Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Many will be exposed to those issues once they are serving, better to be prepared.

That is the worst time to learn about the issues.  

It sends a message kind of like this:

Quote

Church: Hi.  Every young man has a duty to serve a mission. I want you to make a major sacrifice and commit to teaching about the events of the restoration.  

Young 17 year old kid:  Yes, I will go and do that.  I believe in the narrative I have been taught

Investigator:  Hey, did you know Joseph Smith couldn't actually translate Egyptian?  And that he hunted for treasure with the same device he used to translate scripture?

Young 18 year missionary:  What?!  That's not true.  That's an anti-mormon lie!

Church:  Oh yeah, I couldn't tell you the parts you might object to until after you have made the commitment.  Buyer beware, and all that.  If you didn't know than that is your fault.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

The secret polygamist marriage between Joseph and a 14 year old girl was not a legal marriage.

But as a thought experiment let's say that it was all legal. For the sake of argument,  let's assume that Brigham Young's and Warren Jeff's young wives were legal. What difference does that make?  It's still morally wrong.  Mormon's are supposed to respect the laws, but we don't derive are morals from the laws, do we?

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure what your point it.

Really pretty simple. That Common Law marriages like that of JS time were quite common.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity

Warren Jeff's also makes appeals to the Bible and what other Christians have done in the name of God. Old men marrying young girls into secret polygamist marriages doesn't become morally correct because there are examples of other people doing it.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Really pretty simple. That Common Law marriages like that of JS time were quite common.

Not polygamous marriages.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Prior to the Victorian Era marriage to 14 year old's was legal.

 

I don't know anyone who thinks 19th century frontier marriages of 14-year-olds is categorically immoral (or illegal).  I do know people who think a legally married 38-year-old secretly marrying a 14-year-old after telling her that her family's salvation may depend on it might be immoral and illegal.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think "revise" or "update" would be a more apt descriptor.  "Re-write" sounds rather excessive.

I think Bro. Bushman's statement, being off-the-cuff, was not an altogether accurate statement of his position.  He made this remark in a small group setting, and in response to another participant's use of the phrase "dominant narrative".  See here:

He has since clarified his position here:

I think some critics of the Church, and also some disaffected individuals, have attempted to appropriate Bro. Bushman's remark and use it as evidence that he (and/or others in the Church) are moving toward an ahistorical, non-revelatory, historicity-is-irrelevant-anyway approach to the fundamental truth claims of the the Restoration.  I don't think that is what is happening.

Hmm.  I wonder what the Stoddards would say about the display in the Church History Museum that includes large color photographs of Joseph Smith's seerstone and a brief summary of its role in the translation process.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for sharing the context, its good for people to know the background of that statement and how it was used by some as well as the statements that Bushman made afterwards.  I do think he was accurate with his original statement, but some people were misusing that statement to say that Bushman believes the church is essentially a fraud, and thats not fair to Bushman, hence the clarification.  

However, as someone who's read a lot of Bushman and listened to a lot of his interviews, reddit AMA and all kinds of things that he's said over the years, I do believe his original statement is correct, that he believes the dominant narrative isn't true.  I would agree with him on that statement and I'd go further and say that the dominant narrative not only isn't true, but its also immature and presents a lot of problems in a 21st century world.  

Good thought about the new revamped church history museum and the Stoddards, I wonder how they would react to that.  My guess is they would say that it is PR spin that the church uses to placate the world, and that it is a necessary evil but that the Stoddard's know the real truth.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I got push back when I taught about the seer stone in church.  A lot of people don't live in Utah or anywhere near it. The museum exhibits are still new. 

Cognitive Dissonance plays a big role there too.  The seer stone was regarded as an anti-mormon lie by so many people.  It takes time for an idea to go from an anti-mormon lie to being part of the narrative.

I am not aware of any "anti-mormon lies" that have become "part of the narrative."

I think generalized apathy also plays a big role.  I think the Restored Gospel simply contains too much information as can be conveyed in lessons taught once a week for 40 minutes or so.  I think the Saints have an individual obligation to make the Gospel a point of ongoing personal study (and, if possible, structured study through Institute classes, etc.).

Personally, I have never heard of anyone who regarded the seerstone as "an anti-mormon lie."  However, I know quite a few people who were not aware of it at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Personally, I have never heard of anyone who regarded the seerstone as "an anti-mormon lie."  However, I know quite a few people who were not aware of it at all.

Over the past few years (after the essay) I've run into several people who were unaware of the seer stone.  And I've run into a a few people who called the seer stone an anti-mormon lie.    

It's not hard to understand why.

• Check out what this apologetic web site used to say way back in the dark ages of 2015.

• Joseph Fielding Smith doubted the seer stone as a translation device.  Which is the position I think many of the older informed members adopted as their own at that time.

  “While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24″ (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 3:, p.225).

• The Ensign also implied that the seer stone was an anti-mormon lie.

  “Miffed at the discovery and forcible discontinuance of his secret enterprise, Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasure guarded by evil spirits. He claimed that Joseph concocted the idea of finding a book from the suggestion of a vagabond conjurer named Walters who had participated with the Smiths in their digging ventures. Cole laid the groundwork for the theme of deception, indolence, and irreligion that was to characterize descriptions of Joseph Smith in subsequent non-Mormon writings.” (Dean Jessee - Sep. 1979 Ensign]

• The manuals omitted seer stones and instead used quotes like this:

  “Joseph Smith received the gold plates from Moroni on September 22, 1827. “I obtained them,” the Prophet testified, “and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon.””

  And for some strange reason people say that the manual only did that to save time.  I can't exactly understand why people think it takes more time to mention the seer stones that Joseph found in the ground than to mention the Urim and Thummim Joseph got with the plates.

• Some apologetic web sites used to say the seer stone was not used in translation.

• Nibbly attacked Fawn Brodie over the seer stones. The reader is left to believe the seer stone is an “anti-mormon lie”.

  “We would applaud such strong-mindedness were it not that on the very next page she accepts the stories of the same witnesses regarding "seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations."”(Nibble - No ma'am that is not my History)

• There is an audio recording of Elder Legrand Richards who was one of the senior Apostles in the 70’s.  In the audio Elder Legrand Richards said repeatedly that the church does not have Joseph Smith’s seer stone.

• The lay members sometimes also pushed the idea that the seer stone was a lie from South Park.  Or in some tellings the seer stone is said to be a lie from the Tanners.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing the context, its good for people to know the background of that statement and how it was used by some as well as the statements that Bushman made afterwards.  I do think he was accurate with his original statement, but some people were misusing that statement to say that Bushman believes the church is essentially a fraud, and thats not fair to Bushman, hence the clarification.  

However, as someone who's read a lot of Bushman and listened to a lot of his interviews, reddit AMA and all kinds of things that he's said over the years, I do believe his original statement is correct, that he believes the dominant narrative isn't true.  I would agree with him on that statement and I'd go further and say that the dominant narrative not only isn't true, but its also immature and presents a lot of problems in a 21st century world.  

Good thought about the new revamped church history museum and the Stoddards, I wonder how they would react to that.  My guess is they would say that it is PR spin that the church uses to placate the world, and that it is a necessary evil but that the Stoddard's know the real truth.  

I am comfortable with the idea that the dominant narrative of all religious denominations isn't true.  That leaves us with the original problem.  Whose narrative are we going choose to use as a basis for our personal credo?  They all contain truth, they all have errors. 

[churchistrue]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not aware of any "anti-mormon lies" that have become "part of the narrative."

I think generalized apathy also plays a big role.  I think the Restored Gospel simply contains too much information as can be conveyed in lessons taught once a week for 40 minutes or so.  I think the Saints have an individual obligation to make the Gospel a point of ongoing personal study (and, if possible, structured study through Institute classes, etc.).

Personally, I have never heard of anyone who regarded the seerstone as "an anti-mormon lie."  However, I know quite a few people who were not aware of it at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Some things that I used to think were anti-Mormon lies that are now becoming part of the mainstream narrative (with nuanced explanations)

--Joseph Smith was involved with money digging

--Joseph Smith translated BOM with head in hat looking at seerstone, money digging style and not using the Urim and Thumim 

--aspects of polygamy related to sexual relationships that are not allowed to be discussed here

--the fact that the temple endowment was borrowed from Masonry

--there are multiple versions of the First Vision account that are difficult to harmonize

 

Maybe I was naive.  But I did believe those were anti-Mormon lies up through my early adult life.  (life long member, RM, BYU grad)

 

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I am comfortable with the idea that the dominant narrative of all religious denominations isn't true.  That leaves us with the original problem.  Whose narrative are we going choose to use as a basis for our personal credo?  They all contain truth, they all have errors. 

I agree with this..only with and added statement that only one church claims to have a prophet.

[ERayR]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree with this..only with and added statement that only one church claims to have a prophet.

I hope this doesn't come across wrong but, so what it is only one of the claims.  Choose whether you accept it or not but choose for your own reasons not because somebody else says yes or no. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by ERayR
Add to post.

[ERayR]

I am not sure but I do think others claim to have a prophet in some form or another.  Will check when I get time.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I hope this doesn't come across wrong but, so what it is only one of the claims.  Choose whether you accept it or not but choose for your own reasons not because somebody else says yes or no. 

It does not come across wrong at all.  The LDS church is different from the others because they do claim to have a Prophet and Seer.  My only point is that they should and probably do know more truths than other churches and the errors should be few.  So actually I was surprised at your comment.  Not being snarky or anything.  It was a difference that I wanted to explore.

[ERayR]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It does not come across wrong at all.  The LDS church is different from the others because they do claim to have a Prophet and Seer.  My only point is that they should and probably do know more truths than other churches and the errors should be few.  So actually I was surprised at your comment.  Not being snarky or anything.  It was a difference that I wanted to explore.

I agree with you,one could expect the errors to be fewer depending on how one thinks this prophet think really works.  If one thinks God micro manages one could expect fewer errors but if one thinks he points the direction and hands the prophet a compass, then maybe not so much.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Over the past few years (after the essay) I've run into several people who were unaware of the seer stone.  And I've run into a a few people who called the seer stone an anti-mormon lie.    

It's not hard to understand why.

• Check out what this apologetic web site used to say in way back in the dark ages of 2015.

• Joseph Fielding Smith doubted the seer stone as a translation device.  Which is the position I think many of the older informed members adopted as their own at that time.

  “While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24″ (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 3:, p.225).

• The Ensign also implied that the seer stone was an anti-mormon lie.

  “Miffed at the discovery and forcible discontinuance of his secret enterprise, Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasure guarded by evil spirits. He claimed that Joseph concocted the idea of finding a book from the suggestion of a vagabond conjurer named Walters who had participated with the Smiths in their digging ventures. Cole laid the groundwork for the theme of deception, indolence, and irreligion that was to characterize descriptions of Joseph Smith in subsequent non-Mormon writings.” (Dean Jessee - Sep. 1979 Ensign]

• The manuals omitted seer stones and instead used quotes like this:

  “Joseph Smith received the gold plates from Moroni on September 22, 1827. “I obtained them,” the Prophet testified, “and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon.””

• Some apologetic web sites used to say the seer stone was not used in translation.

• Nibbly attacked Fawn Brodie over the seer stones. The reader is left to believe the seer stone is an “anti-mormon lie”.

  “We would applaud such strong-mindedness were it not that on the very next page she accepts the stories of the same witnesses regarding "seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations."”(Nibble - No ma'am that is not my History)

• There is an audio recording of Elder Legrand Richards who was one of the senior Apostles in the 70’s.  In the audio Elder Legrand Richards said repeatedly that the church does not have Joseph Smith’s seer stone.

• The lay members sometimes also pushed the idea that the seer stone was a lie from South Park.  Or in some tellings the seer stone is said to be a lie from the Tanners.

Hmm.  I'm just not seeing much hue and cry about the seerstone.  Never have.  I first came across mention of them while in grade school (they are mentioned in Lee Nelson's "Storm Testament" series).  And your bulleted items don't seem to lend much credence to the notion that there is widespread distrust/dislike of the concept amongst the members of the Church.

First Bullet: "AskGramps" ("Gramps" being a fellow named Clay Gorton) never calls it an "anti-Mormon lie," and instead simply states that, in his opinion, "there is no evidence that he (Joseph Smith) used such an object in his translation of the Book of Mormon."  He apparently was not aware of the "evidence" cited in the Church's Gospel Topics essay on the subject.  (I note, for the record, that the essay, along with Elder Nelson's 1993 Ensign article which also references the seerstone, are rather circumspect on the particulars of how the stone was utilized.)

Second Bullet: I don't see any complaints or criticisms of the seerstone concept in the 2005 thread from this board.  And again, nothing about the stone being an "anti-mormon lie."

Third Bullet: This is a repeat from the first bullet ("Gramps" was apparently relying on the assessment provided by Joseph Fielding Smith).  In any event, it appears the Church has found sufficient evidence that the stone was used in some way in the translation process (as evidenced by the references to the stone in the Church's essay).  And again, nothing about the stone being an "anti-mormon lie."

Fourth Bullet: The 1979 Ensign article appears to object to the use of the reference to a "peep stone" as being one of the "degrading terms" used by a critic of the church.  Moreover, the above-referenced 1993 Ensign article by Elder Nelson acknowledges the apparent use of the seerstone in the translation process.  I also direct your attention to a 1977 Ensign article by Richard Lloyd Anderson, in which an interview of Martin Harris is excerpted:

Quote

He (Martin Harris) said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.

Anderson also notes that David Whitmer "on occasion watched and afterwards spoke of the seer stone," and also quotes Whitmer's statement that "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..."  

Again, nothing in any of this about the stone being an "anti-mormon lie."

Fifth Bullet: Yes, some of the manuals may have previously omitted references to the seerstone (or else conflated such references with the U&T, as apparently the early Saints did).  It also appears that seer stones are referenced repeatedly in LDS lesson manuals, with none of them characterizing the stones as being an "anti-mormon lie" (if you assert otherwise, then please consider this a CFR).

Sixth Bullet: Okay, "some apologetic web sites used to say the seer stone was not used in translation."  Apart from Gramps, what other sites?  And which of them made reference to the stone being an "anti-mormon lie?"

Seventh Bullet: Nibley was faulting Brodie because she selectively accepted testimony from Joseph Smith's neighbors, namely, only the lurid bits about "seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations," while rejecting their testimony about his general character.  Quoth Nibley:

Quote

Now scandal stories thrive notoriously well in rural settings, while the judgment of one's neighbors regarding one's general character over a number of years is far less likely to run into the fantastic. Yet Brodie can reject the character witnesses as prejudiced while accepting the weirdest extravagances of their local gossip.

Again, nothing here about the stone being an "anti-mormon lie."

Eighth Bullet: I assume you are referencing this interview (at about the 23:20 mark) (here is a link to a transcript of the interview).  It appears Elder Richards (who, I note, was around 92 years old at the time of the interview, which interview was rather off-the-cuff) was simply incorrect, or else he was confusing the "seer stone" (which the Church has, IIRC, always had in its possession), with the Urim & Thummim (which were apparently returned to "the angel" along with the plates).  Consider this portion from the transcript:

Quote

 

VLACHOS: Is the seer stone in the historical department?

RICHARDS: We don’t have a seer stone. That went back with the plates when [unintelligible].

 

In any event, I see nothing in Elder Richards' remarks that characterize the stone as an "anti-mormon lie."

Ninth Bullet: This one is an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.  Having grown up in the Church, I have never seen anyone "really pushed hard that the seer stone was an anti-mormon lie."  

To be frank, if such a "push" has really been so prevalent in the Church, I would think you'd be able to substantiate it.  But you haven't.  Not even close.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Just now, ERayR said:

I agree with you,one could expect the errors to be fewer depending on how one thinks this prophet think really works.  If one thinks God micro manages one could expect fewer errors but if one thinks he points the direction and hands the prophet a compass, then maybe not so much.

Being still rather unfamiliar on Catholic beliefs, I have wondered do they believe that the Pope not only runs the church...or is the head of the church, do they also believe he speaks for God?  So..it is interesting.  I would love to be a fly on the wall at a real good interfaith luncheon or something.  I miss those. 

[ERayR]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I'm just not seeing much hue and cry about the seerstone.  Never have.  I first came across mention of them while in grade school (they are mentioned in Lee Nelson's "Storm Testament" series).  And your bulleted items don't seem to lend much credence to the notion that there is widespread distrust/dislike of the concept amongst the members of the Church.

mac

I first came across it when I was a kid (about 7 decades ago).   I thought it was cool and spent some considerable amount of time trying to find me one.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Some things that I used to think were anti-Mormon lies that are now becoming part of the mainstream narrative (with nuanced explanations)

--Joseph Smith was involved with money digging

I have been aware of this since childhood.  I think his involvement is often distorted and characterized in such a way as to appear lurid, or else put Joseph in the worst possible light.

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

--Joseph Smith translated BOM with head in hat looking at seerstone, money digging style and not using the Urim and Thumim 

I recommend that you review the Church's essay on this subject, as you apparently still harbor some material misconceptions about the translation process.  Here is a relevant excerpt:

Quote

Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon. According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English. One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates.  Those who saw the interpreters described them as a clear pair of stones bound together with a metal rim. The Book of Mormon referred to this instrument, together with its breastplate, as a device “kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord” and “handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages.”

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”  As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.  As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.

It's an amazing claim, either way, though, isn't it?

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

--aspects of polygamy related to sexual relationships that are not allowed to be discussed here

I'm not sure what you are referencing here, but since it goes against board rules, I'll pass on further discussion.

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

--the fact that the temple endowment was borrowed from Masonry

This is a "fact"?

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

--there are multiple versions of the First Vision account that are difficult to harmonize

Again, I have been aware of this since childhood.

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Maybe I was naive.  But I did believe those were anti-Mormon lies up through my early adult life.  (life long member, RM, BYU grad)

So as a child you were party to discussions about such things?  How often are discussions about the sex lives of 19th-century LDS polygamists discussed in LDS circles?  Not often, I'd wager.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

it appears the Church has found sufficient evidence that the stone was used in some way in the translation process

There was a time not so long ago where things that were not faith promoting were labeled anti-mormon lies.  But I suppose there is room for disagreement.  We didn't attend the same church building.  I do know people who have called the idea that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using the same seer stone that he got in a well and also used to treasure hunt an anti-mormon lie.  I do not fault them for that, because I know the church setting they came from.  There were plenty of incorrect messages being taught to them.

I guess we can at least agree that there has been a change of some sort with respect to the church's view on the seer stone.  The seer stone was seen as probably not used in translation at some point in the past.  And now the church has made statements that the stone was used in translation.  Do we agree there?

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[ERayR]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Being still rather unfamiliar on Catholic beliefs, I have wondered do they believe that the Pope not only runs the church...or is the head of the church, do they also believe he speaks for God?  So..it is interesting.  I would love to be a fly on the wall at a real good interfaith luncheon or something.  I miss those. 

I suppose there is some difference of opinion but I have had some Catholic friends tell me that when the Pope invokes infallibility then he is speaking for God.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I first came across it when I was a kid (about 7 decades ago).   I thought it was cool and spent some considerable amount of time trying to find me one.

The October 2015 Ensign has a fascinating article about the history of the seer stone (in the context of the translation process generally).

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Over the past few years (after the essay) I've run into several people who were unaware of the seer stone.  And I've run into a a few people who called the seer stone an anti-mormon lie.    

It's not hard to understand why.

• Check out what this apologetic web site used to say in way back in the dark ages of 2015.

• Joseph Fielding Smith doubted the seer stone as a translation device.  Which is the position I think many of the older informed members adopted as their own at that time.

  “While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24″ (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 3:, p.225).

• The Ensign also implied that the seer stone was an anti-mormon lie.

  “Miffed at the discovery and forcible discontinuance of his secret enterprise, Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasure guarded by evil spirits. He claimed that Joseph concocted the idea of finding a book from the suggestion of a vagabond conjurer named Walters who had participated with the Smiths in their digging ventures. Cole laid the groundwork for the theme of deception, indolence, and irreligion that was to characterize descriptions of Joseph Smith in subsequent non-Mormon writings.” (Dean Jessee - Sep. 1979 Ensign]

• The manuals omitted seer stones and instead used quotes like this:

  “Joseph Smith received the gold plates from Moroni on September 22, 1827. “I obtained them,” the Prophet testified, “and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates; and thus came the Book of Mormon.””

  And for some strange reason people say that the manual only did that to save time.  I can't exactly understand people think it takes more time to mention the seer stones than to mention the Urim and Thummim.

• Some apologetic web sites used to say the seer stone was not used in translation.

• Nibbly attacked Fawn Brodie over the seer stones. The reader is left to believe the seer stone is an “anti-mormon lie”.

  “We would applaud such strong-mindedness were it not that on the very next page she accepts the stories of the same witnesses regarding "seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations."”(Nibble - No ma'am that is not my History)

• There is an audio recording of Elder Legrand Richards who was one of the senior Apostles in the 70’s.  In the audio Elder Legrand Richards said repeatedly that the church does not have Joseph Smith’s seer stone.

• The lay members sometimes also pushed the idea that the seer stone was a lie from South Park.  Or in some tellings the seer stone is said to be a lie from the Tanners.

Those are good examples, I think its important to remember just how things have changed over the years.  The underlying observation that I make from all this change is just how human nature works is so interesting.  Whenever we're challenged with some idea that we find distasteful or contrary to our initial understanding we push back against it.  No matter how legitimate the evidence, we don't like ideas that run contrary to our original understanding especially when its something as precious as our religious convictions.  

Today much of what was once considered anti Mormon lies, is found in mainstream Mormon history sanctioned by the church.  That Dean Jesse quote is fascinating because of his involvement with the JSPP where he undoubtedly came across all of that material and may have even been involved in helping craft the LDS topics essays that introduce this material about seer stones and treasure digging.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

I am comfortable with the idea that the dominant narrative of all religious denominations isn't true.  That leaves us with the original problem.  Whose narrative are we going choose to use as a basis for our personal credo?  They all contain truth, they all have errors. 

I think we should get comfortable processing the discomfort.  We should realize that no religion or person has access to 100% universal truth, that everything we learn and think is only an approximation and is subject to error.  This is where I think religions should attempt to point towards true principles, but when it comes to codifying those principles into specific rules and commandments, I think religion falls short.  Principles like love, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc, are good principles in concept, but there are always exceptions.  Humility, study, research, evaluation, critical thinking, all these things are important tools to use.  There is no one right answer for everyone at all times and in all things.