Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[LeSellers]

Witness #1: Martin Harris;…”the prophet processed [sic, in your version] a seer stone…by aid of the seer stone sentences would appear…” Deseret News, 30 November 1881

Harris was associated with the very early translation process. What happened later on, when Joseph had become more familiar with the language and the Spirit, was out of his ken.

Witness #2: Emma Smith;” …he sitting with his face in his hat, with the stone in it…” ‘Original Manuscript’ pp, 276-277

One witness who was there for the whole time, including the beginning. Her perspective and testimony may easily have been colored by the more memorable stone-in-the-hat process. Further, let's not forget that her experience as a scribe to her husband was also early in the process, like Harris'. Is there any evidence from her that she witnessed any of the translation while Oliver Cowdery was writing?

Witness #3: Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdrey; “…he would place the director [rock] in a hat and then place his face in the hat…” February 1870, RLDS Archives

Not an eye witness. Her reference to "the director" (apparently the Liahona; who supplied "rock" as an alternative noun here?) is wholly anachronistic, leading one to the conclusion that she had no first-hand experience at all, as other evidence points out.

Witness #4: David Witmer; …” Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat…” David Witmer, An address to all believers in Christ. p 13

Not an eye witness.

Witness #5: Joseph Knight; …he put the urim and thummim into a hat and darkened his eyes…” Joseph Knight account, LDS Archive

Not an eye witness.

Witness #6: Isaac Hale; “…the manner in which he [Joseph Smith] pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for money-diggers, with a stone in his hat and his hat over his face…” The Susquehanna Register, 1 May 1834

Not an eye witness, and thoroughly antagonistic to Joseph's work. His animous would have disqualified his "testimony", even if he had been a witness, which he was not.

I could go on and on…but I belabor the point. The reality of Joseph placing the rock he dug up from Willard Chase’s well into his hat to translate is NOT in dispute, nor is the fact that he used that same stone in his treasure digging activity.

No one is disputing that he used the seer stone early in the process. Where we differ is that you seem to claim that Joseph never used any other mechanism, including no intermediary at all, between him and the Spirit.

Nor is it in dispute that the term seer stone, urim and thummim, translators, interpreters, stone, rock…were all interchangeable. The rock dug up from Willard Chase’s well was referred to by all of these names and more. Could there have been an actual urim and thummim, perhaps, but none of the eye witnesses give an account of the translation process describing their use save Martin Harris.

There were only three eye witnesses to the translation (aside from Jospeh Smith himself), and while two of those mention the seer stone, they were both retricted to the early part of the process. They cannot give reliable evidence on the later, post 6 April 1829, method(s) used. Neither of the two eye witnesses from that point on have given us anything on the matter beyond "by the gift and power of God".

The terms may have been interchangeable, but they often referred to differnt physical things.

The Urim and the Thummin were distinct objects from the "seer stone(s)", although they played similar roles in the translation of the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence at all that Joseph ever used the Urim and the Thuimmin in locating wells or treasure.

Again I refer to my earlier post #241, these things are not in disput. The reality still remains, the church can either deal with it or continue to ignore it.

There is no particular reason the Church should "deal with it": "it" is not focused on leading men to Christ.

The process we use to get people to look at the Church is sufficient as it is. (After all, it works 300,000 times a year.) The fact remains: if the Church is true, and I maintain it is, then it does not matter if Joseph used a rock he found in a well and a hat, or a piece of stale cheese in an old boot to translate the Book of Mormon. It's true, and that is sufficient to override any and all objections you or anyone else has about any part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lehi

[Craig Paxton]

What is in dispute is the claim the church has ignored it. These are mostly accounts from people who were not present when Joseph was translating. The church has discussed these various accounts as previously indicated. The fact is that several methods were used not just the one the critics get hyper about. So I suppose the church in order to not ignore it must commission an artist just to show what the critics are griping about. But then they'd just find some other nit to pick.

Deborah....I concede defeat. You win. Of course you are correct...Placing one article in the Ensign 18 years ago certainly does show the churches diligence in getting the message out that Joseph used a rock placed in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon. It's the memberships own fault if they missed that one article...or fail to reread every past Ensign at least once a year. Heck I better get my old Improvement Era's out and reread them too...no telling what I've missed.

And I also concede that these so-called eye witnesses couldn't have been present to qualify as eye witnesses...even though this is what they claimed, had the opportunity to be such and even had the audacity to record their clearly false eye witness accounts. How dare they. But that didn’t fool you…you were able to see right through their motivations. Anyone who would have claimed to have witnessed firsthand such a bazaar translation process must have had ulterior intentions.

And of course you are correct and I again concede your point that several methods of translation must have been used…despite that fact that there is no eyewitness accounts of other methods being used…but this does not lessen the correctness of your argument. I concede your point even though the historical record does not support it.

Good job…You’ve won the argument. I only wish I could use hyperbole as well as you do.

[Craig Paxton]

To bring this thread to a conclusion...the question was asked..."Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?" Clearly if the participants in this thread are any indication...the church is sinless, has done nothing wrong and has been completely honest and forthright in sharing its history and has NOTHING to apologize for. The fault is clearly on the doubting member for failing to read everything ever published by the church...for if that member had been more diligent and read everything...they would have been exposed to the difficult unvarnished history....and these many issues would not have come as a surprise. Shame on us lazy active member who relied on seminary, institute, sunday school, priesthood/R.S. lessons etc. We did NOT do enough. We are responsilble for not having read everything ever published...It is us who are at fault, need to deal with it and move on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And I also concede that these so-called eye witnesses couldn't have been present to qualify as eye witnesses.

Good job…You’ve won the argument. I only wish I could use hyperbole as well as you do.

Nothing like a straw man to win the argument.

[cinepro]

Harris was associated with the very early translation process. What happened later on, when Joseph had become more familiar with the language and the Spirit, was out of his ken.

One witness who was there for the whole time, including the beginning. Her perspective and testimony may easily have been colored by the more memorable stone-in-the-hat process. Further, let's not forget that her experience as a scribe to her husband was also early in the process, like Harris'. Is there any evidence from her that she witnessed any of the translation while Oliver Cowdery was writing?

As far as I can tell, Harris was only involved with the translation of the 116 pages, meaning he was not involved with the translation of any of the existing Book of Mormon text. The opposite is true for Emma; she was not involved with the translation of the 116 pages and everything she was a scribe for is in the existing Book of Mormon. Since the claim is that the Nephite Urim and Thummim was used for the 116 pages but not for the existing Book of Mormon, Martin and Emma are two different kinds of witnesses.

The fact that Emma was living in the same room as Joseph and Oliver during the translation process would be a strong indicator that she probably saw the situation under which Joseph translated.

(Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdrey) Not an eye witness. Her reference to "the director" (apparently the Liahona; who supplied "rock" as an alternative noun here?) is wholly anachronistic, leading one to the conclusion that she had no first-hand experience at all, as other evidence points out.

Considering the many uses of a seer stone, it could certainly be called a "director". It should also be noted for her (and others on this list) that the Book of Mormon translation was being done on the Hale homestead and the Whitmer homestead, and neither of these places had enclosed rooms for Joseph and the Scribe to hide themselves. Hence, it is not unreasonable for any person living there at the time to claim to have seen the process.

Here is how BYU Studies describes Elizabeth Ann Whitmer's proximity to the process:

Elizabeth was about fourteen years old when Joseph and Emma Smith moved to the Whitmer farm to work on the translation of the Book of Mormon. These teen years must have been a constant wonder to her as she was present during these remarkable and extraordinary events. Imagine Elizabeth approaching her young womanhood, yet very much still a child, exploring the hidden recesses of her home where the young Smith family lived. She must have many times crept up the steps to peek into the chamber wondering what strange business was going on there, while Joseph, Oliver, Christian, John, and others were translating, writing out revelations, or entertaining visitors. So it was not altogether by choice that Elizabeth Ann became part of the Mormon story, but it was in response to the experiences of her family, parents, brothers, and sister Catharine, and also later by marriage.

(David Whitmer) Not an eye witness.

Since part of the translation was done at the Whitmer farm, it is entirely reasonable to assume that David Whitmer was able to see the manner in which Joseph was dictating the book.

(Joseph Knight) Not an eye witness.

If you read the account for Sunday, Feb 01, 1829, (Harmony) on this page, it certainly places Joseph Knight in the right place at the right time to be an eyewitness to the process. Also Sunday, March 29, 1829, where he says "Joseph talked with us about his translating and some revelations he had Received..."

We would also have to wonder why Joseph Knight, a very strong supporter of Joseph Smith, would make up or share a dubious account of the translation method. If we're going to make this a conspiracy theory, we should decide whether it is being perpetrated by the pro-Mormons, the anti-Mormons, or whether they're all working together.

(Isaac Hale) Not an eye witness, and thoroughly antagonistic to Joseph's work. His animous would have disqualified his "testimony", even if he had been a witness, which he was not.

Much of the Book of Mormon was translated on his property (October 1828 - May 1829), so it is entirely reasonable to assume he saw the process at least once or twice.

We must also again be amazed at the congruity between accounts between pro-Mormon (Knight) and anti-Mormon (Hale).

No one is disputing that he used the seer stone early in the process. Where we differ is that you seem to claim that Joseph never used any other mechanism, including no intermediary at all, between him and the Spirit.

The Whitmers were only involved with the later part of the process, and they describe it the same as everybody else.

There were only three eye witnesses to the translation (aside from Jospeh Smith himself), and while two of those mention the seer stone, they were both retricted to the early part of the process. They cannot give reliable evidence on the later, post 6 April 1829, method(s) used. Neither of the two eye witnesses from that point on have given us anything on the matter beyond "by the gift and power of God".

As I said above, the Whitmers were only involved in the later part of the process, and they describe the "seer stone in a hat" process as well.

You seem to be assuming that Joseph and his scribe were the only ones in the room while he translated. This does not appear to be the case, as numerous non-scribes have claimed to have seen the process (as this thread has shown).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Clearly if the participants in this thread are any indication...the church is sinless, has done nothing wrong and has been completely honest and forthright in sharing its history and has NOTHING to apologize for.

Everytime these threads come up a get a great laugh. Becuase the information is there and it is published by the church. That is a fact. When critics quote from sources they are almost always church published sources. Should that not tell you something?

I just fail to see how relevant it is to rehash that JS use a stone in the hat? Do people really leave over that issue? Any way carry on.

[Mars]

To bring this thread to a conclusion...the question was asked..."Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?" Clearly if the participants in this thread are any indication...the church is sinless, has done nothing wrong and has been completely honest and forthright in sharing its history and has NOTHING to apologize for. The fault is clearly on the doubting member for failing to read everything ever published by the church...for if that member had been more diligent and read everything...they would have been exposed to the difficult unvarnished history....and these many issues would not have come as a surprise. Shame on us lazy active member who relied on seminary, institute, sunday school, priesthood/R.S. lessons etc. We did NOT do enough. We are responsilble for not having read everything ever published...It is us who are at fault, need to deal with it and move on.

No, that's not what's going on, Craig.

You are responsible for your choices, that's what we are saying. You made the choice to leave the Church. (If you have indeed left in heart or in body.)

We are also saying that we'd prefer to deal with a specific issue. "I feel the Church was wrong <in this way> and if it admitted fault <in this way> and owned up to it by issuing an apology I could move on <for these reasons.>"

Instead we're presented with a scorecard the Church has failed on and the message is that the Church should change to satisfy those who are no longer members or who are critical of its practices. Those who are still members and are defending the institution of the Church here in this thread - whatever their personal feelings or reservations on this issue - are not frustratedly holding the Church responsible for their position with it. I have no confidence that there is anything reasonable the Church could do that would satisfy you.

I am sorry you had a rough go of it. I do wish it had been different. It sucks to watch people feel like the Church did wrong by them. I wish it could be avoided. However, I will not lay that responsibility at the feet of the Church.

[LeSellers]

As far as I can tell, Harris was only involved with the translation of the 116 pages, meaning he was not involved with the translation of any of the existing Book of Mormon text.

The 116 pages were part of the Book of Mormon, just not part of the printed edition.

You seem to be assuming that Joseph and his scribe were the only ones in the room while he translated. This does not appear to be the case, as numerous non-scribes have claimed to have seen the process (as this thread has shown).

So, where does any of these so-called eye witnesses claim to have see the translatoin?

All of them as far as I have seen, are giving nothing more than hear-say evidence (except the three we've identified as actually being scribes: Emma, Harris, and Oliver). You make the claim they were "eye witnesses", so demonstrate they were.

Your quote regarding the young Elizabeth Whitmer is full of "must have been", and "must have many times": i.e., suppositions. It's the same for all of them. Assumptions, suppositions, nothing more.

Lehi

[cinepro]

Everytime these threads come up a get a great laugh. Becuase the information is there and it is published by the church. That is a fact. When critics quote from sources they are almost always church published sources. Should that not tell you something?

I just fail to see how relevant it is to rehash that JS use a stone in the hat? Do people really leave over that issue? Any way carry on.

I agree that it would be silly for the Church to "apologize" for not being more forthcoming about the Book of Mormon translation process. If someone in the correlation department had a sudden change of heart and decided the Church should start being more accurate in its depictions, I would expect quiet, gradual change without a lot of publicity (kind of like the recent "principle ancestors" change to the introduction of the Book of Mormon)

But if they asked me, I might suggest apologizing for the Priesthood Ban (and if they hadn't already done it, the MMM). Also, the Osmonds.

[Calm]

Not sure if someone has posted this link yet or not discussing translation procedures, including something I rarely see referred to:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=167

But early on in the translation, from late 1827 to early 1828, it appears that Joseph used a different process while translating. During this early period, Joseph would first copy some of the characters directly from the plates onto sheets of paper, from which sheets he would then translate his transcribed characters into English by means of the Urim and Thummim. During such a process, the plates were uncovered while Joseph translated (or at least while he copied the characters from the plates to paper); and since no one was permitted to see the plates until later, Joseph took precautions to prevent anyone from seeing him working directly with the plates. Martin Harris, in a couple of early statements, said that a blanket or curtain separated Joseph from him at the time he (Martin) obtained a sample transcript and translation to take to Professor Anthon in New York City.

[Deborah]

The fault is clearly on the doubting member for failing to read everything ever published by the church...for if that member had been more diligent and read everything...they would have been exposed to the difficult unvarnished history....and these many issues would not have come as a surprise.

Indeed. How do you think the rest of us found out?

Your smarmy comments aside, there are accounts of other methods of translation but you have chosen to ignore them because of your hang-up on the one that apparently shook your testimony. Several references have been made to these.

[Deborah]

Not sure if someone has posted this link yet or not discussing translation procedures, including something I rarely see referred to:

I knew there was a reference to the curtain but didn't know where to find it. Thanks for posting. This is why some of the "eyewitness" accounts are questionable. As I recall there was always a curtain separating Joseph and the scribe. Joseph himself would not state how it was done except by the gift and power of God. And if the man who was doing the translating was so vague I don't understand the need to debate the issue.

And yes there were pictures depicting the curtain at one time.

[bookofmormontruth]

Deborah....I concede defeat. You win. Of course you are correct...Placing one article in the Ensign 18 years ago certainly does show the churches diligence in getting the message out that Joseph used a rock placed in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon. It's the memberships own fault if they missed that one article...or fail to reread every past Ensign at least once a year. Heck I better get my old Improvement Era's out and reread them too...no telling what I've missed.

And I also concede that these so-called eye witnesses couldn't have been present to qualify as eye witnesses...even though this is what they claimed, had the opportunity to be such and even had the audacity to record their clearly false eye witness accounts. How dare they. But that didn’t fool you…you were able to see right through their motivations. Anyone who would have claimed to have witnessed firsthand such a bazaar translation process must have had ulterior intentions.

And of course you are correct and I again concede your point that several methods of translation must have been used…despite that fact that there is no eyewitness accounts of other methods being used…but this does not lessen the correctness of your argument. I concede your point even though the historical record does not support it.

Good job…You’ve won the argument. I only wish I could use hyperbole as well as you do.

Oops, you once again conveniently left out the numerous other books, student manuals and Church History references that was published unmolested to the entire LDS membership and the world. Not just "two old articles" to support your made up and desperate "conspiracy".

You are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing the Lord's Church of doing. You know, leaving out all the information and facts.

[Calm]

As I recall there was always a curtain separating Joseph and the scribe.

Not always. If the plates were covered or not present, there wouldn't be that need.

In place of this early procedure, Joseph Smith soon turned to a method of translation that depended directly on the interpreters alone, so that the plates did not have to be viewed, and thus the translation could be done openly.

I am assuming "done openly" here means there was no curtain present between scribe and seer.

[bookofmormontruth]

I knew there was a reference to the curtain but didn't know where to find it. Thanks for posting. This is why some of the "eyewitness" accounts are questionable. As I recall there was always a curtain separating Joseph and the scribe. Joseph himself would not state how it was done except by the gift and power of God. And if the man who was doing the translating was so vague I don't understand the need to debate the issue.

And yes there were pictures depicting the curtain at one time.

You mean they keep changing the pictures? Oh the conspiracy of consistency!

[ELF1024]

I don't see any reason for "The Church" to apologize for the Priesthood Ban, or for people who have chosen to be offended by some minor matter unrelated to Salvation.

If someone could somehow "prove" that the Priesthood Ban because of racism, sure, The Church should apologize, but I don't that it's provable.

As for the many ways that the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated; one thing remains constant; it was translated by the power of God. I think that says enough.

I don't personally find the peepstone story to be of any merit. Many statements seem to use "seerstone" and "U&T" synonymously. I see no reason why the peepstone account could not have been mistaken; or used synonymously with seerstone or U&T.

The method of translation is immaterial; the Book of Mormon is true.

If there are pinheads who can't abide by Moroni's challenge; that's not the Church's fault; the fault lies with the individual.

[Mars]

I don't see any reason for "The Church" to apologize for the Priesthood Ban, or for people who have chosen to be offended by some minor matter unrelated to Salvation.

If someone could somehow "prove" that the Priesthood Ban because of racism, sure, The Church should apologize, but I don't that it's provable.

As for the many ways that the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated; one thing remains constant; it was translated by the power of God. I think that says enough.

I don't personally find the peepstone story to be of any merit. Many statements seem to use "seerstone" and "U&T" synonymously. I see no reason why the peepstone account could not have been mistaken; or used synonymously with seerstone or U&T.

The method of translation is immaterial; the Book of Mormon is true.

If there are pinheads who can't abide by Moroni's challenge; that's not the Church's fault; the fault lies with the individual.

For the record, they're not pinheads until they come on here and accuse me of being deluded for having my testimony.

And even then I'm going to let the pinhead judgment be given to them by someone who was present when they tried (or didn't) Moroni's promise.

[ELF1024]

For the record, they're not pinheads until they come on here and accuse me of being deluded for having my testimony.

And even then I'm going to let the pinhead judgment be given to them by someone who was present when they tried (or didn't) Moroni's promise.

I would say that calling on the Church to apologize because they choose to take offense; qualifies them as pinheads. However, that's just my take.

How the Book of Mormon was translated doesn't effect your salvation. It is unimportant in reference to your eternal soul. So why get hung up on such a minor detail that has no bearing on anything what so ever.

I was born in 1973 so I don't really even remember a time when any man was singled out not to be worthy to have the Priesthood. I will admit that I do not understand the Lord's reasoning for withholding it for as long as he did; however, as with many things understanding is not required, only obedience. You will never get a satisfactory answer to that question. The Church can't prove it was from God, and you can't prove it was not.

Polygamy, I don't agree with it, I don't like that Joseph Smith was sealed to previously married women. However, I do not know the mind of God. While I do not like it, and I agree that it looks awfully suspect; I am willing to give the Lord, and Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt. It is something I plan on taking up with "Brother Joseph" when/if I see him.

We aren't being asked to raise our hands to the square and deny any man the Priesthood today; nor as we being asked to endorse or practice Polygamy today. None of this has any bearing on what is truly important.

[cinepro]

Oops, you once again conveniently left out the numerous other books, student manuals and Church History references that was published unmolested to the entire LDS membership and the world. Not just "two old articles" to support your made up and desperate "conspiracy".

You are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing the Lord's Church of doing. You know, leaving out all the information and facts.

Uh...CFR that the Church has ever acknowledged the "face-in-a-hat" translation method other than those two Ensign articles?

A Treasured Testament

The Gift and Power of God

[ERayR]

Everytime these threads come up a get a great laugh. Becuase the information is there and it is published by the church. That is a fact. When critics quote from sources they are almost always church published sources. Should that not tell you something?

I just fail to see how relevant it is to rehash that JS use a stone in the hat? Do people really leave over that issue? Any way carry on.

It is somewhat amusing to me to find out the church has been hiding certain portions of its history and when you ask where they found out about it you are told it is right there in black and white and undeniable because it is from a church source.

[bookofmormontruth]

Uh...CFR that the Church has ever acknowledged the "face-in-a-hat" translation method other than those two Ensign articles?

A Treasured Testament

The Gift and Power of God

What a petty CFR.

2 sources not good enough for you cinepro?

How about 7 more? Will that end your pathetic "conspiracy" that you are ignorantly propagating? Of course not!

Feel free to verify each one.

Improvement Era: April, 1906 / March, 1904 / October, 1939 / August 1946

How could this be? This knowledge was brought before the entire membership in multiple years?

Young Men's Mutual Improvement Associations MANUAL. 1903 - 1904. “New Witnesses for God”. VOLUME II. THE BOOK OF MORMON. PART I. PUBLISHED BY THE GENERAL BOARD OF Y. M. M. I . A. No. 7. Pg. 67

What? The Young Men were taught this? Say it ain't so, but I am sure the apostates of that day used the same lame excuse for leaving the Lord's Church. "We were never taught it."

“The Visions of Joseph Smith”. BYU Devotional & Speeches. Alex Baugh. July, 2007.

What? Taught at BYU?

Home : BYU Publications : Neal A. Maxwell Institute : FARMS Books : “The Disciple As Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson” (Hard Cover Book) Edited by Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges. 2000.

Notice the date: 2000. Way before the anti-Mormon whiney community made this non-issue a pathetic conspiracy within their whiney circles

Let the desperate whining continue. We know the real reasons (not made-up "conspiracies") why people leave the Lord's Church.

[cinepro]

What a petty CFR.

2 sources not good enough for you cinepro?

How about 7 more? Will that end your pathetic "conspiracy" that you are ignorantly propagating? Of course not!

Your original claim was that there were "numerous other books, student manuals and Church History references that w[ere] published unmolested to the entire LDS membership and the world" that described the face-in-a-hat method of translation. I acknowledged the two Ensign articles, and am sincerely interested in the other references.

If that qualifies as "petty" and "desperate whining" in your book, then guilty as charged.

Typically, when providing supporting evidence for an argument in this forum, the poster will actually provide the quotation. Since the "Improvement Era" isn't online, it's a little disingenuous to post non-specific references and expect someone to track them down. If you copied the references from another website and can't provide any more information, you can at least tell us who did the original research (and admit if you haven't seen the original quotes).

For example, were I to procure an April 1906 Improvement Era, where should I look for this quote? Do I read the whole thing? Does the quote actually describe Joseph Smith and the seer stone and the hat, or is it only alluded to?

It's also helpful to note that, when we're discussing "the Church" on this forum, we are typically referring to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". While the Church owns the BYU schools, it isn't proper to classify everything said in a BYU publication (or even a devotional) as being said by "The Church". This includes FARMS and MI publications, as I'm sure they would be the first to tell you.

Typically, we all accept everything published on the Church website (LDS.org) as an official Church publication, and to a lesser degree, the CES curriculum. Apologists have a very carefully constructed set of rules about what constitutes a "Church" publication, and for a very good reason.

So, on your list, the Improvement Era and MIA manual would be the most relevant, although the BYU-Hawaii devotional is also interesting. It is good that Professor Baugh is getting the word out.

Let me know if you have any more info about the Improvement Era and MIA articles.

[Jeff K.]

But you also will have to admit there is no real conspiracy, that the word had gotten out and no one is hiding anything. Indeed, it is merely a question of interest that stops anyone from seeking to know about it.

[bookofmormontruth]

Your original claim was that there were "numerous other books, student manuals and Church History references that w[ere] published unmolested to the entire LDS membership and the world" that described the face-in-a-hat method of translation. I acknowledged the two Ensign articles, and am sincerely interested in the other references.

If that qualifies as "desperate whining" in your book, then guilty as charged.

Typically, when providing supporting evidence for an argument in this forum, the poster will actually provide the quotation. Since the "Improvement Era" isn't online, it's a little disingenuous to post non-specific references and expect someone to track them down. If you copied the references from another website and can't provide any more information, you can at least tell us who did the original research (and admit if you haven't seen the original quotes).

For example, were I to procure an April 1906 Improvement Era, where should I look for this quote? Do I read the whole thing? Does the quote actually describe Joseph Smith and the seer stone and the hat, or is it only alluded to?

It's also helpful to note that, when we're discussing "the Church" on this forum, we are typically referring to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". While the Church owns the BYU schools, it isn't proper to classify everything said in a BYU publication (or even a devotional) as being said by "The Church". This includes FARMS and MI publications, as I'm sure they would be the first to tell you.

Typically, we all accept everything published on the Church website (LDS.org) as an official Church publication, and to a lesser degree, the CES curriculum. Apologists have a very carefully constructed set of rules about what constitutes a "Church" publication, and for a very good reason.

So, on your list, the Improvement Era and MIA manual would be the most relevant, although the BYU-Hawaii devotional is also interesting. It is good that Professor Baugh is getting the word out.

Let me know if you have any more info about the Improvement Era and MIA articles.

Yes, and I didn't list the books which the Church membership reads, wait what? There are numerous books over the years that have been informing the Church membership of this so called "suppressed knowledge"? Well thank goodness, the Church membership doesn't read.

You specifically wanted Church publications because you fully believe in the "conspiracy". No amount of sources will convince you otherwise, hence your petty call for a CFR.

I gave you the sources, but It isn't my job to help you research. This is where google and control "F" can be your buddy and from a few clicks you can see how many websites you can access the Improvement Era. One here, you are welcome. My link. First source is on page 67 - just a mere 2 scrollbars down.

The 1st Presidency and board approve curriculum, devotionals and etc at BYU do they not? Of course they do. It is just too bad they didn't come out with a coloring book for those who whine they were never told this during their years as a member. Poor peeps.

And the last source was just to show how the whiney group that propagates this lame conspiracy should have done their own research that this indeed wasn't "suppressed". Sound familiar?

[bookofmormontruth]

But you also will have to admit there is no real conspiracy, that the word had gotten out and no one is hiding anything. Indeed, it is merely a question of interest that stops anyone from seeking to know about it.

Or just used as a lame excuse to leave the Lord's Church or used to latch onto anything that will supposedly shed a "bad light" on the leadership because that person completely lacks personal responsibility.