The Church Hides Its History....

[why me]

I find it amazing that critics claim that the church hides its history when it comes to seer stones. I remember that back in the day, in the seventies, we members were quite smart about how the translation of the book of mormon took place. We knew the ins and outs of the process, including seer stones, head in the hat theory etc. Nothing was hidden. I remember reading this article in the Ensign which was quite a detailed account:

https://www.lds.org/...of-god?lang=eng

I never considered anything hidden in the past. I am sure that there were things not known by us but then I was not the best purchaser of church books back then, and so, I may be mistaken in that claim. Also, in the nineties, we read this article in the Ensign about the book of mormon process which again was quite detailed:

https://www.lds.org/...tament?lang=eng

Again, it was a pretty detailed account and I don't remember much problem in the church about it when the members read it about seer stones etc. I think that we all knew that the translation process was special and a miracle. No Internet to distort the information.

And now of course, in 2013, we have this article in the Ensign:

https://www.lds.org/...of-god?lang=eng

This is a terrific article and it reminds me of the articles that we read back in the good ol' days. So, where exactly is the church hiding this information? I see nothing hidden about the seer stones and the translation process. Why are members taken in about it when they read what the critics are saying on the internet about how the church is hiding it? We need to get the correct information out there and explain that what the critics claim is false.

Edited May 27, 2013 by why me

[TruthSeeker2013]

First, let me say that for me, the interpreting by looking at a stone in a hat is a non-issue. If I can believe God appeared to a kid and gave him a golden book then it's not difficult for me to accept that he interpreted by looking at a stone in a hat. Compared to the other truth claims, it just isn't that weird or unbelievable.

Second, the 2013 article you cite to doesn't say anything about looking at a stone in a hat (unless I missed it?), which would mean the church mentioned it in an article in the 70's and an article in the 90's. Any idea how many times in the history of church magazines it was written that Joseph translated by looking at the plates? I would venture to guess probably hundreds of times. That's where the critics would say there is a misrepresentation of church history.

Third, when the translation process is depicted in non-written media by the church (artwork, films) it nearly always shows Jospeh at a table with the plates, even though we know that he was usually not looking at the plates and instead looking into a hat. The critics argue that this is misleading.

Again, it's a non issue to me, but I think these are the arguments the critics are making.

Edited May 27, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It is odd that some many do not know that The Book of Revelation teaches that in the heavens we will all have a new name and be given a white stone...Seer Stone. Revelation 20, I think.

[Nevo]

I find it amazing that critics claim that the church hides its history when it comes to seer stones.

Amazing, right? I mean Joseph's head-in-the-hat method of translating has been mentioned twice in Church magazines in the past 40 years. Was everyone just not paying attention?

True, the Church's feature-length movie about Joseph Smith doesn't mention treasure digging or seer stones and neither does the Church's Our Heritage manual or any of the other manuals Church members use on a regular basis, and all of the Church's visual media depict a completely different translation method, but that's hardly an excuse.

If Church members haven't familiarized themselves with the Mormon History holdings of their nearest university library, then it's their fault if they've never heard of Joseph's scrying. The Church has always been entirely forthcoming about this stuff.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

Why Me, why, why would you even question this? It's so easy to see that the church has not been forthcoming with information. If we're being honest. It's not faith promoting, and the church isn't trying to discourage members, are they? Makes perfect sense, and this has been said often by apologists. I'm sorry this is so, but it is. When it's portrayed in a Gospel Doctrine class when discussing the BoM and it's origins, then I'll believe you. In fact, can you come up with one lesson in the Gospel Doctine manual at any time in the history of the church, where the GD teacher is to discuss the Head in the Hat theory? If you can, then I'll eat my words, and beg for forgiveness for questioning you.

[Storm Rider]

I disagree Tacenda. What chaps the critics and some members alike is that the Church has the temerity of presenting its history in anything other than as dry, direct, only-their-specific-view fashion. They absolutely detest that Joseph could have ever used the Urim & Thummim; they demand that the only method used every time was covering the stones in a hat. I don't know of a single historian worth his salt that would say that history supports this sole method every time Joseph translated the plates. Not a single person, not one, except Joseph was there every time; yet the few accounts that we have that mention the hat must be given sole, primary, exclusive method of translation. In the view of critics, the Church must never give their view, or Joseph's view of anything. Faith promoting facts, stories, and recording must be cast aside so that an single view of Joseph, the restoration, the First Vision, the translation, and all else having to do with this period must meet their standards, which by the way are never applied to the history of Christianity or any other religion. Joseph's name must only be a by-word of scorn for their satisfaction to be sated.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Storm Rider

[Jude2]

I have an opinion which is just as valid as anyone else’s, I suppose.

The only person who saw Joseph actually translate was Oliver and he said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, everything else written is just shear speculation. All the news paper reports etc etc are second hand and really can’t be completely trusted.

We know that Joseph did use his seer stone to receive other revelations. The Book of Moses was begun about the same time Joseph was finishing the Book of Mormon, it could be that David Whitmer and others after many years just confused the two different translation processes.

[Nevo]

I have an opinion which is just as valid as anyone else’s, I suppose.

I wouldn't go that far.

The only person who saw Joseph actually translate was Oliver . . .

Not true.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Amazing, right? I mean Joseph's head-in-the-hat method of translating has been mentioned twice in Church magazines in the past 40 years. Was everyone just not paying attention?

True, the Church's feature-length movie about Joseph Smith doesn't mention treasure digging or seer stones and neither does the Church's Our Heritage manual or any of the other manuals Church members use on a regular basis, and all of the Church's visual media depict a completely different translation method, but that's hardly an excuse.

If Church members haven't familiarized themselves with the Mormon History holdings of their nearest university library, then it's their fault if they've never heard of Joseph's scrying. The Church has always been entirely forthcoming about this stuff.

Good comments, but so many (especially our critics and many members) seem to think that we should dwell on everything that might seem odd or questionable...Maybe they would rather we discuss Joseph's temper, or any of his errors weekly. Many Prophets have used Seer Stones...we will, in fact the entire earth with become one where we can see all things from the beginning and through all eternity. So Joseph used a hat to block ambient light...what a scandal! I guess we should just disband or as I stated, just talk about what we see as every flaw, every week. Who needs the teachings of Christ in the Bible or BoM...seems the process is more important than the message. The Church also printed all four versions of the first visions for all the world to read. However the lies continue about hiding the truth. The movie does not show Emma as scribe for a time, but we know she was, nor the fact that Emma was with Joseph when he went to get the plates, or that he had to hide them in the hollow of a log (if memory serves) But I guess we could remake the movie so it is 10 hours long. Although it seems to be fine that people of other faiths can focus on the message instead of the many horrors in the Bible, by many called by God, Not to mention some things in the Bible so bad that you would be banned for repeating them here. It is awful that sites dedicated to run Mormonism down lie outright..."planting the seed of doubt" (a direct quote from anti-Mormon books) as a justification for lying. Not only did the U&T exist, they still had it in Nauvoo, when Hyrum asked Joseph to put D&C 132 into print so he could take it to Emma himself, he asked Joseph if he wanted him to get the U&T, Joseph said there was no need that he knew it by heart, as he had received it many years before, while the Church was in it's infancy. Sorry for the rant, but I love this Church and have taken the time to learn about it, as well as many other faiths. I love it when so many go on about, "Blacks and the Priesthood" and neglect speaking of segregated Church's for 100's years.

[why me]

Amazing, right? I mean Joseph's head-in-the-hat method of translating has been mentioned twice in Church magazines in the past 40 years. Was everyone just not paying attention?

And one reason for this could be what was said in 1977:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe. And when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.” ¹¹

It is tempting to accept the above statement at face value. However, since David Whitmer had not personally translated, his accuracy on details depends on whether he correctly understood what Joseph Smith told him in the first place, and whether he correctly remembered such details after that. This explanation has Joseph Smith simply read off the entire translation rather than formulate it. In one David Whitmer interview, however, such a procedure is limited to proper names. At that time David Whitmer said that Joseph “was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.” ¹² This much is likely, for proper names are not a subject for translation, but for transliteration; that is, their sounds and not their meanings carry over into the second language. So Joseph’s dictation of these names fits any informed concept of translation.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

I still find it amazing that the lds church needs to write every speculation or every nuance of its history to satisfy people who have left the church or who are critics of the church. I know of no other church that needs to do this. The catholic church certainly doesn't. I haven't seen a 2000 page book of catholic history published by the vatican. What we know of catholic history comes from people who are outside the vatican. But for the lds church, they come out with the definitive history of the lds church, containing all hypotheticals, facts, data, interpretations of its history.

[Calm]

I still find it amazing that the lds church needs to write every speculation or every nuance of its history to satisfy people who have left the church or who are critics of the church.

I think it is probably a small percentage overall that is expecting this of the Church. They just happen to be very vocal at times OR we just happen to be obsessed with the issue ourselves so it seems to be larger than it is.

I also think that to expect people to be fully aware of historical events that are mentioned a few times over decades in church writings is expecting too much, especially considering that prior to the 90s older Ensign articles would not be accessible to anyone who did not stash them in their basement. There are plenty of members who either joined or became adult after the late 70s for example and if they just happened to have not read the one Ensign in the 90s that mentioned it......well, where should they have come across it then (perhaps they let their subscription lapse for a few months during a move as I have done or didn't get a chance to read it before it getting put in the 'old' Ensign pile due to their spouse having appropriated it for a few months or perhaps they don't make a habit of reading from cover to cover and simply skipped the article by accident)?

IOW I think it is as unreasonable to accuse people of neglecting their studies of Church history when they are surprised about something that is mentioned on average once a decade or less as it is to accuse the Church of trying to hide its history because it doesn't mention something more than once a decade or less.

Edited May 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

Why Me, why, why would you even question this? It's so easy to see that the church has not been forthcoming with information.

What church is? Does the catholic church come clean with its history? Does the methodist church? or the Baptist church. What about the Calvinists? Do they dwell on how John Calvin burned people at the stake? Do calvinists even know their history. Strange how it is only the lds church that must write up a many page book on its history from a critic perspective. This is something that I have a hard time getting my head around.

Most people who want to learn the history of their religion usually buy books about it that are outside the ownership of their church. And quite often these books do not have an agenda. They are just history written by an historian.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[why me]

IOW I think it is as unreasonable to accuse people of neglecting their studies of Church history when they are surprised about something that is mentioned on average once a decade or less as it is to accuse the Church of trying to hide its history because it doesn't mention something more than once a decade or less.

I don't see the problem here. I see the problem that members seem to lose their faith rather quickly when they read critic interpretations of why the members do not know. I was just talking to a couple of catholic friends today and one of my friends mentioned how the dominicans were not so nice during the Inquisition. My other catholic friend was not phased at all and responded that people are not infallible. End of story. No faith crisis at all. Catholics deal with their history quite well and they certainly do not get the information from church sources.

But for some reason, mormons have made a big deal about it and many have become influenced with this understanding of absolute knowledge of lds history is essential.

[why me]

Although the Church typically does not publish any sensitive and/or controversial history in official publications, Church-owned Deseret Book has long included Signature Books titles on its shelves, as well as the "New Mormon History" offerings of various university presses.

Which is one reason the critic understanding of 'hidden church history' is off the mark. But this is a common mantra for the critics because it works quite well for them in getting members to doubt their religion.

[Calm]

Is there any particular reason you started this thread or was it just that you felt it was timely?

[why me]

Is there any particular reason you started this thread or was it just that you felt it was timely?

The other board was hounding away about the lack of knowledge about seer stones among the general church membership.

[omni]

And one reason for this could be what was said in 1977:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe. And when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.” ¹¹

I still find it amazing that the lds church needs to write every speculation or every nuance of its history to satisfy people who have left the church or who are critics of the church. I know of no other church that needs to do this. The catholic church certainly doesn't. I haven't seen a 2000 page book of catholic history published by the vatican. What we know of catholic history comes from people who are outside the vatican. But for the lds church, they come out with the definitive history of the lds church, containing all hypotheticals, facts, data, interpretations of its history.

I don't know of any critic who is expecting or even calling for the church to author a definitive book detailing every aspect of its controversial history, what they are asking for is when describing historical events that it be done accurately. Between the lessons, magazines, and videos, how many times does the church talk about the BoM being translated. I'd dare to venture at least a few times each year, so no need for a specific article or lesson all about Joseph sticking his head in a hat. All they have to do is portray it accurately as they would describing the Saints crossing the plains or some other noncontroversial aspect of our history.

[Wiki Wonka]

The only person who saw Joseph actually translate was Oliver and he said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, everything else written is just shear speculation. All the news paper reports etc etc are second hand and really can’t be completely trusted.

We know that Joseph did use his seer stone to receive other revelations. The Book of Moses was begun about the same time Joseph was finishing the Book of Mormon, it could be that David Whitmer and others after many years just confused the two different translation processes.

Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery (eyewitness)

"I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith's translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father's house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his [face in his] hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read] to his scribe the words as they appeared before him."

Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, "Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Affidavit, 15 February 1870," in

Early Mormon Documents

, ed. Dan Vogel, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1870), 5:260.

[ERMD]

Elder Holland in April Conference---"The second observation is a variation of the first. When problems come and questions arise, do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak! Let me be clear on this point: I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not! So let us all remember the clear message of this scriptural account: Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.

Furthermore, you have more faith than you think you do because of what the Book of Mormon calls “the greatness of the evidences.”⁷ “Ye shall know them by their fruits,” Jesus said,⁸ and the fruit of living the gospel is evident in the lives of Latter-day Saints everywhere. As Peter and John said once to an ancient audience, I say today, “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard,” and what we have seen and heard is that “a notable miracle hath been done” in the lives of millions of members of this Church. That cannot be denied.⁹

Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith."

[ERayR]

Why Me, why, why would you even question this? It's so easy to see that the church has not been forthcoming with information. If we're being honest. It's not faith promoting, and the church isn't trying to discourage members, are they? Makes perfect sense, and this has been said often by apologists. I'm sorry this is so, but it is. When it's portrayed in a Gospel Doctrine class when discussing the BoM and it's origins, then I'll believe you. In fact, can you come up with one lesson in the Gospel Doctine manual at any time in the history of the church, where the GD teacher is to discuss the Head in the Hat theory? If you can, then I'll eat my words, and beg for forgiveness for questioning you.

Ya Why Me isn't it obvious you don't know what your talking about. Otherwise you would be complaining and accusing the GA's of dishonesty. How silly of the Church leadership to want to teach the gospel instead of trivia and inanities. Without the head in the hat tid bit whole galaxies will collapse and who knows what the chain reaction from that would be.

[canard78]

What church is? Does the catholic church come clean with its history? Does the methodist church? or the Baptist church. What about the Calvinists? Do they dwell on how John Calvin burned people at the stake? Do calvinists even know their history. Strange how it is only the lds church that must write up a many page book on its history from a critic perspective. This is something that I have a hard time getting my head around.

Most people who want to learn the history of their religion usually buy books about it that are outside the ownership of their church. And quite often these books do not have an agenda. They are just history written by an historian.

This is saying that you agree no church is forthcoming with their history including our own.

Doesn't that therefore mean that ours (like others) is NOT forthcoming with their history.

The first article was actually inaccurate. The published Book of Mormon was not translated with the Nephite interpreters (popularly called the Urim and Thummim) because they were taken away by Moroni at the 116 pages debacle and not returned. The seer stone in a hat was later referred to by people as a U&T but was not the one taken from the stone box but was instead the one he found while digging a well and which he later used for scrying/treasure digging.

See here:

The Nephite interpreters, therefore, were yet another set of seer stones. It is unsurprising that Joseph would be completely comfortable with these instruments, given his experience with the use of seer stones up to that time.

Latter-day Saints associate the term "Urim and Thummim" with these interpreters. Gardner notes,

We all know that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon—except he didn't. The Book of Mormon mentions interpreters, but not the Urim and Thummim. It was the Book of Mormon interpreters which were given to Joseph with the plates. When Moroni took back the interpreters after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages, Joseph completed the translation with one of his seer stones. Until after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim belonged to the Bible and the Bible only. [51] The Urim and Thummim became part of the story when it was presented within and to the Great Tradition. Eventually, even Joseph Smith used Urim and Thummim indiscriminately as labels generically representing either the Book of Mormon interpreters or the seer stone used during translation. [52] [12]

After the loss of the 116 pages, contemporary accounts are very clear that Joseph continued the translation using his seer stone. In later years, the term "Urim and Thummim" was retroactively applied to both the Nephite interpreters and to Joseph's seer stone. Thus the use of "Urim and Thummim" tends to obscure the fact that two different instruments were employed.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/%22Rock_in_hat%22_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation

So the Nephite U&T have no impact on our published Book of Mormon. Perhaps at best they helped him learn how to receive inspiration/translate via seer stones and it's also accurate to say he 'translated a portion of the plates using the Nephite interpreters (U&T)' it is not accurate to say the (published) Book of Mormon were.

So yes, the church has a few references to the head in hat account. But most members would have no idea.

The Jan 2013 reference is buried away in an article in the middle. Have a look at page 8 or 9 of the same publication. It has a 'what we beleive' summary on Joseph Smith and uses the (factually inaccurate/misleading) painting of Joseph and Oliver at the same table and the plates in front of Joseph.

This board seems to have this conversation about every month or so.

The fact remains: the evidence points towards Joseph translating the published BoM with his head in a hat. The church manuals/art/magazines mainly depict him with no prop at all or at best with the Nephite interpreters (U&T). The head in hat approach is mostly unrepresented.

[canard78]

Ya Why Me isn't it obvious you don't know what your talking about. Otherwise you would be complaining and accusing the GA's of dishonesty. How silly of the Church leadership to want to teach the gospel instead of trivia and inanities. Without the head in the hat tid bit whole galaxies will collapse and who knows what the chain reaction from that would be.

If it's so trivial why do they continue to misrepresent it?

[canard78]

I have an opinion which is just as valid as anyone else’s, I suppose.

The only person who saw Joseph actually translate was Oliver and he said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, everything else written is just shear speculation. All the news paper reports etc etc are second hand and really can’t be completely trusted.

We know that Joseph did use his seer stone to receive other revelations. The Book of Moses was begun about the same time Joseph was finishing the Book of Mormon, it could be that David Whitmer and others after many years just confused the two different translation processes.

Have a read of these links:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/%22Rock_in_hat%22_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation'>http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/%22Rock_in_hat%22_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

It's pretty conclusive that the published Book of Mormon was via the head in hat method.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Church promotes a sanitized, faith-friendly version of its history

So our crime is that we are human and do what every other faith does; how could we?