Guess I dont understand why Joseph needed to obtain the plates if all he needed was a stone and a hat. The Uriman and thummin With the plates makes much more sense to me...AND it's what Joseph himself said he used.

I want to hear the off the record conversation

Neville always seems willing and wants to talk this out with guys like this but they never seem to want to debate. There needs to be some face to face debates on this. There’s a difference like you said between contention and conflict.

A few years ago I had a dream which I will not recount here. However, the statement about translation is absolutely true. The meaning of words/language when speaking to a Heavenly being is far deeper and broader than our paltry words can transmit. It's not just more, it's infinite, eternal and transcendent. It was as if the words flowed from the centers of our being(s). I could have no more masked my intent or my meaning than to hold a tissue before an acetylene torch flame. The same was true of Him. It was/is the most honest conversation I have had in this life. And yet, it was a dream. I would guess that Joseph couldn't describe the translation process because we, literally, literarily and metaphorically do not have a language sufficient to express such eternal things. Another thought comes to mind: The reason that Jesus Christ seems so harsh, at times, is because He could not withhold. He was forthright, honest and used to communicating in unbounded language. So, "oh ye of little faith" could no more have remained within Him than could "blessed art thou among women" or "never has so great faith been among all the children of men".

Only recently, I've begun to rethink the seer stone vs urim and thumim controversy. And it's not because I can't stomach the idea of magic, it's because of what Joseph and Oliver said. Gardner admitted that Oliver and Joseph never said they used a seer stone to translate, only the urim and thumim. And he claims Joseph and Oliver were basically calling seer stones the urim and thumim so that new members of the church wouldn't be weirded out by magic. So... were Joseph and Oliver lying? Were the seer stones they had actually the urim and thumim from the bible? Or were they just calling it that to mislead people from the harder truth? It seems like Gardner believes Joseph and Oliver lied about the urim and thumim and about Cumorrah. If that's the case... one must ask what else were they lying about? You may wonder if they were lying about everything? I don't believe they were lying.

I could listen to this ALL day …Great conversation …now let’s put it into context of today !

It's great that you are continuing the discussion.

Joseph in Egypt used a cup. See Genesis chapter 44 verses 1 thru 15.

A careful reading of the scriptures indicates a seer stone is a glass biconvex lens. A single glass lens is often called a "magnifying glass" and used to magnify objects to make them easier to see. This is why scripture says they can "magnify to the eyes of men". Ether 3:24 Place two lenses together and you can create a simple primitive Galileo Telescope. This is why Abraham said he looked at the stars with the Urim and Thummim. Abraham 3:1-2. Place a glass lens in a dark box and you have a Camera Obscura. This allows you to "see" things outside the box. The light is "translated" from outside the box to the inside of the box. It's necessary to block out the ambient light to focus on the light coming through the lens and nothing else. When Joseph Smith placed his "seer" stone in a hat and placed his face in the hat, he was using a Camera Obscura. Joseph Smith allowed others to testify that he had the power of a "seer" and "translator" by showing them the process. The brown stone was irrelevant and used as a prop for misdirection to keep the process sacred to those that were ready and understood the meaning of what he was doing. Other people were allowed to see and handle the brown stone. Joseph would then place the brown stone in his hat and "see" the outside world through a hidden lens. The image he saw was "translated" from outside to inside and from right-side up to upside down. Joseph Smith never lied when he said he "translated" the Book of Mormon though the "gift" and "power" of God.

I wonder if Mr. Gardner believes the Doctrine and Covenants is from the Lord. D&C 10:1 The Lord reprimands Joseph Smith for the loss of the 116 pages. “Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.”

You should interview Hannah Stoddard on this topic.

I really wish you would have brought up the fact that many who believe in the seer stone believe that Joseph never physically used the plates during the translation process--just the stone in the hat. For them the plates simply sat under a cloth. That simply doesn't make any sense to me. I was hoping you would have brought that out, but I understand that your time is limited. I don't understand how one can be so hung up on the fact that Joseph wasn't calling it a Urim and Thummim from the very beginning. I don't imagine anything would have come with a label on it like you find in the old Batman television show (though I am sure Joseph would have appreciated that). Joseph met with Moroni once a year for 4 years before he ever obtained the plates. What do you think they spoke about? What do you think they discussed? Could it be that Joseph was learning and growing gradually; line upon line? Could it be that it was later revealed what the name of the hill was, what the tool he was using was called, and where the events in the Book of Mormon might have taken place? Wouldn't those be the kinds of questions you would have come up with as you anticipated meeting with a heavenly messenger once a year? Why is it so difficult to believe that Joseph later learned the formal name for the object he was using and then later clarify that name in his writings once it became known? It makes sense to me. Of course I'm not a "scholar". I'm just trying to employ a little common sense. But many lives were sacrificed, as well as many hours dedicated, producing the plates and protecting them. I believe they existed for a reason and were meant to be used in the translation process. To think they would be preserved simply to sit on a table under a cloth doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and would, I am sure, come as a shock to everyone involved in their production. An instrument that was needed to help in the translation was included in the stone box. It would seem to me that that would be the perfect instrument to use. Otherwise, why bother including it? Maybe we should all take Joseph at his word. Not everything was clarified, and it was made clear that not everything would be as far as the translation is concerned. There is where our faith is tested. But I believe I will take Joseph at his word. He may have corrected himself later when it came to vocabulary, but that has to be expected. He was the one prepared for the task. He was the one that was given the responsibility to translate. He sacrificed much to give us this sacred book of scripture. For that I am grateful. If, years later, he sits down to spell out exactly how it took place and determines exactly which words best describe the process, then I for one will take him for his word. For anyone else to believe otherwise simply falls into the realm of speculation.

I'm sorry but this is too much and why I detest a lot of so called "scholarship." Joseph using a seer stone early on even before the first vision, and perhaps even during the translation to some extent, presents no problem to me. But to say the urim and thummin was never used is outrageous and blatant revisionist history.

Other than not the image I originally had I’ve never really wrestled with the stone in the hat. Why would I? What difference which miraculous method was used to dictate the Book of Mormon into English?

It is sad that no one seems to understand that Joseph did not have the biblical "Urim & Thummim." He had Nephite "interpreters." Everyone (except Brant Gardner) seems to miss this point, completely unaware of the confusion it engenders.

My question would be: Did God place the seer stone in the box or did He place the urim and thumim in the box. End of question.

Back for more - let’s goooo

I disagree with him in a number of points but I think it is kind of arrogant to say he did us a disservice and his thinking that Mormon kind of changed the focus of the book. The Lord knew the ending from the beginning and gave us what He wanted us to have.

So other people used crystal balls…so Joseph could have done it. What?!

The gifts and abilities given to Joseph Smith are beyond comprehension. Those around him were often confused because he would say something that seemed so basic to him but was beyond their understanding. So how he did things was unique. But as to the stones, the stones with the breastplate were returned with the plates, so he couldn't have given them away. So clearly there were other stones involved.

How does know? Joseph said the Urum and thummin were in the box with the gold plates. He’s trying to rewrite contemporary history.

Refer to William Davis's book. JS did think it out in his mind

Joseph and Oliver consistently stated that the interpreters were the means by which the Book of Mormon was translated. They started making these statements after the stone-in-the-hat narrative was first advanced in full in the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, and that context makes it clear that their emphasis on the interpreters was Joseph and Oliver's rebuttal to E. B. Howe's stone-in-the-hat story. The scrying sources do not hold up. Elizabeth Whitmer's account is a torn document which came from scrying stone partisan William McLellin which she never verified. David Whitmer is the source of most stone-in-the-hat accounts, but he was never a scribe nor ever explicitly claimed to be a witness to the actual translation process. The two accounts attributed to Emma are contradictory and problematic for many reasons. All of Martin Harris' statement speak of the interpreters, not the scrying stone. Not all sources are created equal. Joseph and Oliver were the primary witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon we have, and they consistently testified in written statements during their lifetimes that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates using the Nephite interpreters. And, at least for those who believe Joseph and Oliver were truth-tellers, this plates-and-interpreters narrative must be deemed far, far more credible that later, second-hand, unreliable scrying stone sources. See the new book on this subject, "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration."

Was he really equating Joseph translating by the gift and power of God with all the examples he gave of people using stones and crystal balls? I don't think those in the examples he gave were inspired by the same spirit as Joseph!

Greg, I’d like to know if you personally still feel the same about Gardner as a BoM scholar after conducting these interviews.

This guy makes me question was JS Devine.

When Joseph disobeyed the Lord and lost the 116 pp of translation, he lost the ability to translate. Moroni took the plates and the interpreters away from him. When he had repented sufficiently, they are returned to him. The two were interconnected in the process. I find it hard to belenes that after disobeying tbe Lord once, Joseph would have gone off to translate with another means.

The low-point of interview: 17:29, where the speaker relates some anecdote of some lady, who magically discerns the precise words from an unseen text below some "crystal ball" (which the speaker then amazingly defines as just another "seer-stone," and then--without hesitation--analogizes this whole mystical process to Joseph Smith's use of the "peep stone"). Yes, you heard correctly: the speaker conflates that crystal ball occult event with how Joseph Smith might have similarly translated the Book of Mormon ("Well, that tells me Joseph Smith could have done [the same thing that lady did with a crystal ball]"). Whoa. Did that really just happen?!? Did someone just give more ammo to those who dismiss the divine (and historical) reality of the Book of Mormon by directly associating the whole translation process with something magical or occult or mystical (like "automatic writing" or crystal balls)? Okay, personally, I know the Book of Mormon is true and divine--even if some chocolate peep stone was used to translate. And I am confident that the speaker is a faithful, devoted disciple and probably amazing scholar. And I don't want to nit-pick an unfortunate phrase or two from a lengthy interview. Nevertheless, might we all now better understand the importance of relying on the clear words of the prophet Joseph when he unequivocally ascribes the Urim and Thummim as the exclusive and divinely-supplied tool of translation, rather than something else (like either a crystal ball or chocolate peep stone) that gives more ammo to Book of Mormon nay-sayers? (And why, oh why, would they be so invested in the peep stone process that they now even marshal occult crystal ball anecdotes to buttress their arguments--even if such anecdotes play right into the hands of those opposing the divinity--and historicity--of this sacred record? Does that make any sense at all?). With all this magic malarkey tainting this discussion, please allow me to simply share my divine, sure, and Holy-Ghost-confirmed witness that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record of a people in ancient America who were led to this land by the hand of the Lord centuries ago and which was translated into English by the gift and power of God, through the instrumentality of the Lord's chosen restoration prophet, Joseph Smith. The Book is holy and true and without a syllable of deceit or corruption, and will victoriously defeat all efforts to suggest otherwise.

I’m starting to think skinwalker ranch may be the riches the angel was talking about.

More of the "worldly knowledge" explaining the translation than the words of the Prophet Joseph and Oliver. It fit right in with his discounting their statements on The Book of Mormon geography. If you are serious about this, I encourage you to read Neville's new book, "By Means Of The Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation To The Restoration." He is very fair and explains where all the theories come from and their strengths and weaknesses. It is very well documented and with the Kindle version it is very easy to check all sources, which I highly recommend doing. His background as a lawyer gives him and his co-author the ability to evaluate testimonies, sources and possible motives that it seems "stone in the hat" scholars just don't possess.

I’m surprised you missed the white people comment Gardner made in the last video

Having a Urim & Thummin consititutes a person being called a seer. These "interpreters" are also called "seer stones". Joseph taking the "interpreter" stones out of the frame and putting them in the hat means that he used a "seer stone" to interpret. Why is the assumption made that when the term "seer stone" is used by "witnesses", it refers to the chocolate covered one. How do you know they are not referring to one of the interpreters which can also called a seer stone?

Do we know how detailed Reformed Egyptian was? It sounds like a simpler form of symbols. So it makes complete sense to me that a non-native translator would have to think it out in his mind

I do not agree. How in the world would Brent Gardner know what Joseph didn't have the Urim and Thummim? He has the same answer..."Joseph adopted that name..." Would he care to debate this with Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Moroni, or Joseph?

Why do we always get different stories about joseph smith translations from many videos from LDS . Why not a definitive story.

Read " Seer stone vs the Urim and Thummin" by the Joseph Smith foundation. It dubunkes the the seer stone in a hat theory by present context to all claims.

11:35 but why would Joseph lie about it? I should think we would believe the words of a prophet of God over the words of secondhand accounts.

I’ve had a series of concussions over the last decade and one of the effects has been double vision. I’ve been involved with vision therapy where you focus both eyes on a common point and you adjust the position of the object you are looking at. If you are familiar with the Brock string, that is one of the tools that I am talking about. I tend to think of seer stones as something you focus on, but the image is communicated into your brain. We know from church leaders statements that the spirit is closely linked to our mind. I am willing to bet that much of the translation process took place in one’s mind rather than something you’d see as if the stone were like a computer monitor or something. I don’t think anyone else would have seen the first vision in the sacred grove had they been there with Joseph. It was a vision, not a physical visitation. It’s also like when Joseph and Sydney saw the vision of D&C 76. Others were there witnessing Joseph and Sydney describing the vision, but the witnesses didn’t see what they saw. They only saw Joseph and Sydney seeing the vision. I’ve also had experiences where I saw certain things in the temple as I was surrounded by people, but they didn’t see what I saw. There is more to seer stones than many of us understand.

Amazing how Gardner says “oh it didn’t literally mean that”.

Here you have it folks! - grown adults in the 2020's having a serious discussion about people writing books about the ancient world from information they received by looking into rocks! Today's prophet still has Joseph's rock but apparently the only thing it is good for anymore is for getting good stock market tips.

7:14 but there is an issue with this, as at the U&T is spoken of in the zohar and it is described as two stones that were put inside the breast plate of the high priest

I have a real problem with Gardner calling Joseph A liar he sounds more like an Anti-Mormon apostate than a faithful scholar...I believe Joseph F Smith over some great big elder and self appointed scholar.

7:40 - Where did King Mosiah get them? They originally belonged to the Brother of Jared. The Doctrine and Covenants also explicitly tells of what was used. Why would Joseph feel the need to personally edit the revelations in 1844? The belief by faithful active members of the Church when it comes to the use of the chocolate stone should be seen as equivalent of those who believe the earth is flat.

A LOT of un-cited statements from this guy….

Thanks for these presentations. My final take after listening to all four videos. You have one side filled with spiritual pride like the pharasees and the other side filled with intellectual pride like the pharasees. I will continue to keep myself neutral from either side.

Oh good... JS said he saw God the Father and his son. Now I can just dismiss it like Gardner does and believe nothing JS said.

To illustrate a point, look at all of the division in the comments. Contention is not of God. There is too much contention. I know the Gospel is true, I know Joseph is called as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. Either we hold tight to our testimonies or fall. The Church is being sifted. 🙏🙏😑💜

This was a really good discussion!

Thummim-only-ism. The same mentally that gave us King-James-only-ism. It doesn't matter to me if Joseph used the broken off bottom of a medicine bottle. What matters is the gift of His that gave us the text. It's like the furor about the Book of Abraham where peripheral ideas distract from the truth in the text.

Eh

“Is there anything from Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdrey directly referring to using the seer stone as an instrument of translation?” “Not that I’m aware of.” WHAT?!?!? You have this whole theory that Joseph used a seer stone instead of the Urim & Thumim, but you don’t even have a single quote to back it up??? WOW. I should not be surprised based on the previous episode, but here I am, throwing my hands up in disgust.

Joseph did not use a stone in a hat to translate

I think Noah's priests quoted Isaiah 52:7-10 to show that the Zeniffites had gone back up to the mountains of Highland Guatemala, where the Lord wanted His people to be--not down in the Central Depression (Zarahemla) where Mosiah 1 had taken them. Abinadi didn't buy it.

So many people in the comments proving Brother Gardner right. "How dare he compare the divine gift of translation with a crystal ball!??!?" Interesting discussion, hope to see more of them!

This is embarrassing. The Man who communed with Jehovah of all people would know the difference between folk magic or something provided by God. If a rock in a hat was used, why the need for the plates? Why the need to edit later? Why would there be any anachronisms at all? Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman have done a real number on church history. The idea that a number of people have used these methods is a bit different than a Prophet that saw God the Father and His Son and other Heavenly beings. Talk about clinging to man made error. If I had written a book like Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, which is his opinion of JS and folk magic, (that it may have served as a preparatory Priesthood), a book that caused so many to lose their testimony and even leave the church, I would repent. John Dehlin gleefully endorses RSR. How does that book or this continued stance help build the Kingdom of God on Earth? Read Truman Madsen or Hugh Nibley instead and stay away from this non sense.

Ugh!

The 'seer' stone is 3rd hand gossip from anti's.

I can't watch anymore. I revere Joseph too much.

It seems like those who get upset about the possibility of Joseph the Seer using anything besides the U&T are those same people who get upset when a Latter-day Saint puts up a Christmas Tree. Am I wrong?