Dishonesty

filovirus · August 11, 2015

Here is my big sweeping generalization: The Gospel is simple, yet many members look past the mark!

We should know the history but it should not overshadow Christ and His Doctrine.

Edited August 11, 2015 by filovirus

Robert F. Smith · August 11, 2015

I believe David Whitmer was disaffected at that point. He was not speaking for the church.

True enough, and one could even add that he was the granddaddy of the Whitmerite factions. However, he and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer had no reason to bear false witness on this matter, and all of the witnesses need to be gathered together and evaluated as a group. Indeed, they are surprisingly consistent.

Robert F. Smith · August 11, 2015

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

The consensus seems to be that the Brethren knew about how the Book of Mormon was really brought forth. They, therefore, allowed a different and inaccurate narrative to be taught and presented to members and investigators. It's a fair question to ask "why?".

Yeh, why are you still beating your wife?

I know of no such consensus -- particularly among actual historians, who are few in number.

Kenngo1969 · August 11, 2015

This seems like a perfect time to belt out a chorus of:

"Oh, hoooooooooooooooooonesty! Is such a lonely word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [insert crooner emoticon here].

Thank you all for letting me get that out of my system. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

JLHPROF · August 11, 2015

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

This is probably true. 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.

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. 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.

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.

rockpond · August 11, 2015

Yeh, why are you still beating your wife?
I know of no such consensus -- particularly among actual historians, who are few in number.

Okay, so you're argument is that the Brethren didn't know that the Book of Mormon was translated with a seer stone? So when did they find out?

Edited August 11, 2015 by rockpond

strappinglad · August 11, 2015

I read the " eye witness statements " and note that nowhere do they say the Joseph had one finger on the KJV and one eye on the hat. Nowhere do they say that he was copying Spaulding or some other mystery writer. Instead they say that there was a supernatural power that revealed the message to Joseph. I keep seeing the phrase ' the head in the hat ' over and over ,yet few mention any concerns with what was actually happening in the hat. Are we missing the point?

sunstoned · August 11, 2015

Examples please?

http://4c9aaie8nf22wxdk63a2acfl6q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/08/translating_the_plates.jpg

https://meataftermilk.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/book-of-mormon-translation-1-2.png

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXxZj_gfr1TpfROgcikiWs689nS8mbKc2k3wfcm9ht9ymC1fljsQ

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzLeR8PbCArvEUt9V8MuynlCIEqQ1CCkzWsiBQRunkiamamcOF

sjdawg · August 11, 2015

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.

Can you really call it translating if even the physical plates weren't required? Where is the translation?

Teancum · August 11, 2015

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.

The historical narrative regarding the supernatural claims surrounding the founding of the church are critical to its truth claims as well as the authority from God it claims. The church uses its founding stories to persuade people to become members as well as to solidify those brought up LDS. Latter-day Saints are taught to obtain and beat testimony tha Joseph Smith was a prophet , saw God and Jesus, translated the Book of Mormon that was received by an angel, received predestining keys from other heavenly messengers and so on. Thus the information related to the founding stories are no trivia at all. They are critical and the church thinks they are because they have presented a story that seems to have left out certain things, presented it perhaps differently then actually occurred .

Many honest people don't see this as a problem. But many honest people do as well.

Teancum · August 11, 2015

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.

You don't think a church the demands total honesty and integrity from its members has a duty to full disclosure about its history?

KevinG · August 11, 2015

So after reading all of this thread I've come to a couple of conclusions.

There is a strong possibility that the original U&T was taken from Joseph after the 116 manuscript pages were lost, but he was given back the power to translate using the seer stone in his possession. This isn't expressly stated but seeing the pattern of reports by eyewitnesses it could be the case.

There are numerous references to the various types of translation methods (curtain, no curtain, plates, no plates, witnesses, no witnesses, U&T, Seer Stone, Hat, no hat...) during the translation process (or revalatory process if you prefer) that are shared in church history and non-church history since the start of the church.

So in regards to this being an example of church "dishonesty" or hiding our history it is a pretty thin charge in 2015, and not much better in 1970. The information was available in church sources if someone cared to look. Even in some widely distributed sources like the Ensign and Friend.

However I have learned that witnesses saw various methods and sometimes Joseph even received revelation directly about the Book of Mormon.

CV75 · August 11, 2015

I think you are clearly the exception to the rule on how the majority of the Church's members get their eduction on Church History (as am I, by the way) and I think your son's experience is indicative of that fact (being accused of getting info from "anti" materials). I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the majority of Church membership have relied upon the lesson manuals provided for Sunday School, Priesthood and Relief Society meetings as their primary source(s) for this information.

But this is not an indicator that "the information never found its way (in any meaningful way) into the main media used to teach the membership masses." The Lord uses many means to teach His children what they need to know according to their circumstances, individually and collectively. The main media in the 70s' was the library; it is the Internet today. The means to organize the research and presentation of the Church's "secular" history to properly dovetail with the priority Gospel message was made possible by advancements in financial resources, scholarship and technology, as had been the case with the Church's work on the scripture canon and helps. One might as well complain that the Church is only recently providing accurate portrayals of the life of Jesus Christ. I see nothing wrong with members or the general public relying on what the Church has provided in the past for historical information, as the aim is to lead them to that essential Gospel message. Neither is there anything wrong with members or the general public getting quality information elsewhere; this will not get in the way of anyone's spiritual progress unless they allow it to become a distraction.

CV75 · August 11, 2015

Nice! I once continued a conversation with a very hostile anti-mormon (not just a doubter this guy was consigning me to hell) because I knew the guy in the seat behind us on the train was listening. I didn't answer the questions for the hostile man, I answered them for the man listening in.

Yes, I don't think true words are ever wasted.

HappyJackWagon · August 11, 2015

For those who attempted to answer my question...Thank you.

For those who avoided answering, it's disappointing you couldn't answer or even try. Instead you attack, saying I'm whining about unimportant details yet you couldn't address the issue. It's telling.

I'm quite disheartened by many of the responses that refused to even accept the obvious. 1- The church knew about the seer stone translation for many decades (at least) 2- The church chose to teach a different story. My question was WHY would they know, yet teach something different and many couldn't even agree that the church knew or agree that the church taught a different story. This is pretty basic. I honestly can't understand how those two issues can be disputed, yet many try. Your awful excuses and refusals to accept reality do more harm than good.

For those who simply can't see why it bothers me and others that the church would knowingly teach something they knew wasn't true, I don't know what to say to you. It is unlikely you would accept that kind of behavior in any other aspect of your life. I know I wouldn't. But it is definitely true that different people react differently to dishonesty. Some choose to minimize the impact while others don't.

For those who insist you've always known that hat/stone method of translation my question for you is this... If you knew the true method, did you teach that on your missions and in your classes, or did you teach the traditional narrative you "knew" wasn't accurate? If you didn't teach it the way you knew was correct, WHY?

ETA- one last question for everyone. Did you learn about the Hat/stone method of BoM translation at church or did you discover it through your own personal study?

Edited August 11, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

bjw · August 11, 2015

I think the reason the stone in the hat method brings people doubts in their minds is it's implications on the Book of Mormon text itself. Such as: Mormon 1:8-9: "And these Gadianton Robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again. And it came to pass that there were sorceries, and witchcrafts, and magics; and the power of the evil one was wrought upon all the face of the land, even unto the fulfilling of all the words of Abinadi, and also Samuel the Lamanite."

If a stone used for finding treasure was also used to translate the BoM, and during some treasure excavations the treasure was said to slip through the ground because of a curse, then it would appear some of the treasure mythology found it's way into the book itself.

To me God speaking through a stone is as plausible as anything mentioned in the Bible, but this could be problematic for some when something we now know was part of Joseph's life is in the Book of Mormon. Can this be coincidence, or maybe this is part of the curse talked about in the BoM still active hundreds of years later. I know Nibley always saw these verses as figurative, but the church probably waited so long to address the issue of the stone because of how it pertains to the treasure finding operation. I think the church could turn this around and maybe say God used what JS learned during his time treasure digging to prepare him to be a seer later, and that he was able to personally witness the curse God put on the land because of the disobedience of the people.

Joshua Valentine · August 11, 2015

Interestingly enough for those who believe the Church was in the practice of hiding the stone in the hat theory... As far back as 1887 David Whitmer was sharing it with the world.

AN ADDRESS
TO
ALL BELIEVERS IN CHRIST.
BY
A WITNESS TO THE DIVINE AUTHENTICITY
OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.
DAVID WHITMER,
RICHMOND, MISSOURI.
1887

God gave to an unlearned boy, Joseph Smith, the gift to translate it by the means of a STONE. See the following passages concerning the ”Urim and Thummin," being the same means and one by which the Ancients received the word of the Lord.^[17]
I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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.
[18

Um, this has nothing to do with the LDS Church hiding something or not, as Whiter had left the church long before this statement. Instead, this is actually another example of a critic reporting accurate information. Best not to use this for the same purpose in the future, I think.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2015

Um, this has nothing to do with the LDS Church hiding something or not, as Whiter had left the church long before this statement. Instead, this is actually another example of a critic reporting accurate information. Best not to use this for the same purpose in the future, I think.

The trouble with this statement is that is doesn't comport with D&C 9.

ALarson · August 11, 2015

Sources, please?

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

Thanks.

I had that quote in my files and have read it several places. Here are a couple sites:

http://mit.irr.org/translation-or-divination

http://mormonbookshelf.com/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_Translation_Method

Here's what FairMormon states about W.W. Phelps and the Urim & Thummim:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Source:Phelps:The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star_1:58:through_the_aid_of_a_pair_of_Interpreters,_or_spectacles%E2%80%94(known,_perhaps,_in_ancient_days_as_Teraphim,_or_Urim_and_Thummim)

The terms Urim and Thummim were not used by Joseph Smith or others until after 1833 (from W.W. Phelps speculation). Here is how the Book of Commandments was altered after that:

Original prior to 1833 (with no mention of the Urim and Thummim)l:

Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and also lost your gift at the same time: nevertheless, it has been restored to you again: therefore, see that you are faithful and go unto finishing the remainder of the work as you have begun.

http://mit.irr.org/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/BoC1833p22_0.gif

And the same verse in the 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments (Urim and Thummim have been added):

Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10.4?lang=eng

Edited August 11, 2015 by ALarson

ALarson · August 11, 2015

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

The image I posted is from this new book (I'm not sure where you got the name "Martin"?):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65319-face-in-the-hat-translation-new-pictures-in-an-lds-book/

Edited August 11, 2015 by ALarson

ALarson · August 11, 2015

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.

So, which is it? Was this common knowledge and published regularly as many on here claim, blaming the members for being lazy and not knowing about the seer stone in the hat translation prior to this?

Or as you state, have the leaders "known little of the actual, detailed history of the LDS Church"? Because if that's true, how were the members supposed to already know the "detailed history"?

Danzo · August 11, 2015

http://4c9aaie8nf22wxdk63a2acfl6q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/08/translating_the_plates.jpg
https://meataftermilk.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/book-of-mormon-translation-1-2.png
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXxZj_gfr1TpfROgcikiWs689nS8mbKc2k3wfcm9ht9ymC1fljsQ
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzLeR8PbCArvEUt9V8MuynlCIEqQ1CCkzWsiBQRunkiamamcOF

Only pictures. Maybe the church was only trying to trick illiterate people. So mean of them to pick on people who can't (or won't) read

HappyJackWagon · August 11, 2015

So, which is it? Was this common knowledge and published regularly as many on here claim, blaming the members for being lazy and not knowing about the seer stone in the hat translation prior to this?

Or as you state, have the leaders "known little of the actual, detailed history of the LDS Church"? Because if that's true, how were the members supposed to already know the "detailed history"?

We KNOW at least some of the brethren at the highest levels of authority knew about it. We have a few Ensign articles that prove it. It is possible some didn't know but at least some did.

We KNOW the hat/stone method hasn't been a part of the church education curriculum in seminary , Sunday School, YM/YW, primary etc. If someone wants to dispute this I'd love to read about their accounts of how they've taught it in various classes over the years.

So if we know these two things then the obvious question is WHY did the church not teach the true translation method when at least some of them knew about it and published in church magazines. It's a troubling question some refuse to even consider.

Nevo · August 11, 2015

The information was available in church sources if someone cared to look. Even in some widely distributed sources like the Ensign and Friend.

This is a terrible apologetic argument and I wish people would stop using it. Paul Malan got it right:

Sure, there are a handful of official documents that mentioned the face-in-the-hat technique, but these are isolated needles buried within haystacks that have been carefully arranged by Church gatekeepers.

Needle: 150 words from a 38-year-old article in an official Church magazine.
Haystack: 150 years of sermons, art, film production, and culture that celebrate a striking, blue-eyed demigod reading from gold plates the way a third-grader reads Harry Potter. (Which is to say, not with a rock in a hat.)
Plot twist: You don’t even know there is a needle to look for until someone blames you for not finding it.

https://medium.com/@ungewissen/the-day-i-won-the-internet-dc236fb81723

Would-be defenders of the Church would do well to follow the lead of the authors of the recent book From Darkness unto Light and not be afraid to admit the obvious: "Joseph's possession of additional seer stones [that is, in addition to the spectacles recovered with the plates] is generally not included in traditional LDS history, which focuses upon the use of the 'Urim and Thummim'" (Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015], 67).

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2015

I'm hardly the most informed person on LDS history. I don't have a testimony of Church history. However I do know enough for my own purposes. If I knew these things there is no excuse for others not to know.

Sign In

Dishonesty

Recommended Posts

filovirus

Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

Kenngo1969

JLHPROF

rockpond

strappinglad

sunstoned

sjdawg

Teancum

Teancum

KevinG

CV75

CV75

HappyJackWagon

bjw

Joshua Valentine

thesometimesaint

ALarson

ALarson

ALarson

Danzo

HappyJackWagon

Nevo

thesometimesaint

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse