrative. People were wanting to discredit Joseph Smith then and still are doing it now.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@evanpugh4078 I think you are right, people are trying to discredit Joseph. But to me the people who are trying to discredit him are those who try to make the different ways the Lord worked with him seem weird and strange and "magical." Why would we be so pejorative of that process? Why should we paint it in a bad light when Joseph didn't? Isn't that what will drive people away? Taking the sources seriously and rejoicing in how the Lord works with people is what will bring people in. It is only the fact that we have been brainwashed by our modern society that makes it so that we want to reject these sources and say God couldn't work that way. Why try to discredit them all in that way?

[@dianemiller6540]

@@evanpugh4078 President Hinckley was trusting the experts around him and we’ve all learned a lot since those Hofmann days.

[@ClarkClub]

I have never understood the difficulty with Joseph using a seer stone to translate. Almost everyone over the age of 14 and under the age of 80 has a phone to look at constantly. The modern day phones are incredibly useful for many reasons even religious purposes. Why is difficult to understand that Joseph might be looking at something to help him accomplish God's purposes?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

While I see it as you do, many have a hard time with the change from what they thought and had pictured, and some feel there is something less divine about that, though there clearly isn't.

[@binmyrtmind]

Where in Joseph’s writings did he ever say he didn’t use the plates? I am weary of the hat stories/controversies. I know The ancients used animal skin to cover their heads for revelation or translation while using a Urim and Thummim; so if the hat was made correctly from skins he could use it also. Yet, I’ve never seen Joseph write or say that he translated the plates with it. Maybe Bible passages but why do we have to make up stories of every kind?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say, and I am not sure that we have a hat "controversy." As we noted, Joseph did not say he translated using a hat. He did not say anything about how he translated at all, except that it was through the power of God. It was the other eyewitnesses, those who saw him translating, who said he used a hat. We are not making that up, that is what they said. There are enough of them, who are eyewitnesses, and who say it soon afterwards and who say it long afterwards, that we have to take them seriously. We can't just dismiss what they said. They were the ones who were there, not us. Based on a number of reliable sources Joseph used a hat to block out light. And, as you say, why is that different than what a number of people have done throughout time? Why would this bother us? Why would it seem strange to us? There are no reasons for that. I don't think it is a controversy at all. The record is pretty clear that a seer stone and hat were used, and that this is normal and we should just rejoice in the miracle. You are right that we can study the ancient world and see that nothing about this translation process is out of the ordinary. It is only us who makes it seem like anything other than the miracle it was, so we can just stop doing that, and rejoice in the miracle.

[@n.d.m.515]

​@@TheScripturesAreRealThe record is NOT clear at all. Stop saying it is, especially when those closest to the translation DON'T claim there was a hat involved. Many of the later descriptions are questionable as to the truth of how it was done and at best second hand. I would love to see a discussion between a hat believer and a U&T only believer.

[@DCWY]

The see stone failed at treasure digging and was successful at glowing in a hat?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Are you asking if Joseph Smith came to the point where he used his gift only for the glory of God, and it worked well for that and not other things, which is what it appears is the real question here, then the answer is an emphatic yes!

[@IdahoHurst]

$3,000 in 1829 is worth $101,808.06 in 2025

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

Wow! that is serious money!

[@Steelblaidd]

@@IdahoHurst I did a calculation and based on the weights given the material value of the plates was between $.8 and $1.5 million dollars.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@Steelblaidd Wow!!!!

[@user-yg8jt7qi6w]

Remember that Joseph tool the name Gazelem as his hidden name ...

[@user-yg8jt7qi6w]

Sorry posted before I finished the video

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

All good, and I am glad for anyone who helps us highlight any particular point of the video.

[@My_planet_has_rings.]

Kerry, I never took you for a Mad Stone in the Hatter!

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am just a mad hatter. I don't have a stone. I wish I did, but I don't.

[@My_planet_has_rings.]

@ I’ve read Neville’s book and considered myself a Urim and Thummimmer. It was an interesting idea that Joseph Smith may have called any seer stone the U&T. Love your show! I am curious about the 50% you agree with Barker and the 50% you don’t.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@My_planet_has_rings. I am not sure what Joseph called them, he didn't really talk about them a ton after he first got them. Others called the brown seer stone the Urim and Thummim, and Wilford Woodruff described Joseph using that "Urim and Thummim" in some of his work on the Book of Abraham. It is interesting to me that Joseph's contemporaries did not care to distinguish between the divine aid behind Joseph's various seer stones, but we sure do! As for Margaret Barker, I would be happy to discuss this sometime, but don't have the time now. Are there specific teachings you are wondering about?

[@My_planet_has_rings.]

@@TheScripturesAreReal There’s nothing wrong with wanting to know the history, as long as you don’t use it as an excuse to leave the Church. Mainly, I am interested in Barker’s divine feminine and Deuteronomistic heresy. I would love to discuss Barker with you. Do I look up your office hours and show up?

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

@@My_planet_has_rings. We can just try to figure out when we could meet, though things are very busy for me now, so it may take a while. In general, I think Barker has good ideas and goes too far with them. There is no doubt that there were lots of Israelites who were idolatrous and included the worship of goddesses in their worship. Many of the paired Canaanite goddesses with Jehovah. The fact that they did this does not mean it was at one point okay and then became not okay. It was always not okay, and when certain rulers tried to get rid of it they were not getting rid of the old religion, they were trying to get them to do what they were always supposed to do. I think she reads way, way too much into an "old" religion without enough evidence to support what she is saying.

[@cabarete2003]

Stone in the hat is bullhonky tomfoolery. Why it's pushed I'll never understand. Oh, why were the plates returned and not the spectacles?

[@Steelblaidd]

The spectacles were returned.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

I am not sure how we can just say that so many eyewitnesses were wrong. And why would we want to? Why would we be bothered by that? Why would we not be so glad to learn from these eyewitnesses more about how it happened? Why would we not rejoice in the miracle of how it happened? I am so glad to know more about it, and so glad it happened, and so glad for whatever way it happened! What a miracle! What a blessing! I believe the spectacles/interpreters were given back with the plates. The seer stone was left, and was used often, and was called the Urim and Thummim often. What a blessing!

[@cabarete2003]

@@Steelblaidd according to who?

[@cabarete2003]

@@TheScripturesAreReal Because we seek truth and the sources (modern & historic) and the circumstances under which the historical figures made these reports are in question. I, personally, don't trust the modern scholars involved and Emma and Martin never saw anything. She was not permitted to. There are no other plausible eye witnesses. The only eyewitnesses, Joseph and Oliver, know and they never mentioned a seer stone. To totally ignore the contra points to this theory is malpractice. Let's be honest, this is a relatively new revision and there are plenty of holes in this modern revision of historical points. The narrative that they translated the plates by the gift and power of God and by the use of the Urim and Thumim is enough of a miracle and to make one rejoice. I do not understand the urgent push of this narrative. Especially, when there are those with credible rebuttals. At best, I'd put in the not fully fleshed out yet category.

[@danielschulz9304]

Great topic, always respectful. The comments and answers were very helpful and informative as well. Thank you

[@timadams2520]

Like other comments I've read below, I think there are wolves among us who want another alternative story. Tell me if this is what you are saying; Joseph translates the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon using a rock and a hat. Then the pages get lost; after repenting He starts over using the interpreters after Oliver Cowdrey becomes his scribe. Joseph Smith has Oliver Cowdery write the first History of the Church where Oliver writes "these were days never to be forgotten" quote where Joseph Smith used the interpreters to translate the Book of Mormon. I have heard this story from different angles. These false teachers are causing a rift in the church for what purpose? Accolades, some kind of intellectual fame? This is not the only subject where history revisionism in the Church is causing contention. Share your explanations with your buddies. But please keep these embarrassing explanations where the world doesn't need to watch. Or maybe just repent.

[@TheScripturesAreReal]

This is really just sad. There is no need for accusations like this, and there is no need for a rift or for any of these problems. There are lots of sources, and we should look at all the sources and use them all responsibly. We are not free to pick and choose the ones we are most comfortable with. We should instead figure out what is wrong with ourselves that it makes us uncomfortable. We can have differences of opinion without making accusations or imputing false motives. The Church's manuals take this seriously, lots of leaders take this seriously, lots of very faithful and believing scholars take this seriously, why would a small bunch of folks in the church decide this is all terrible and that there is something wrong with doing good history? Why should we get so upset about this? Is there room to learn more? Yes! Is there an ability to for you to help me come to better conclusions? Yes! Can we do this without acting the way President Nelson has asked us not to act online? Yes! I have spent a lot of time this week going through writings of people who are sure there is no seer stone. So far all of it has been terribly done. I have watched some podcasts of people who many feel are so convincing saying there was no seer stone. They were terribly done. Yet I am still trying to be open minded, despite the fact that nothing has yet been convincing. I have purchased some other things to read and am still trying to see things from other's point of view. I ask the same of everyone else. When I have gone through the sources carefully I will do another special episode on it. I am ready to change my mind. I hope we all can be. Bless you, and may we all move forward together!