User:InProgress/Website reviews/T

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that this MormonThink article appear to take are the following:

• The Church attempts to hide the use of the stone in the hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon by allowing artwork which shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at the same table with the gold plates in full view. The Church may be using these paintings to attempt to promote the idea that Oliver saw the plates prior to being a witness, but continues to teach that Oliver did not see the plates until he became one of the three witnesses.
• In addition, at least two Apostles have mentioned the use of the hat in public discourses which appeared in print, and at least one believing LDS defender of the faith has mentioned it on television. This is apparently astonishing, since if members or investigators knew that Joseph used a stone and a hat instead of two stones in a set of spectacles, and that he didn't need to look directly at the plates instead of viewing a mysterious conversion of reformed Egyptian characters to English words, then they wouldn't want to join the Church. But, the use of the stone isn't that much of a problem, it's really the hat that is the problem.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
This image was in the Oct 2006 issue of The Ensign which shows both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at the same table with the plates in full view of both of them, which is not what is generally taught in the Church, but perhaps is what is now being promoted.

FairMormon commentary

• So, the picture isn't what taught, but is "perhaps....what is now being promoted"? Talk about waffling! Ask anyone in Church if Oliver was allowed to see the plates before he was a witness—they will answer no.
• Church artists are not, sadly, always experts in the historical evidence of that which they are attempting to illustrate. It would be nice if this could improve.
• Religious art has a long tradition of using "unhistorical" images to teach a broader point—but, this is not something that works so well nowadays, since we expect photos (and therefore pictures) to be "accurate."
• Part of the problem is that there are multiple stages of Book of Mormon translation method—while Joseph and Oliver likely never worked this way, Joseph may have done so alone earlier.

Additional information

• Accuracy of Church art—Critics charge that the Church knowingly "lies" or distorts the historical record in its artwork in order to whitewash the past, or for propaganda purposes. A commonly used example is the inaccuracy of any Church art representing the translation process of the Book of Mormon. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated....When Joseph was asked how exactly he translated the Book of Mormon, he would never give any details. He would only say that he did it by the 'gift and power of God'.

FairMormon commentary

• More accurately, Joseph's associates claimed that he would see words in the darkened hat. Joseph never claimed that.
• One person to give this type of description was David Whitmer in 1887 in his pamphlet "An Address to All Believers in Christ." This was published 57 years after the Book of Mormon was translated and published.

Quotes to consider

• Lazy citation: The citation given by MormonThink points to an anti-Mormon website Mormons in Transition from which they simply copied the source text. FAIR has included a link to a copy of the actual primary source An Address to All Believers in Christ.
• David Whitmer said, ""I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887 Wikisource)
  

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Most LDS are somewhat aware that Joseph Smith did some treasure seeking in his younger days. A following statement is sometimes quoted in church. This comes from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.120: "Q: 'Was Joseph Smith not a money digger?' 'Yes, but it was not a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.'" This is usually the only thing said at church regarding his treasure-seeking past.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that this quote came from Joseph Smith himself? (he is talking about himself in the third-person.)
• Don't we hear in Church about Joseph helping Josiah Stowel search for a lost mine sometimes? Yes.
• Since the treasure-seeking predated his prophetic role, is this surprising? We learn next to nothing about Moses' life in Pharaoh's court. Such things are of historical interest, but have little religious application—save for those like MormonThink who want to persuade us that 'a real prophet would never do that.' This is a form of ad hominem argument, specifically, the "ad hominem abusive."

Additional information

• Treasure seeking—Was Joseph Smith's engagement in "money digging" or looking for buried treasure a blot on his character? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The following describes Joseph's treasure seeking for Josiah Stowel. It is from Joseph Smith's 1826 court transcript when he was brought up on charges as a disorderly person and imposter.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that Josiah Stowel testified strongly in Joseph's defense? That he joined the Church are remained a faithful member for his entire life?
• Did you know that this wasn't a "trial," but a preliminary hearing?
• Those who brought the case may have been motivated by religious prejudice?

Quotes to consider

We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church. Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."^[1]

Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?"
Additional information

• 1826 trial for "glasslooking"—Joseph Smith was brought to court in 1826 for "glasslooking." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: Joseph never found any treasure for the men that hired him to find treasure using his seer stones. However, he was able to convince them he had the ability by describing things on Josiah Stowel's property such as his house, outhouses and a painted tree. Obviously he could have found out about these things without having special abilities. Also, it's very easy to plant a tail feather to prove he could 'see' distant things in his stone. When it came to treasure, he would always seem to have an excuse as to why they couldn't find the treasure even though he saw it in his stone. Often Smith would say that the treasure kept sinking further into the ground as they dug or that the spirits of dead Indians were guarding the treasure and wouldn't let anyone have it.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that the claim attribute to Joseph of "treasure...sinking further into the ground" all come from later witnesses hostile to his religious claims?
• Does MormonThink expect us to believe that people kept hiring Joseph over and over again, and that he was able to fool them with lame excuses like this?
• Does MormonThink really think that Joseph's contemporaries couldn't consider that he was planting things to make himself look good? Why, then, did people like Josiah Stowell believe him, pay him, trust him, and later become members of the Church he founded and remain so until the day of their deaths?
• Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about Joseph's ability to find other lost objects?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph Smith was arrested and brought up on charges as a "glass looker" by a justice of the peace in Bainbridge, New York, on March 20, 1826. Joseph was employed by Josiah Stowel to find hidden treasures in the ground by gazing into a stone. He led his employer to believe that he could find buried treasure by looking into a stone placed in a hat. Joseph was apparently found guilty and fined $2.68 for the offense. The judge may have let him go if he agreed to leave the state because of his age.

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph was not fined. The $2.68 were court fees. This is even confirmed by the Tanners in the Changing World of Mormonism (p. 68). The bill states: "same vs Joseph Smith The Glass looker March 20, 1826 Misdemeanor To my fees in examination of the above cause 2.68."
• Joseph was not "apparently found guilty," since the court hearing was a preliminary session which could not find anyone guilty, or assess penalties.
• Why can't MormonThink get even the basics of the history right? Even Wesley P. Walters, a notorious anti-Mormon author, had this figured out in the 1970s.

Additional information

• 1826 trial for "glasslooking"—Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Learn about what the hearing involved, and why Joseph could not have been fined or found guilty. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
What is particularly disturbing about this incident is the timing of the charges. The court records that were found prove that Joseph was involved in treasure seeking with a seer stone for profit after he received the First Vision but before he translated the Book of Mormon. This puts Joseph in a new light. It would seem that his belief in magic and seer stones was motivated more by profit and superstition rather than a sincere desire to bring forth the restoration. It would be very unlikely that the chosen prophet of the restoration would engage in such activities after conversing with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as well as the Angel Moroni. Would he really be doing such activities a year before he dug up the golden plates, after he had met with the angel Moroni for each of the prior three years?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using loaded language   —Critics often use negative terms, biased language, or casual terms to make LDS matters seem bizarre, evil, or absurd.
  
• What is particularly disturbing is how completely MormonThink misunderstands and misrepresents the historical setting.
• At the time, using a seer stone was not thought of as "magic"--many contemporaries discussed the process in terms more akin to science. For Joseph and his time, this was simply "how the world worked."
• Note the loaded words: profit and "superstition." We live in a time when such things are considered "magical," "occult," and "superstitious." But, Joseph, his family, and those who joined the Church in the early days understood that it was not.

Quotes to consider
In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the Palmyra Herald printed such remarks as:

• "digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment"
• "One gentleman...digging...ten to twelve years, found a sufficient quantity of money to build him a commodious house.
• "another...dug up...fifty thousand dollars!"^[2]

And, in 1825 the Wayne Sentinel in Palmyra reported that buried treasure had been found "by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded by the face of him who looks into it)."^[3]

Given the financial difficulties under which the Smith family labored, it would hardly be surprising that they might hope for such a reversal in their fortunes! Richard Bushman has compared the Smith's attitude toward treasure digging with a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket. Bushman points out that looking for treasure had little stigma attached to it among all classes in the 17th century, and continued to be respectable among the lower classes into the 18th and 19th.^[4]

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph Smith claimed that when he was a teenager, in 1823, that an American Indian by the name of Moroni, who had died over 1000 years ago, visited him in his bedroom at night. The Indian told Joseph that there was a cache of items buried together in a hill near Joseph's house.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using loaded language   —Critics often use negative terms, biased language, or casual terms to make LDS matters seem bizarre, evil, or absurd.
  
• Joseph never claimed that Moroni was "an American Indian."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Although Moroni is commonly believed to have instructed young Joseph on where the plates were in Hill Cumorah, there is evidence that he found the plates using a seer stone that he had previously used for treasure-seeking....Critic's comment: Even the apologists at FAIR confirm this account. Is it not troublesome that a common stone found some 24 feet beneath the ground on Mr. Chase's property had the exact same seering ability as the sacred Urim and Thummim that was preserved in a stone box for 1,600 years? Had the seer stone Joseph used been given to him by an angel or had been the same Urim and Thummim used by the prophets in the Bible, then this would be understandable. but there is nothing to indicate why the stone found on Mr. Chase's property had the same ability as the fabled Urim and Thummim.

FairMormon commentary

• The point is not necessarily that the stone had the same ability, but that it provided a means for Joseph to exercise his spiritual abilities.
• If MormonThink stops assuming that Joseph was a liar and deceiver, we can consider the matter from Joseph's point of view:
  • He's being called upon to reveal things that are hidden, and to translate an ancient record.
  • Joseph is painfully aware that he cannot do these things.
  • How could Joseph know that he wasn't going crazy or being delusional? Tying his early prophetic work to something with which he had already had objective success (the use of the seer stone) allowed Joseph to trust both God and himself.
  • The Lord seems to have used Joseph's preexisting beliefs about how the world worked (including seer stones to reveal hidden things) to help Joseph gain confidence in his own abilities.
  • The Nephite interpreters had been blessed and dedicated for the purpose of translating the Book of Mormon—this would have increased Joseph's faith, and they did help him receive revelation more effectively, initially. This is what excited Joseph more than even the plates themselves—he was able to do more with the Nephite stones.
  • With time, Joseph was able to translate with his "original" stone—thus, his own ability had increased, because he no longer needed the "stronger" Nephite stones.
  • Eventually, he did not require the "prop" or "crutch" of the stone at all—his faith and experience had grown.
• MormonThink is acting as if the stone or urim and thummim were a type of "magic translator" that anyone could have looked through. They weren't. Joseph always insisted he was only able to do what he did "by the gift and power of God." It is probable that anyone else examining the stones would have found nothing unusual or different about them.
• The power to translate or reveal hidden things came from God—as Joseph's experience and spiritual maturity increased, his reliance upon a physical instrument became less and less.
• MormonThink could make all this clear if they shared what else the "apologists at FAIR" have written about it. But, once again, you get only the negative with no help at understanding.

Additional information

• Joseph's use of seer stones—What do we know about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"? Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon? Why did he need a seer stone at all? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
(Critic's comments) We can imagine the conversation that transpired between Joseph and Oliver. Oliver looked into the hat and saw nothing. Joseph looks into the hat and says "yup, it is certainly working, I can see the words just fine." Oliver looks in to the hat and...still nothing...hmmm...Frustrated, Oliver Cowdery went back to writing what Joseph was dictating by looking at the rock in the hat some more.

FairMormon commentary

• Let's make sure we understand: an "objective" and "balanced" analysis of this incident includes an "imagined" conversation between Joseph and Oliver that has no basis in any evidence?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
(Critics' comments) Regardless, the LDS church is lying about the date of the revelation of section 10 to reflect a time line that makes the story more believable. Regardless, if they have any integrity, they will change it back to the actual date to reflect reality. This is one of the biggest problems I have with the church, is that the date does not reflect the correct one. But then again, Joseph Smith might have been wrong about when he received his revelation and maybe he was just speaking as a man, after all, even prophets of God are not infallible. So what the LDS church is saying right now is that Joseph Smith didn't get the date right. If Joseph Smith couldn't even get the date right, how do we know he got the message straight? He made changes to the revelation years later, so how do we know we have the correct message now? [MormonThink's] comment: We're not entirely sure how significant this issue is. Some critics label this as additional evidence of Joseph's deception. B.H. Roberts acknowledges the date problem but defends it as an honest mistake as Joseph did seem to place the content of D&C 10 right after D&C 3 content, and also says that it was only a few days later that he received the command to continue translating. The problem then arises as to why he waited until April to continue through the translation. A response taken from LDS lessons is at www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net (see page # 8 under the heading "Excerpt from The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith) In our opinion, we'll give B.H. Robert the benefit of the doubt here and state that this is perhaps the least significant issue regarding the translation issue of the Book of Mormon.

FairMormon commentary

• So, let's get this clear: if I misremember the date on which I got married, I can't be trusted to remember whether or not I actually got married? If you mistake the date, you must be lying about the whole experience? Really?
• Quick, what date were you baptized? What date were you ordained, say, a priest in the Aaronic priesthood? If you can't remember exactly, does that mean these things didn't happen? Or that they weren't important to you?
• The Church's current scriptures date D&C 10 to "summer of 1828". But, scholars now date it to "around" April 1829. Why the difference? Because the earliest source for this revelation that we now have is the "Revelation Book 1". This book contained copies of Joseph's revelations that were copied in from original documents that no longer exist, in the early 1830s. But, there's a problem:
  • The book goes from page 2 to page 11. Page 2 is the beginning of D&C 4; by page 11, we're already at D&C 20:7. (Pages 3-10, 15-22, and 25-26 are missing.) So, there's no date information on the earliest available copy of D&C 10.
  • It gets even more tricky: the original date on p. 2 was February 1828. An unknown hand later changed it to 1829. So, the dating is not clear from the original manuscript.
  • Remember too, Joseph Smith wasn't much of a scribe. He relied on others to write for him. So, this copying--and any errors or slips of the pen--were due to other writers working on his behalf.^[5]
• If this is all such a dastardly secret, why did the Church publish all the above in extreme detail in the Joseph Smith Papers project? (See footnote above.)
• If this is "one of the biggest problems [you] have with the church," then that's pretty sad: if the command for Joseph to return to translating comes later (April 1829 rather than summer 1828), then Joseph has even less' time to produce the 500+ page Book of Mormon.
• The error made Joseph look less capable, rather than more.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: It is no wonder that the church never talks about this stone in modern times. We're sure it is buried deep inside the church's vault. Can you imagine the embarrassment if this stone was actually shown to the world as the stone Joseph put in a hat and buried his face in the hat to bring forth the Book of Mormon? In 2006 the LDS Church had a special display at their Church Museum of different Joseph Smith artifacts. They even had a mockup of the gold plates. However, they chose not to display any of Joseph Smith's seer stones. Since one of these stones was used to translate all of the published Book of Mormon, one wonders why it wasn't included in the display? Could it be that the current prophet is embarrassed by the very instrument used to produce LDS scripture?

FairMormon commentary

• If "the church never talks about this stone in modern times," then how does MormonThink explain references all of these references in the Ensign and even the Friend? They actually quote some of them on the same page as the "Critic's Comment" mentioned above. Why quote a "Critic's Comment" and then show the data contradicting it on the same page?

Quotes to consider
Note the mention of the stone in the official children's magazine, The Friend (available online at lds.org):

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone."
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, Sep 1974, 7 off-site

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an Ensign article:

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. — Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993): 61.off-site

It would be strange to try to hide something by having an apostle talk about it, and then send the account to every LDS home in the official magazine. Other examples:

• Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’," Ensign (September 1977): 79.off-site
• Hyrum Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man, the Seer (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1960), 102. GL direct link
• William J. Hamblin, "An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe's Assumptions and Methodologies (Review of Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 434–523. off-site
• Marvin S. Hill, "Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism: An Interpretative Suggestion," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984), ?–??.GospeLink
• Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939). GL direct link
• Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2000), D&C 9. GL direct link
• Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link
• Brigham H. Roberts, "A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon," in Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols. (1907), 1:350. Vol 1 GL direct link Vol 2 GL direct linkGL direct link
• Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990), 52.GL direct link

Additional information

• Hiding history?—Official curriculum mentions of the 'stone in the hat' (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many LDS defenders say that the Urim and Thummim or seer stone was used just by Joseph Smith to primarily translate the Book of Mormon and for some revelations but that it was not needed any more. However, in 1843 Joseph Smith revealed section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants which mentions the eternal importance of seer stones for everyone: D&C 130: 10-11 10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known; 11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word. So apparently the seer stone wasn't just a one-time use device by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon with, but rather something of eternal significance so important that everyone that gets to the Celestial Kingdom will receive one. Why is this never talked about at church when it's plainly in our modern-day scriptures?

FairMormon commentary

• Well, since MormonThink believes that the Church never mentions the seer stone, but it does—even in the children's Friend--is it really true that this is never talked about? It's right there in the scripture, as they admit.
• If people aren't talking about it, how is that the Church's fault—aren't we told to read, study, and teach from the scriptures?
• More importantly, the "white stone" mentioned here involves things which are held private and sacred: it ties into LDS temple practice, which FAIR and other believing members will not discuss in a public forum. So, part of the reason this is not discussed in more detail is because it involves temple doctrines. Those who attend the temple can reflect upon these passages and realize that they play a large role in LDS temple worship.
• Joseph seemed to regard his own seer stone as a "stepping-stone" to greater knowledge and revelatory experience. This is exactly what D&C 130 says the "white stone" given to the exalted will do: "things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known."
• LDS doctrine teaches that we will continue to learn and progress after this life, until we receive "all that the Father hath." A urim and thummim will, according to Joseph, play a role in that process. But, one would also expect that it too will become unnecessary when we, like Joseph, master the spiritual discipline and principles which the urim and thummim aids in developing.
• MormonThink seems to have proven that Joseph's ideas on this point are astonishingly self-consistent. Not bad for a total fraud.

Quotes to consider
"LDS defenders" say this because it's what Joseph Smith said about it. Unlike MormonThink, we try to follow all the historical evidence instead of simply copying the historical references from anti-Mormon websites without checking the actual sources themselves. Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued reported:

While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument.^[6]

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
From the Doctrines of Salvation, the 10th president of the church, Joseph Fielding Smith said the following: "While the statement has been made by some writers that the Propher JS used a seerstone 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 the stone was used for this purpose."....So apparently even the 10th president of the church thinks that using a stone to translate the Book of Mormon with "hardly seems reasonable". That's the same view any reasonable, intelligent person should have. President Joseph Fielding Smith makes a good point here when he says "It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the prophet would substitute something evidently inferior [to the U&T] under these circumstances". This is further evidence showing that it doesn't appear reasonable for Joseph to translate the BOM using a common stone he found with his brother Hyrum on Willard Chase's property years before the gold plates were given to him when the stone box had an instrument referred to as the urim & thummim, which was kept and preserved with the plates for some 2,000 years, for the very purpose of translating the plates.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that the Nephite interpreter, the instrument found in the stone box with the plates, was not referred to as the "Urim and Thummin" until several years after the Book of Mormon was published?
• Is it easier to translate using a couple of stones mounted in a set of "spectacles," which require Joseph to prevent his scribe from seeing them by hanging up a curtain between them? Or is it easier to translate using a stone in a hat in plain view of everyone without requiring the curtain?
• Did you know that the historical sources indicate that a curtain was used in the early days of the translation, and that Joseph later switched to the stone and hat "for convenience?"
• So are we saying that anyone in the 19th-century who believed in seer stones was not "reasonable" or "intelligent?"
• Joseph Fielding Smith was entitled to his opinion, and he clearly stated that it was his opinion. However, statements made by Joseph Smith's contemporaries clearly indicate that the seer stone was used in the translation, and that the name "Urim and Thummim" was later applied to the seer stone in addition to the Nephite interpreters.

Additional information

• Chronology of translation methods—We have a number of accounts of the translation process from the perspective of various contemporary second-hand witnesses who viewed the Prophet as he dictated to his scribes. The only person other than Joseph who attempted to directly translate was Oliver Cowdery. Oliver, however, did not record any details regarding the exact physical process that he employed during his attempt—we only have the spiritual aspect of the process. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why doesn't the church be honest when teaching the method to investigators or even its own members? The short answer of course is that it would make the whole story sound unbelievable. No one would join the church if the missionaries plainly taught that Joseph put his face in a hat with a stone in it and translated the Book of Mormon when the plates were either covered so no one, including Joseph could see them or that the plates were hidden in the woods when he translated them. But that doesn't make it right to deceive innocent truthseekers, does it?

FairMormon commentary

• So, the stone and the hat would make the whole story "sound unbelievable?" You mean that the current story does sound believable? It sounds so much more "believable" to tell investigators a story that Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ, saw an angel, found an ancient relic and plates, and looked at that relic to dictate a document over 500 pages long in approximately 90 days.
• Everybody in the early days of the Church knew about the stone and the hat, and they still joined the Church.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response If you really believe it makes no difference that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat with a common stone that he found 24 feet underground while digging a well and dictated the entire Book of Mormon without even using the Golden Plates, than why doesn't the Church plainly teach this? Even missionaries that are aware of the actual translation process will purposely tell investigators the incorrect, commonly-believed version of Joseph using the Urim & Thummim in conjunction with the plates, instead of mentioning the verified 'stone in the hat' method with the plates not even being in the room.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you realize that the term "Urim and Thummim" was applied to both the Nephite Interpreters and Joseph's seer stone?
• After all, as MormonThink points out earlier, Joseph noted that everyone would eventually have their own "stone." This means that there can be more than one "stone" or "Urim and Thummim."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Church Education teachers have actually been disciplined for teaching truths such as the plates were not used in the translation process. This shows to what lengths the church goes to in order to keep the common member from knowing how the translation of the Book of Mormon was actually done. If it's the truth, as admitted to by top church authorities

FairMormon commentary

• You mean Grant Palmer? Palmer was disciplined because he wrote a book that essentially claims that Joseph Smith fabricated all of the important elements of the restoration, and he wrote it while he was still working for the Church. He was not disciplined for stating the plates "were not used in the translation process." Many LDS scholars can confirm the observed details of the translation process—why are they still members then?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Also if it is really no big deal receiving revelation from a stone in a hat, ask yourself how many people in the church would be comfortable if the current prophet of the church was asked on national TV by Larry King or some other talk show host how exactly he received God's word and he said he would put a stone in a hat and put his face in the hat and received revelations that way?

FairMormon commentary

• Even Joseph Smith himself eventually stopped using the stone and the hat. He said that he no longer needed it. Why would any subsequent prophet need it?
• Obviously, people today would view the use of such artifacts as silly—and, doing so would be unlikely to help an inexperienced prophet build faith and experience.
• Why is MormonThink trying to make things appear absurd?
• Ask yourself if they think the idea of God talking to anyone by any means is "reasonable" or "believable." They don't believe in revelation at all, and so will make any example look foolish if it suits their purposes.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
FAIR has an impressive list of articles that mention the seer stone, which they present as evidence that the church doesn't hide the seer stone history. BUT, virtually all the actual church references (not apologist references) only mention the word 'stone' without mentioning the hat also, so the context isn't given. Most members don't read obscure articles in Dialogue or apologist publications.

FairMormon commentary

• So its not the stone that is the problem....it's the hat???
• "Virtually" never mentioning: so, any mention can be dismissed as not really counting.
• Take a look at the FAIR article linked to by MormonThink: The "apologist references" from which examples are show are from the Church magazines The Friend, the Ensign and from LDS Church archives. Many are also listed above.
• So, it turns out that MormonThink concedes that the Church does talk about these things—but now they want to claim that these sources are too "obscure"? Which is it--do they never talk about it, or do they just not talk about it as much or in the place MormonThink wants them to?
• Do you get the feeling MormonThink would never be happy on this score, no matter where it was talked about or how much?

Quotes to consider
As MormonThink points out in a quote on their page, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an Ensign article:

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.

• This is in the Ensign, by an apostle, and the hat is mentioned. How often must it be mentioned?
• Bottom line, though, isn't any production of the Book of Mormon amazing or almost unbelievable? A farmboy translating ancient records he got from an angel? Does it really matter how he did it? Is it surprising the Church focuses more on what he produced than how he produced it? As Neal A. Maxwell noted:

Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark. - Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine, 26.

• Those apostles sure don't do a good job of hiding the hat, do they?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Take in mind there are two significant items here regarding just the translation process. The first is that the spectacle-version of the urim and thummim, as described by Joseph, wasn't really used to produce the BOM. Instead, he used a common stone found while digging a well for Mr. Chase. The second is that the plates were not used in any way in the translation process. If all the members knew these facts, then this may very well change their opinion of the BOM. It is every member's right to know these facts so they can make an informed decision.

FairMormon commentary

• How does the plates being "not used in any way in the translation process" make the story less believable?
• Is it more believable to think that Joseph looked through the stones mounted in the "spectacle-version" of the Urim and Thummin at the plates and that he saw....what exactly? Is it easier to believe that a crystal somehow rearranged the "reformed Egyptian" characters into English words?
• Why is it difficult to believe that Joseph used the "spectacles" and a curtain during the time that he translated the 116 pages with Martin Harris acting as scribe, and then switched to the seer stone "for covenience" (according to Martin Harris) and dictated openly without the curtain after he resumed translation with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe?
• Do you think that Joseph would have dared use an instrument to translate that wasn't approved by God?
• What is the difference between the Nephite interpreters and the "common" stone if they were both approved by God for use in translating? In the end, they are both just rocks. Joseph eventually learned that he no longer needed such an aid in order to receive revelations.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Take in mind there are two significant items here regarding just the translation process. The first is that the spectacle-version of the urim and thummim, as described by Joseph, wasn't really used to produce the BOM. Instead, he used a common stone found while digging a well for Mr. Chase. The second is that the plates were not used in any way in the translation process. If all the members knew these facts, then this may very well change their opinion of the BOM. It is every member's right to know these facts so they can make an informed decision.

FairMormon commentary

• So a pair of stones mounted in spectacles does not sound strange, but using a stone in the bottom of a hat does sound strange? Simply choose your favorite seer stone and roll with it, but don't try to make us believe that one of these items sound more strange than the other!
• Since they keep calling this a "common stone," does that mean that they believe that the stones used in the Nephite interpreters were not "common?"

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There seems to be little doubt that Joseph translated the published Book of Mormon using a simple stone placed in a hat without even using the golden plates. Perhaps what we find most disturbing about the translation process is that it is admitted by the LDS apologists and occasionally by high-ranking officials such as Elder Nelson yet it still is not plainly taught to the members. If it's not really that important, as some LDS defenders claim, then why don't we, as a church, just acknowledge this openly and stop hiding it?

FairMormon commentary

• Elder's Nelson and Maxwell did acknowledge it openly, and it appeared in Church publications. The early Church leaders called the stone the "Urim and Thummim."
• Beyond simply stating that the "Urim and Thummin" was found with the plates and used for translation and to receive revelation, what exactly does the Church teach about it anyway? Pretty much nothing at all.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We are also disturbed by the current trend in the church of showing pictures that portray Oliver Cowdery in full view of the plates when Joseph was translating. This was not what we were taught growing up in the church. It also doesn't make sense, if Oliver Cowdery saw the plates all the time during the months he scribed for Joseph translating the BOM, why bother having the angel show Oliver the plates again? ? Growing up in the church, we were all clearly taught that Oliver never saw the plates when he was scribing for Joseph. We were also taught that a curtain was placed between them so the scribe never saw the plates. Why is the church trying to change this account and also to another wrong version?

FairMormon commentary

• The Church still teaches that Oliver was not allowed to see the plates until he was a witness—that hasn't changed just because of some artwork. We agree that it is not accurate, but it isn't even accurate according to what is openly taught. Some artists, apparently, aren't comfortable even attempting to depict the Urim and Thummim, whether it be a set of "spectacles," or a stone in a hat. So far, all artistic depictions of Joseph using a stone and hat are created by critics (or even South Park) and are designed to make the process appear silly.
• Doesn't that seem to be what MormonThink really wants?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
PBS did a special called 'The Mormons'. It aired in two parts on April 30 and May 1, 2007. The first part briefly mentions the 'stone in the hat' method of translation. What's astonishing is that it is mentioned, not by a critic of the Church, but by defender of the faith Daniel Peterson, who is a faithful LDS historian and member of FARMS.

FairMormon commentary

• Why is this "astonishing?" Both the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) and FAIR have posted extensive information about the "stone in the hat," some of which MormonThink just linked to. So, why is it "astonishing" that a faithful LDS scholar should mention this? It is part of the historical record.
• So to summarize, the Church tries to hide knowledge of the stone and the hat, except when Apostles mention it in public discourses, and believing defenders of the faith mention it on television. It would seem that some of these folks didn't "get the memo."

== Notes ==

1. [note]  Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, Steven C. Harper (editors), The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books (Facsimile Edition), Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations Series, (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church Historian's Press, 2009), 4,11-15.
2. [note]  Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials," The Westminster Theological Journal 36:2 (1974), 141–142.
3. [note] Palmyra Herald (24 July 1822); cited in Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (2002 FAIR Conference presentation.) FAIR link
4. [note]  Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith Miscellany," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2005 FAIR Conference) FAIR link
5. [note]  "Wonderful Discovery," Wayne Sentinel [Palmyra, New York] (27 December 1825), page 2, col. 4. Reprinted from the Orleans Advocate of Orleans, New York; cited by Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 170–171.
6. [note]  Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (1984). PDF link
   Caution: this article was published before Mark Hofmann's forgeries were discovered. It may treat fraudulent documents as genuine. Click for list of known forged documents.
   Discusses money-digging; Salem treasure hunting episode; fraudulent 1838 Missouri treasure hunting revelation; Wood Scrape; “gift of Aaron”; “wand or rod”; Heber C. Kimball rod and prayer; magic; occult; divining lost objects; seerstone; parchments; talisman ; citing Orson Pratt, "Discourse at Brigham City," 27 June 1874, Ogden (Utah) Junction, cited in Orson Pratt, "Two Days´ Meeting at Brigham City," Millennial Star 36 (11 August 1874), 498–499.