Kind of cool this morning

[Storm Rider]

It would be nice, if for no other reason than to calm the fears of some and provide answers for others that are seeking, if the Church would specifically define doctrine.  If there was error in the past then admit it and then clarify.

Yet, for me as a student of history I have never felt bound by reading about it.  I guess when I read I am always keeping my feet firmly in reality and understanding that history is but the perception of the writer.  It does not equate to the whole story or even the proper context of the event.  For example, I grew up from the 7th to the 12th grade in a small southern town in NW Florida.  As a young deacon I would walk about a mile or two to church in order to get to church on time and my family would eventually get there late to church. Many years later an older brother in the ward, a wonderful fellow, would often talk about my diligence and desire to attend church that I would walk there.  I think the real reason that I walked is that my mother had bought me a new pair of two-tone black and white shoes that I thought were about the spiffiest things since sliced bread and because I have a very **** nature and did not like to be late.  If others heard the Brother speak they would think I was a dedicated fellow and I don't think dedication was the primary motivator and I never corrected him because I was too proud and embarrassed.  So the history, my history, is distorted by the good intentions of the story teller, the historian if you will.  

I do roll my eyes at what some people think is "doctrine" or the teachings of the Church.  These are often called by critics of the Church the hidden teachings that only the truly advanced know about - multiple wives in heaven, that we become gods and create our own worlds, etc.  These things not only cause me to roll my eyes, but comes along with a good bit of gagging.  Each and every one of these hidden teachings have all the salvific value of knowing the name of the brother of Jared.  They have zero impact on the salvation of a single soul and never have.  Yet, these are the things - church history -  that people hang their hats on to leave the church.  

The scriptures tell us to have an eye single to the glory of God.  I believe there is great wisdom in following this simple command.  If I am going to glorify God then I am going to focus on those things that will have a direct impact on returning to his presence.  This is where the gospel of Jesus Christ is absolutely clear - they are the fundamentals of the Church.  It is all that each of us should focus on - faith, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  If these are things that we can focus upon and we continue to grow then consider ordinances of Exaltation.  After these things there is not much else to focus upon; in them is the wholeness of the Jesus' teachings on love, compassion, forgiveness, and holiness.  

As I have thought on these things I consider that if we are to focus on the glory of God then Satan's effort would be for us to focus anywhere and everywhere but to focus on God.  If he can get us to expend our energies worrying about the history of the early church members then he will have diverted us from the Way and taken us off course - in fact, he will have won.

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It would be nice, if for no other reason than to calm the fears of some and provide answers for others that are seeking, if the Church would specifically define doctrine.  If there was error in the past then admit it and then clarify.

Yet, for me as a student of history I have never felt bound by reading about it.  I guess when I read I am always keeping my feet firmly in reality and understanding that history is but the perception of the writer.  It does not equate to the whole story or even the proper context of the event.  For example, I grew up from the 7th to the 12th grade in a small southern town in NW Florida.  As a young deacon I would walk about a mile or two to church in order to get to church on time and my family would eventually get there late to church. Many years later an older brother in the ward, a wonderful fellow, would often talk about my diligence and desire to attend church that I would walk there.  I think the real reason that I walked is that my mother had bought me a new pair of two-tone black and white shoes that I thought were about the spiffiest things since sliced bread and because I have a very **** nature and did not like to be late.  If others heard the Brother speak they would think I was a dedicated fellow and I don't think dedication was the primary motivator and I never corrected him because I was too proud and embarrassed.  So the history, my history, is distorted by the good intentions of the story teller, the historian if you will.  

I do roll my eyes at what some people think is "doctrine" or the teachings of the Church.  These are often called by critics of the Church the hidden teachings that only the truly advanced know about - multiple wives in heaven, that we become gods and create our own worlds, etc.  These things not only cause me to roll my eyes, but comes along with a good bit of gagging.  Each and every one of these hidden teachings have all the salvific value of knowing the name of the brother of Jared.  They have zero impact on the salvation of a single soul and never have.  Yet, these are the things - church history -  that people hang their hats on to leave the church.  

The scriptures tell us to have an eye single to the glory of God.  I believe there is great wisdom in following this simple command.  If I am going to glorify God then I am going to focus on those things that will have a direct impact on returning to his presence.  This is where the gospel of Jesus Christ is absolutely clear - they are the fundamentals of the Church.  It is all that each of us should focus on - faith, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  If these are things that we can focus upon and we continue to grow then consider ordinances of Exaltation.  After these things there is not much else to focus upon; in them is the wholeness of the Jesus' teachings on love, compassion, forgiveness, and holiness.  

As I have thought on these things I consider that if we are to focus on the glory of God then Satan's effort would be for us to focus anywhere and everywhere but to focus on God.  If he can get us to expend our energies worrying about the history of the early church members then he will have diverted us from the Way and taken us off course - in fact, he will have won.

 

I think you understand us poor critics more than you think you do...I like some of your takes in your post above.  I was one to always arrive to church way early...first. because I want to play the organ a bit...and second...in 7th grade..nylons were cool.

By the way..your first sentence is key.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Jeanne

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But recognizing the pervasive influence of the adversary as foretold in scripture can give us perspective regarding things like a slowing in the rate of convert baptisms and help us to not be demoralized, as the naysayers and critics would have it. 

I'm  not sure I see much functional difference between being demoralised and accepting decline as outside the realm of our influence, but I'm OK if you see it differently.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duplicate.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm  not sure I see much functional difference between being demoralised and accepting decline as outside the realm of our influence, but I'm OK if you see it differently.

Well, I remind you that this line of conversation began when someone insinuated that the manual Preach My Gospel is a failure because the convert baptism rate has declined since it was introduced. I suggested that the decline in the rate may be due to external conditions and that perhaps things would have been even worse were it not for the use of Preach My Gospel. In other words, the manual may have had a positive net effect, all things considered.

To be demoralized would be to throw up one's hands in a defeatist attitude. To view matters in perspective would mean not losing hope even as one realistically understands the external forces at play.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To be demoralized would be to throw up one's hands in a defeatist attitude. To view matters in perspective would mean not losing hope even as one realistically understands the external forces at play.

My personal preference is to go to work and make sure that our Preach My Gospel-equipped missionaries have plenty of people to teach despite external forces. This certainly seems to be working for us. 

[rockpond]

On 2/28/2018 at 11:03 AM, rongo said:

We finished the Book of Mormon in family study last week, and are reading D&C. This morning, while reading section 3, we had an extended discussion about the Urim and Thummim and seer stones. My oldest three kids know about them, but this was new for my 6th grader. He'd never heard about that, or rock in a hat, etc. before. He wanted to know more, but the older two and I had to run to school. I'm on FHE lesson on Monday, so I think I'll talk about translation method. The seminal B.H. Roberts articles in the Improvement Era that ruffled some feathers are pretty important, and I wish were better known (translation process not a mechanical, automatic process). I think we'll also look at stuff like that. 

It was just neat to be able to talk about the neat things that some people make shipwreck of their faith over. 

That's great!  It's so much better to teach them these things when they are young.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My personal preference is to go to work and make sure that our Preach My Gospel-equipped missionaries have plenty of people to teach despite external forces. This certainly seems to be working for us. 

That's very commendable. (I mean that.)

But it doesn't preclude recognizing what you have already acknowledged: That conditions in the world have changed over the past few generations.

[Michael Sudworth]

On 3/3/2018 at 10:03 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you positing here that every word published by the Church is to be regarded as revelation? What about discontinued lesson manuals? What about chapter headings in the triple combination before recent revisions? What about free-lance articles published in the Ensign or Friend?

Well, I guess I do.  Our leaders have taught us for years that Church magazines are scripture because they contain the words of the prophets and other inspired teachings.

Also, discontinued manuals don't contain any differences in gospel teaching.  Updating the styling/presentation doesn't change the doctrine so I do think that out of date lesson manuals represent official Church doctrine.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Michael Sudworth

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Well, I guess I do.  Our leaders have taught us for years that Church magazines are scripture because they contain the words of the prophets and other inspired teachings.

Also, discontinued manuals don't contain any differences in gospel teaching.  Updating the styling/presentation doesn't change the doctrine so I do think that out of date lesson manuals represent official Church doctrine.

Yep gotta love polygamy and the good old no priesthood for blacks.

[Guest]

On February 28, 2018 at 1:03 PM, rongo said:

We finished the Book of Mormon in family study last week, and are reading D&C. This morning, while reading section 3, we had an extended discussion about the Urim and Thummim and seer stones. My oldest three kids know about them, but this was new for my 6th grader. He'd never heard about that, or rock in a hat, etc. before. He wanted to know more, but the older two and I had to run to school. I'm on FHE lesson on Monday, so I think I'll talk about translation method. The seminal B.H. Roberts articles in the Improvement Era that ruffled some feathers are pretty important, and I wish were better known (translation process not a mechanical, automatic process). I think we'll also look at stuff like that. 

It was just neat to be able to talk about the neat things that some people make shipwreck of their faith over. 

He may have use the "Seer. Stone", but he and his Mother Lucy Mack Smith, oh and Jyrum described something much different, very different. 

[rongo]

Update: 

Family Home Evening went well (I love it when it's dad's turn to give the lesson!)  

I used slides from my FAIR Conference presentation (Frankfurt, Germany, 2009; images from the Critical Text Project and Community of Christ of the original and printer's manuscripts). My kids were pretty young when they saw these, so it was somewhat new to them (other than my oldest) --- and completely new to my 6th grader. We read excerpts from Elder Roberts's talks in the early 1900s and in the Church manual he wrote debunking that translation was an automatic process (including David Whitmer and Martin Harris statements that Joseph read text off of the stones). We discussed translation in light of what Joseph Smith had said, D&C passages, etc. and the fact that the U&T and seer stone was only used for early stage translation; that most of the Book of Mormon was translated without either or with the plates (that the U&T and seer stone helped him learn to translate by the gift and power of God, and that the plates served an important function in garnering and promoting confidence in Joseph and the witnesses). 

Pretty far-ranging, given my family. Some rabbit trails we went off on, based on questions or : The Book of Pukei (my kids found that fascinating as a circumstantial witness of Joseph Smith's narrative in Abner Cole's heavy-handed mockery), the Hoffman forgeries, and his murders and arrest (I showed my kids a quoted excerpt from a letter to Hugh Nibley from an inmate at Point of the Mountain, whose testimony Mark Hoffman was trying to destroy), my experience with Church Archives and the Chenango County historian researching the 1826 examination. I introduced my youngest to Nibley's "The Myth Makers" and showed him that quotes from critics contradict each other and support the Church's narrative --- and that they can be hunted down and verified (I have records of these from my researches). We looked at conflicting statements from Charles Anthon.

I think that covers it . . .   

[CA Steve]

Interesting FHE Rongo.

 

I had not heard of a contemporary statement(s)  that the translation process did not involve the seer stone & hat after the "early stage translation". Do you have some references showing it was not used after that time? 

[rongo]

Witness statements (of the process; this included more beyond the formal witnesses). I'll have to check when I have time.

[Rain]

 

On 3/2/2018 at 2:56 PM, rongo said:

President McKay said in a letter that had been asking God, about this issue but had received no answer.

President Kimball is on record as stating that he took the grave problem of what to do with the Sao Paulo temple to God, and he made it clear that he was willing to continue defending the Church's position and policy until death, if that is what God wanted, but he was praying for what needed to be done and what God's will was. 

Honest question. Is there anything available to church membership at the time that shows that prophets have been praying over something doctrinal? I can't think of a time, but I know just the surface of history and have a bad memory anyway.

22 hours ago, rongo said:

Update: 

Family Home Evening went well (I love it when it's dad's turn to give the lesson!)  

I used slides from my FAIR Conference presentation (Frankfurt, Germany, 2009; images from the Critical Text Project and Community of Christ of the original and printer's manuscripts). My kids were pretty young when they saw these, so it was somewhat new to them (other than my oldest) --- and completely new to my 6th grader. We read excerpts from Elder Roberts's talks in the early 1900s and in the Church manual he wrote debunking that translation was an automatic process (including David Whitmer and Martin Harris statements that Joseph read text off of the stones). We discussed translation in light of what Joseph Smith had said, D&C passages, etc. and the fact that the U&T and seer stone was only used for early stage translation; that most of the Book of Mormon was translated without either or with the plates (that the U&T and seer stone helped him learn to translate by the gift and power of God, and that the plates served an important function in garnering and promoting confidence in Joseph and the witnesses). 

Pretty far-ranging, given my family. Some rabbit trails we went off on, based on questions or : The Book of Pukei (my kids found that fascinating as a circumstantial witness of Joseph Smith's narrative in Abner Cole's heavy-handed mockery), the Hoffman forgeries, and his murders and arrest (I showed my kids a quoted excerpt from a letter to Hugh Nibley from an inmate at Point of the Mountain, whose testimony Mark Hoffman was trying to destroy), my experience with Church Archives and the Chenango County historian researching the 1826 examination. I introduced my youngest to Nibley's "The Myth Makers" and showed him that quotes from critics contradict each other and support the Church's narrative --- and that they can be hunted down and verified (I have records of these from my researches). We looked at conflicting statements from Charles Anthon.

I think that covers it . . .   

Next time if you want to combine our families for FHE I'll provide dessert!

Edited March 8, 2018 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/3/2018 at 6:12 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

We could always do better, but I have to think societal factors have some influence. I've lived long enough to have observed a creeping godlessness in society at large over two or three generations.

And there is this:

(1 Nephi 14:12)

No surprise. All this has been foretold in the Book of Mormon. In the last days, God will invite all people everywhere to come to Him through the Book of Mormon (missionaries), but because of wickedness, wealth, abomination, pride, persecution, priestcraft, ignorance, and confusión few will choose to come. They will reject the prophets and then comes judgement. 2 Nephi 27 and other scriptures make clear what is in store.

We should not be surprised or dismayed. It happened to the Jews in Jerusalem and to the Lehites more than once - even to their total destruction. The remedy is the Book of Mormon. The meek will increase because they will accept it. The wicked will have great power and numbers, but they will be living in a dream world because they will reject it. Reality will come to them, just as it did to the Nephites. Safety is found in adhering to the word of God. 

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

. . . the fact that the U&T and seer stone was only used for early stage translation; that most of the Book of Mormon was translated without either

I would submit that that isn't fact—it's not even responsible speculation. David Whitmer and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, both eyewitnesses of the last stage of translation, reported that Joseph used a seer stone to translate. I'm not aware of any source that claims that Joseph translated any of the Book of Mormon without using either the Nephite interpreters (spectacles) or one of his own seer stones.

I should add, though, that I think it's great that you're talking about this stuff with your kids. While I don't think you're giving them the best sources on some subjects (Nibley is terrible on Joseph's money-digging and 1826 trial), at least they're getting a sense of what the issues are.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Nevo

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I would submit that that isn't fact—it's not even responsible speculation. David Whitmer and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, both eyewitnesses of the last stage of translation, reported that Joseph used a seer stone to translate. I'm not aware of any source that claims that Joseph translated any of the Book of Mormon without using either the Nephite interpreters (spectacles) or one of his own seer stones.

I should add, though, that I think it's great that you're talking about this stuff with your kids. While I don't think you're giving them the best sources on some subjects (Nibley is terrible on Joseph's money-digging and 1826 trial), at least they're getting a sense of what the issues are.

Nibley is outdated on some things, but I don't think he's "terrible." He does a good job of juxtaposing the conflicting statements from critics to show how contradictory they are. There are some hilarious sections of "Myth Makers" where he juxtaposes lengthy sections from supposed eyewitnesses and contemporaries describing the seer stone, Joseph Smith's appearance, his white hat (a corruption that got telephoned/grapevined from the accounts of "rock-in-a-hat"), and other chestnuts. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and everywhere in between.

Nibley largely follows Francis Kirkham on a lot of that stuff, including his conclusions (I photocopied "A New Witness for Christ in America" at the Lee Library). Kirkham is still a really good source for Palmyra Reflector, Palmyra Gem, and other Manchester/Palmyra sources. 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Nibley is outdated on some things, but I don't think he's "terrible." He does a good job of juxtaposing the conflicting statements from critics to show how contradictory they are. There are some hilarious sections of "Myth Makers" where he juxtaposes lengthy sections from supposed eyewitnesses and contemporaries describing the seer stone, Joseph Smith's appearance, his white hat (a corruption that got telephoned/grapevined from the accounts of "rock-in-a-hat"), and other chestnuts. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and everywhere in between.

Nibley's performance is entertaining, but his whole purpose is to discredit the (true) claim that Joseph Smith was involved in money digging. Via his alter ego "The Chairman," Nibley asks: "Can anyone maintain that any of the peepstone stories are not or cannot be pure fabrication?" But they weren't "pure fabrication"—neither was the 1826 trial. Joseph actually did use seer stones to try to locate lost objects and buried treasure, as well as during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Later, Nibley writes: "The white hat is an interesting 'control' for the reliability of a lot of stories about Joseph Smith." Well, Martin Harris also mentions the "old white hat" in his interview with Joel Tiffany—is he also an unreliable source? In any case, Church historians are apparently okay with the white stovepipe hat stories since it appears in the recently restored Joseph and Emma Smith home in Harmony:

 

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Nevo

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Nibley's performance is entertaining, but his whole purpose is to discredit the (true) claim that Joseph Smith was involved in money digging. Via his alter ego "The Chairman," Nibley asks: "Can anyone maintain that any of the peepstone stories are not or cannot be pure fabrication?" But they weren't "pure fabrication"—neither was the 1826 trial. Joseph actually did use seer stones to try to locate lost objects and buried treasure, as well as during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Later, Nibley writes: "The white hat is an interesting 'control' for the reliability of a lot of stories about Joseph Smith." Well, Martin Harris also mentions the "old white hat" in his interview with Joel Tiffany—is he also an unreliable source? In any case, Church historians are apparently okay with the white stovepipe hat stories since it appears in the recently restored Joseph and Emma Smith home in Harmony:

I think you're reading too much into the interior decorating decisions for the table layout in a Church history site. It wasn't simply a "white" hat Nibley was mocking, but the conflicting stories about battered, hole-ridden white hats Joseph Smith was "particularly" noted for being seen in (e.g., I seem to recall a moniker "old holy white hat Joe" that he was supposed to be especially known by. Other stories have the hat so full of holes that Joe's hair stuck out. In which case, Nibley points out, it wouldn't have served the purpose of excluding light to view the seer stones).

I agree that we know more now then Nibley did, and I don't find his treasure digging to be problematic.

As an aside, I am struck by all of the insistence that Joseph Smith had a reputation for finding lost things or finding treasure, but was always a ridiculous and miserable failure at doing it. Then whence the reputation? And, why is his reputation held up without fail by the very people he allegedly wronged (Josiah Stowell, etc.)? Even the conflicting Purple, Marshall, Benton, and Pearsall accounts of the 1826 trial surprisingly support that Stowell was well-satisfied with Joseph's employment when pressed on the point (some theories have his sons seeking to extricate him from Joseph's swindling).

It seems to me that Joseph really could see things in his stone, even before the Restoration began, and that people knew it. Another example is that the treasure diggers wanted their shares of the plates when it became know that he had them. They felt this fell under their compact; i.e., the expectation for success was there. 

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that we know more now then Nibley did, and I don't find his treasure digging to be problematic.

As an aside, I am struck by all of the insistence that Joseph Smith had a reputation for finding lost things or finding treasure, but was always a ridiculous and miserable failure at doing it. Then whence the reputation? And, why is his reputation held up without fail by the very people he allegedly wronged (Josiah Stowell, etc.)? Even the conflicting Purple, Marshall, Benton, and Pearsall accounts of the 1826 trial surprisingly support that Stowell was well-satisfied with Joseph's employment when pressed on the point (some theories have his sons seeking to extricate him from Joseph's swindling).

It seems to me that Joseph really could see things in his stone, even before the Restoration began, and that people knew it. Another example is that the treasure diggers wanted their shares of the plates when it became know that he had them. They felt this fell under their compact; i.e., the expectation for success was there. 

I wonder where you  draw the line on belief here. Is it just Joseph's claimed ability with a peep stone or do you believe all those with reputations to be able to find lost and hidden objects had some ability to find them? It has been argued by many that it was not uncommon for people in this era to seek after hidden treasure by this means, yet I am unfamiliar with any verified stories of them actually finding treasure.

My opinion is that reputations gained of being able to do so are usually the result of unverified claims heard from afar or of so small significance that they could easily be ascribe to chance or astute guessing. Just the same way mediums today develop reputations for talking to the dead.

 

Do you actually believe that people using objects like rocks and sticks were (are?) able to find lost and hidden items? Or is your belief in this limited to Joseph?

 

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder where you  draw the line on belief here. Is it just Joseph's claimed ability with a peep stone or do you believe all those with reputations to be able to find lost and hidden objects had some ability to find them? It has been argued by many that it was not uncommon for people in this era to seek after hidden treasure by this means, yet I am unfamiliar with any verified stories of them actually finding treasure.

My opinion is that reputations gained of being able to do so are usually the result of unverified claims heard from afar or of so small significance that they could easily be ascribe to chance or astute guessing. Just the same way mediums today develop reputations for talking to the dead.

Do you actually believe that people using objects like rocks and sticks were (are?) able to find lost and hidden items? Or is your belief in this limited to Joseph?

Good questions.

Yes, I believe that it is (was? I don't know that our cultural belief today would allow this to work now) possible. According to the accounts, Sally Chase repeatedly found former hiding places for the plates during the cat and mouse game of hiding and re-hiding them.

Circumstantially, if you take all of the testimony intended to paint Joseph Smith in a bad light at face value, those people are put in the uncomfortable position of admitting that there was something to Joseph Smith's testimony. Hugh Nibley does a good job of showing through sheer volume and tone how many claims there are that he was repeatedly sought out for his "finding services." If he was the miserable failure they insist that he always, consistently was, their testimony is ridiculous. Who is going to keep seeking out and paying Joseph Smith to do things he keeps failing spectacularly at? And, Josiah Stowell consistently and repeatedly stated that he was satisfied with his work.

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Good questions.

Yes, I believe that it is (was? I don't know that our cultural belief today would allow this to work now) possible. According to the accounts, Sally Chase repeatedly found former hiding places for the plates during the cat and mouse game of hiding and re-hiding them.

Circumstantially, if you take all of the testimony intended to paint Joseph Smith in a bad light at face value, those people are put in the uncomfortable position of admitting that there was something to Joseph Smith's testimony. Hugh Nibley does a good job of showing through sheer volume and tone how many claims there are that he was repeatedly sought out for his "finding services." If he was the miserable failure they insist that he always, consistently was, their testimony is ridiculous. Who is going to keep seeking out and paying Joseph Smith to do things he keeps failing spectacularly at? And, Josiah Stowell consistently and repeatedly stated that he was satisfied with his work.

When was the last time you heard someone say "I lost a lot of money on some stupid get rich quick scheme?" We are much more likely to hear excuses on why the well thought out plan did not work and how it wasn't anyone's fault. I expect that people like Stowle and Harris for that matter would have publicly  backed up Joseph, otherwise how foolish would they look?

I like this quote wrongly attributed to Twain:

"It is a lot easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled." I don't find anything unusual in the fact we have positive statements from people who invested money and time in suspect ventures. 

 

Also don't we have a statement from Joseph himself admitting he never found anything?

 

 

[omni]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Good questions.

Yes, I believe that it is (was? I don't know that our cultural belief today would allow this to work now) possible. According to the accounts, Sally Chase repeatedly found former hiding places for the plates during the cat and mouse game of hiding and re-hiding them.

Circumstantially, if you take all of the testimony intended to paint Joseph Smith in a bad light at face value, those people are put in the uncomfortable position of admitting that there was something to Joseph Smith's testimony. Hugh Nibley does a good job of showing through sheer volume and tone how many claims there are that he was repeatedly sought out for his "finding services." If he was the miserable failure they insist that he always, consistently was, their testimony is ridiculous. Who is going to keep seeking out and paying Joseph Smith to do things he keeps failing spectacularly at? And, Josiah Stowell consistently and repeatedly stated that he was satisfied with his work.

You're really digging yourself a hole with this one

History is replete with individuals who were able to repeatedly con their victims while making them believe they were successful.  Perhaps after a feverish dig with nothing to be found, Josiah actually believed Joseph when he claimed the treasure slipped back into the earth. 

Does it make sense that God would allow Joseph to use the sacred seer stone to be used for such a disreputable activity (not to mention the fact that it rarely if ever actually worked)?

It seems like this story could be a perfect opportunity to teach a lesson on repentance and explain that Joseph wasn't perfect, but isn't it wonderful the Lord uses imperfect vessels to bring to pass his work!

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Do you actually believe that people using objects like rocks and sticks were (are?) able to find lost and hidden items? Or is your belief in this limited to Joseph?

I believe a nuclear engineer from the Los Alamos Scientific Library could find buried water spigots in a field with two bent coat hangers. I seen it! He taught us neighborhood kids how to dowse for water.