Dishonesty

[Danzo]

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.

.

You accuse the church of hiding church history (and lying about it as well) because the put it in the ensign? Really? Am I the only one that reads the ensign?

When I was young, our family kept every issue of the church magazines to go back and reread. This seemed to be common practice in my area. It wasn't meant to be read and thrown away. Only recently, because everything is available on the internet have we started throwing them away after a tear or so.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Danzo

[Garden Girl]

You accuse the church of hiding church history (and lying about it as well) because the put it in the ensign? Really? Am I the only one that reads the ensign?

When I was young, our family kept every issue of the church magazines to go back and reread. This seemed to be common practice in my area. It wasn't meant to be read and thrown away. Only recently, because everything is available on the internet have we started throwing them away after a tear or so.

 

Mine too, Danzo... and, incidentally, I was always taught by my folks as I was growing up that the priesthood ban would be lifted and so it was no surprise to me when it happened... I simply thought, Oh good... at last...

 

 

GG

[filovirus]

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?

I will try to answer you question why I have taught it the way I do. But to do so, I think it important you understand how I view the Gospel. To do this, I set out a simple exercise on paper. In the center of a piece of paper, make a single point, or dot. This represents Jesus Christ. He is at the center. Now draw a small circle around that single point. We can add many points into this circle that represent the Doctrine of Christ. This would include faith in God and a knowledge of His characteristics and attributes. All saving ordinances. The principles of justification, sanctification, etc. In essence, this is the Gospel at it's truest form.

 

Now draw a second circle around the first. This will be the periphery of the Gospel of Christ. This circle would have points that include the scriptures, the prophets, WoW, Law of Chastity, tithing, fasting, organization of the church, etc. All this is in place to help us better understand the Gospel or Christ, or the center circle, with Christ as the center point.

 

Now draw an even bigger circle around all of it. This would be the fringe items. We are now two steps away from the Gospel of Christ. The seer stone would be in this circle. How does the seer stone relate to the Gospel of Christ? It was a method (fringe) to translate the BOM (periphery), which is a book of scripture to teach us the Gospel of Christ (center).

 

As a missionary I was called to teach the Gospel of Christ. I would teach that the BOM was translated by the power of God. I would not teach the seer stone, unless it became a hindrance to further progression, which in El Salvador, it never did.

 

I now teach the Gospel Principles class. I treat it the same way. I am called now to teach the principles of the gospel. If I see the seer stone as a possible hindrance to progression to eternal life, I will discuss it. But all in all, that is not my calling.

 

So where do I think the seer stone and exact method of translating needs to be discussed. It should probably be mentioned every other year in Gospel Doctrine class when they study the D&C and BOM, but I don't think an entire lesson needs to be dedicated to it. It should also be mentioned in quorum/RS/youth/primary lesson manuals where appropriate, but should not be a focus either. A greater focus should be given in seminary and institute classes.

 

There are just so many other important things to focus on to have a Christ centered life.

 

As to you second question: I do not know when I learned about the seer stone and it's use. I honestly don't remember. But I know that God will use whatever method Joseph Smith needed to translate the BOM.

[ALarson]

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.

I agree that there had to have been some who knew the truth if the information was included in a few quotes from institute manuals and in the Ensign (the proof many on here point to that members are just lazy if they didn't know about the seer stone prior to this).  This material had to have been approved before it was published.

 

I actually wonder if many of the church leaders (who were leaders after those who knew the early Prophets and lived or witnessed the church history had passed away) just honestly did not know the truth.  If they hadn't studied it or read material that was in their own archives (church archives).  Maybe they believed the church history that was being taught just like many members still do today.

 

But, when historians got access to the archives (some refer to this as the Camelot years, 1970's & into the 1980's) and started writing and publishing the truth, many had to have learned at least most of the details.  I believe that from then on, there was an effort to keep the truth from the members (by some of the leaders).  Lesson materials could have been updated to include the truth.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N03_11.pdf

 

I don't know how many leaders over the years between then and now really studied and learned the true church history, but I agree that at least some of them had to know the details regarding polygamy, the seer stone and so on.

Edited August 11, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

So where do I think the seer stone and exact method of translating needs to be discussed. It should probably be mentioned every other year in Gospel Doctrine class when they study the D&C and BOM, but I don't think an entire lesson needs to be dedicated to it. It should also be mentioned in quorum/RS/youth/primary lesson manuals where appropriate, but should not be a focus either. A greater focus should be given in seminary and institute classes.

 

I think these are excellent suggestions.  Your entire post was great to read and honest.

 

Regarding what you wrote about how you now teach when it comes to the Book of Mormon translation (not mentioning the seer stone unless it's "a possible hindrance to progression to eternal life"),  Do you teach using the inaccurate version and illustrations or do you just state that he translated by the power of God and leave it at that?

Edited August 11, 2015 by ALarson

[ttribe]

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.

 

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). 

 

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?

 

Discovered in my own personal study.  Probably patted myself on the back for uncovering one of the "deeper mysteries" of the gospel.  I was foolish to have such hubris.

 

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

 

 

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).

 

Bravo, sir!

 

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.

 

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

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[KevinG]

As convert in the late 1980s with no LDS relatives somehow I had access to the stone in hat theory through an institute manual in 1991, and yet born in the covenant 8 generations Mormons were shocked into disbelief because of this and other history that was hidden!

 

The same people who blame the church for hiding history, don't balance this with the examples of church published information in their arguments, or pass them off as exceptions that no one would reasonably find (needle in a haystack, etc.).

 

Joseph Smith's history and the history of the church in general is ancillary to the purpose of Sunday School and missionary work, not the central purpose of Sunday School and other widely published church materials.  For those who wanted detailed history institute and other published books were available.

 

Some of these details were impossible to sort between faithful and critics until the Joseph Smith Papers and other documents were released, shedding additional light on the details.  To this day we still don't know the intimate details of many historical events.  Yet there are plenty of people who will take the most favorable, or least favorable interpretation of incomplete information to justify their own orientation towards the Gospel and church.

[KevinG]

 

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

 

The sample size just grew.  

 

This is a discussion not a random survey.

[ttribe]

The sample size just grew.  

 

This is a discussion not a random survey.

 

Do you really think it is a good idea for one person to state that if he could find the information everyone else who didn't has "no excuse?" 

[KevinG]

Do you really think it is a good idea for one person to state that if he could find the information everyone else who didn't has "no excuse?" 

 

I don't like the "no excuse" statement.  That is about as cynical as the "they lied to me" statement.

 

Here is something much more intelligent from the other thread:

 

JAHS, on 11 Aug 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

As I have said on one of the other half dozen threads about this, Joseph did not have a "peep stone", he had a "seer stone". However, his seer stone was still nothing more than a rock that he happen to find in the ground, but which God decided to allow Joseph to use as a means to help him effect translation, so long as he had faith that he could use it as such.   During his work on his Bible translation, Smith told Orson Pratt he had stopped using the stone because he had become acquainted with "the Spirit of Prophecy and Revelation" and no longer needed it. (Millennial Star 36 [1874]:498–99.).  It wasn't the stone, it was joseph Smith's faith and spirit of prophecy and revelation that made it posssible for him to translate. He could have done it all without the stone from the beginning, but God knows our mortal minds sometimes need something tangible that we can hold on to, to help spark the faith in our ability to call on the powers of God to receive revelation.

 

I think this says a lot about the relative importance of the artifacts used versus the process of revelation.  A more parsimonious interpretation than "the church lied to me" would be that the brethren guiding the church publications felt the stone in the hat, while part of our history, was more of a distraction from the important subject of revelation, than it was a help to students understanding.  It was never denied, it was not emphasized.  Possibly even because it was awkward to discuss.  We cannot know the intent without asking those who prepared the materials for general use.  

 

Much like the very light treatment of polygamy in the recent President's of the Church curricula.  It is acknowledged but only in passing when the chapters discuss more pertinent Gospel teachings.  Meanwhile the practice and history itself is widely available to those who seek it.  Even more so now the church has published the history we can verify on line.

 

Interpreting all of that as intent to deceive sounds pretty cynical to me.  Of course all my questions were answered openly by LDS friends when I was investigating the church.  I answer my own children's questions openly and with as much information as I can provide.

[rockpond]

As convert in the late 1980s with no LDS relatives somehow I had access to the stone in hat theory through an institute manual in 1991, and yet born in the covenant 8 generations Mormons were shocked into disbelief because of this and other history that was hidden!

 

The same people who blame the church for hiding history, don't balance this with the examples of church published information in their arguments, or pass them off as exceptions that no one would reasonably find (needle in a haystack, etc.).

 

Joseph Smith's history and the history of the church in general is ancillary to the purpose of Sunday School and missionary work, not the central purpose of Sunday School and other widely published church materials.  For those who wanted detailed history institute and other published books were available.

 

Some of these details were impossible to sort between faithful and critics until the Joseph Smith Papers and other documents were released, shedding additional light on the details.  To this day we still don't know the intimate details of many historical events.  Yet there are plenty of people who will take the most favorable, or least favorable interpretation of incomplete information to justify their own orientation towards the Gospel and church.

 

I find the contrast of positions on these boards to be the most fascinating part of all this...

 

There are those in your camp who say:  look, it's been published and out there all along.

 

And then there are those, like Robert F Smith (a couple pages back) who claim that the Brethren weren't hiding anything because they likely didn't know.  History was unclear.

 

And then we have Doctrines of Salvation (Joseph Fielding Smith, compiled/edited by Bruce R McConkie) which Deseret Book describes today as "an authoritative work, written by the most outstanding scholar of the gospel in the Church containing a wealth of explanations about a vast array of gospel topics" that discounts the use of a seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, highlighting how it seemingly contradicts the Book of Mormon itself.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile the statements that members are lazy for not knowing while the Brethren are justified for telling a different narrative and keeping the seer stone hidden away because we didn't know the real history.  Until now.

[Storm Rider]

If a person wants an excuse, then they will find an excuse.  It is difficult to take responsibility for the condition of one's own life.  It is so much easier to point at something, someone else and say they are at fault.  

 

It is pretty comical the logical hoops some people go through to make their agenda real; most of it by sticking their heads in the sand and blaming others because their head is in the sand. 

[KevinG]

I find the contrast of positions on these boards to be the most fascinating part of all this...

 

There are those in your camp who say:  look, it's been published and out there all along.

 

And then there are those, like Robert F Smith (a couple pages back) who claim that the Brethren weren't hiding anything because they likely didn't know.  History was unclear.

 

 

I don't believe it is quite that cut and dry.  The information is out there, but like the information on the details of polygamy in Joseph's time there are many conflicting or incomplete reports.

 

But as you say we have two extremes being touted.  One is that the brethren intentionally lied to people and the other is that those who didn't find any information or found contradictory information are lazy.

 

Guess what?  History has lots of contradicting information.  Contemporary newspaper articles of Joseph's time contradict sharply.  What a good scholar of the history can do is look at all reports and realize the truth is probably somewhere between intentional deception (dishonesty as the thread title proposes), and laziness on the part of those who did not know.

 

To my knowledge I've never called anyone lazy here or anywhere else in these discussions going back years.  If someone finds that reference from me I will apologize forthwith.  But that might take a historian to find.  

[ttribe]

I think this says a lot about the relative importance of the artifacts used versus the process of revelation.  A more parsimonious interpretation than "the church lied to me" would be that the brethren guiding the church publications felt the stone in the hat, while part of our history, was more of a distraction from the important subject of revelation, than it was a help to students understanding.  It was never denied, it was not emphasized.  Possibly even because it was awkward to discuss.  We cannot know the intent without asking those who prepared the materials for general use.  

 

Much like the very light treatment of polygamy in the recent President's of the Church curricula.  It is acknowledged but only in passing when the chapters discuss more pertinent Gospel teachings.  Meanwhile the practice and history itself is widely available to those who seek it. 

 

That may very well be the case as to the rationalization for such an approach, but could it be the case we are discovering it isn't working very well?  There are, obviously, many members of the Church who took the counsel to stay within the boundaries of the approved curriculum at face value and who are now surprised by this information.  Why are we blaming them for not looking for this information when they didn't think there was any reason to look for it?  They trusted that the Sunday curriculum would be sufficient for them.  They are now discovering that there was other true information out there that might have impacted the lens through which they evaluated the Church's truth claims, but the Church didn't provide that information in the course of the regular approved study materials.  Can you not see how this looks from their perspective?

[Nevo]

As convert in the late 1980s with no LDS relatives somehow I had access to the stone in hat theory through an institute manual in 1991, and yet born in the covenant 8 generations Mormons were shocked into disbelief because of this and other history that was hidden!

 

No, you didn't because the "stone in hat theory" wasn't mentioned in any institute manuals.

[Danzo]

Do you really think it is a good idea for one person to state that if he could find the information everyone else who didn't has "no excuse?" 

I was taught it in Institute and probably Seminary.  One can hardly have an in depth discussion about D&C 28 without mentioning seer stones.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Danzo

[thesometimesaint]

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 magic fruit, a rock, a hat, a U&T, dirt, spit, a divining rod, a couple of sticks, cast lots, burning bushes, talking donkey's, had dreams, saw writings on walls, or received plain old impressions from God, or whatever. 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.

Edited August 11, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Danzo]

No, you didn't because the "stone in hat theory" wasn't mentioned in any institute manuals.

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

[thatjimguy]

Because the seer stone narrative is problematic. 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.

 

Additionally, church leadership has likely been embarrassed by the folk magic element in our past.

 

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?

[rockpond]

I don't believe it is quite that cut and dry.  The information is out there, but like the information on the details of polygamy in Joseph's time there are many conflicting or incomplete reports.

 

But as you say we have two extremes being touted.  One is that the brethren intentionally lied to people and the other is that those who didn't find any information or found contradictory information are lazy.

 

Guess what?  History has lots of contradicting information.  Contemporary newspaper articles of Joseph's time contradict sharply.  What a good scholar of the history can do is look at all reports and realize the truth is probably somewhere between intentional deception (dishonesty as the thread title proposes), and laziness on the part of those who did not know.

 

To my knowledge I've never called anyone lazy here or anywhere else in these discussions going back years.  If someone finds that reference from me I will apologize forthwith.  But that might take a historian to find.  

 

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.

[Danzo]

Just for everyone keeping score. The only examples of the church lying, or being dishonest seems to be limited to some of the artists and illustrators of the church.

The victims are the poor illiterate in the church who have been mislead to believe that Joseph looked through two rocks instead when some witnesses said that at times he only looked at one.

[KevinG]

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

 

 

No, you didn't because the "stone in hat theory" wasn't mentioned in any institute manuals.

 

I stand corrected.  Suffice it to say I learned it in institute.  Sorry my memory isn't perfect about it being printed in the manual vs. other materials I received.

 

Here is a list of where I might have seen it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_Church_sources_discuss_either_the_use_of_the_seer_stone_or_the_stone_and_the_hat_as_part_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_process%3F

 

I do remember a picture of the pepper box pistol in the 1991 church history manual, then seeing it displayed in the church history museum a few years later, and being very amused when someone claimed it was never revealed.

[rockpond]

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?

 

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.

[KevinG]

That may very well be the case as to the rationalization for such an approach, but could it be the case we are discovering it isn't working very well?  There are, obviously, many members of the Church who took the counsel to stay within the boundaries of the approved curriculum at face value and who are now surprised by this information.  Why are we blaming them for not looking for this information when they didn't think there was any reason to look for it?  They trusted that the Sunday curriculum would be sufficient for them.  They are now discovering that there was other true information out there that might have impacted the lens through which they evaluated the Church's truth claims, but the Church didn't provide that information in the course of the regular approved study materials.  Can you not see how this looks from their perspective?

 

I'm not blaming anyone.  Of course the materials were not widely circulated.  (Possible reasons: it was not central to lessons, it was not widely known, the various reports do not confirm one way or another the primary method of translation...)  But that is a far cry from declaring the brethren, church, or publishers of lessons are dishonest because some members didn't know about the hat and stone (or full count and the nature of the relations of women sealed to Joseph, etc.)

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

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