Talk:Urim and Thummim

message: I think that's a relevant statement for this article. The beginning talks about the disagreements over what a Urim and Thummim is and that tells that Mormons believe a Urim and Thummim could be anything. It should stay. Cookiecaper 21:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the statement means. In the context of Mormonism, I've never heard the word ordination applied to an inanimate object. COGDEN 03:49, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
I understand the statement from a modern Christian standpoint - it means the object is set apart for that use - I also think the statement should remain in the article, as the Seer stone, the Book of Abraham Papryrus and other objects could be considered Urim and Thummim. -Visorstuff 21:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I guess what I don't understand is really the following: (1) The only Mormon theology I know about in which an object arguably made a transition from non-Urim and Thummim to Urim and Thummim was when the finger of God (actually Jesus) illuminated the Brother of Jared's stones, but that required not just selection and ordination, but also the physical touching of a diety's finger. (2) The statement seems to imply that in non-Mormon theology, something other than selection and ordination might be required in order for an object to become a Urim and Thummim. What is that? (3) I don't think enough Mormons even think about this subject for it to become a "Mormon belief". COGDEN 02:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
- - -
i dont know where and how to add it so this is my little info about אורים ותומים
it is said it was on the stones of the choan gadol was holding whice can be referd to the hoshen , whice have many diffrent color stones , it can be slippt over the years from כתום to תום and there for it was lost it's understanding, אורים ותומים was the color of the stones whice can be translate to orange and white , i belive most of the stones lost but those 2 was kept for some time and got it's diffrent perpose.
i learned it 20yrs ago from my h'idar. somone with more time need to check it out , cuz it will explain it's givan name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.70.66.13 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Presumably, in Mormon belief, no qualification other than God's selection and ordination is necessary for an item to become a Urim and Thummim."

message: No Bible translation I know states that the Urim and Thummim were used in selecting the replacement for Judas.  Every Bible I know says a lot, and it appears that lots were used all the time without being the Urim and the Thummim.  The last reference in the Old Testament appears to be waiting for the Urim and Thummim to reappear (Ezra and Nehemiah) which, to my knowledge, they never did.  I have never known anyone to contend that the apostles possessed the Urim and Thummim or to explain how they could have gotten them.
Document or withdraw.
Jdavidb 19:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I can't find any Bible translation that uses the words Urim and Thummim in Acts 1:24-26, and the idea that the Apostles had the original Urim and Thummim is historically doubtful. COGDEN 22:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Although I didn't write that part of the article, the context of this is as some type of lots that were cast. It is tradition (however reliable that is) that U&T were more of a divine name for the casting of lots. Therefore when matthias was chosen by the casting of lots, some feel that it was done by urim and thummin. Not by <I>the</I> urim and thummin. Perhaps User:Wesley has more information on this - someone want to ask him to discuss? My understanding is that some early Christian church fathers referred to the calling in this way. I think it has merit to keep in the article until decided upon. I don't think it is Mormon view that the twelve had stones call the U&T, but rather Christian tradition. Perhaps the article should be modified to contain a verb form. -Visorstuff 00:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathias 

message: Started looking at this again, and the article still states that the U&T "should be referred to as Urim and Thummim rather than 'the' Urim and Thummim."  It is not the job of Wikipedia to make this distinction.  This must be contextualized according to the principles of Wikipedia:NPOV.  In other words, we have to report that this is someone's particular conclusion, not that it is universally agreed upon fact (because it is not). Jdavidb 14:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather silly that the article states the Urim and Thummim should not be called "the" Urim and Thummim, and then goes on to give the Hebrew, which translates exactly to "THE Urim and THE Thummim."  (The ha- prefix on both words is the definite article.) Jdavidb 14:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still POV 

message: What does the Arabic language have to do with Mormonism? Kirbytime 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the name also given in Hebrew and Arabic? 

message: *Exodus 28:30
*Leviticus 8:8
*Deutoronomy 33:8
*Ezra 2:63
*Nehemiah 7:65
These are all from the Mormon translation of the Bible. It shouldn't be called "The Bible" when it's really referring to a small sect's version of the Bible. I'm going to change it to say Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Or maybe there should be a section on the dispute between the Joseph Smith Translation and contemporary translations. I'm going to change the heading of the subsection for now. Kirbytime 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thats not bull**** right there.  These are all directly from the King James Version of the Bible.  Do you own a bible?  Look them up for yourself if you don't believe me.  If you want to see the Joseph Smith Translation go to the following link JST. I used the mormon scriptures because the verses can be nicely highlighted.  If you think that Mormons are too NPOV, find a replacement.  I just looked and found that WikiSource has one at KJV, although, I can't get it to highlight the verse.  If you can, I agree that it would be more NPOV for the biblical passages. I feel links to the LDS scriptures for references in the Doctrine and Covenants should link straight to the official scriptures used by the LDS church on their website.Epachamo 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the KJV isn't good enough. I linked them to chabad.org, since those books are, after all, Jewish scriptures anyways. And upon further observation, that website clearly states: 
"TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK:
AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED,
BY HIS MAJESTY’S SPECIAL COMMAND
AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION
WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CROSS REFERENCES TO THE STANDARD WORKS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS"
Thus, those verses are changed to have a pro-Mormon slant. Which is why they were certainly not appropriate for a Wikpidia article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moses and Ezra weren't Jewish. Epachamo 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The verses have not been changed at all.  Just as in the Jewish scriptures, there are explanatory notes  and cross references by the sponsoring organization.  If you are still doubting that there is ANY change whatsoever, compare the two.  You won't grow horns I promise! I agree with your change however.  Epachamo 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit or no bullshit, anyone who is not thoroughly conversant with Biblical Hebrew should not be contributing edits to this article. I was fluent in Bib. Hebrew by age seven, and even I would hesitate in discussing one of the most esoteric terms found in the Bible.  KJV of 1611? Give me a break. Even the newest reputable translations, with the benefit of the foremost research in philology, Canaanite archaeology, Semitic linguistics, etc. reflect the point of view and styles of the translator(s). I happen to like the New English Bible (now the Revised English Bible), but the Hebrew it ain't. 66.108.4.183 16:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, now that two months has gone by, does everyone understand that the Mormons use the normal KJV with absolutely no edits? and that the edits listed above are referring to footnotes and concordances, not the verses themselves? and that said footnotes and concordances are made by those who are thoroughly conversant in Biblical Hebrew?  Okay, that should close this case. --Mrcolj 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ok, that's some bullshit right there 

message: Mormons claim to have used the Urim & Thummim in the translation of multiple of their texts, including the Book of Mormon.  Such is stated in the article.  Heath007 keeps adding a line saying basically "but of course this has been shown to be nothing like what the Hebrews actually used when they said they used the Urim & thummim."  Heath, you can't just write off an entire demographic that in the US is larger than Judaism.  Defend yourself here and quit reverting in your silly little line. --Mrcolj 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Mrcolj. On the contrary, recent symposia have shown many similarities between Smith's description and jewish legends about the Urim and Thummim. -Visorstuff 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the US Census, Jews outnumbered Latter Day Saints by ~600,000 in 2003.  - Heath007 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert War over anti-mormon hobbyist

message: I heard a lecture many years ago, in which the speaker referenced David Baron. The following points were made:
The names of the Tribes, engraved on the twelve stones, used 18 of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
The "Completions" were the other four letters, engraved on a 13th stone, set in a special pocket or setting. The opinion of some that the four rows of stones were aligned on the sides of a square, rather than four parallel rows, would admit a center setting for this stone.
The "Lights" were holes, probably thirteen in number, in a special lamp set inside the Breastplate, which was made of a folded rectangle and so was hollow. [I presume the settings of the stones were open at the back to admit light from behind.]
To get the opinion of God, the lamp was lighted, a question asked, and the flickering light would illuminate a stone or letter, indicating a tribe, or spelling out something.
The God of Israel could use many ways to communicate with people, as seen in many places throughout scripture. This was a means He inspired Moses to institute that He promised to honor, at least whenever it was used by the Kohen.
The failure of Saul to receive an answer from God, even by Urim, was misinterpreted by him; no answer is still an answer. God wanted Saul to ask a different question.
Well, that seems more logical to me than any other explanations I have encountered. Polymath07 14:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lights" and "Completions" as Accessories to the Breastplate 

message: Some feel that "Urim and Thummim" is another name for the casting of lots (or stones, etc.), rather than a device that is used as a medium. Because of this context, some traditions[citation needed] hold that the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot in the book of Acts by the casting of lot was done by Urim and Thummim, rather than by "the" Urim and Thummim. In either case, Urim and Thummim is not mentioned specifically in Biblical text in regard to this calling.
The above paragraph is cited to be a Christian view.  Christians believe that the 12 apostles did not hold the Aaronic Priesthood;  therefore, they would not have been able to use the Urim and Thummim.  I know that LDS believe that the apostles did hold the priesthood, and I am trying to determine if the casting of lots for Matthias is an LDS view or if it was just some unfounded statement. -  Heath007 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the above paragraph as too speculative without some citation.--John Foxe 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- Heath007 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, I was wondering this myself just this past weekend.  The KJV of Acts 1:26 says "they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias," but even still I was wondering what the arguments would be for or against that "giving forth lots" refers to the U&T.  The priesthood one is a good argument.  But does the Bible use "lots" to refer to things other than the Urim & Thummim?  I assume so, but does it in the Greek (edokan klerous in Acts 1:26) or Hebrew?  Is the "casting lots" here the same word as gambling for the Jesus' robes?  Anyway, I'd have fun discussing such if anyone's up for replying. --Mrcolj 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same word "klēros" (lots) is used in Acts and in the four gospels. -- Heath007 04:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Reference Regarding Matthias 

message: The article states that Thummim should be pronounced Tummim, which is correct. However the reason the article gives is that there is no θ in Hebrew, which is incorrect. There is no θ in Modern Hebrew, however Tav without a Dagesh would have been pronounced as θ in Biblical Hebrew. This is the change I'm making:
"It should be understood that there does not exist a /θ/ sound in Hebrew, so "Thummim" is really pronounced /tumim/" 
to
"It should be understood that "Thummim" is really pronounced /tumim/"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgp0012 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation of thummim 

message: The biblical reference that the Samaritans couldn't pronounce it correctly (from Judges).
The Urim and Thummim weren't imbued with special powers and they didn't speak to you. God told Samuel to annoint Saul king over Israel, but the lot was still drawn in the presence of the people, for all to see. 
No voices or special sights are noted in 1Samuel 10, as at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19.
Two stones are mounted on the ephod, each with the names of 6 tribes. (Exodus 28:9-14, 30)
David drew the lot 1Samuel 23:9-12. "He will" and "they will" can be inferred as simple affirmatives.
Saul wasn't answered by Urim since he was a Benjamite, and his "yes" would be on the other stone, the Thummim, when the names are put on in order of birth. Maybe Saul should have rephrased his question.  --No938 (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounce "shibboleth" 

message: What if the Urim and Thummim are not named after stones used, but because of the job they were used in? like a quartz stone being called something else because of its working of a function in a ritual instead of being named a quartz stone.--Krashlia (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Its probably named so because of function

message: In the article the Urim and the Thummim are wrongly likened to the onyx stones in Exodus 28:9: "1 Samuel 28:6 states that Elohim refused to answer Saul by dreams, by Urim, or by prophets. Saul was a Benjamite; his 'yes' was Thummim. A priest is a Levite; his 'yes' is Urim. Six tribes were on one stone, and six tribes were on the other. Exo 28:9 And thou shalt take two onyx stones, and grave on them the names of the children of Israel: Exo 28:10 Six of their names on one stone, and the other six names of the rest on the other stone, according to their birth. Exo 28:11 With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones with the names of the children of Israel: thou shalt make them to be set in settings of gold"
This seems to be a logical explanation. However this is not right, and misses the greater context of the passage. The two onyx stones are different stones which the priest carries "on the shoulder pieces of the ephod" - Exodus 28:12 (NIV). The Urim and the Thummim, however, are carried in the priest's breastpiece, which is not the same garment as the ephod - which looks slighly like an apron (but is of course much more decorated). The Urim and the Thummim are mentioned much later in Exodus 28, and first appear in Exodus 28:30.  
I edited this paragraph out of the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glowinthedarkstar (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urim & Thummim not the same as the two stones with 6 tribes engraved on each stone 

message: Is there any reason why the gems could not have had practical function.
I have wondered in passing if perhaps they were quartz crystals with sputtered gold contacts used for frequency selection purposes.  Part of a low tech radio system.
Until recently (1980's) almost all channelised radios used quartz crystals for channel selection.  Crystals can also be used in bandpass and SAW filters and could be used to discriminate a weak signal from noise.  Perhaps each crystal was used to select a specific tribe that needed to be communicated with?
Here is a random site that has a gold plated quartz timing crystal image.
https://www.filtech.com/products/product/quartz-crystals-liquid-plating-4-95mhz-14mm-gold-compare-to-q-sense-qx0301/
It would be an interesting angle to suppose that these were practical devices and not just mandalas.
EDIT: Here is an instructive video on timing crystal production from natural quartz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEtYLFBsrUI
Idyllic press (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say there is no reason they couldn't have had a practical function. If there is a reputable high quality source that talks about practical uses, then I would say lets put it in the article. From my research though, the Bible itself is vague on any use, and I have not come across any literature that talks about a practical use. Epachamo (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical considerations 

message: Urim and Thummim = Er and Tamar
Just granpa (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urim and Thummim = Er and Tamar 

message: In your last revert you seemed to have missed that I replaced the Interpreter source (that you rightly pointed out was not a RS) with a Dale Morgan reference, which quotes the 1831 Benton recollection of the 1830 trial. The text you are reverting back to places the description involving two stones set in (silver) bow(s) as appearing in later accounts. In fact, this is not the case - this element of the description appears as early as 1830/1831 (and again in 1834) and predates the usage of the term "Urim and Thummim", which is why my edit places it before the mention of that usage, and predates the 1838 JS history. Hence, tying the "set in a bow(s)" description is incorrect. Yes, there are a variety of descriptions of the U&T as seen by the table in Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints), and I am actually basing my edit on the sources in that table. The "set in a silver bow(s)" element appears in all but the very first 1829 description, which is why it imo can be included here. I fail to see why tying that part of the description to later accounts is necessary and/or superior. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem that I have with the new addition is that it perpetuates an ambiguity. What is the Urim and Thummim? Is it the Nephite interpreters? Is it the seer stone found in a well? Right now it reads as mostly the Nephite interpreters, with some later references to the seer stone but this is just inaccurate. Epachamo (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description in LDS section