Seer Stone In A Hat

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I have to say I adored the “sheeps in wolves’ clothing”.  It sucked me into the dark side. 

Can you expound on how ridiculing is helpful?   

[Pyreaux]

@rjohnson7, I thought I defended you earlier. I said you can believe what you want, the brown seer stone account is not canon. You are not required to believe it. On that ground, I'm on your side.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Can you expound on how ridiculing is helpful?   

Never said it was. You didn’t seem interested in engaging or anyone being helpful at that point to me. I am willing to reconsider but your last posts do not encourage me.

I don’t see you ridiculing faithful scholars as helpful either.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

@rjohnson7, I thought I defend you earlier. I said you can believe what you want, the brown seer stone account is not canon. You are not required to believe it. On that ground, I'm on your side.

No one is required to believe or or anything else about the translation, are they?  Such things are not discussed in the temple recommend questions.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I totally agree, secrets versus transparency, well I will take transparency everyday... the Mountain Meadow Massacre is a very complex issue, so little information. 

Actually there is quite a bit.  If you are interested in the topic, I recommend these two books, the first I have read, the second is on my nightstand waiting for some undistracted nights.

https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-at-Mountain-Meadows/dp/B00320NM1Y/ref=sr_1_2?

https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/vengeance-is-mine-the-mountain-meadows-massacre-and-its-aftermath/

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I made it abundantly clear, you failed to read all the post by me.  I said rock because it was just a rock and even today in the Church vaults its still remains just a rock.  Why the criticism, just reply with your evidence and quit making this about me.

Yes, JS had a white stone, which in any historical account its called by that label, and he has several more stones also.   You want to call it a seer stone is okay with me, but I won't because it wasn't.

So, is the white stone a seer stone?  I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Quote

can you show me any evidence that Moroni said anything other then the gold plates and the Urim and Thummim were not to be show to anybody

I can't but I'm not sure why you are asking me this.  I've never disputed that Moroni told Joseph Smith that he shouldn't show the golden plates to anyone.

Quote

also the translation took place with the Gold Plates open to JS vision which plates laid before him is only my opinion and have not yet found any evidence that it was otherwise closed and hidden from his view.

What's your evidence that the golden plates were open in front of Joseph Smith?  I don't believe Joseph Smith ever said that and since he is the only one who would know, all the rest would be second or third hand.

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

I explained the theory that because of all the question about the translation the family asked (Whitmer's and others) JS put on a demonstration with the witnesses sitting around watching.   So first hand account of the demonstration

I don't recall you ever explained how this demonstration is supposed to work.  I'm really confused on why it helps because, as I see it, it makes Joseph Smith out to be a liar.  I'll try to explain so you can see where my issue is:

Per the demonstration theory, Joseph Smith was commanded to not show the golden plates.  He did everything behind a blanket.  At some point, people bugged him about showing how he did the translation.  So, he came into the main room of the Whitmer's house, asked them to put up a blanket for privacy, and then instead of showing them how he translates, he instead shows a fake method.  Instead of asking for a pair of spectacles (as a stand-in for the Nephite interpreters) and a book (as a stand-in for the plates) and showing what he actually did, he asked for a hat and put a rock he owned in it and stuck his face in it.  Why?  Seriously, why?  Why would Joseph Smith make a mockery of the translation method?  Why would Joseph Smith show the people who believe him and who have worked with him a fake method?  Also, why would they accept it?  He has had multiple scribes.  Many of them would have been there.  The sound of a voice when spoken from a hat is different from the sound of a voice when spoken from looking at a book.  They would have noticed the change in the sound of the voice.  And last question, why would Joseph Smith never publicly say that the "stone in the hat" was just a demonstration.  If it was a simple mistake, then why not let everyone know?

Do you see my dilemma with the demonstration theory?  What am I missing that would clear it up?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Can you expound on how ridiculing is helpful?   

Can you explain how labeling faithful scholars as wolves in sheep's clothing, inviting people to leave the thread, questioning whether or not posters here are actually members and posturing yourself as one who cares about the youth as if no one else does, is helpful?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Can you expound on how ridiculing is helpful? 

Instead of the persecution complex, I’m wondering if you’ve stopped to consider that the problem is you. You seem to be having a problem with every poster on this thread. So either they all suck at communicating, or maybe it’s just the common denominator (you). I’m not saying this to hurt your feelings. I enjoy the diversity of opinions here and think you have as much a right to yours as anyone else, but this is a discussion board. And you are not discussing. Just talking and getting upset at anyone that pushes back at you. That reflects only on you. Not them. 

[Navidad]

I have read each and every page of this thread. I have learned some things and appreciate that. I would like to make just one comment (of course in four long paragraphs). I would like to suggest that the schema (doctrine and history) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a testimony to faith - faith used as a verb. Anything other than that is doing it an injustice. There will more than likely never be adequate knowledge, experience, feeling, or data to validate its doctrine to non-faithers. There will never be an adequate historical record to validate its history to non-faithers. Ditto for every other faith schema in the world. That is precisely why such belief is better understood as a "faith." The problem isn't the original sacred history writers or the current or recent "new Mormon history" writers (I know a number of them). It isn't a matter of mounting the ramparts and defending against the "enemies," "doubters," or "naysayers" whoever they may be. Apologists and polemicists make lousy missionaries for any faith (in my experience). Answering a "tough" question well has most likely rarely ever silenced a non-believer. Why not? Because belief is faithing. Faithing is believing when you don't have the evidence, proof, or answers. Faith doesn't need any of those three.

Faith needs to be celebrated, cherished, and accepted for what it is. . . a personal and profoundly important belief that comes from the mind, the heart, and to the Greeks (oh my!) the intestines. I would like to suggest to my LDS friends that most Christians and non-Christians in the world today are not your enemies or your frenemies. They probably don't know much at all about you. Perhaps that in and of itself is an offense to a faith that has as its foundation it is the only, that all others are well. . . . simply others. To some members, others are pretenders, to some members, others are merely members who just don't know it yet, and yes, to some members, others are enemies.

I think the others are simply those who don't share your faith as you know it and experience it to be. Faith is a continuum with many differing attributes. For example, I enjoy studying the LDS faith. Ask my wife, I have spent thousands of dollars and hours or more on that study. I find it intellectually stimulating. However, I do not faith it. Neither my mind, heart, intestines, or the Holy Spirit within me has ever brought me to faith it. I think the Mennonite and Moravian faiths are the closest faith schema that tickles my mind, heart, intestines, and the Holy Spirit who indwells me. However, my simple faith in the grace, mercy, trust, and justice of the atonement is what will take me to eternity with Christ and Heavenly Father, not my membership in any church. That is what I faith.  I can't prove that to your satisfaction. I can only faith it to your frustration.

Ok, that is it. Our faiths are precious to each of us individually. That is because faith is indeed an individual experience that is gathered into tribes where we debate, squabble, and try and work out the details of our own faiths within our own group. The LDS faith, is in my understanding quite complex. Yet, nevertheless it is a faith and faith rarely prospers in certainty. The stool of certainty is a liability just waiting for someone to knock out from under the certain. Enjoy your faith, find meaning in it, trust it to be the faith that makes your life a better place in this life and the next. That is what faith is all about.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I was very clear that JS did have a stone, but he did not translate with it... go back and read my other posts.   I have answered many question and appreciate it very much then when someone disagrees the also provide a reason and a source for validation. 

Speculation and opinions are not suitable for this topic, we need facts and evidence and who made the claim or quote.   Thx for your input. 

Were you there with Joseph? Like the people that wrote down that they were??

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have read each and every page of this thread. I have learned some things and appreciate that. I would like to make just one comment (of course in four long paragraphs). I would like to suggest that the schema (doctrine and history) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a testimony to faith - faith used as a verb. Anything other than that is doing it an injustice. There will more than likely never be adequate knowledge, experience, feeling, or data to validate its doctrine to non-faithers. There will never be an adequate historical record to validate its history to non-faithers. Ditto for every other faith schema in the world. That is precisely why such belief is better understood as a "faith." The problem isn't the original sacred history writers or the current or recent "new Mormon history" writers (I know a number of them). It isn't a matter of mounting the ramparts and defending against the "enemies," "doubters," or "naysayers" whoever they may be. Apologists and polemicists make lousy missionaries for any faith (in my experience). Answering a "tough" question well has most likely rarely ever silenced a non-believer. Why not? Because belief is faithing. Faithing is believing when you don't have the evidence, proof, or answers. Faith doesn't need any of those three.

Faith needs to be celebrated, cherished, and accepted for what it is. . . a personal and profoundly important belief that comes from the mind, the heart, and to the Greeks (oh my!) the intestines. I would like to suggest to my LDS friends that most Christians and non-Christians in the world today are not your enemies or your frenemies. They probably don't know much at all about you. Perhaps that in and of itself is an offense to a faith that has as its foundation it is the only, that all others are well. . . . simply others. To some members, others are pretenders, to some members, others are merely members who just don't know it yet, and yes, to some members, others are enemies.

I think the others are simply those who don't share your faith as you know it and experience it to be. Faith is a continuum with many differing attributes. For example, I enjoy studying the LDS faith. Ask my wife, I have spent thousands of dollars and hours or more on that study. I find it intellectually stimulating. However, I do not faith it. Neither my mind, heart, intestines, or the Holy Spirit within me has ever brought me to faith it. I think the Mennonite and Moravian faiths are the closest faith schema that tickles my mind, heart, intestines, and the Holy Spirit who indwells me. However, my simple faith in the grace, mercy, trust, and justice of the atonement is what will take me to eternity with Christ and Heavenly Father, not my membership in any church. That is what I faith.  I can't prove that to your satisfaction. I can only faith it to your frustration.

Ok, that is it. Our faiths are precious to each of us individually. That is because faith is indeed an individual experience that is gathered into tribes where we debate, squabble, and try and work out the details of our own faiths within our own group. The LDS faith, is in my understanding quite complex. Yet, nevertheless it is a faith and faith rarely prospers in certainty. The stool of certainty is a liability just waiting for someone to knock out from under the certain. Enjoy your faith, find meaning in it, trust it to be the faith that makes your life a better place in this life and the next. That is what faith is all about.

Best answer among many of the others that are wonderful too! If @rjohnson7is a truly who he says he is I hope he reads this well.

The only way he can be a help to those that enter into a faith crisis is to use these tools you've provided. People don't want any answer that is false. 

And many don't care how historically true the church is, they care about the now in the religion and how it helps them in a walk of faith. 

The youth will guide the church from the bottom, just as has been done in the past. New Mormonism? Nothing new to having the church change with the times. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

This is why there is a problem with your posts.  You are completely misinterpreting people’s reaction.  No one is freaking out about the topic,  If you keep making that claim and believing it, this thread will stay stuck where it has been since the beginning.

You are the one making it about you because you are the one assuming false motivations and feelings in others.  Stop attacking scholars’ faithfulness, stop making assumptions that posters here are freaking out instead of just tired of your repeatedly avoiding responding to our substantive posts and you might find a more interesting discussion going on.  Let’s just talk about the stones for now, all of them.   But you have to do your part.  A discussion is not a monologue by two sides, neither talking to the other.

I would suggest making three posts, one about each of the stones.  Identify what stone you are talking about in each case and start with a summary of what Joseph did with each stone in your opinion.  You haven’t completed a lot of your thoughts but just give a minimal answer in many cases.  That is why it appears you are saying Joseph had a seer stone in one post, but appear to be dismissing it in another, when I am guessing you are talking about the brown seer stone…or if you don’t want to label it a seer stone, then please just call it the brown stone each time and give us the details on what you think Joseph used it for.  You don’t have to start out with documentation unless you want to because these are your ideas, but you may be asked to supply the evidence that persuaded you to hold this position.

Do the same for the white stone, please…any speculation on where he got it, when he got it and why and how he used it.

The Nephite Interpreters…since we all know where he got them and where they went, how about identifying when he used them for trans

sting the BoM and how…in the bow part of the breastplate or did he use them loose and put one or two in his hat or just had them on the table or over the plates somehow and used the hat to shield light from shining on it or to block the scribe from seeing them…or something else.

PS:  please do my request first and then weebles’.  Let’s get the number and kind down and then go to eyewitness accounts, please.

Great idea, I hope he does this, what a wonderful teacher you are. 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The youth will guide the church from the bottom, just as has been done in the past. New Mormonism? Nothing new to having the church change with the times. 

And isn’t it beautiful.

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I have read each and every page of this thread. I have learned some things and appreciate that. I would like to make just one comment (of course in four long paragraphs). I would like to suggest that the schema (doctrine and history) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a testimony to faith - faith used as a verb. Anything other than that is doing it an injustice. There will more than likely never be adequate knowledge, experience, feeling, or data to validate its doctrine to non-faithers. There will never be an adequate historical record to validate its history to non-faithers. Ditto for every other faith schema in the world. That is precisely why such belief is better understood as a "faith." The problem isn't the original sacred history writers or the current or recent "new Mormon history" writers (I know a number of them). It isn't a matter of mounting the ramparts and defending against the "enemies," "doubters," or "naysayers" whoever they may be. Apologists and polemicists make lousy missionaries for any faith (in my experience). Answering a "tough" question well has most likely rarely ever silenced a non-believer. Why not? Because belief is faithing. Faithing is believing when you don't have the evidence, proof, or answers. Faith doesn't need any of those three.

Faith needs to be celebrated, cherished, and accepted for what it is. . . a personal and profoundly important belief that comes from the mind, the heart, and to the Greeks (oh my!) the intestines. I would like to suggest to my LDS friends that most Christians and non-Christians in the world today are not your enemies or your frenemies. They probably don't know much at all about you. Perhaps that in and of itself is an offense to a faith that has as its foundation it is the only, that all others are well. . . . simply others. To some members, others are pretenders, to some members, others are merely members who just don't know it yet, and yes, to some members, others are enemies.

I think the others are simply those who don't share your faith as you know it and experience it to be. Faith is a continuum with many differing attributes. For example, I enjoy studying the LDS faith. Ask my wife, I have spent thousands of dollars and hours or more on that study. I find it intellectually stimulating. However, I do not faith it. Neither my mind, heart, intestines, or the Holy Spirit within me has ever brought me to faith it. I think the Mennonite and Moravian faiths are the closest faith schema that tickles my mind, heart, intestines, and the Holy Spirit who indwells me. However, my simple faith in the grace, mercy, trust, and justice of the atonement is what will take me to eternity with Christ and Heavenly Father, not my membership in any church. That is what I faith.  I can't prove that to your satisfaction. I can only faith it to your frustration.

Ok, that is it. Our faiths are precious to each of us individually. That is because faith is indeed an individual experience that is gathered into tribes where we debate, squabble, and try and work out the details of our own faiths within our own group. The LDS faith, is in my understanding quite complex. Yet, nevertheless it is a faith and faith rarely prospers in certainty. The stool of certainty is a liability just waiting for someone to knock out from under the certain. Enjoy your faith, find meaning in it, trust it to be the faith that makes your life a better place in this life and the next. That is what faith is all about.

Great post, somebody criticized me for making such short remarks without more dialogue.   Great job on faith, I would ask you if possible and you were in our Ward, to teach a lesson on Faith to our Elders Quorum.  So thx again and much appreciated. in fact that would make for a great topic and I would join you there.    But the topic is not faith, its about the seer stone in a hat, or I should say a dumb rock in a hat.... chuckles.   I have had some pretty good feed back on this topic so far, some have left for lack of interest and that's fine and we should appreciate those who find this topic to much for them.   

We all know the story of the Ten Virgins and we know also because the figures prove me right, that our numbers are not going up percentage wise like they did back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.  About that time or starting in yr. 2000 we became aware of "The New Mormonism" and a steady drumbeat by authors such as , William Mulder, Don Orton, Jack Adamson, Lowell Bennion, T. Edgar Lyon, and Drs. McMurrin, Read, Tanner, Arrington, and many others....

There was also a group called the "Swearing Elders, note this source for information..... https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/053-08-13.pdf    Lenard Arrington not a member but gave plenty of talks along with Richard Bushman.  Part or most of this group are spreading subtle falsehoods that is obvious to me and other that are destroying members faith.  Then we have Vogel, Quinn, John Dehlin, RFM and Reel having a hay-day interviewing these and also faithful Mormons... I have found at least 8 scriptures or quotes that say JS only used the breastplate and Urim and Thummim specracles which were attached.    Poster here have talked about the Brethren and I believe they take a neutral stand on this...  

 

Richard Johnson 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Instead of the persecution complex, I’m wondering if you’ve stopped to consider that the problem is you. You seem to be having a problem with every poster on this thread. So either they all suck at communicating, or maybe it’s just the common denominator (you). I’m not saying this to hurt your feelings. I enjoy the diversity of opinions here and think you have as much a right to yours as anyone else, but this is a discussion board. And you are not discussing. Just talking and getting upset at anyone that pushes back at you. That reflects only on you. Not them. 

Thx you!  Maybe so, but if you have read most of the post they all pretty much disagree with me, does that make me a problem or just someone concerned about truth and helping folks experiencing faith crisis and why are they having these crisis.

Paint me as sucking at communication which I already have agree too.  Chuckle, I have not gotten upset with anyone and in fact have complimented many of them for good posts, so I see you're new to this topic, go back and please re-read my post and I bet you will change your mind about me being upset and I enjoy anyone that does pushback... now can we please stay on the topic and quit making this about me?  God Bless. 

Richard Johnson 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Can you explain how labeling faithful scholars as wolves in sheep's clothing, inviting people to leave the thread, questioning whether or not posters here are actually members and posturing yourself as one who cares about the youth as if no one else does, is helpful?

They hint at being faithful members but why would they want to change the church history narrative as Bushman and Arrington tried to do... There are other even a BYU and  even Elder Holland has twice gone to BYU to rebuke and make corrections withing the administration, faculty and staff.    

 

Quote

Read this:  Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has twice gone to BYU in the last five years to rebuke and correct erring administration, faculty, and staff. They seem deaf to his message and continue pouring out publications that do not reflect the teachings of their sponsoring institution well, sometimes outright contradicting gospel truths and foundational events.   https://bookofmormonevidence.org/faith-crisis-within-the-church/

 

 

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

So, is the white stone a seer stone?  I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

Goggle Joseph Smith and the white stone... I can't do all the research it to much for me...

 

 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

 

What's your evidence that the golden plates were open in front of Joseph Smith?  I don't believe Joseph Smith ever said that and since he is the only one who would know, all the rest would be second or third hand.

There is no evidence I can find, its my own speculation based on why was it necessary for JS to even have the plates if he was going to keep them covered or not in the same room , based on common sense. 

 

 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't recall you ever explained how this demonstration is supposed to work.  I'm really confused on why it helps because, as I see it, it makes Joseph Smith out to be a liar.  I'll try to explain so you can see where my issue is:

Per the demonstration theory, Joseph Smith was commanded to not show the golden plates.  He did everything behind a blanket.  At some point, people bugged him about showing how he did the translation.  So, he came into the main room of the Whitmer's house, asked them to put up a blanket for privacy, and then instead of showing them how he translates, he instead shows a fake method.  Instead of asking for a pair of spectacles (as a stand-in for the Nephite interpreters) and a book (as a stand-in for the plates) and showing what he actually did, he asked for a hat and put a rock he owned in it and stuck his face in it.  Why?  Seriously, why?  Why would Joseph Smith make a mockery of the translation method?  Why would Joseph Smith show the people who believe him and who have worked with him a fake method?  Also, why would they accept it?  He has had multiple scribes.  Many of them would have been there.  The sound of a voice when spoken from a hat is different from the sound of a voice when spoken from looking at a book.  They would have noticed the change in the sound of the voice.  And last question, why would Joseph Smith never publicly say that the "stone in the hat" was just a demonstration.  If it was a simple mistake, then why not let everyone know?

Great question, I never said he put a blanket up for the demonstration but they did cover the windows downstairs.   This is only a theory, and what was brought up was right after the BOM was issued to all believers that Howe and Hurlbut authored a book called "Moronism Unveiled"  why was it called this?  For reasons that Howe and Hurlbut were accusing JS of using the Solomon Transcript to write the BOM and "unveiled" the word used,  was to unveil the curtain Jospeh was hiding behind and not allowing anyone to see the Solomon Transcripts.   So many at his time, Emma, Whitmer's etc were using the demonstration by JS to rebut "Mormonism Unveiled"... of course this is a theory since we were not there or have any first hand accounts of this ever happening.   Some here have called me pretty much a troll, ridiculous, and upset, all of which I wonder why I'm being labeled such for just having my own theory and opinion based on many books I have read and did the deep dive to find out for myself if and who is fudging the facts and pushing the new narrative...

 

 

 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Do you see my dilemma with the demonstration theory?  What am I missing that would clear it up?

 

[rjohnson7]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

@rjohnson7, I thought I defend you earlier. I said you can believe what you want, the brown seer stone account is not canon. You are not required to believe it. On that ground, I'm on your side.

Thx you, I need some support.  Most here a pushing back and criticizing me and not the topic I bring to the plate.  I'm a nobody, a simple General Contractor who has worked with wood all my life and build many new homes.   

My testimony is strong, I'm now 78 yrs. old and wold love to leave this world knowing I'm helping others with their faith crisis, I don't think anyone here get the picture and they are dead set locked into their own theories... that is not a issue with me since none of this is going to change the Doctrine and restoration of the true Church... but if I can even help one person by trying to answer their question of why they felt the church lied to them, then I will do it with the help of other of like mind and doing the deep dive to find out how to answer their issues and shelf full of doubts. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

why would they want to change the church history narrative as Bushman and Arrington tried to do...

Because they found documentation that suggests the narrative should be changed to better match what is known about that era.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Goggle Joseph Smith and the white stone... I can't do all the research it to much for me...

It takes very few words to answer his question, either “it’s a seer stone” or “it’s not a seer stone”.  He wants to know your opinion.  Why would he google to find out that out?  Google has no info on your opinion unless you have a website where you blog about it.

[rjohnson7]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because they found documentation that suggests the narrative should be changed to better match what is known about that era.

Have you verified any of it, or just take their word for it..... I have shown these authors are prejudice to certain outcomes... Bushman even admits he used citations and other facts from Mormonism Unveiled... I'm not going to do any copy and paste because every-time I do I get criticized, my suggestion  for you is to do the deep dive or not, matter not and it seem you have pretty much condoned their research. 

[rjohnson7]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It takes very few words to answer his question, either “it’s a seer stone” or “it’s not a seer stone”.  He wants to know your opinion.  Why would he google to find out that out?  Google has no info on your opinion unless you have a website where you blog about it.

I don't know what it is about the posters here, I have made my claim twice now.... so once more, its a rock, only a rock and the church still has the rock in it vault.... some have called it a seer stone, not me.  Oh my! when I say google most people would know to use the search bar to find answers to questions asked...  this is getting frustrating, it seem I need to teach other how to do a simple research...

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

About that time or starting in yr. 2000 we became aware of "The New Mormonism" and a steady drumbeat by authors such as , William Mulder, Don Orton, Jack Adamson, Lowell Bennion, T. Edgar Lyon, and Drs. McMurrin, Read, Tanner, Arrington, and many others....

Only two of these people (Mulder and Orton) were even alive in the year 2000, and neither were publishing anything in their final years. Mulder's best-known work was Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia, published in 1957. Orton never published anything on Mormon history. Adamson, Lyon, and Read died in the 1970s.

So, no, there was no "steady drumbeat" "starting in yr. 2000" of publications from the "Swearing Elders" (a short-lived study group that last met in 1955).

 

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Lenard Arrington not a member but gave plenty of talks along with Richard Bushman.

What's your source for Richard Bushman speaking to the group? He graduated from high school in 1949—the year the group started—and was living in the northeastern US between 1950 and 1955. 

 

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Part or most of this group are spreading subtle falsehoods that is obvious to me and other that are destroying members faith.

Still? From the grave? Which ones?

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I don't know what it is about the posters here, I have made my claim twice now.... so once more, its a rock, only a rock and the church still has the rock in it vault.... some have called it a seer stone, not me.  Oh my! when I say google most people would know to use the search bar to find answers to questions asked...  this is getting frustrating, it seem I need to teach other how to do a simple research...

Ok, so you don't think Joseph Smith had any seer stones.  Not one?  Even though Brigham Young stated so?  I'm not talking about the one that the church still has the vault.  I'm not even talking about the possible stone that Joseph might have used in a hat.  I'm asking if you accept Brigham Young's statement that Joseph Smith had multiple seer stones.  If not, what about Brigham Young's statement is invalid?  You are really picky about what sources you accept so why is Brigham Young not a valid source in this regard?

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Great question, I never said he put a blanket up for the demonstration but they did cover the windows downstairs.   This is only a theory, and what was brought up was right after the BOM was issued to all believers that Howe and Hurlbut authored a book called "Moronism Unveiled"  why was it called this?  For reasons that Howe and Hurlbut were accusing JS of using the Solomon Transcript to write the BOM and "unveiled" the word used,  was to unveil the curtain Jospeh was hiding behind and not allowing anyone to see the Solomon Transcripts.   So many at his time, Emma, Whitmer's etc were using the demonstration by JS to rebut "Mormonism Unveiled"... of course this is a theory since we were not there or have any first hand accounts of this ever happening.   Some here have called me pretty much a troll, ridiculous, and upset, all of which I wonder why I'm being labeled such for just having my own theory and opinion based on many books I have read and did the deep dive to find out for myself if and who is fudging the facts and pushing the new narrative...

Umm, I don't understand how this helps my dilemma.  Ignore the blanket.  I just mentioned that because David Whitmer mentioned it but I guess I shouldn't have.  Can you go back to my questions and look at them again.  Why did Joseph Smith demonstrate a false method of translation?  Why would he deceive them?

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

They hint at being faithful members but why would they want to change the church history narrative as Bushman and Arrington tried to do... There are other even a BYU and even Elder Holland has twice gone to BYU to rebuke and make corrections withing the administration, faculty and staff.  

Elder Holland called Richard Bushman "a good friend and faithful LDS scholar" in general conference, of all places. And in the printed version of his talk, he urged members to read Bushman's essay, "A Joseph Smith for the Twenty-First Century," "in its entirety."