Translations and Seer Stones: A Response to Critics of the Church

Recently, critics within and without the Church have argued against Joseph Smith using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. A question that they often pose online in their blogs and forums, though they are never willing to accept an answer no matter how logical or reasoned it may be, is usually phrased something like "Why did Joseph need the plates, then? If all he would do to translate the Book of Mormon is look into a stone in a hat, why did Mormon and Moroni go through all the trouble they did to write on gold plates at the risk of their own lives?"

A simple answer to this question, of course, is that Joseph needed them because they stood as a literal, physical witness of the truth of the work he was engaged in. And, even when Joseph had the plates covered on a table with his face in a hat, Joseph couldn't read Reformed Egyptian in the first place. Any translation he would provide would inevitably have to come through a divine transmission of information. These plates, it would seem, also served as a catalyst for that transmission-translation to occur. However, if my own answer did not seem satisfactory for you, I would suggest reading the articles at FairMormon and Book of Mormon Central for faithful answers.

However, what is more troubling to me is the critics in question within the Church such as Jonathan Neville (I was going to leave them anonymous, but since I am linking to a site meant to refute their arguments, I find that anonymity redundant and would have been more of a farce than anything else) who argue that such a translation method is near enough a damnable heresy. They argue that the CES, Church History Department, and perhaps even the General Authorities themselves are misleading the Church with a new "revisionist" history while promoting their own revisionist history themselves. Such topics of interest for them include Joseph translating not one set of gold plates, but two sets (and only they have been able to discover the truth regardless of absolutely no historical proof for the second set of plates whatsoever), their own pseudo-archaeology built on fraudulent artifacts to fit the Book of Mormon into their preferred setting for the Book of Mormon (and if you disagree with them then you are "repudiating the teachings of the prophets" (Neville's words, not mine) even though the Church has no official stance on geography of the Book of Mormon and no Book of Mormon location has ever been revealed), and Joseph Smith simply, absolutely, no way, could use a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon record.

As I wrote about before, seer stones and the various models of the Urim and Thummim are all divine instruments of revelation. In fact, the Urim and Thummim is often likely used as a catch-all term for any divine instrument that uses a seer stone based on their appearance in the Bible, Book of Mormon (though no Nephite prophet ever calls the interpreters "Urim and Thummim") and the Pearl of Great Price, with allusions to it in the Doctrine and Covenants. Seer stones are absolutely used by the Lord, and according to all historical information we have, Joseph Smith absolutely used a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

But today, I had a flash of inspiration. So, with the question they pose, I raise them this:

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 7, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were discussing the fate of John the Beloved and whether he was permitted to tarry on the earth or if he died. As such, according to Joseph's own history quoted in the Section heading, "they inquired through the Urim and Thummim" (whether the Nephite seer stones or Joseph's personal seer stone is irrelevant) and "the revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself." This is slightly clarified form Joseph's original history which states "Translated from parchment, written and hid up by himself" (HC 1:36).

Now, riddle me this: If all Joseph would do to translate the papyrus is look into a stone (probably in a hat), why did John go through all the trouble to make the papyrus in the first place? Can this even be called a translation, then?

Here is where we get into a sticky situation. Either on the one hand, they can continue to reject the accounts of Joseph using a seer stone and insist on a grand conspiracy within the Church and by implication reject the coming forth of a section of the Doctrine and Covenants that is canonized and as such is binding on the Church, or rescind their statements, recognizing the possibility of God using many forms of revelation even if they don't quite understand everything right now and trust that God will send further light and knowledge if they request it.

Keep in mind, I absolutely do not believe that a belief in Joseph using a seer stone to translate is salvific in any way, we only need to believe that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are the revealed word of God and follow their precepts as well as the teachings of living prophets regardless the means of the seer. I also believe, however, that one cannot criticize leaders of the Church and say they are perpetrating a great conspiracy to hide the truth and not be recognized as believing very dangerous and outright false doctrine. 

Here is a simple statement from a returned missionary who would like to consider himself an apologist for the Church (and I want all my friends of all denominations to know this): You cannot limit God. You cannot in good conscience tell Him that you will only accept revelations from Him if they come in a way you tell Him they must come in. God's ways are higher and holier than our ways. If God decides to use ancient, glasses-like interpreters, who are we to tell Him no? And if He decides to also use a single seer stone placed in a hat, who are we to tell Him no? 

It is absolutely no problem saying that Joseph translated records through the use of a seer stone even though he did not always look at or even possess the ancient records in question. They absolutely are translations, even though Joseph did not understand the languages they were originally written in. They came by the gift and power of God and are His scriptures. I know that they are true records and that Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet, and as such, I will defend him as the Lord's chosen prophet, seer, and revelator to initiate the translation of multiple ancient records and restore the Gospel through him.