“Often he found a single seer stone to be more convenient. He would put the seer stone in his hat, place his face into the hat to block out the light, and peer at the stone. Light from the stone would shine in the darkness, revealing words that Joseph dictated as Oliver rapidly copied them down.”
To me this claim is inconsistent with the spiritually confirmed scriptural, and other accounts, of the divinely appointed, dignified, and orderly process of translation, namely through use of the Urim and Thummim, which method was prepared from the foundations of the earth for that purpose. Additionally, the optics of the prophet of God sitting with his head in a hat gazing at a dark colored seer stone for revelation, trends toward affirming the age old Anti-Mormon claims of Joseph being a dabbler in the occult. In that form it is very similar to the now discredited Salamander claim. Significantly it would only take a slight adjustment for the hat engulfed seer stone to become Hiram Page’s satanically powered peep stone.
Since to me this claim is inconsistent with revealed truth, and frankly just a bit bizarre, I was compelled to start the second technique and check the reference in Saints, upon which the claim is based. This is what I discovered.
The reference note in “Saints” offered supporting this claim lists 4 main sub-references in support of the claim. I will get to Reference 1 later. References 2 and 3 whose sources can actually be accessed from reading the online version, speak ONLY of the Urim and Thummim. They make no mention of a hat or a seer stone. Interestingly those references also correctly refer to the interpreters in the plural.
As with many of the supporting reference in “Saints”, Reference 4 is to the Church’s Historical Topic Essays. Going to that source to check its references revealed that its supporting source is the same as that noted in "Saints" Reference 1 (i.e. Bushman) which I will distinguish later. Reference 4 in "Saints" did have one addition which was to Alma 37:23. While that verse is provided without context in support of the concept of a seer stone, no hat is mentioned. Additionally, when read in context of the entire chapter, it becomes clear that Alma is speaking of Urim and Thummim and not a seer stone. Both verses 21 and 24 of that same chapter refer to interpreters (plural), thus the “stone” is referenced as a component of the divinely appointed system. Additionally, the scripture footnote attached to the very word “stone” refers to Mosiah 8:13 which in turn refers to the interpreters (plural) that God has established as the instrument for his seers.
At this point all that remain as possible supports for the historians’ conclusion are the sources listed in Reference 1.
1 (1) The first source mentioned in this Saints reference is the Gospel Topics Essay; “Book of Mormon Translation.” Reading through that essay I discovered the source of the Gospel Topics Essay’s “Seer Stone” references is a book, by Richard L. Bushman, “Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism.” My attempts to access the referenced pages in the book failed and for reason which will I cover at the end of this exploration, I will not purchase any book by Bushman, who incidentally is also a major editor of the Joseph Smith Papers project and whose writings are frequently cited in “Saints”.
I also found in the topic essay a reference to the claim that the seer stone was also called Urim and thumim which stated; “For example, when Joseph Smith showed a seer stone to Wilford Woodruff in late 1841, Woodruff recorded in his journal: “I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM.” (Wilford Woodruff journal, Dec. 27, 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.) See also Doctrine and Covenants 130:10.
However reviewing the cited source reveals the following. There is no mention in his journal of a seer stone or a hat, nor did Elder Woodruff state in what form he saw what he called Urim and Thummim, nor were the circumstances under which it was revealed provided. Here is the journal entry in its entirety.
“Wilford Woodruff. December 27, 1841: The Twelve or a part of them spent the day with Joseph the Seer and he unfolded unto them many glorious things of the kingdom of God, the privileges and blessings of the priesthood, etc. I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the Urim and Thummim.”
The “See also” note to D & C 130:10, attached to the Woodruff claim, can be distinguished from the seer stone claimed by the historians in three ways. Reading the scripture in context reveals that; 1. That Stone is white, not dark, (which whiteness can also refer to pure or clear and bright). 2. That stone is tied inseparably to the new name. 3. That stone is ONLY issued to the recipient when they enter the Celestial Kingdom. This scripture actually has no relevance to the stone in the hat issue.
1 (2) Source 2 of reference 1 is “Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 15, in JSP, H1:284 (draft 2);” That source can be accessed online and mentions only Urim and Thummim stating nothing about a seer stone or hat.
1 (3) Source 3 of reference 1 is “Oliver Cowdery to William W. Phelps, Sept. 7, 1834, LDS Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14” which can also be referenced online and which also mentions the Urim and Thummin and importantly refers to them as the Nephite interpreters (plural). Again, no mention of stone or hat.
1 (4) Source 4 is from a testament of Emma Smith which I will mention later.
1 (5) Source 5 is a clearly Anti-Mormon publication, which makes me wonder why it would even be cited as a source of truth concerning the issue of seer stones. One need only read it to know it is spurious, yet is it still cited as a “credible” source by so called scholars? Even more bizarre is that while it does in fact mention Joseph using a hat in translation, it does not mention a seer stone, but rather claims he put “spectacles” in the hat, A kind of morphing of the Urim and Thummim and the hat story. .....Amazing!
A word about Richard Bushman: While I was not able to gain access to his books in my research, the internet is filled with resources that reveal the nature of his character and credibility. My research suggests that he truly fits the mold of others within the church whose much learning leaves their writings devoid of the spirit. He provides to me a classic example of the truth of 2 Nephi 9:28. He is among those who infer that reliance on the spirit leads to naïve faith, while relaying on the arm of the flesh and scholarly achievement forms the foundations of mature faith. What’s more he has supported and published pieces in “Sunstone Magazine” which I have come to know by personal revelation is an apostate magazine and organization. For those reasons I will not purchase his books and can readily reject him as a credible source of history.
Finally, my research into this issue from other sources and at other times reveals that the actual story of the stone in the hat comes mainly from Emma Smith and David Whitmer. However, both accounts were written many decades after the events allegedly occurred, both are written by persons who were estranged from the church when they wrote them, and who were still dealing with personal apostasy. I recommend to anyone who yearns to give credibility to their claims, to first read the sources (David’s letter and Emma’s Testament) of those claims in their entirety, not just the parts about the stone and hat. By so doing one may see the bias and understand the rancor that still lived in the hearts of the claimants. Their claims may then be rejected on the grounds of extreme bias.
Conclusion: The claim of the stone in the hat are unsupported by any credible evidence and inconsistent with revealed truth and so can be set aside. Next stop….Far West Missouri and the Dreaded Danites.......