Did Joseph Smith use a “seer stone” to translate the Book of Mormon? Or did he use only the Urim and Thumim?

Anonymous,



One Response to “Did Joseph Smith use a “seer stone” to translate the Book of…”


Francisco Rubio
2007-11-24 06:57:28
Let me begin by saying that in this case the product (the Book of Mormon) is far more important than the translation process. Many in the Church mistakenly believe that Joseph Smith used only the Urim and Thumim to translate the Book of Mormon. This simplistic view probably stems from this popular Mormon painting, which shows Joseph translating the Book of Mormon as a modern, secular translator would. Joseph was not qualified to translate in this way. In reality, in addition to using the Urim and Thumum, Joseph also used a seer stone in the translation process.

The Church has repeatedly explained that the translation process was not so simplistic. For example, Elder Russel M. Nelson described the use of seer stones in the translation process in a 1993 Ensign article.

So why didn't Joseph use only the Urim and Thumim? It turns out that the Urim and Thumim did not fit Joseph's face very well! According to Joseph's brother, the instrument was too large for his eyes. The two glasses (lenses?) were spread so far apart that when Joseph used them, he could only look through one at a time. It seems the seer stones were more comfortable.

Interestingly, after receiving the Melchizedek priesthood Joseph Smith quit using the seer stones. It seems he had matured to the point that he no longer needed them to receive revelation from God. According to Orson Pratt, "...he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument."

This begs the question: were the seer stones really any different than regular stones? Perhaps, or perhaps they were simply props God used to communicate with an immature prophet who had not yet fully grown into his prophetic mantle. Regardless, the important point is that the revelation came from God. The revelatory process itself is of only secondary importance.

Leave a Comment


Comments have been closed because this question is so old.
Instead, you might want to: