It has become more widely known that Joseph Smith had seer stones and used them to receive revelations and to aid with the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, the historical records are inconsistent and sparse when describing Joseph Smith’s seer stones or his use of them, so scholars have had to glean information by comparing trustworty as well as untrustworthy sources, which together are used to make various assumptions regarding these stones.
Several scholars have written about this subject, so this post will only contain a brief overview together with a list of sources that you can read to obtain more information. The sources I cite are the product of extensive research and contain the best evidence that exists regarding Joseph’s seer stones, and are much better references than this brief overview. In later posts, I will talk more about Joseph’s use of the seer stones, and my thoughts about the stones.
Use historical empathy when evaluating Joseph’s seer stones
In our current society, the term “magic” is used primarily for entertainment. So when we hear about Joseph Smith receiving “revelations” by using a rock, it sounds strange at best, and fraudulent at worst. But as I have discussed at length in prior posts,1 we need to practice historical empathy. In early 19th century frontier America, the use of a seer stone was not a strange occurrence. One author has researched records throughout Palmyra, and has discovered that from 1820 to 1827, there were at least 8 individuals who resided in Palmyra (not including Joseph Smith) and claimed to own and use seer stones, including Luman Walters, William Stafford, Joshua Stafford, John Stafford, Willard Chase, Lucy Chase, Jack Belcher, and Samuel Lawrence.2 That is a significant number of people, especially for such a small community.
Empathy for another person’s belief needs to be practiced not only for those in the past, but in our current society. A professor at Brigham Young University has written there are those who continue to not only believe in, but to use divining rods to find sources of water:
“The presumption that the difference between magic and proper belief is something intrinsic rather than relational to the definer is still very much alive. But on close analysis, complex definitions distinguishing ‘magical’ from ‘modern’ thinking rarely amount to more than ‘What you do is superstition, while what I do is science or true religion.’ One of the biggest surprises rural students have in American university folklore courses, including at BYU, is discovering their suburban peers need to be taught what divining rods are and how to use them. Today, regardless of class, race, education, wealth, region, or religion, rural students tend to know of holding a forked stick gently in one’s hand to feel for the downward tug that points to underground water and a good spot for a well. Dowsing seems not only understandable, but essential, in rural areas where families are on their own to secure water, and where hired well drillers make no guarantees and charge by the foot. City kids are shocked that their country classmates could be such shameless occult dabblers in a modern age where you don’t have to think about where water comes from. You just turn on the tap and out it comes—like magic. My rural LDS students don’t understand why their suburban counterparts have so little respect for or belief in a common spiritual gift often displayed by their educated and reasonable bishops and stake presidents.”3
So as you learn about Joseph’s use of a seer stone, before passing any kind of judgment (good or bad), conduct your own investigation into his society and try to understand how seer stones were perceived in his day.4
Overview of the seer stones
Scholars have conducted significant research to gain insights into Joseph’s use of the seer stones. The Joseph Smith Papers website has a glossary with “Seer Stone” as a topic that briefly discusses the seer stone, and includes references to all the sources. The text is quoted in full:
“A special stone used for seeing visions and aiding translation. According to a European tradition of folk belief reaching back at least into the middle ages, quartz crystals or other stones could be used to find missing objects or to see other things not visible to the natural eye. This practice accompanied European immigrants to North America and was part of JS’s cultural environment in western New York in the 1820s, though by then the practice was waning. In his youth, JS occasionally used seer stones to help neighbors find missing objects or search for buried treasure. By 1826, JS had at least two seer stones, and according to Brigham Young he eventually had five seer stones. According to JS, in 1823 an angelic messenger revealed to him the location of gold plates and an instrument with which to translate them. This instrument consisted of ‘two stones in silver bows’ that had been used by ‘seers in ancient times.’ The Book of Mormon itself referred to ‘interpreters’ that were to be kept with the plates. JS explained that he used the pair of stones found with the plates in his translation of the Book of Mormon. Eyewitnesses reported that he also translated using a dark brown seer stone placed in a hat to exclude exterior light and that he used a seer stone for many of his early revelations. JS referred to the pair of stones found with the plates as ‘spectacles,’ and he later referred to these stones and his other seer stones with the term ‘Urim and Thummim,’ the name of the instrument used by the high priest of Israel in the Bible. In 1830, JS apparently began dictating most of his revelations without the aid of a seer stone.”5
Descriptions of the seer stones
There were three primary seer stones owned and used by Joseph Smith that are desribed in the historical records: a brown stone, a white stone, and the Urim and Thummim (or the “Nephite interpreters” or the “spectacles”). 6 The Urim and Thummim were found by Joseph along with the gold plates, which he described as “two stones in silver bows . . . fastened to a breastplate.”7
“[T]he brown stone . . . now rests with the First Presidency in the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City and was recently photographed and published by the Church History Department and the Joseph Smith Papers Project. . . . Only a few accounts of the brown stone accurately describe what was depicted in the photograph. Making things even more difficult is the fat that when Joseph Smith’s seer stones are described in early records, the brown stone is not distinguished from the white stone. Either those who left records of the stone did not know that theere were two stones or they neglected to distinguish between them.”8
“Sources suggest that Joseph Smith possessed a white seer stone in the 1820s. . . . [T]he Nauvoo Apostles remember him showing them his seer stone, and they imply that he may have been using it in some way. Joseph showed [Wilford] Woodruff his white stone in 1841, years before Woodruff ever saw the brown stone. . . . On 27 December 1841, Wilford Woodruff wrote that Joseph showed him his seer stone at a meeting with the Quorum o the Twelve Apostles. . . . Joseph also showed the white stone to the Twelve Apostles when they met together, followed by a speech that described the white stone as his own personal stone.”9
What were the seer stones?
What were these stones? What were the differences between the brown stone, the white stone, and the Urim and Thummim? Early records don’t often distingish between these three different instruments, with some using the term “stone” or “Urim and Thummim” interchangeably.
“[H]istorical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as ‘interpreters,’ Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. According to Joseph’s contemporaries, he did this in order to better view the words on the stone.
“By 1833, Joseph Smith and his associates began using the biblical term ‘Urim and Thummim’ to refer to any stones used to receive divine revelations, including both the Nephite interpreters and the single seer stone. This imprecise terminology has complicated attempts to reconstruct the exact method by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. In addition to using the interpreters, according to Martin Harris, Joseph also used one of his seer stones for convenience during the Book of Mormon translation. Other sources corroborate Joseph’s changing translation instruments.”10
“In sifting through the accounts of the [Book of Mormon] translation, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain which instrument is being referenced due to both the spectacles and the single seer stone being referred to as the Urim and Thummim. . . . Joseph originally called the device found with the plates ‘spectacles’ (the Nephite interpreters), a term also used in his 1832 history. Though the term Urim and Thummim may have become part of their jargon or lexis as early as 1830 when Joseph began translating the Bible, it was likely not until later that consistent usage of the term began. It appears that the term was in use by January 1833, as the Evening and the Morning Star printer wrote, ‘[The Book of Mormon] was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).’ Both the interpreters and the single stone apparently functioned in the same way and both were used to translate the Book of Mormon.”11
How did Joseph find his seer stones?
In Joseph’s history he talks about finding the Urim and Thummim with the plates,12 but it is challenging to verify legitimate historical information regarding the origination of the other two stones.
“Brigham Young declared in 1859 that Joseph Smith found his first stone by gazing into someone else’s seer stone. Wilford Woodruff recorded him saying that ‘the seer stone which Joseph Smith first obtained . . . he got it while looking in another seer[‘]s stone which a person had.'”13
“Even more common than the accounts of Joseph finding his seer stone through the use of another seer’s stone are the accounts of Joseph Smith retrieving his seer stone while digging for buried treasure or while digging a well. Most accounts from local residents seem to assume that Joseph Smith only had one seer stone and so there was only one origin story for his seer stone. Attempting to tease apart the origin stories and identify each stone with a particular retrieval narrative, Mark Ashurst-McGee has assumed that details from overlapping stories are in fact separate stories. This move enables him to argue that Joseph Smith began with a divining rod and then progressively advanced from one seer stone to the next in a hierarchical teleological movement. According to Ashurst-McGee, the final stone, a white stone, was found on the property of Joseph’s neighbor, buried over a dozen fee in the ground. Other researchers argue that the white stone was found near Lake Erie, identified while peering into another seer’s stone, as described above.”14
Eliza R. Snow said in 1881: “The Prophet Joseph Smith had a Peepstone (called in the Book of Doc. & Covenants Gaslum15) that he got by digging in a Ladies Garden 25 feet down in the Ground. The Lord Reviled to Joseph that such a stone was 25 feet down in the Ground but he (J. Smith) did not know how to get it; but he went to the Lady there owned the Garden and asked her if she did not wish to have a Well dug in her Garden, she said yes, . . . the Prophet found the Peepstone 25 feet down.”16
Martin Harris tested the seer stone
Martin Harris served as a scribe for Joseph early in the translation of the Book of Mormon, before the loss of the 116 manuscript pages. Martin seemed desperate to have proof of the divinity of the work. During the translation he had seen Joseph use the seer stone in the translation (which I will discuss in a later post), and he found an opportunity to test the legitimacy of Joseph’s claim that he was translating by revelation:
“Martin said that after extended periods of translation, the pair would become weary and take a break down by the river where they could ‘exercise by throwing stones out on the water’ [skipping on the surface]. On one such occasion Martin explained that he found a stone that closely resembled the one being used in the translation process. On returning to their labors Martin substituted the new stone for the old and awaited the reaction. He observed, ‘The Prophet remained silent unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing.’ Greatly surprised at the result, the Prophet exclaimed, ‘Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt.’ At this point ‘Martin’s countenance betrayed him,’ causing Joseph to inquire why he had acted in this fashion. Martin replied, ‘To stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them.'”17
Joseph stopped using the seer stone
Orson Pratt was the brother of early convert Parley P. Pratt. He was baptized as a 19-year-old in 1830, and later became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.18 He had two particular experiences in observing Joseph with and without the seer stone. These experiences demonstrate that Joseph eventually grew out of the need to use the stones for revelation.
“Orson Pratt was baptized by his older brother Parley on 19 September 1830, Orson’s nineteenth birthday, in Canaan, New York. In October he traveled over two hundred miles to Fayette Township, New York, to meet JS. He arrived just after Parley and several others had been called by revelation ‘to go forth unto the Lamanites, to proclaim glad tidings of great joy unto them, by presenting unto them the fulness of the Gospel.’ Orson Pratt later explained that he too wanted to know his duty and requested that JS ‘inquire of the Lord’ for him. . . . ‘Joseph answered him that he would see, & asked Pratt and John Whitmer to go upstairs with him, and on arriving there Joseph produced a small stone called a seer stone, and putting it into a Hat soon commenced speaking and asked Elder P[ratt] to write as he would speak, but being too young and timid and feeling his unworthiness he asked whether Bro. John W[hitmer] could not write it, and the Prophet said that he could: Then came the revelation.’19 The revelation is now published as Doctrine and Covenants 34, given November 4, 1830.
Years later, Orson Pratt recounted that he observed Joseph working on the translation of the Bible without using any interpreters:
Orson had been “present many times when [Joseph] was translating the New Testament, and wondered why he did not use the Urim and Thummim, as in translating the Book of Mormon. While this thought passed through [Orson’s] mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit, and did not need the assistance of that instrument.”20
Sources with significant historical information
Church’s website, Church History Topics, “Seer Stones,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/seer-stones?lang=eng
Joseph Smith Papers Website, Glossary, “Seer Stone,” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/seer-stone
Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 2016, https://rsc.byu.edu/book/joseph-smiths-seer-stones
Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer,” Ensign, October, 2015, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng
References
- “Did the Church Lie to Me?” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/did-the-church-lie-to-me/. ↩︎
- Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 2016, 8-9. ↩︎
- Eric A. Eliason, “Seer Stones, Salamanders, and Early Mormon ‘Folk Magic’ in the Light of Folklore Studies and Bible Scholarship,” BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2016, 82, https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/seer-stones-salamanders-and-early-mormon-folk-magic-in-the-light-of-folklore-studies-and-bible-scholarship/#footnote-059. ↩︎
- I recognize that the thought of using a stone to receive revelation may be troubling, even if it was common in Joseph Smith’s day. The purpose of this post is just to provide historical background regarding Joseph Smith’s seer stones, and I will address my thoughts on how the relationship between the seer stones and revelation in a later post. ↩︎
- “Seer Stone,” Joseph Smith Papers Website, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/seer-stone. ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 29. ↩︎
- Joseph Smith-History 1:35. ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 66. ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 79. ↩︎
- Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer,” Ensign, October, 2015, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng. ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 59. ↩︎
- Joseph Smith-History 1:52, “Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.” ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 31. ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 37. ↩︎
- Alma 37:23 (“And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”) ↩︎
- MacKay, “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones,” 39. ↩︎
- Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, “Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies, Kindle Edition, 146, https://byustudies.byu.edu/product/martin-harris-uncompromising-witness-of-the-book-of-mormon/. ↩︎
- “Orson Pratt,” Doctrine and Covenants Historical Resources, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/doctrine-and-covenants-historical-resources/people/bio-orson-pratt?lang=eng. ↩︎
- Revelation, 4 November 1830 [D&C 34], p. 45, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed October 2, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-4-november-1830-dc-34/1#historical-intro. ↩︎
- Millennial Star; 1871-1880 (Volumes 33-42); 1874 (Volume 36); 1874 August 11 (No. 32); Church History Library, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/76df9f39-1d1a-4b7c-846b-72d7cdfcc3de/0/1 (accessed: October 2, 2023). ↩︎
I’ve read a few of your articles, but so far this one is the most interesting to me – especially because of the section on “historical empathy.”
I think this train of thought is very dangerous and, dare I say, evil. I am not sure if it is considered a fallacy, but I would definitely treat it as one. My big problem with it is, how do you apply historical empathy? If you apply it in one place, you pretty much need to apply it across the board. I also think that in this particular case, historical empathy might be confused with moral empathy.
I say that this train of thought is evil, because applying it in the case of Joseph Smith means that you need to apply it to other historical figures as well. A simple example of this that I can think of is applying it to Hitler. As a young man, he had a bad experience with someone who is Jewish, and so did a few other people in his circle and community. You can thus say that you empathize with his intense hatred of the Jewish people, because his relatively small community at the start had multiple people who felt the same way – so they must have been right! But no, this is a bad excuse for even worse behaviour.
I could also compare it to the present day with the way that your article is written. Lets say that you have to defend a drug dealer in court. You could defend that because he lived in a town with a population of 2000 people, where there is at least 20 drug dealers, that because of the large amount of drug dealers that it must have been socially acceptable in the town at the time that he was dealing drugs. With that I just socially and morally justified him being a drug dealer, by using historical empathy.
Just because there were common held beliefs or practices, it does not mean that you should empathize with them. Especially not in the case of Joseph Smith. There are times where I absolutely can see empathy in this case, but with the history as it is, it is impossible for me. Remember, that these people, including Joseph Smith, had access to Bibles, and religious teachings. They were knowingly taking part in something that is not only morally incorrect, but Biblically incorrect as well. If they were completely oblivious to and about the Bible, or about the teachings thereof, I would argue that you can empathize with them. They definitely had Bibles, they definitely grew up in religious environments and circumstances, and were still doing what is wrong. This deserves criticism for weak character in this case, not empathy.
I am by no means a scholar or academic writer, but I feel strongly about moral character. I can’t excuse bad behaviour just because many people do it. Just because a lot of people are using drugs, it doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Same with divination and fortune telling. My grandmother used to ask. “If everyone jumps off of a bridge, would you too?”
Ralph, thank you for your comment. I appreciate you reading the articles, and I also appreciate how you responded. It can be common in these types of discussions to comment on the author rather than the article, and I’m grateful that you chose the latter. I know there are many differences of opinions on these topics, so thank you for focusing on the topic.
I think we have a difference of opinion on the meaning of “empathy.” In the context of discussing “historical empathy,” I am simply trying to understand. I agree with your focus on moral character, and I don’t believe that empathy should be used to justify or excuse behavior. I don’t know if you’ve read many of my articles, but I have mentioned that I’m an attorney, so your example of defending a drug dealer is particularly relevant to me. But I see empathy differently than how it’s presented in your example. “Empathy” in that circumstance would simply be an attempt to understand the person, it would not be a legal defense. In other words, if a drug dealer is on trial, the judge or jury wouldn’t look at his social circumstances as a reason to not convict him. So in that context, I agree with you: in trying to understand others, we are not looking to excuse or justify behavior. But there is nevertheless value in trying to understand them.
Your example of Hitler is also relevant. Certainly, there is no justification or excuse for his atrocities. But there are many who have tried to understand why he did what he did. For example, the website for the Anne Frank House contains an article titled “Why did Hitler hate the jews?” https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/why-did-hitler-hate-jews/. Certainly, the Anne Frank House would not want to justify what Hitler did, but there is value in simply trying to understand. That article, written by the Anne Frank House, is a perfect example of historical empathy.
Empathy doesn’t mean we agree. It just means we try to see the world from that person’s perspective: “Empathy is the ability to recognize, understand, and share the thoughts and feelings of another person, animal, or fictional character. Developing empathy is crucial for establishing relationships and behaving compassionately. It involves experiencing another person’s point of view, rather than just one’s own, and enables prosocial or helping behaviors that come from within, rather than being forced.” Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy. I find it interesting that Psychology Today would include “animals” or “fictional characters” in their definition of empathy. It seems to me that empathy is just trying to understand another person’s viewpoint, even if that is an animal or fictional character. Empathy means trying to step outside ourselves for just a bit and see the world as someone else does. It doesn’t mean that person is right, their behavior is justified, or that we agree with them. But there is value in trying to understand.
I believe empathy follows the teachings of Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” Luke 6:31-37.
Thank you for commenting. I would love to continue to engage with you on this and other topics.