Dishonesty

[ALarson]

I don't accept the premises of the OP about rampant dishonesty so I would contend no answer is possible and thus the only valid answer is mockery.

I have to agree with you here.  I doubt that there was "rampant dishonesty" involved.  But, I do believe that as leaders learned some details they were previously unaware of regarding church history, they were in an impossible position.  So, many of them allowed the current curriculum to remain inaccurate or at least didn't update it to make it more accurate (until now).  I feel they are trying to do this slowly (with the release of the essays, the seer stone picture and so on).

[Danzo]

And once again, the seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim.

 

Oliver's statement refers to the 'interpreters' plural.

[ALarson]

Oliver's statement refers to the 'interpreters' plural.

And, Joseph had more than one seer stone.

 

Why don't you quote the scripture you are referring to (or did you do this already)?

[Bernard Gui]

I used to be a bit embarrassed by the stone in the hat story until I read the Temple Institute's description of how the Urim and Thummim functioned. The seerstone is no more problematic than the Uv'T, if one believes in revelation.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[filovirus]

If I get up in Fast and Testimony Meeting and share my testimony that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God, am I deceiving the audience? What if I shared my testimony that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God using the Urim and Thummim? Am I now deceiving the audience? What if I shared my testimony that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, often times without any type of instrument, would that mean I am deceiving the audience? Do I need to share my testimony that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the Urim and Thummim, then the seer stone, then nothing at all to not deceive the audience?

 

Now what if I teach the Gospel Principles class and we talk about chapter 10: The Scriptures, and I use the phrase as it is written in the book, "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English through the gift and power of God." Am I then deceiving the audience because I didn't go into exact detail about how that was done, even though I know some of the method?

 

A lot of history is irrelevant to testimony, and if someone wants to claim that the history ruined their testimony, it wasn't a strong testimony to begin with. This is where [the seeds] "fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit." The thorns being the misunderstanding that God can employ any method he wants to translate the BOM.

[Danzo]

And, Joseph had more than one seer stone.

 

Why don't you quote the scripture you are referring to (or did you do this already)?

 

Its the last 6 paragraphs of the Joseph smith history (no verses are assigned to the statement its the first paragraph after verse 75)

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

Edited August 10, 2015 by Danzo

[The Nehor]

I have to agree with you here.  I doubt that there was "rampant dishonesty" involved.  But, I do believe that as leaders learned some details they were previously unaware of regarding church history, they were in an impossible position.  So, many of them allowed the current curriculum to remain inaccurate or at least didn't update it to make it more accurate (until now).  I feel they are trying to do this slowly (with the release of the essays, the seer stone picture and so on).

I do not know that they found out about it on becoming leaders. LDS leaders are not trained conventionally in church history and upon being called do not have a surplus of spare time to read everything nor is there some security briefing where someone fills them in on all the things they are currently "hiding from the members". They understood it was a problem later. They fixed it.

Some people imagine conspiracies of dishonesty, trickery, and obfuscation everywhere but I would argue that that says more about how they interact with the world then it says about the apostles.

[JulieM]

I used to be a bit embarrassed by the stone in the hat story until I read the Temple Institute's description of how the Urim and Thummim functioned. The seerstone is no more problematic than the Uv'T, if one believes in revelation.

I agree. I think it becomes problematic when one learns Joseph also used this same seer stone to search for buried treasure (something many believed to be an anti Mormon lie). Also, it's different from what we've always been taught and it's not real appealing to see (a picture of Joseph with his head in his hat and his face entirely covered). The next question is "Didn't he use the gold plates? How could he if his face was covered when translating?" I think if we'd just been taught the truth all along, members would have just accepted it (and many can do this even learning about it now).

[Teancum]

No the connection of the dots doesn't lean that way.

 

See how easy that was to rebutt.

Actually I provided some substance as to why the dots connect.

You provided none that they don't other then your own assertion.

[ttribe]

Don't know if this will be helpful, but I just found the text of a post I made back in 2010 on the issue of the publication and discussion of the "head-in-the-hat-method" as well as the interchangeability of the U&T and seer stone terminology:

 

...criticism with respect to any of these documents being "misleading" has to do with adopting a relatively strict interpretation of what a Urim & Thummim is.  Clearly, this name is applied to a specific "device" as described by JS himself.  However, it seems this label also gets applied to virtually any physical device that is used by a seer for the purpose of revelation (see Mosiah 28 as well as Exodus 28:30, 1 Samuel 28:6, Ezra 2:63) for example.  I contend that the term is far more broad than just the U&T that was contained in the stone box with the plates.  I believe my position is consistent with Church teachings on the matter.  With that caveat out of the way, I'll just pull some of the key quotes from the links I previously provided and, where I think it is necessary, provide a brief statement of context.

 

August 1987 Ensign article entitled "The Alvin Smith Story: Fact and Fiction" - the context is that the article is discussing the possible existence of an as-yet unknown historical account of the early days of the Restoration based on the presence of various quotes.  One of those quotes is from Wilford Woodruff about the seer stone and is as follows:

 

"A newspaper report in October 1986 claimed that President Woodruff referred “to a history written by Smith in which the church founder describes finding a seerstone.” The newspaper claimed this conclusion was based on “an entry of the First Presidency Office journal.” 37 Actually, the quotation is not from the First Presidency Office journal, but from an unsigned, undated memo found in the Emily Smith Stewart papers at the University of Utah. This typed memorandum recalls a conversation with Wilford Woodruff just before he dictated a recollection about Zion’s Camp. Although the conversation was apparently held “on February 22nd, 1893,” the memo itself explains what was said by “our late President upon this occasion,” showing that it was written after President Woodruff’s death in 1898 and therefore is not a contemporary journal note. 38

 

"The memo says President Woodruff made some spontaneous comments to Elder James E. Talmage “in relation to the seer stone known as ‘Gazelem,’ which was shown of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith to be some thirty feet under ground, and which he obtained by digging under the pretence of excavating for a well, as related in his own history.” 39 Since no history written or dictated by the Prophet contains this incident, some have concluded there must be another, undiscovered history somewhere.

 

"Of course, that conclusion is necessarily based on three premises: (1) that the phrase “his own history” was actually used by President Woodruff; (2) that the memo reported President Woodruff’s words accurately, even though they were remembered from five years earlier; and (3) that, if truly spoken by President Woodruff, the phrase referred to a written history rather than to an oral history.

 

"None of these premises should be automatically assumed to be true, particularly the last. The nineteenth-century Presidents did not rely solely on written sources when talking about Joseph Smith, for they had lived with him, worked with him, and heard him speak. Thirty years earlier, Wilford Woodruff had recorded Brigham Young’s version of “the seer stone which Joseph Smith first obtained” by digging “15 feet underground” after seeing it first in another seer stone. 40 Since the post-1898 memo resembles this 1859 Woodruff entry, the phrase “his own history” could easily refer to conversations with Joseph as remembered by Brigham Young and other early leaders of the Church.

 

"The second statement that could hint at an undiscovered early Church history comes from John Whitmer, who wrote the first known Church history. In his history, Whitmer copied the revelation commanding him to be historian and then noted: “Oliver Cowdery has written the commencement of the Church history, commencing at the time of the finding of the plates, up to June 12, 1831.” 41"

 

The July 1993 Ensign article entitled "A Treasured Testament" is from a talk given by Russell M. Nelson at a new mission presidents seminar and discusses the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon.  Regarding the seer stone and the hat-method, he quotes David Whitmer's account as follows:

 

"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.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)"

 

The September 1977 Ensign article entitled "By the Gift and Power of God" also quotes David Whitmer as follows:

 

"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"

 

The January 1997 article entitled "By the Gift and Power of God" states the following:

 

"The Prophet Joseph alone knew the full process, and he was deliberately reluctant to describe details. We take passing notice of the words of David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and Martin Harris, who were observers, not translators. David Whitmer indicated that as the Prophet used the divine instrumentalities provided to help him, “the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language … in bright luminous letters.” Then Joseph would read the words to Oliver (quoted in James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News, 25 Mar. 1884, 2). Martin Harris related of the seer stone: “Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin” (quoted in Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, 6 Feb. 1882, 86–87). Joseph Knight made similar observations (see Dean Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” BYU Studies 17 [Autumn 1976]: 35).

 

"Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that the Urim and Thummim enabled Joseph “to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates” (“Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, 9 Apr. 1831). If these reports are accurate, they suggest a process indicative of God’s having given Joseph “sight and power to translate” (D&C 3:12).

 

"If by means of these divine instrumentalities the Prophet was seeing ancient words rendered in English and then dictating, he was not necessarily and constantly scrutinizing the characters on the plates—the usual translation process of going back and forth between pondering an ancient text and providing a modern rendering."

 

From the September 1974 Friend article entitled "A Peaceful Heart":

 

" To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”

 

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.

 

Martin Harris said that on the seer stone “sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [the one writing them down] and when finished [that person] would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another take its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates.”"

 

From the June 1994 Ensign article entitled "Highlights in the Prophet's Life":

 

" 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith."

 

From the September 2002 Friend article entitled "The Book of Mormon":

 

"As directed by Moroni, the boy went to the Hill Cumorah and saw the plates and the Urim and Thummim (“seer” stones fastened to a breastplate), but he was not allowed to remove them."

 

From the August 1997 Friend article entitled "The Alphabet Book":

 

" U, Urim and Thummim, the great seer stones, given to Joseph so truth would be known."

 

Both of the above statements are, again, consistent with the notion of interchangeability of "seer stone" and U&T, and are consistent with the description in Mosiah 28.

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[ALarson]

Thanks for posting all of that ttribe.  Very interesting to read through.

 

One other thing to remember is that the term "Urim and Thummim" was not used as a name or description of the ancient interpreters until after 1833.  They weren't in the first edition of the Book of Commandments but were added to the 1835 edition.  Joseph did not even use this term until after this date (1833).

 

Here's more on how these terms came to be associated with the translation tools/stones:  

 

It is notable that the term 'Urim and Thummi' is not found in the Book of Mormon and was never used by Joseph Smith with reference to producing the Book of Mormon until after 1833. In that year, a close associate of Smith, W.W. Phelps, speculated that the ancient Nephite interpreters mentioned in the Book of Mormon and by Joseph Smith might be the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament. Phelps wrote in the LDS publication The Evening and Morning Star (Jan. 1833) that the Book of Mormon had been translated, 'through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles (known perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim). Phelps words, 'known perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummin' show that it was merely speculation on his part that associated Josephs magic seer stone with the biblical Urim and Thummim. 

Phelps' speculation gained quick popularity to the point where LDS writers used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to both the mystical interpreters Joseph Smith said were with the gold plates, and to the seer stone Joseph placed in his hat while dictating the Book of Mormon. As a result, many LDS writings used the term Urim and Thummim synonymously for seer stone.

 

 

And, here's a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that describes the confusion at times:

 

'The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.'" 

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

Thanks for posting all of that ttribe.  Very interesting to read through.

 

One other thing to remember is that the term "Urim and Thummim" was not used as a name or description of the ancient interpreters until after 1833.  They weren't in the first edition of the Book of Commandments but were added to the 1835 edition.  Joseph did not even use this term until after this date (1833).

 

Here's more on how these terms came to be associated with the translation tools/stones:  

 

And, here's a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that describes the confusion at times:

 

Sources, please?

 

Especially for that first quotation; the one that talks about "Josephs [sic] magic seer stone."

 

Thanks.

[Avatar4321]

It depends on the subject.  We're discussing things with a very broad brush.  Some times people lose faith over a misunderstanding.  Sometimes they lose faith over something that was true, but wasn't revealed to them.  There are as many reasons for not knowing, publishing, interpreting historical items as there are historical items to be understood. 

 

Things like Joseph's using a pepper box pistol and translating using a seer stone were available publicly for years.  When people accuse the church of hiding the pistol it amuses me because it has been displayed in a case in the Church history museum, and pictured in an institute manual for decades.

 

Those things are often not the core reason for loss of faith.  They can be a catalyst or the final straw.  But in most cases where I personally knew someone struggling it was those items on top of more heavy burdens, sometimes sin, sometimes a heavy load, sometimes non-Christian actions of other Saints, that accompanied the back breaking information that finally pushed someone away from the Gospel.

 

I admire Bushman's approach for taking as many source materials as he could, presenting all sides of an argument, sorting through the credibility of the sources and stories when he could, then allowing the reader to draw conclusions about what really happened.

 

In the end we are all responsible for what we do with the information we are given.  I choose to have faith in the Gospel plan, even though I know the brethren who lead us are human.  Inspired but not perfect.  I also choose as a free agent, to do the best I can with the information I'm given, not ever make an excuse to quit because someone acted in a way that disillusioned me.

The pistol has also been taught in the primary since at least the time i went through primary. I was a primary teacher a few years ago and it's still there.

But apparently we are dishonestly hiding things we teach our children

[Avatar4321]

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?

Who is Anthony sweat and Martin? And what do they have to do with accurately portraying the Book of Mormon translation?

(Ps doesn't that kind of look like Brigham young translating?)

[omni]

I keep hearing about how the brethren are fallible, well here you go, this is a perfect example of their fallibility. No need to promote credibility-straining apologetic arguments. This doesn't prove the Church is false, just the the leaders are human as most of us suspected. The brethren messed up, perhaps in an overzealous attempt at promoting faith, or maybe something more nefarious. Whatever the reason, it looks like they've recognized the errors of their ways and are now moving to remedy.

[carbon dioxide]

 

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?

I personally don't see the thing to be that big a deal.  I have always known that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a device of some king through the power and inspiration of God.  Whether it was a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters and whether a hat or not simply is a matter of trivia.  When I came to know more of the actual specifics of the translation process, it was and still is no big deal to me.  If the Book of Mormon is true, it is true whether Joseph used a seer stone or something else.  I can complain about the artwork of Jesus appearing the Nephites.  There is that famous pictures of temples or pyramids in the background.  I don't believe those really are accurate to the time setting that Jesus appeared to the Nephites.  So what.  It is just a painting.   Nitpicking the facts depicted in any artwork I think is rather childish. 

[carbon dioxide]

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?

I have some problems with this painting. 

 

1.  How do we know that the desk they used was that small? 

2.  Where is the evidence that the room looked like that and that window placed where it is?

3.  How do we know for certain they wore those clothes? 

 

Why is Anthony Sweat teaching us stuff in this picture that probably is not accurate?

[Robert F. Smith]

You're going to get a lot of posts like the first two above (which of course only deflect and do not answer your excellent questions).

 

I believe the real answer is that the leaders were trying to avoid revealing some things from church history that were embarrassing or that revealed some very uncomfortable facts from church history.  I also believe that they avoided revealing some facts as long as they possibly could (with a few isolated articles here and there that contained some of the truth scattered throughout the past many years ).

The leaders you speak of (in a general sense) are ordinary, fallible men who have known little of the actual, detailed history of the LDS Church.  They have been as much victims of folklore and tradition as you have.  Instead of playing a blame-game, however, they are men of faith who realize all too well the human condition of them and their colleagues.  At the same time, it is true that, among Jewish scribes for example, were many pious men who deliberately changed biblical texts to fit their concept of piety or blasphemy (tikkunei sopherim). People don't leave Judaism over that, but instead understand the good intentions of those men.  They forgive the error made by their fellow humans.  You might try to cultivate that same milk of human kindness.

 

Members are now leaving over what they've discovered online and the leaders know it's time to be more honest or transparent.

......................................................

Very few Mormons are at all conversant with any of this and are certainly not leaving over it.  Most people who leave the Church (any church) leave for very different reasons.  Current leaders have only become progressively aware of some of these historical issues and have addressed them in a responsible and timely way.  You put a negative spin on it, because that is your wont.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have some problems with this painting. 

 

1.  How do we know that the desk they used was that small? 

2.  Where is the evidence that the room looked like that and that window placed where it is?

3.  How do we know for certain they wore those clothes? 

 

Why is Anthony Sweat teaching us stuff in this picture that probably is not accurate?

And with a sleazy name like "sweat," how dare he draw anything?

[Coreyb]

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.

I think the most likely answer is internal politics. Politics among the members of the leading quorums as well as the committees over the various materials. Not everybody is on the same page in regards to the "issues" with the narrative. If you can't agree on changes you stick with the status quo. Just my opinion

[carbon dioxide]

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.

Most members today are more focused on text messages and Facebook.  Here is the deal.  I am not a rocket scientist.  In fact I am just an average guy.  Not the smartest person in the world yet I was able to find all of this stuff without the Church directing me to it.  I have known this stuff for years but do I feel the Church has hid anything from me?  Absolutely not.  The job of the Church is to focus on the important stuff.  Nobody is going to be asked by the Lord at judgement on how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.  Nobody is going to take a 500 question test from the Lord on trivia.  The Church focus is on what matters.  Things that God will expect from us.  Does God care about whether we know how many wives Joseph Smith had or whether we were effective home teachers?

 

All this trivia stuff that really does not effect our salvation/exaltation.  The Church should focus on the important stuff and as members we can learn the trivia on our own time.  If I can learn it, anyone can if they want to invest the time.  Most however would rather spend their time on Facebook or other things that accomplish little. 

[Robert F. Smith]

I personally don't see the thing to be that big a deal.  I have always known that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a device of some king through the power and inspiration of God.  Whether it was a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters and whether a hat or not simply is a matter of trivia.  When I came to know more of the actual specifics of the translation process, it was and still is no big deal to me.  If the Book of Mormon is true, it is true whether Joseph used a seer stone or something else.  I can complain about the artwork of Jesus appearing the Nephites.  There is that famous pictures of temples or pyramids in the background.  I don't believe those really are accurate to the time setting that Jesus appeared to the Nephites.  So what.  It is just a painting.   Nitpicking the facts depicted in any artwork I think is rather childish. 

It is true that many people find Renaissance religious art to be very inspiring.  Others enjoy Arnold Friberg's Viking Realism in order to conceptualize the Book of Mormon.  Because I concern myself with the ancient world and know what ancient peoples and their edifices looked like, I am less satisfied with that, and consider it nonsense.  However, I seldom voice my opinions in any group of people admiring such nonsense, and just let it go.  No point in confusing people who don't read history, right?

[Robert F. Smith]

Most members today are more focused on text messages and Facebook.  Here is the deal.  I am not a rocket scientist.  In fact I am just an average guy.  Not the smartest person in the world yet I was able to find all of this stuff without the Church directing me to it.  I have known this stuff for years but do I feel the Church has hid anything from me?  

......................................................................  

I have had much the same experience.  Anyone who wanted to find the details of Mormon history could do so at any time in my lifetime, and I'm 74.  These shocking items about Joseph's translation methods were readily available to anyone over 50 years ago.  And anyone interested in polygamy could get a snoot-full from reading Fawn Brodie's book on Joseph (1945).  I am always astonished to hear that the Church "hid" that stuff, because it just isn't true.

[omni]

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'll take a stab at it. IMO, the fact that these accounts were published actually hurts the brethren. No pleas of ignorance when you have Elder Maxwell mentioning the seer stone in a early 90s conference address.

You can understand how a good portion of the membership may have missed that talk, maybe they weren't paying attention, or maybe they weren't even members at the time, but surely the brethren would have known. So why has the seer stone-in-a-hat method never been portrayed in any official church art or media?

[Avatar4321]

A covenant is similar to a contract. Contracts that are based on false information or lack of disclosure about critical information are typically null and void. Members who reject the church due to lack of tranparency and less that full disclosure are not seeking to blame anyone other than who the blame lays with.

Only if there is a duty to disclose. Methods of translation really don't seem to rise to that level. So even if there was evidence of any hiding information it would rise to that level.

Besides, the church isn't a party to most of the covenants we make aside from being a third party in a particular temple covenant. The covenants we make are with God. The Church is just the vehicle through which covenants are made.