NOM

What was going on with early Saints wanting to help embellish the translation of the Book of Mormon by claiming they were translated by the Urim and Thummim, which they envisioned as a pair of spectacles?

First of all the Urim and Thummim was a breastplate to which were attached two rocks with the Hebrew symbol for yes and no painted on opposite sides. Sort of an ancient flip the coin method of divination. However, these were relics of the past which no longer exist. When it did exist, its function was not that of the legendary Babel fish which aided Arthur Dent in understanding multiple galactic languages. It was used as a means of cleromancy, telling the will of god through the proverbial roll of the dice (or the position of the yes/no stones on the breastplate).

Were these helpful embellishers trying to bolster their own faith through suggesting an ancient cleromancy device was used?

Was a good old North American metamorphic rock insufficient for these hoity-toity Saints as a translation medium?

You know, I've wondered about that too. Rocks rock.

moksha wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:24 pm Were these helpful embellishers trying to bolster their own faith through suggesting an ancient cleromancy device was used?

Something happened in the early 20th century that lead up to the stern denouncement of rocks in hats produced by Bruce McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith. I don't know if it was the suspicious similarities between a seer stone in a hat versus a gypsy lady with a crystal ball. I simply think that both of these guys had big egos protected by their personal self-righteousness and close familial relationship to Joseph Smith. No other apostle seemed to be stepping up as the rigorous scriptorians of the LDS church so their proof-texted explanations seemed infallible at the time.

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:36 am You know, I've wondered about that too. Rocks rock.

Well, I'm glad all three of us find this interesting.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:14 am

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:36 am You know, I've wondered about that too. Rocks rock.

Well, I'm glad all three of us find this interesting.

Make it four. A pirate, a vampire, and two penguins!

That is quite interesting, Moshka. The U&T gave the whole charade that extra dose of biblical credibility the hat trick stone just didn't have.

Well, if you print me and throw me in there will be five of us, because I found it interesting.

moksha wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:24 pm ages. It was used as a means of cleromancy, telling the will of god through the proverbial roll of the dice (or the position of the yes/no stones on the breastplate).

Whoa whoa whoa! Rolling the dice to determine God's will? Why the hell were we told to stay away from Casino's in Vegas? Apparently that's Gods playground!

As Joseph Smith was moving from being a practitioner of folk magic to being a practitioner of folk Christianity, he continued to do much of the same practices, but the terms changed.

Thus a glass-looker's peep-stones becomes a seer's seer-stones becomes a prophet's urim & thummim. It was still the same thing, but they now use Biblical terms to describe the stones. The had no idea the actual history of the ancient U&T and spectacles were a nifty new invention, so when people had visions of the U&T, they imagined giant spectacles with glowing rocks for lenses and an attachment to a breastplate.

In this same way, the old guardian spirit that prevents you from reclaiming buried treasure unless you go through various magic rituals (coming on the autumnal equinox, bringing a certain person, etc.) becomes and angel, ultimately an angel named Moroni. I.e., from the realm of folk magic to Biblical terms like angel. Except that Moroni isn't an angel in the Biblical sense. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, angels are creations totally separate from humanity. Moroni is called an "angel," but the actual English word for what he was described to be is ghost or spirit (which is how the spirit was originally identified).

Here's how apologist author Brant A. Gardner explains the issue in his book "A Reason for Faith":

About the time of the publication of the Book of Commandments in 1833, W. W. Phelps began using the biblical term Urim and Thummim to describe both the interpreters and Joseph's seer stone. It was a reference of convenience that lent a more sophisticated feeling to the translation. Christians knew of the Urim and Thummim from the bible, where they were connected to the high priest and receiving revelation. Particularly for newer converts, that was a more familiar reference than the seer stones, and it soon became the way to refer to the process by which the translation occurred, even though the term was technically inaccurate.

The term Urim and Thummim was inserted later into sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, in our current version, D&C 10:1 reads, "Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings, which you had power given unto you to translate by means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them." The addition of the information about the Urim and Thummim is in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, and that meaning was firmly entrenched by that time.

This is the palatable explanation of the story meant for the TBMs in your life.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:54 pm Here's how apologist author Brant A. Gardner explains the issue in his book "A Reason for Faith":

About the time of the publication of the Book of Commandments in 1833, W. W. Phelps began using the biblical term Urim and Thummim to describe both the interpreters and Joseph's seer stone. It was a reference of convenience that lent a more sophisticated feeling to the translation. Christians knew of the Urim and Thummim from the bible, where they were connected to the high priest and receiving revelation. Particularly for newer converts, that was a more familiar reference than the seer stones, and it soon became the way to refer to the process by which the translation occurred, even though the term was technically inaccurate.

The term Urim and Thummim was inserted later into sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, in our current version, D&C 10:1 reads, "Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings, which you had power given unto you to translate by means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them." The addition of the information about the Urim and Thummim is in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, and that meaning was firmly entrenched by that time.

This is the palatable explanation of the story meant for the TBMs in your life.

This explanation reminds me so much of the line from Leonardo Dicaprio's character in the movie Catch me if you can. Every time one of Frank Abagnale's vicitms actually aids in and enhances his own defrauding Franks says...."Even better!"

The irony here is pretty thick as well. Frank Abagnale Jr. was a confidence man extraordinaire.

This explanation reminds me so much of the line from Leonardo Dicaprio's character in the movie Catch me if you can. Every time one of Frank Abagnale's vicitms actually aids in and enhances his own defrauding Franks says...."Even better!"

The irony here is pretty thick as well. Frank Abagnale Jr. was a confidence man extraordinaire.

I would love to see a church film where Leonardo Dicaprio plays Joseph Smith. It would totally work!

When I a kid you could order these glasses for a buck. Excitedly I had plans for these like any 8 day old boy. When they arrived I found the appropriate subject and put them on. What the crap they did not work. I was scammed. Who would have thought someone would sell an obvious fraud.

I think you get the point.