Dishonesty

[Ahab]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

CFR that putting the stone in a hat was the "primary method of translation". And why didn't you mention the other methods Joseph used to translate?

[Russell C McGregor]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

And it's an example of the fallacy of begging the question.

The real question is this: DID the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

I realise that terminal fault-finders assume, with all the predictability of a knee jerk -- or any other kind -- that it did. But did it? Did it really?

What false statements has the Church published in this regard?

 

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

Why not?

 

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

 

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

So that means that you don't want your accusation to be questioned; you demand that it be accepted as the starting point for the discussion.

How remarkably self-serving of you.

[thesometimesaint]

The mocking comment wasn't made to you, and I'm quite aware of the publication of the material going back for some time (I said as much in another post).

 

It's like the failing student saying the reason they are failing is that the teacher used books instead of taking it off the internet machine. That is blame shifting, a false and pernicious argument. 

[Zakuska]

Um... the church Hiding Polygamy?!!!

 

   

 

Its published to the world in any Quad you get... known as section 132 and has been since 1847 or before.

 

Not very well hidden if you ask me.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

It wasn't scorn.  I just feel like you were throwing every rational up against the wall to see what sticks.  (And I'm really opposed to the "blame the doubter" mentality when doubts are reasonable.)

And in your white-ant ideology, doubts are always "reasonable," aren't they?

At least, they are always to be encouraged.

[ttribe]

Why? I have never heard of artist being more accountable to accuracy based on time passed.

 

Logic might say that accuracy should be based on information available to the artist, but not time since the event.

 

even then, artist never seem to be that concerned with accuracy. do you think Picasso's Guernica should be criticized for its accuracy? it is much more recent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)#/media/File:PicassoGuernica.jpg

 

There is a chasm of difference between art for art's sake and an illustration used in a lesson manual, wouldn't you say?

 

If someone is interested in exacting accuracy shouldn't they present all of the church resources published in recent decades that include all of the descriptions of Joseph's translation methods?

 

Still waithing for a response to:  Church resources going back to 1982 that discuss the use of the Hat and Seer Stones in the translation process:  http://en.fairmormon...lation_process? along with a citation of a 1960 publication that mentions that method.  

 

I agree, all depictions should be considered.

 

And, I thought I already responded to your "Church resources" comment.

[KevinG]

A common theme I notice among those who claim the "church" was hiding things is parents who restricted access to materials or discussions outside of a narrow range, or who pooh poohed the notion of anything outside their own tidy understanding.

 

I have witnessed those who were raised in a bubble cracking under the strain of new found information once they were released from that bubble, or going on to recreate that bubble for their own family.  It is a shame that this occurs in a church where we have so much history available to study.

[KevinG]

 

And, I thought I already responded to your "Church resources" comment.

 

Sorry I might have missed that with all the fur flying and snark barking on this thread.  (I know- I am not innocent of contributing...)

[ALarson]

If someone is interested in exacting accuracy shouldn't they present all of the church resources published in recent decades that include all of the descriptions of Joseph's translation methods?

 

According to eye witnesses, this is the method Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon after the loss of the 116 pages (in other words, the entire Book of Mormon we have today):

 

 

Can you find an illustration depicting this method of translation on lds.org?

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Um... the church Hiding Polygamy?!!!

 

   

 

Its published to the world in any Quad you get... known as section 132 and has been since 1847 or before.

 

Not very well hidden if you ask me.

Nice try.  I doubt that there is anyone who is not aware that the early saints and leaders practiced polygamy and no one is claiming that here.  It's the details that have been left out of any lesson material or discussions (or at least most until the release of the essay on this).

 

So yes, most members knew that Joseph practiced polygamy, but very few knew that he had at least 33 wives, some as young as 14 years old, that he married Emma's teenage housemaids without her knowledge and that he married other men's wives.

[KevinG]

According to eye witnesses, this is the method Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon after the loss of the 116 pages (in other words, the entire Book of Mormon we have today):

 

 

This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

 

This is a method Joseph used, not necessarily the only method Joseph used.  We also know from our history that after translating a while Joseph was able to translate without the stone and other translators.

Edited August 10, 2015 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

Nice try.  I doubt that there is anyone who is not aware that the early saints and leaders practiced polygamy and no one is claiming that here.  It's the details that have been left out of any lesson material or discussions (or at least most until the release of the essay on this).

 

So yes, most members knew that Joseph practiced polygamy, but very few knew that he had at least 33 wives, some as young as 14 years old, that he married Emma's teenage housemaids without her knowledge and that he married other men's wives.

 

And don't forget the cherry on top of your salacious cake against brother Joseph, that he "Married" 2 Infants too.

 

PS> By all accounts Mary was 12 when she had Baby Jesus.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

Nice try.  I doubt that there is anyone who is not aware that the early saints and leaders practiced polygamy and no one is claiming that here.  It's the details that have been left out of any lesson material or discussions (or at least most until the release of the essay on this).

 

So yes, most members knew that Joseph practiced polygamy, but very few knew that he had at least 33 wives, some as young as 14 years old, that he married Emma's teenage housemaids without her knowledge and that he married other men's wives.

 

Very good... Now in the spirit of Bushman and other church historians can you complete the picture by describing what is known about the nature of the sealings (not all traditional marriages in the modern understanding of the word) and the resulting relations between those who were sealed?

[ttribe]

Sorry I might have missed that with all the fur flying and snark barking on this thread.  (I know- I am not innocent of contributing...)

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65860-dishonesty/?p=1209524259

[Russell C McGregor]

Very good... Now in the spirit of Bushman and other church historians can you complete the picture by describing what is known about the nature of the sealings (not all traditional marriages in the modern understanding of the word) and the resulting relations between those who were sealed?

 

Why should he?

 

How does that serve his agenda of representing the leaders of the Church as "dishonest?"

[ALarson]

A common theme I notice among those who claim the "church" was hiding things is parents who restricted access to materials or discussions outside of a narrow range, or who pooh poohed the notion of anything outside their own tidy understanding.

 

I have witnessed those who were raised in a bubble cracking under the strain of new found information once they were released from that bubble, or going on to recreate that bubble for their own family.  It is a shame that this occurs in a church where we have so much history available to study.

I actually do agree with most of what you state above.  I think that there are many very well read individuals on this board and that it is not exactly a good representation of the average member. I also agree that the information was out there for those who really were interested and for those who took the time to dig in and really study church history.  

 

But, if you are really being honest here, you also would admit that most of the details regarding polygamy, Joseph's seer stones, and more was not discussed at church, from the pulpit or was included in lesson material (other than a few times in institute manuals or the Ensign).

[KevinG]

A problem I see in some of the defense tactics in here:  You cannot say members were too lazy for not knowing because it was always out there, while simultaneously suggesting Church leadership didn't know (e.g former businessmen, lawyers; not historian) and should be excused for not knowing.

 

Here's what I know, at this point:  The Church did publish this information in various forms over the years, but the information never found its way (in any meaningful way) into the main media used to teach the membership masses.  Intentional?  Don't know.  But, it happened.

 

OK I see that.  I would not characterize the Ensign, Friend, Institute Manuals and Church published books as not having found its way to the membership in a meaningful way.  That is my primary disagreement with you.  I think the information was available and as a convert in the 1980s and a friend of a Mormon since the 1970s I was privy to that information, the controversies, and questions as far back as I can remember.  Of course his family was very forthcoming with their own understanding when I had questions for them.  Usually polygamy and race, but sometimes modern prophets as well.

[ALarson]

This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

 

This is a method Joseph used, not necessarily the only method Joseph used.  We also know from our history that after translating a while Joseph was able to translate without the stone and other translators.

I asked if there was an image of how Joseph used the seer stone (in the hat) on lds.org.

 

And, according to Emma and other eye witnesses, it was the only method that Joseph used after the loss of the 116 pages.  I agree that prior to that, other methods were used.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[Zakuska]

I actually do agree with most of what you state above.  I think that there are many very well read individuals on this board and that it is not exactly a good representation of the average member. I also agree that the information was out there for those who really were interested and for those who took the time to dig in and really study church history.  

 

But, if you are really being honest here, you also would admit that most of the details regarding polygamy, Joseph's seer stones, and more was not discussed at church, from the pulpit or was included in lesson material (other than a few times in institute manuals or the Ensign).

And why should it be included?  So the US Government can threaten us again with teaching Polygamy? Disenfranchise the church or worse?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

According to Emma and other eye witnesses, it was the only method that Joseph used after the loss of the 116 pages.  I agree that prior to that, other methods were used.

 

I'd like to see that information in a citation or source.  I'm not being snarky - I'd like to have that information to educate myself if you have it to share.

[ALarson]

I'd like to see that information in a citation or source.  I'm not being snarky - I'd like to have that information to educate myself if you have it to share.

I've posted the eye witness statements before on here and I'll do a search for them.  

[KevinG]

I've posted the eye witness statements before on here and I'll do a search for them.  

 

Thanks!

[ttribe]

OK I see that.  I would not characterize the Ensign, Friend, Institute Manuals and Church published books as not having found its way to the membership in a meaningful way.  That is my primary disagreement with you.  I think the information was available and as a convert in the 1980s and a friend of a Mormon since the 1970s I was privy to that information, the controversies, and questions as far back as I can remember.  Of course his family was very forthcoming with their own understanding when I had questions for them.  Usually polygamy and race, but sometimes modern prophets as well.

 

Well, your argument isn't with me so much as with the general population of people who stumble on this information late.  I was aware of Joseph's use of the seer stone(s) for various things for a number of years, having read Roberts' History of the Church while I was a missionary.  I've pointed out the various disclosures of the head-in-the-hat method to numerous critics over the years as well (as you did to me).  Nevertheless, I think, in order to be honest with ourselves, we have to admit two things: 1) the majority of Church members have relied (and continue to do so) on the Sunday-based lesson manuals for the overwhelming majority of their understanding of Church history; and 2) the use of the seer stone(s) and the head-in-the-hat method were not in those manuals in any meaningful way.

[Kaleb Webb]

I don't think it's necessarily the leaders' fault that the seer stone wasn't mentioned much in church/sunday school for a long time. I think it has more to do with the people teaching the classes either not knowing about the seer stones themselves, or thinking it was a trivial detail that wasn't worth mentioning. 

[Zakuska]

I vote this image be used when talking about this in the future... in Church publications.

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/06/02/by-the-gift-and-power-of-art/

Edited August 10, 2015 by Zakuska