i see.
perhaps a couple other examples that come to mind. burning bushes, parting seas, etc etc. i dont see a hat as inconsistent with that. not to mention the “miracles” from modern times that are cited when saints are made. check out some of those stories.
and the “seer stones” were well known and used by the old testament jews, smith didnt invent that.
Urim and Thummim essentially means cursed or faultless, in reference to the deity’s view of an accused - in other words Urim and Thummim were used to answer the question innocent or guilty.
Additionally, they were NOT spectacles (as JS says), but rather items placed in a breastplate.
Nevertheless, the passage does describe them as being put into the breastplate, which scholars think implies they were objects put into some sort of pouch within it, and then, while out of view, one (or one side, if the Urim and Thummim was a single object) was chosen by touch and withdrawn or thrown out; since the Urim and Thummim were put inside this pouch, they were presumably small and fairly flat, and were possibly tablets of wood or of bone. With the view of scholars that Urim essentially means guilty and Thummim essentially means innocent, this would imply that the purpose of the Urim and Thummim was an ordeal to confirm or deny suspected guilt; if the Urim was selected it meant guilt, while selection of the Thummim would mean innocence.
The BIBLICAL Urim and Thummim is a far cry from the “seer stone” placed in a hat.
Smith’s invention was using biblical terms for the same “seer stone” that he used in treasure hunting.