Denying for the Lord

[_Holy Ghost]

In "The Process of Translating the Book of Mormon", Joseph Fielding McConkie (professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU) and Craig J. Ostler (Assistant Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU), published as pp. 89-98 of Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2000), wrote

Spanning a period of twenty years (1869-1888), some seventy recorded testimonies about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon claim David Whitmer as their source. Though there are a number of inconsistencies in these accounts, David Whitmer was repeatedly reported to have said that after the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord took both the plates and the Urim and Thummim from the Prophet, never to be returned. In their stead, David Whitmer maintained, the Prophet used an oval-shaped, chocolate-colored seer stone slightly larger than an egg. Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon, according to Mr. Whitmer, was translated by placing the chocolate-colored stone in a hat into which Joseph would bury his head so as to close out the light. While doing so he could see "an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear," and below the ancient writing, the translation would be given in English. Joseph would then read this to Oliver Cowdery, who in turn would write it. If he did so correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear and be replaced by other characters with their interpretation (Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 115, 157-58).

Such an explanation is, in our judgment, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith and to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon.

Then in 2015, the LDS Church published the photos of the oval-shaped, chocolate-colored seer stone slight larger than an egg. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng captioned as the seer stone belonging to Joseph Smith. Now, it is conceded there that

During the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith apparently used both of these instruments—the interpreters and his seer stone—interchangeably. They worked in much the same way, and the early Saints sometimes used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the seer stone as well as the interpreters. The

Are we really to believe that Joseph Fielding Smith's grandson, who is also Bruce R. McConkie's son, namely Joseph Fielding McConkie, who was a BYU professor of ancient scripture, and an assistant professor of church history and doctrine, did not know that the LDS church had the chocolate-colored, egg-shaped stone that validated what David Whitmer had described?

This is but one example of the false narrative peddled fraudulently by and for the LDS Church. The narrative that the apologists claim was never from the church, but simply a lack of individuals searching the history out for themselves--even though the church wasn't letting anyone just go take a gander in the vaults at what they contained, such as seer stones. Gaslighting fail. The evidence was being hid from rank and file members, while denials were being claimed by those in the know.

The LDS church has been pernicious in its lying to its members.

[_Philo Sofee]

The LDS church has been pernicious in its lying to its members.

Ah, but like Donald Trump, they are filthy lucre rich, and so, beautiful, and hence can lie all they want. With 100 bill, who gives a flip about the truth?

[_Physics Guy]

Maybe J.F. McConkie and C.J. Ostler knew the seer stone existed, but couldn't they still have believed sincerely that it was just a relic from Smith's earlier treasure-hunting days and that Smith still translated the entire Book of Mormon by reading the golden plates directly through spectacle-like interpreters?

I mean, if Whitmer had been trying to discredit Smith, and Smith was known to have had a previous career as a stone-gazer, then repeatedly claiming that Smith did all his translation by looking at a stone in a hat would have been a pretty good discrediting story. Translating ancient plates by looking at a stone in your hat just sounds utterly bogus. So McConkie's and Ostler's theory that Whitmer made up the stone-in-hat story to discredit Smith isn't completely absurd, as far as I can see.

It's a bit funny that Whitmer added the detail about the oblong parchment showing words, because although the parchment bit does make the whole stone-in-hat story sound even more ridiculous, it tends to make Whitmer himself look like a gullible idiot for repeating it with a straight face. It would take an unusually subtle malice against Smith on Whitmer's part, I tend to think, to sacrifice his own reputation like that just to dig the knife a little deeper into Smith.

So I'm inclined to think that Whitmer's stone-in-hat-with-parchment-wording story was repeated sincerely by Whitmer, not concocted just to discredit Smith. McConkie and Ostler may not have been deliberately lying but I think they were turning a blind eye to a flaw in their apologetic theory which would be an obvious flaw to most non-believers. So they weren't being perfectly rigorous historical critics on this point. That happens. It doesn't prove to me that they were lying.

What does it really show, that two BYU professors wrote a book in 2000 denying the stone-in-hat translation method? I think what it really shows is that the stone-in-hat thing definitely was and is badly embarrassing.

There's no problem at all with the stone-in-the-hat.
It's just God using the low tradition of folk magic.
It's just like an iPhone.
It's every bit as good as Joseph poring by lamplight over engraved golden plates while wearing cool crystal lenses as in those paintings that aren't misleading at all.
Stone-in-the-hat is just fine. What's your problem?
Nothing to see here, move along.

Quoting McConkie and Ostler 2000 would seem to discredit all of that. They were learned professors and faithful Mormons and they could not swallow stone-in-the-hat.

[_honorentheos]

I'm fairly confident the Whitmer family was in on the scam behind faking the divine origin of the Book of Mormon along with Oliver Cowdery. The schism between the Ohio leadership (Smith and Rigdon) and Missouri leadership (including Oliver as well as David and John Whitmer) resulted in the latter being pushed out but what we see from them is a mix of attempts to bury their past connections to the Mormon movement combined with attempts of their own to capitalize on it. Given David Whitmer relied on his status as a witness of the Book of Mormon to lead his own much smaller movement, it doesn't seem realistic he was trying to discredit Smith through an attempt to discredit the process for translating the Book of Mormon.

David had Smith's polygamy for that purpose and used it often. The intent being to call Smith a fallen prophet rather than a fraud. I think the OP had it right. It may even be worse in that McConkie and Ostler might have been using this argument to undermine Whitmer whose legitimate and numerous criticisms of polygamy were the more damaging to Smith.

[_Holy Ghost]

Maybe J.F. McConkie and C.J. Ostler knew the seer stone existed, but couldn't they still have believed sincerely that it was just a relic from Smith's earlier treasure-hunting days and that Smith still translated the entire Book of Mormon by reading the golden plates directly through spectacle-like interpreters?

I mean, if Whitmer had been trying to discredit Smith, and Smith was known to have had a previous career as a stone-gazer, then repeatedly claiming that Smith did all his translation by looking at a stone in a hat would have been a pretty good discrediting story. Translating ancient plates by looking at a stone in your hat just sounds utterly bogus. So McConkie's and Ostler's theory that Whitmer made up the stone-in-hat story to discredit Smith isn't completely absurd, as far as I can see.

It's a bit funny that Whitmer added the detail about the oblong parchment showing words, because although the parchment bit does make the whole stone-in-hat story sound even more ridiculous, it tends to make Whitmer himself look like a gullible idiot for repeating it with a straight face. It would take an unusually subtle malice against Smith on Whitmer's part, I tend to think, to sacrifice his own reputation like that just to dig the knife a little deeper into Smith.

So I'm inclined to think that Whitmer's stone-in-hat-with-parchment-wording story was repeated sincerely by Whitmer, not concocted just to discredit Smith. McConkie and Ostler may not have been deliberately lying but I think they were turning a blind eye to a flaw in their apologetic theory which would be an obvious flaw to most non-believers. So they weren't being perfectly rigorous historical critics on this point. That happens. It doesn't prove to me that they were lying.

What does it really show, that two BYU professors wrote a book in 2000 denying the stone-in-hat translation method? I think what it really shows is that the stone-in-hat thing definitely was and is badly embarrassing.

There's no problem at all with the stone-in-the-hat.
It's just God using the low tradition of folk magic.
It's just like an iPhone.
It's every bit as good as Joseph poring by lamplight over engraved golden plates while wearing cool crystal lenses as in those paintings that aren't misleading at all.
Stone-in-the-hat is just fine. What's your problem?
Nothing to see here, move along.

Quoting McConkie and Ostler 2000 would seem to discredit all of that. They were learned professors and faithful Mormons and they could not swallow stone-in-the-hat.

Is is believable that both J.F. McConkie and C.J. Ostler, academics with their focus on ancient scripture and church history and doctrine, respectively, did not by 2000 also know of the other accounts, If I recall correctly from Isaac Hale, Emma Hale and Oliver Cowdery, about Joseph Smith peering into the crown of a hat while dictating, rather than through the "interpreters"?

[_jfro18]

Is is believable that both J.F. McConkie and C.J. Ostler, academics with their focus on ancient scripture and church history and doctrine, respectively, did not by 2000 also know of the other accounts, If I recall correctly from Isaac Hale, Emma Hale and Oliver Cowdery, about Joseph Smith peering into the crown of a hat while dictating, rather than through the "interpreters"?

They absolutely knew, but they also found a way to ignore them in order to protect their own faith and beliefs.

We have people online who will write 5,000 words on how Joseph Smith actually got the facsimiles right in the year 2020... and there are the deznat people who still believe handicapped people or blacks were less valiant in the premortal life, the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Native American DNA was wiped out by God so that we would need faith to believe in the Book of Mormon.

Sometimes it's clear that the church lies to its members because they don't want them to look further into the claims, but I do think a lot of them just have to fit it into their beliefs by shoving out all evidence that disproves it. Both are bad and i don't know which one happened here, but they probably just believed they were defenders of the faith.