Talk:Urim and Thummim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] "Presumably, in Mormon belief, no qualification other than God's selection and ordination is necessary for an item to become a Urim and Thummim."

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Mathias

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)

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)

Thanks, guys. Not only is that idea historically doubtful, I don't even know any religious group that believes that. I think maybe the original author just didn't realize the difference between Urim and Thummim versus casting lots. I notice the older versions of the article identified them as a lot and that was changed to "divination medium." Perhaps there are some religious groups (Mormons?) who believe the apostles possessed the Urim and Thummim, but I never heard of them. Jdavidb 14:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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 the 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)

Interesting. I'm still not clear on whose tradition it is or where I can find this. A reference would be very enlightening. Jdavidb 15:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plural Urim and Thummim?

As the translation is plural, it is doubtful that there was one device, and in most cases should be referred to as Urim and Thummim rather than the Urim and Thummim.

I take issue with this line of reasoning, which is someone's interpretation stated as objective fact. That makes as much sense to me as saying since the Torah refers to the stone tablets the Ten Commandments were written on as the Tablets of the Testimony that there were in fact many copies of these tablets. It just means that there were two tablets, even though those two were certainly unique. In the same way the Lights and Perfections could have been a small set of gemstones; it would have been a plural number of gemstones, but that wouldn't have meant that there were more than one set of Lights and Perfections in the world.

I propose this sentence be NPOV-ed as follows: "Because the words urim and thummim are given in the plural, some scholars consider it possible that there could have been more than one such device, believing that in most cases the reference should be to Urim and Thummim rather than the Urim and Thummim."

The point that I've tried to make with my edits was that many scholars think that the U&T was not "a device" as you’ve stated above, but rather a process, and some sort of stones or jewels were the medium. The article makes it seem like everyone thinks the U&T as a "cell phone" to God, rather than the process of "casting of lots" or receiving revelation that most scholars state it was. I personally do believe that U&T was a device, however, I’m giving the most current scholarly viewpoint. I’m definitely not saying there were millions of stones that could be used; there possibly could be multiple sets; but rather U&T is plural usage of words and many scholars think it was the process of casting lots used by priests. I don’t like the edit to say "more than one device" – but rather – "a process" I’ll make the edit. Hope this makes sense-Visorstuff 16:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But I don't think you're correct when you say most scholars feel that way. (Incidentally, I wouldn't call the Urim and Thummim a "device." How about "artifact.") I think most scholars feel the Urim and Thummim were an artifact, a specific item, even though I'll agree that I'm sure some feel it refers to a process or that there could have been more than one. I'd like to see some real references to something I can go read, consider, and investigate before I'll concede that most scholars feel like you're saying they do, here. Jdavidb 19:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also note that even though some people believe this, I take issue with the editing of the article to change "the" to "a." This does not follow the most common English usage, nor does it follow the Biblical usage, which contains the direct article. The Bible which mentioned the Urim and the Thummim in the first place called it "the" Urim and the Thummim, and since that is the most common usage it should be retained with mention made of the other theory and its evidence.

Regardless of Biblical usage, the Hebrew useage is plural without an article denoting "a" or "the" but rather in context priests "used Urim and Thummim." See your comments below. -Visorstuff 16:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Hebrew usage lacks the definite article in some cases, but includes it in others. (Actually I am looking at the KJV English translation and will have to check with the Hebrew when I get a chance.)
  • Exodus 28:30: definite article present
  • Leviticus 8:8: definite article present
  • Numbers 27:21: lacks a definite article
  • Deuteronomy 33:8: quanitfied definitely with possesive "your" in reference to the tribe of Levi
  • I Samuel 28:6: lacks a definite article
  • Ezra 2:63: lacks a definite article (this is the same reference I originally mentioned)
  • Nehemiah 7:65: lacks a definite article (both this passage and the one in Ezra are quotes from an identical historical record)
There are no other references to Urim and Thummim by name in the Bible. The Hebrew usage is thus not plural without an article; it includes the article almost as often as it excludes it.
Since I'm not in front of a Hebrew text, correct me if this is just a KJV translation issue where the definite article was supplied by the translators. Jdavidb 19:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You could easily be in front of the Hebrew text, there's at least one searchable text online. Here's the link to the virtual keyboard you can use (so you can search in Hebrew characters): [1]And here's a link to the search results for *אורים* (the asterixes are so the search will include vav khibur, heh yediah etc.): [search.freefind.com/find.html?id=6433772&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&num=40&query=*%E0%E5%F8%E9%ED*&s=tnk]
But still, even with definite articles there, what does that prove? Imagine some text said, "he looked in the mirror". Would that mean there is only one mirror in existence? Of course not. Or am I missing the point of the discussion?
Anyhow, here's what the Even Shoshan dictionary from 1947 says on "Urim veTumim", freely translated: "holy artifacts that were set into the Hoshen of the Great Priest: 'stones of fate' [or possibly: 'stones for drawing lots' - אבני גורל] with which the Priest could tell G-d's answer to any question asked" --Woggly 19:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We are not discussing one versus many. We are discussing if the words are a verb versus a noun. If it is a device or process. Using your example of mirror let's change the word to pray. Did you "have a pray" or do "you pray?" Same thing with U&T. Some believe it is the process of casting lots, rather than a (or many) device(s). Do you "have a Urim and Thummim" (device) or do you "use Urim and Thummim" (process) to find an answer. This is a more recent development on the scholarship front and I'll provide references shortly (have to find them again) -Visorstuff 14:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why can't they be both a device and a process? All I know is, in modern Hebrew, calling someone "Urim veTummin" is like saying they are the ultimate authority on a given subject. The phrase did not carry over into modern Hebrew any connontations of a lottery or draw, only the sense of ultimate truth. Not that I'm presuming to be a biblical scholar, nor do I mean to imply that the modern Hebrew sense is always the same as the Biblical Hebrew sense.

On a much more positive note, I'd like to say the paragraph explaining how some view the Urim and Thummim as simply the casting of lots was excellent and was the perfect way to reintroduce the connection to Matthias without distorting the known facts. Good job!

I'm still curious if someone can actually document for me who exactly believes Matthias was selected with Urim and Thummim. Is that a Mormon doctrine?

Jdavidb 15:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not Mormon doctrine, nor taught by any Mormons about the U&T being used in the selection of Matthais. Again, I didn't include that originally (User:TimBowling did), however I have read it in multiple places in my readings of Christian history (think church fathers, Catholicism and Orthodoxism, not something more modern such as Mormonism, Restorationism, NRMs or protestantism). -Visorstuff 16:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More thoughts

Thinking a little bit more. Now that I think about it, there was no definite article used in the exile when they were discussing the uncertain family of priests. The governor decreed they would wait "until a priest stood up with Urim and Thummim," which could even be translated as "stood up with a Urim and Thummim." It's not interpreted that way to my knowledge, though. This could simply reflect their belief that the original Urim and Thummim would be replaced by a new one, rather than expressing that there were plenty of Urims and Thummims around just waiting for a priest to pick up a set and stand up. :) In fact my understanding is that there was never again a time when a priest used Urim and Thummim, so apparently whatever they were there was not another one in the opinion of the priests. Jdavidb 15:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. No article used in text. Nor should it be translated that way. Think intangible Urim and Thummim as knowledge or a process, rather than "a" device.
Now my personal belief is that there is a device. The Book of Mormon has records of at least two prophets that used a Urim and Thummim to reveal things to their people, in two completely seperate civilizations. Masonic Legend and Islamic history also refer to Urim and Thummim. Thanks for making me clarify the edits - they are helping teh article to make much more sense. Keep on me. -Visorstuff 16:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You know I will. ;) Jdavidb 19:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I also want to take issue with the phrase "in most cases do not connotate an object." Again, scholars are divided over this, but it is stated here as objective truth. To my knowledge, most scholars believe the Urim and Thummim were an object. This wording states that "in most cases," i.e., most times it is mentioned in the Bible, Urim and Thummim do not refer to an object, implying that some times they do? I've got all the references above; which ones connotate an object and which do not? As near as I can tell, it always appears to refer to an object, and we would have no basis for decisively concluding that it does not. If some scholars come to that conclusion, then mention they hold that conclusion, but don't state it as fact. Jdavidb 19:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This list of references is from Urim, now redirected here. Charles Matthews 10:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Urim mentions in the Bible:
    • Exodus 28:30
      • And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.
    • Leviticus 8:8
      • And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.
    • Numbers 27:21
      • And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.
    • Deuteronomy 33:8
      • And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
    • 1 Samuel 28:6
      • And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
    • Ezra 2:63
      • And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.
    • Nehemiah 7:65
      • And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.

Content from the Thummim page, now redirected here. Charles Matthews 11:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This entry incorporates text from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897.


Thummim - perfection (LXX., "truth;" Vulg., "veritas"), Ex. 28:30; Deut. 33:8; Judg. 1:1; 20:18; 1 Sam. 14:3,18; 23:9; 2 Sam. 21:1. What the "Urim and Thummim" were cannot be determined with any certainty. All we certainly know is that they were a certain divinely-given means by which God imparted, through the high priest, direction and counsel to Israel when these were needed.

The method by which this was done can be only a matter of mere conjecture. They were apparently material objects, quite distinct from the breastplate, but something added to it after all the stones had been set in it, something in addition to the breastplate and its jewels. They may have been, as some suppose, two small images, like the teraphim (comp. Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17, 20; Hos. 3:4), which were kept in the bag of the breastplate, by which, in some unknown way, the high priest could give forth his divinely imparted decision when consulted. They were probably lost at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. They were never seen after the return from captivity.

[edit] Still POV

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)

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)

[edit] Why is the name also given in Hebrew and Arabic?

What does the Arabic language have to do with Mormonism? Kirbytime 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ok, that's some bullshit right there

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)


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)
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)

Moses and Ezra weren't Jewish. Epachamo 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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) Allen Roth
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)

You may want to try to link to blueletterbible.org, rather than LDS.org if this is such an issue by someone who apparently doesn't own a bible. -Visorstuff 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War over anti-mormon hobbyist

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)

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)

I simply clarified the introduction paragraph with information that is explained in detail further in the article. I am no more “anti-Mormon” than Mrcolj is anti-Semite. I also read that Mrcolj has had problems on Wikipedia before. It seems that he likes to write vanity articles about himself with the resolution being article deletion by an administrator. Now Mrcolj is purposefully misrepresenting my edit by attempting incorrectly quote me with a sarcastic spin. Fortunately the page’s history is faithful to preserve the truth. Visorstuff, who appears to be LDS as well, has decided to back Mrcolj by making a vague reference to a third party which supports Mrcolj’s stance. - Heath007 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the US Census, Jews outnumbered Latter Day Saints by ~600,000 in 2003. - Heath007 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this now ad hominem? I wrote an article about myself and it was deleted. I think that was over a year ago... I really just wanted the backlinks, and I didn't know the rules. So what? That has nothing to do with whether you should have repeatedly reverted a line which served no other purpose than to disregard a major religion. I was trying to be politely sarcastic rather than pointed. I'm a teacher--I'm a bit more rhetorical than perhaps I need be. Anyway, my point was solely that if 12M people believe it, you can't put in a line that says those people are just plain wrong. My father-in-law was a Biblical archaeologist who taught at Hebrew University in Jerusalem; my wife was raised in Jerusalem and worked in anthropology, and I majored in Ancient History (actually Latin teaching); and we all believe Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim in a similar if not exact way that the Old Testament prophets did. Again, my sole point is there's no need to go out of your way to disregard an entire ethnicity. By the way, I've never met visorstuff, I've just seen him around LDS topics, where he is often seen as an wiki-authority. --Mrcolj 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lights" and "Completions" as Accessories to the Breastplate

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)

[edit] Uncited Reference Regarding Matthias

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)

I've removed the above paragraph as too speculative without some citation.--John Foxe 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- Heath007 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
The same word "klēros" (lots) is used in Acts and in the four gospels. -- Heath007 04:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots have a few different meanings and in some cases misinterpreted. I'll try to find the references I am referring to later this week. BTHOMAS