Dishonesty

[KevinG]

The "strangeness" of it isn't the problem.  It's this statement I made:  "Many of the anachronisms and other problems of the Book of Mormon can be easily explained away under the U&T model.  That becomes much more difficult if the exact words were being revealed to Joseph via the stone." And, as Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out in Doctrines of Salvation the conflict with Ether 3:22.

 

When you give a blessing does it come verbatim, or do you get impressions then try to interpret them as accurately as possible.  For me it is the latter most of the time.  I imagine any divine translation process could be similar, or both.  That's why this never bothered me much. 

[Danzo]

I agree.  I wouldn't have phrased things the same way the OP did on this thread.

 

We ought to accept (without criticism) that many church members were unaware that a seer stone in a hat was used to bring forth the Book of Mormon.  It is an unfair standard to expect church members to have studied or otherwise exposed themselves to a version of the restoration narrative that was different than what they were taught in church curriculum and seminary.  And we need to acknowledge the difficulty inherent in adapting to this new narrative.

 

And it is fair to ask why the Brethren didn't do more to communicate the now acknowledged method of bringing forth the Book of Mormon.  They had the seer stone in their possession.  There were accounts written and published.  While history may not have been perfectly clear, why wait until now?  Were there differences in opinion at the top levels?  Concerns about how this account conflicts with Book of Mormon scripture?  Concerns about folk magic in the restoration?  If so, this speaks to the doubts arising among members and associated faith crises and could be helpful to acknowledge.

 

Anytime anyone learns something new, it means that they didn't know it before.   Anyone who studies history is used to finding out the details often are in conflict with summaries. It happens so often that I don't even notice it anymore.

 

Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves (only some of them)

Germany alone didn't start WWII (Russia attacked Poland at about the same time the Germans did.)

Joseph smith may have used one rock instead of two (some of the time)

He may have looked at said rocks inside a hat to exclude the light

Polygamy didn't stop immediately (I would have been more surprised and impressed if it did)

The Boston massacre wasn't the (immediate) fault of the British.

 

The list goes on and on

we should be grateful to learn new things, not resentful that we didn't know them before.

[Danzo]

The "strangeness" of it isn't the problem.  It's this statement I made:  "Many of the anachronisms and other problems of the Book of Mormon can be easily explained away under the U&T model.  That becomes much more difficult if the exact words were being revealed to Joseph via the stone." And, as Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out in Doctrines of Salvation the conflict with Ether 3:22.

 

I doubt that was on the mind of the artists that were drawing the lying, deceitful pictures.

[ttribe]

ttribe:

You are a sample size of one.  Just stop with this argument; it does more harm than good.

 

 

In polling statistics if only one is an accurate representation of the whole, then it is an accurate representation of the whole. IE; The statistical average American is a white middle aged woman living in Iowa/Missouri.

 

Now let's address the argument.

I dislike the contention that Church leaders were deliberately dishonest with us. The information has been available for many years, going back to the very beginnings of the Church. Doctrine and Covenants even addressees some of those issues. Further most Church members really don't care if Prophets used a rock, a hat, a U&T, a divining rod, a couple of sticks, cast lots, had dreams, saw writings on walls, or received plain old impressions from God. From my way of thinking if your testimony of the Church is dependent on some relatively obscure bit of Church history. It is time to rethink your testimony.

 

That may be your way of thinking, but that doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to adopt it.

 

Whether or not it was mentioned in the institute manuals, it was taught in my institute class. 

 

Not everyone took Institute classes.  Not everyone who did take Institute, had your same teacher.

 

Moses talking to God through a burning bush sounds like folk magic as well, but just more accepted.

 

Makes me think the irony of Christians who make fun of our religion as if Christianity is not rife with it's own wild tales....talking donkey anyone?

 

You are right, the seer stone is no more silly than the U&T (strange rock glasses attached to a breastplate; really?), talking donkeys, etc.  However, this whole thing misses the point of the situation.  Some members of the Church, apparently, feel like the truth was withheld from them.  That is, I think, the root of the problem.

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[Danzo]

That may be your way of thinking, but that doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to adopt it.

 

 

Not everyone took Institute classes.  Not everyone who did take Institute, had your same teacher.

 

 

You are right, the seer stone is no more silly than the U&T (strange rock glasses attached to a breastplate; really?), talking donkeys, etc.  However, this whole thing misses the point of the situation.  Some members of the Church, apparently, feel like the truth was withheld from them.  That is, I think, is the root of the problem.

 

Do you personally, feel betrayed that you always thought it was two rocks and it turns out it might have been one rock instead?

[Zakuska]

Do you personally, feel betrayed that you always thought it was two rocks and it turns out it might have been one rock instead?

 

I am up in arms about the whole deal I tell ya...

[CV75]

I'm not sure what your point is with this commentary; at least as it relates to my statement that the Sunday curriculum didn't reflect the facts as they were apparently known. Are you asserting that the Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society manuals reflected these facts? 

 

As I read the OP, I see a question as follows - Church historians and leadership knew about this information for many years; why did the official Sunday curriculum not reflect the true facts?  I don't have a good answer to that question.  At least, not one that doesn't sound like a lame excuse. 

 

Elder Oaks seemed to indicate he was acknowledging the error of withholding full disclosure when he stated that the Church had a past habit of "whitewash[ing]" its history, and that this practice was changing.  Why can't we just acknowledge it was a mistake and move forward?  Nevo seems to get it (see below). 

CFR; I don’t see Elder Oak’s remarks anywhere in this thread. Please provide a link so I can evaluate what he “seems to indicate” (I couldn’t find it on Google); thank you.

 

I had the impression that you used your “statement that the Sunday curriculum didn't reflect the facts as they were apparently known” as an example of dishonesty committed by the Church, and not just a “mistake” as you indicate here. Knowing how mistakes happen, I think it more likely a function of the limitations imposed by the various factors I mentioned in other posts than a decades-long mistake.

 

I answered the OP on page 3, #48, but I think it also addresses your narrower question. In addition, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sunday_School offers some insight as to how and why doctrine has taken a much higher priority than the dissemination of historical facts throughout the history of Sunday School. Handbook 2 12.1 backs this up: “…The purposes of the Sunday School organization are to: 1. Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping. 2. Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.” In this regard, non-essential historical facts take a back seat. Post #48 also justifies the proselyting rationale.

[rockpond]

The exact words hypothesis is contradicted by D&C 9.

 

 

When you give a blessing does it come verbatim, or do you get impressions then try to interpret them as accurately as possible.  For me it is the latter most of the time.  I imagine any divine translation process could be similar, or both.  That's why this never bothered me much. 

 

I agree with what both of you are saying.  But from what I've read, that isn't how the seer stone was used.  Consider this statement from the gospel topics essay on the subject:  "According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

 

That's different than what D&C 9 describes and different from my personal experiences with revelation (as in giving a blessing).

[rockpond]

Anytime anyone learns something new, it means that they didn't know it before.   Anyone who studies history is used to finding out the details often are in conflict with summaries. It happens so often that I don't even notice it anymore.

 

Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves (only some of them)

Germany alone didn't start WWII (Russia attacked Poland at about the same time the Germans did.)

Joseph smith may have used one rock instead of two (some of the time)

He may have looked at said rocks inside a hat to exclude the light

Polygamy didn't stop immediately (I would have been more surprised and impressed if it did)

The Boston massacre wasn't the (immediate) fault of the British.

 

The list goes on and on

we should be grateful to learn new things, not resentful that we didn't know them before.

 

I agree.  The problem isn't in learning new things.  The problem, for some, is in understanding why they were taught something different/wrong (and the implications that has with respect to those doing the teaching).

[rockpond]

I doubt that was on the mind of the artists that were drawing the lying, deceitful pictures.

 

Not sure of your point.  I don't blame the artists for anything.

[ttribe]

CFR; I don’t see Elder Oak’s remarks anywhere in this thread. Please provide a link so I can evaluate what he “seems to indicate” (I couldn’t find it on Google); thank you.

 

I had the impression that you used your “statement that the Sunday curriculum didn't reflect the facts as they were apparently known” as an example of dishonesty committed by the Church, and not just a “mistake” as you indicate here. Knowing how mistakes happen, I think it more likely a function of the limitations imposed by the various factors I mentioned in other posts than a decades-long mistake.

 

I answered the OP on page 3, #48, but I think it also addresses your narrower question. In addition, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sunday_School offers some insight as to how and why doctrine has taken a much higher priority than the dissemination of historical facts throughout the history of Sunday School. Handbook 2 12.1 backs this up: “…The purposes of the Sunday School organization are to: 1. Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping. 2. Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.” In this regard, non-essential historical facts take a back seat. Post #48 also justifies the proselyting rationale.

 

I'm not the one alleging "dishonesty", but I am arguing that we do a better job of understanding why people might allege that.

 

As to Elder Oaks, my memory was somewhat faulty in that he didn't use the word "white wash", but here's the quote from the PBS documentary (emphasis mine):

 

 

It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

 

There are several different elements of that.

One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times,

but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

 

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

 

Here's the link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Church_response

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[ttribe]

Do you personally, feel betrayed that you always thought it was two rocks and it turns out it might have been one rock instead?

 

Good grief, why is it you keep attributing arguments to me I'm not making?  I don't feel "betrayed" by this information.  I never have.  Again, I'm arguing that we could do a better job of understanding why some people do feel that way.

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[KevinG]

I agree with what both of you are saying.  But from what I've read, that isn't how the seer stone was used.  Consider this statement from the gospel topics essay on the subject:  "According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

 

That's different than what D&C 9 describes and different from my personal experiences with revelation (as in giving a blessing).

 

That would be an accurate description of someone witnessing the process, yet not necessarily the internal process for Joseph.  Then again it may be both verbatim and times, and impressions at others.  Another illustration that a lack of intimate knowledge on the part of witnesses and historians does not mean something didn't happen, or that someone is lying about it.

[KevinG]

Good to hear that quote from Oaks.  It seems to bolster the idea that we are now publishing everything and anything as opposed to being in the business of emphasizing only faith promoting materials.

 

But emphasis and hiding are two different things.  

 

For the record I'm just as impatient with the faith promoting non accurate "glurge" spouted by some of our teachers, than I am the faith destroying negative "shock and awe" presentations of critics.  I'm known for politely raising my hand in Sunday school and telling people when something is an urban myth, or asking them to source a story.  I'm not overtly confrontational but I have been ignored once or twice by teachers who wanted to share their special insights without contradiction.  Heh.

[ttribe]

Good to hear that quote from Oaks.  It seems to bolster the idea that we are now publishing everything and anything as opposed to being in the business of emphasizing only faith promoting materials.

 

But emphasis and hiding are two different things.  

 

For the record I'm just as impatient with the faith promoting non accurate "glurge" spouted by some of our teachers, than I am the faith destroying negative "shock and awe" presentations of critics.  I'm known for politely raising my hand in Sunday school and telling people when something is an urban myth, or asking them to source a story.  I'm not overtly confrontational but I have been ignored once or twice by teachers who wanted to share their special insights without contradiction.  Heh.

 

The Church needs more of this from its membership, IMO.

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[KevinG]

The Church needs more of this from its membership, IMO.

 

We internet Mormons are infiltrating the chapel.  Hee. Hee. 

[CV75]

I agree.  I wouldn't have phrased things the same way the OP did on this thread.

 

We ought to accept (without criticism) that many church members were unaware that a seer stone in a hat was used to bring forth the Book of Mormon.  It is an unfair standard to expect church members to have studied or otherwise exposed themselves to a version of the restoration narrative that was different than what they were taught in church curriculum and seminary.  And we need to acknowledge the difficulty inherent in adapting to this new narrative.

 

And it is fair to ask why the Brethren didn't do more to communicate the now acknowledged method of bringing forth the Book of Mormon.  They had the seer stone in their possession.  There were accounts written and published.  While history may not have been perfectly clear, why wait until now?  Were there differences in opinion at the top levels?  Concerns about how this account conflicts with Book of Mormon scripture?  Concerns about folk magic in the restoration?  If so, this speaks to the doubts arising among members and associated faith crises and could be helpful to acknowledge.

Something akin to “Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with a stone” is not the new narrative. It is a piece of historical information, a bit of fact, ancillary to the scriptural narrative and the Brethren’s testimony of the Restoration.

 

While it is fair to ask anything in good faith and in unity of the faith, it is not fair for those who have a perhaps “enhanced” interest in historical facts to accuse how their fellow saints handle them in good faith and in unity of the faith.

 

More than adequate explanations have been given for prioritizing testimony over explanation.

 

For example, the Book of Mormon came “forth by the gift and power of God” (Book of Mormon title page), and, “God had prepared [the Urim and Thummim) for the purpose of translating the book” (JS-H 1:35; D&C 10:1). The use of other stones are not mentioned in LDS canon, and it is appropriate to teach the Gospel according to the scriptural narrative.

 

Less-certain terms (“apparently” and “seem”) are sometimes used in explaining the context of the revelations: “Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. …Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.” https://www.lds.org/...lation?lang=eng

 

It is also appropriate to convey a message in the “language” of the hearers, a practice used by Joseph Smith and his successors: “In their proselyting efforts, Joseph and other early members chose not to focus on the influence of folk culture, as many prospective converts were experiencing a transformation in how they understood religion in the Age of Reason. In what became canonized revelations, however, Joseph continued to teach that seer stones and other seeric devices, as well as the ability to work with them, were important and sacred gifts from God.” https://www.lds.org/...e-seer?lang=eng

[thatjimguy]

Good grief, why is it you keep attributing arguments to me I'm not making?  I don't feel "betrayed" by this information.  I never have.  Again, I'm arguing that we could do a better job of understanding why some people do feel that way.

 

I also think this whole thing about the translation could have stopped some investigators from becoming members. Most of the time, our critics have a lot of weak arguments that can easily be checked up on and proven false. This one, however, is one that I cannot argue makes us look bad.

[Danzo]

All we learn from this thread is that the church is not perfect and has problems and needs to be corrected some times.  

All this come a surprise and a shock to members who haven't read the new testament, book of Mormon, D&C nor have paid any attention in conference talks or read the Ensign.  

 

Half of the D&C is critical of the church.

Good portions of the Book of Mormon also are as well.

The epistles of Paul seem to be mostly about criticizing the church.

 

Anyone here remember President Benson telling us that we were all (the whole church) under condemnation in general conference?

[ttribe]

I also think this whole thing about the translation could have stopped some investigators from becoming members. Most of the time, our critics have a lot of weak arguments that can easily be checked up on and proven false. This one, however, is one that I cannot argue makes us look bad.

 

But, it seems, we've let the Ed Deckers and "Concerned Christians" control a lot of the narrative on these issues until now.

[ALarson]

Good to hear that quote from Oaks.  It seems to bolster the idea that we are now publishing everything and anything as opposed to being in the business of emphasizing only faith promoting materials.

 

But emphasis and hiding are two different things.  

 

For the record I'm just as impatient with the faith promoting non accurate "glurge" spouted by some of our teachers, than I am the faith destroying negative "shock and awe" presentations of critics.  I'm known for politely raising my hand in Sunday school and telling people when something is an urban myth, or asking them to source a story.  I'm not overtly confrontational but I have been ignored once or twice by teachers who wanted to share their special insights without contradiction.  Heh.

Good for you (and I agree with the rest of your post too).

 

I think the feelings from members regarding the leaders "lying to them" or "being dishonest" stems from wondering why they didn't correct the curriculum when the leaders did learn the truth. Why did they allow it to go on?  Is that lying?  Is it dishonest to do that?  I guess opinions vary and so do emotions from different members.  I'm sure it also varies as to the timing of when different leaders discovered details about the seer stone usage (and polygamy and so on).

 

What we do know is that the leaders are now making an attempt to clarify (with the essays and with this recent press conference) and that's great.

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................  But at some point the leading quorums got together and determined that anything not in keeping with the first principles of the gospel should be downplayed.

And just who was involved and when did this happen? CFR

 

Mormons have been accused of "whitewashing" their history for decades.  The truth is probably that nothing was intentionally "hidden" since it is all available and always has been.  The truth is probably that the Church just simply didn't want to talk about it.

Here and below you personify the "Church," which is a fallacy.  The corporate body of Christ is the Church, i.e., all its official members.  There is also a Church entity which is represented by lawyers, PR people, and other employees (CES instructors, manual writers, missionaries, etc.).  There is also a body of general authorities, among whom there are fundamental disagreements about what should be done and how.  They go by full unity, and that varies from one generation to another.  Often complete agreement cannot be achieved.  Since perception is everything, there is also a Church as it is perceived by detractors and supporters -- inaccurate versions of the Church which suit all manner of apriori notions.

 

Did the Church know that Joseph used the seerstone as well as the U&T?  Of course they did, and it was occasionally referred to.  Did they intentionally hide the seerstone usage?  Well, if they did they did a terrible job of hiding it?  Did they downplay it's existence in favor of the U&T?  Sure.

As a corporate body of Christ, the Church does not now and has never been able to distinguish between seerstones and Urim & Thummim.  Indeed, those in the early Mormon Church were equally confused with this terminology.  Some few people nowadays do know the difference, but most of them don't understand the full implications.

 

That's always been the way.  The list of items, doctrines, and teachings in Church history that have received that treatment is fairly long and continues to grow year to year.  The list of unusual things in Church history that the average member knows little or nothing about is VERY long and continues, but is the information being hidden?  Is it purposefuly left out of manuals?  Is it still available to be read by anyone bothered enough to do the smallest amount of research?  Is it purposefully dishonest or merely an attempt to focus on other priorities like the Savior? 

 

That is the neverending debate.  And I don't think we will likely ever know for sure how much was purposefully hidden and how much was just ignored in favor of more important things.   But I for one am glad the whitewashed Church from most of the 20th century is changing its approach.

I think that you are right to say this about the average member, and that is the Church entity we should be talking about.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Church needs more of this from its membership, IMO.

Maybe so, but I usually keep my mouth shut anyway.

[rockpond]

That would be an accurate description of someone witnessing the process, yet not necessarily the internal process for Joseph.  Then again it may be both verbatim and times, and impressions at others.  

 

I thought that the current accounts we have now tell us that Joseph saw the words on the stone, read them aloud to the scribe, and waited for them to be repeated back to him at which time the words would disappear from the stone and the next line would appear.

[rockpond]

While it is fair to ask anything in good faith and in unity of the faith, it is not fair for those who have a perhaps “enhanced” interest in historical facts to accuse how their fellow saints handle them in good faith and in unity of the faith.

 

Agreed.

 

For example, the Book of Mormon came “forth by the gift and power of God” (Book of Mormon title page), and, “God had prepared [the Urim and Thummim) for the purpose of translating the book” (JS-H 1:35; D&C 10:1). The use of other stones are not mentioned in LDS canon, and it is appropriate to teach the Gospel according to the scriptural narrative.

 

It's appropriate to teach a narrative that is incorrect if it supports the "scriptural narrative"?