Others, such as W.W. Phelps, sought to explain the Urim and Thummim to his readers by linking it to the biblical references, which describe a much different object.
Beyond the Nephite interpreters, the Book of Mormon contains additional references to seer stones, reinforcing their divine role in revelatory work. In Alma 37:23, a servant of the Lord named Gazelem is described as using a “stone” to bring hidden works of darkness to light, mirroring the role of seer stones in revealing God’s will.
The text never mentions any "seer stone(s)." Alma 37 refers to "interpreters" twice, but those references are a change to the text, made in 1920. In all the editions Joseph Smith produced and edited, the text referred instead to "directors," the same term used in D&C 17:3 to refer to the Liahona.
Nothing in Alma 37 refers specifically to translation. This leads to a range of possible interpretations. For example, when put in context, the "stone" in Alma 37:23 appears to be part of the directors (Liahona), which would shine forth in the darkness of the device to point the way to the records to which Alma was referring.
While interpretations vary, some Latter-day Saints have seen Gazelem as either a prophetic title or a direct reference to Joseph Smith himself.
Another interpretation is that Gazelem is the name of the stone in the Liahona.
Additionally, Ether 3:1-6 recounts how the brother of Jared, under divine instruction, prepared sixteen stones, which were touched by the Lord to provide light in the Jaredite barges. Later in the same chapter (Ether 3:23-28), God instructs the brother of Jared to seal up two of these stones with his record so that they may aid future generations in translation and revelation—paralleling the role of the interpreters given to Joseph Smith.
This is a good point because the passage refers specifically to translation.
These Book of Mormon accounts suggest a broader pattern of God using stones as sacred instruments of revelation (compare also Abraham 3:1, 4). Rather than being a peculiar or superstitious aspect of early 19th-century culture, Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones aligns with scriptural precedent and reinforces the divine authenticity of his prophetic calling. The translation process, as described by firsthand witnesses, points to an act of divine revelation, further supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
In this paragraph, Smoot has framed the Urim and Thummim as "seer stones," contrary to the name and description that Joseph and Oliver always gave.
Joseph Smith's Seer Stones
In addition to the Nephite interpreters, historical accounts indicate that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone he had previously discovered during his teenage years. Before his prophetic calling, Joseph had a reputation as a "village seer" in his rural New York community.
Joseph's "reputation" was related by his critics years later.
Like others in his time who believed in folk traditions, he sometimes used seer stones to search for lost objects and buried treasure.
Joseph and Oliver both addressed this claim by ridiculing it.
This practice reflected a widespread belief in the supernatural and the idea that certain individuals had spiritual gifts to perceive hidden things. While some saw this as superstition, and his enemies used it to cast doubt on his credibility, from a faithful perspective, we can recognize that Joseph’s experiences as a village seer helped prepare him for his later role as a prophet.
That's an assumption and inference, just one of many.
The spiritual gifts he practiced as a young man—seeking hidden knowledge through divine means—would later be refined and magnified when he was called to translate the Book of Mormon and receive revelation for the Church.
More assumption and inference, stated as facts.
Joseph never denied being a "money digger" in his youth, but over time, he moved away from folk practices and relied more directly on divine communication through priesthood authority and the Holy Spirit.
This is all that Joseph actually wrote about this topic:
Question 10th. Was not Jo Smith a money digger?
Answer. Yes, but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.
(Elders’ Journal I.3:43 ¶13–14)
How Did Joseph Smith Use Seer Stones?
In addition to using the Nephite interpreters, accounts from witnesses of the translation—including Emma Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and others—describe Joseph sometimes placing a seer stone in a hat to block out external light and then dictating the text of the Book of Mormon to his scribes.
These SITH accounts came long after Joseph and Oliver were dead and thus had no way to correct or refute them. But the SITH narrative was articulated in Mormonism Unvailed, which Joseph and Oliver specifically did refute.
Some of these witnesses reported that words would appear to Joseph, which he would read aloud. It is sometimes difficult to disentangle when Joseph was using which translation device, because our accounts aren't always consistent.
To the contrary, Joseph, Oliver and John Whitmer were always consistent. The accounts from David, Emma, and Martin were inconsistent and contradictory.
While we do not know all the details of how the Lord’s power worked through this process, we do know that Joseph’s ability to translate did not depend on conventional scholarship, linguistic training, or any known earthly method. The translation came through revelation, just as Joseph always testified.
Definitely not conventional scholarship, but Joseph said he copied the characters and translated them, indicating that he did learn the language.
Why Did Joseph Use Seer Stones?
Throughout the Bible, God often used physical objects to help His prophets receive revelation and accomplish His purposes. When Moses was called to lead Israel, God endowed his staff with divine power, enabling it to turn into a serpent, part the Red Sea, and bring forth water from a rock (Exodus 4:1–5, 14:16, Numbers 20:11). The high priest of Israel used the Urim and Thummim, sacred stones placed in the breastplate of judgment, to receive divine guidance in making important decisions (Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, 1 Samuel 28:6). The Ark of the Covenant (basically a wooden box), which housed sacred relics including the stone tablets of the law, symbolized God's presence and was instrumental in Israel’s victories and covenant relationship with the Lord (Exodus 25:21-22, Joshua 3:13).
All of this is irrelevant.
In the New Testament, Jesus used physical means in miraculous healings, such as applying mud to a blind man’s eyes to restore his sight (John 9:6-7) and allowing a woman to be healed simply by touching the hem of His garment (Mark 5:27-29). Even lots—probably small sticks or dice—were cast to discern God’s will, as seen when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). These biblical examples demonstrate that God often works through tangible objects to reveal His power, guide His servants, and accomplish His divine purposes.
The examples are interesting but irrelevant.
Joseph’s use of seer stones fits within this biblical pattern—God provided Joseph tangible instruments to assist in His work. While Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones might seem unusual to us today, it was part of his early revelatory experiences and was a method the Lord used to help bring forth the Book of Mormon.
Again, Smoot glides right past the Urim and Thummim narrative by substituting the term "seer stones."
Beware of Conspiracy Theories
Some individuals, often motivated by a desire to defend Joseph Smith, promote conspiracy theories claiming that he never used seer stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon.
It's not a "conspiracy theory" to read all the historical references and realize that Joseph and Oliver were consistent and excluded any use of a translation device other than the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, having been prepared by the Lord for that specific purpose. Notice that in this piece, Smoot never quotes what Joseph and Oliver said, apart from an out-of-context excerpt.
These claims contradict overwhelming historical evidence from firsthand witnesses, including faithful believers like Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, who all testified that Joseph used seer stones during the translation process.
First, the evidence Smoot cites is hardly "overwhelming." It consists of statements by three people, decades after the fact, that are all untrustworthy for various reasons.
The famous Martin Harris quotation--the only one that mentions seer stones--was not published until years after his death and was recorded by only one person out of the dozens who spoke with Harris.
Emma left two statements, a letter and an interview. The letter is a response to an unknown question and in the letter Emma explains her memory was inadequate to answer simple questions and that she would need to refer back to the Times and Seasons to refresh her recollection. The interview was conducted by her son, Joseph Smith III, who later ignored her statements about the translation when he rejected David Whitmer's SITH accounts. Numerous witnesses claimed that the parts of Emma's letter regarding plural marriage were outright lies, and Brigham Young said Emma was a liar.
David Whitmer's accounts contain a variety of claims. He was never a scribe and said he was not around for most of the translation. His accounts are self-contradictory, likely because he was relating hearsay. He apparently coordinated his testimony with Emma to refute the Spalding theory that predominated the media of his day; i.e., the Spalding theory had Joseph reading the text from behind a curtain or "vail," so David and Emma insisted Joseph had nothing between himself and his scribes, with the plates covered up during the "translation," contrary to what Martin Harris and others claimed.
It is not a "conspiracy" to compare the credibility of these witness statements with the formally published, specific and unambiguous statements from Joseph and Oliver.
Denying this part of history does not protect faith—it actually weakens it by creating an unrealistic version of Joseph Smith that cannot be sustained when people encounter primary sources.
It's not a question of "denying this part of history" but of assessing the credibility and reliability of the various accounts. Smoot is free to elevate the SITH witnesses above Joseph and Oliver, but everyone should start by laying out all the facts, and they spelling out their respective assumptions, inferences, theories, etc.
Instead, Smoot lays out his assumptions and inferences as if they were facts and omits facts that contradict his theories.
Importantly, the Church has openly acknowledged Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones, emphasizing that they were an integral part of the translation process. This is reflected in official Church publications such as the Saints series, Revelations in Context, and the Gospel Topics essays, which provide well-documented historical narratives that affirm Joseph’s use of both the Nephite interpreters and his personal seer stone.
The Church's policy of transparency has led to the open acknowledgement of the historical sources about the seer stone, but that's different from claiming that those sources were correct and Joseph and Oliver were wrong.
For example, the Church has not accepted Royal Skousen's conclusion, which follows directly from Smoot's approach, that "Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."
The Saints series, Revelations in Context, and the Gospel Topics essays are examples of transparency--to a point. They were all written by scholars who chose not to include what Joseph and Oliver said, in context, but who chose to include what the SITH sources stated without assessing their credibility, reliability, etc. That's all fine, because what Joseph and Oliver said are readily available outside these materials, such as in the Joseph Smith Papers, for everyone to see.
But it's up to each Latter-day Saint to read these reference materials, along with the authentic historical documents from Joseph and Oliver, to make informed decisions.
No Church leader has ever asked Latter-day Saints to defer to the opinions, interpretations, assumptions, inferences, or theories of scholars, nor has any Church leader ever asked Latter-day Saints to delegate responsibility for their own beliefs to any scholar.
Certainly no missionary should blindly accept the theories of scholars. Instead, missionaries should rely on the scriptures, authentic historical references, and the teachings of the prophets.
In 2015, the Church even published photographs of one of Joseph Smith’s seer stones, further demonstrating transparency on this topic.
Transparency is the driving force behind these historical presentations. But the scholars who promote SITH oppose transparency, as we've seen in this very article by Smoot. Regarding the seer stone photograph, the scholars assume the chain of custody of that stone is solid, but in actuality it is murky and controversial. Again, that is all fine, so long as it is presented with transparency.
Church leaders today consistently recognize and teach that Joseph Smith received revelation through various means, including seer stones, and that these methods align with scriptural patterns of divine communication.
To frame this as "recognizing" Joseph Smith used seer stones is an implicit declaration that this was a historical fact, which of course is unknowable.
That Joseph may have used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon is one of multiple working hypotheses that candor and transparency recognize, but it is still up to each Latter-day Saint to make an informed decision based on all the available facts, rather than to delegate that responsibility to Smoot or other scholars.
Rather than fearing the reality of how Joseph translated, and instead of retrenching fundamentalist assumptions about how we think prophets ought to act, we should embrace the fact that God worked through him in miraculous ways, even if those ways are different from what we might expect today.
This pejorative framing demonstrates a lack of scholarly analysis. It also demonstrates Smoot's firm conviction that he is the one who knows "the reality of how Joseph translated," which reality (in his mind) requires rejecting that Joseph and Oliver said, as Royal Skousen has.
The legitimate question is whether, and to what extent, we believe and accept what Joseph and Oliver said vs. what others claimed.
A strong testimony is built on truth, not revisionism.
A deeply ironic statement, given that Smoot's SITH narrative is entirely revisionist history, changing the translation narrative from how Joseph and Oliver related it and how it was presented by their contemporaries and successors in Church leadership.
When we honestly acknowledge the historical record, we strengthen faith by showing that Joseph did not need deception or secrecy—he simply acted as an instrument in the Lord’s hands.
Another ironic statement, given that Smoot embraces the Skousen explanation that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone, that Smoot offered merely a truncated, misleading excerpt from what Joseph and Oliver said, and that Smoot refused to share what they actually said about the translation, in context.
The Book of Mormon remains the miraculous, inspired word of God, and its truthfulness is confirmed not by avoiding historical realities but by seeking a spiritual witness through study, prayer, and the Holy Ghost.
This axiomatic sentiment, which every faithful Latter-day Saint accepts, does not cure the defects in Smoot's reasoning and rhetoric.
Don’t Accept the Skeptical Framing
On the other hand, critics often frame Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones as either fraudulent or superstitious, as though he was either a deliberate con man or a credulous fool. But we don’t have to accept that skeptical perspective either.
And yet, Smoot, like Skousen, concludes that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone by claiming Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates instead of the seer stone Joseph found in a well.
Throughout history, religious figures have received divine revelation through methods that may seem unusual to later generations, yet those methods do not diminish the legitimacy of their experiences. Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon actually strengthens its authenticity, as it precludes the idea that he was secretly reading from notes, manuscripts, or other sources.
This is the rationale that David and Emma used to describe SITH instead of adhering to what Joseph and Oliver always said.
Witnesses consistently described Joseph dictating for hours at a time as he looked at the translation instruments—the Nephite interpreters or a seer stone—without referring to any written materials.
Here, Smoot deflects attention from the reality that the SITH witnesses he believes rejected what he just wrote. Emma and David adamantly insisted Joseph did not use the Nephite interpreters. David insists Joseph didn't even have them after he lost the 116 pages. But Smoot's lack of transparency leaves his readers ignorant of the inherent conflict in his argument.
Even more remarkably, he could resume dictation exactly where he left off without having previous sections read back to him, something that would be highly difficult if he were composing the text himself.
This is a good point, not because it has anything to do with a "seer stone" but because if Joseph was translating the engravings on the plates (as the Lord instructed him), he would naturally know exactly where he left off.
If Joseph had been fabricating the Book of Mormon through conventional means, he would have required extensive reference materials, outlines, or drafts to keep track of the complex narrative, dozens of named individuals, intricate doctrinal discussions, and long, structured sermons.
This might be effective apologetics for some, but this exaggeration "protests too much," as others have shown.
Yet no such preparatory documents exist, nor did witnesses ever report seeing him consult anything apart from the translation instrument.
Here Smoot simply adopts the SITH narrative from Mormonism Unvailed; i.e., that the "plates were of no use" because Joseph just read words that appeared on the stone in the hat. Obviously this contradicts the Lord's instruction to translate the engravings on the plate, as well as the entire narrative about the Urim and Thummim, the difference between the abridged plates and the plates of Nephi, etc.
Besides, it's axiomatic that the SITH witnesses did not report Joseph consulting any "preparatory documents." This type of circular reasoning is ineffective apologetics.
Moreover, the translation process moved at an extraordinary pace—an entire book of over 500 pages dictated in roughly three months—something unheard of in the production of literature, particularly from someone with Joseph’s limited formal education.
David Whitmer said it took eight months, which Joseph's own account corroborates, but some LDS apologists seem to think it is more impressive the shorter the time it took, so they disregard what David and Joseph said on this topic.
The dictation method also lacked the hallmarks of fraud or careful literary construction. Unlike authors or hoaxers who revise, backtrack, and refine their wording, Joseph dictated straight through, with no major revisions, producing a text rich in literary complexity, internal consistency, and theological depth.
This might be a good point, but I don't know of any "hoaxers" who revise, backtrack, etc. Of course, critics say Joseph was reading a separate manuscript, in which case this argument is irrelevant. I believe that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates, so I find the point persuasive, but I can see how it appears ridiculous to others.
Rather than being an argument against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s use of seer stones actually highlights the miraculous nature of its translation.
This is an amazing argument: rejecting what Joseph and Oliver said makes the whole process even more miraculous. In my view, making Joseph and Oliver out as deceivers undermines the whole process, but everyone can decide for themselves.
The firsthand testimonies of those who observed the process align with Joseph’s own declaration that the book was brought forth “by the gift and power of God.”
Once again, Smoot trots out the misleading excerpt without even acknowledging the Urim and Thummim--especially the accounts of Joseph and Oliver describing the translation by referring to the Urim and Thummim without mentioning "the gift and power of God."
To portray Emma and David as giving "firsthand testimonies" is merely an assumption that what they observed was the actual translation, that they did not have any ulterior motives, and that they were not influenced by one another or by Mormonism Unvailed or other SITH accounts.
When we take the historical evidence seriously, the translation process is not an obstacle to faith but rather a profound witness that Joseph Smith was not composing the Book of Mormon—he was receiving it.
Every Latter-day Saint who "takes the historical evidence seriously" does two things that Smoot and his fellow SITH scholars continually refuse to do, as shown in this very piece:
